How to deal with manipulative coworker

[rstofer]

And even then management can decide to make the company less dependant on a single person.

Any company should already be doing this.  No matter how valuable, critical, and irreplaceable I am as an employee, and no matter how well I am treated, I can always be hit by a truck.

And that's why companies have 'key person' insurance on their most important employees.  It's payable on the death of a key person, not just when they walk out.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keypersoninsurance.asp

[fourfathom]

After 5 years of doing the same job it's never a bad idea to find something new, meet some new people to learn from, learn some new skills, regain motivation.

I agree, at least if you're not wildly enthusiastic about your current job.  I wasn't a job-hopper by any means, but several times around the 4-5 year point I would finally take a long vacation, and when I got back I would think "I don't need this shit!", find a new job, and then hand in my two-week notice (note the order in which I did this).  I've talked elsewhere about companies accumulating deadwood employees, and sometimes if the company environment was becoming bad I would start to feel like deadwood myself.  This isn't good for anyone.  Engineering wasn't merely a job for me, it's who I am, and I need a challenge to be at my best. I've been retired for over twenty years now (retired at age 45) but I still feel like this -- only now I find my own challenges.

[tszaboo]

After 5 years of doing the same job it's never a bad idea to find something new, meet some new people to learn from, learn some new skills, regain motivation.

I agree, at least if you're not wildly enthusiastic about your current job.  I wasn't a job-hopper by any means, but several times around the 4-5 year point I would finally take a long vacation, and when I got back I would think "I don't need this shit!", find a new job, and then hand in my two-week notice (note the order in which I did this).  I've talked elsewhere about companies accumulating deadwood employees, and sometimes if the company environment was becoming bad I would start to feel like deadwood myself.  This isn't good for anyone.  Engineering wasn't merely a job for me, it's who I am, and I need a challenge to be at my best. I've been retired for over twenty years now (retired at age 45) but I still feel like this -- only now I find my own challenges.

It's surprising to me how predictable it is that a company with bad management and company culture can poison it's environment and turn it into an ever replicating status quo. The energy was very different when I joined here. And then with a few key people replaced, they just started accumulating people with horrible personalities. The good employees left, and the people who didn't care (including myself) and bad attitude stayed.
I could pinpoint it in time, exactly, when this started happening.
I've also been at companies, where this has already happened. And bad managers are going to promote same-minded people. And encourage this sort of back channel communication. Or hiring/promoting people who are completely unqualified for the jobs.

I know it's hard to leave your comfort zone, but just go find a new job, that shouldn't be too difficult these days for anyone in your line of work.

After 5 years of doing the same job it's never a bad idea to find something new, meet some new people to learn from, learn some new skills, regain motivation.

Stick your energy in something positive, way more rewarding.

Not just that, but it's good also career-wise. People who switch jobs every few years statistically end up with much higher salaries after a decade or two.

[fourfathom]

The first time I quit in anger was when they replaced my manager with a guy who was technically incompetent and "fixed" my designs behind my back.  I had a simple NPN saturated switch in a low-voltage power circuit (It might have been using a single 1.2V NiCd battery, don't recall) and he explained to me how that couldn't possibly work.  "You see", he explained, "a transistor is really two back-to-back diodes, so the collector voltage can never be less than the base voltage."  I tried to explain how a transistor can operate when saturated, even demonstrating it on the bench.  He protested that I was "pulling the ground up." 

There were many other examples of this behavior, such as when I was having a custom transducer made.  My boss had not one clue about the difference between closed-loop and open-loop output impedance of an amplifier.  I was going for maximum power transfer and he changed the transducer spec to match the (extremely low) closed-loop impedance. When the transducers were delivered they obviously didn't work very well, and that's when I discovered that he had changed the spec before it went out.  He wasn't a bad person, but he had no business second-guessing anyone else's design.

The company wasn't going to get rid of him, and other indicators were not good, so I quit.  It was a good move.

[Psi]

Sending a letter to a CEO is counterproductive and results in people having a negative vibe about you. The notion of keeping YOU on board as something that is important to the company should come from other people, not yourself. And even then management can decide to make the company less dependant on a single person.

I think this may differ by country.
I suspect employees communicating with the CEO or upper management is just never done in some countries, eg America?

In some parts of the world is more normal when you have a serious problem and it's not getting any attention. They welcome occasional emails on important issues employees may have.  Of course if you go to the CEO with something stupid or you're a Karren then you face the consequences.

[james_s]

I think this may differ by country.
I suspect employees communicating with the CEO or upper management is just never done in some countries, eg America?

In some parts of the world is more normal when you have a serious problem and it's not getting any attention. They welcome occasional emails on important issues employees may have.  Of course if you go to the CEO with something stupid or you're a Karren then you face the consequences.

At small companies employees might interact with the CEO in some cases, a few larger companies such as the one I work for I *could* talk to the CEO if I wanted to without any repercussions, but I wouldn't even consider trying to contact the CEO if I worked at a place like Microsoft, Google, etc. It's just not something you do.

[tggzzz]

Sending a letter to a CEO is counterproductive and results in people having a negative vibe about you. The notion of keeping YOU on board as something that is important to the company should come from other people, not yourself. And even then management can decide to make the company less dependant on a single person.

I think this may differ by country.
I suspect employees communicating with the CEO or upper management is just never done in some countries, eg America?

In some parts of the world is more normal when you have a serious problem and it's not getting any attention. They welcome occasional emails on important issues employees may have.  Of course if you go to the CEO with something stupid or you're a Karren then you face the consequences.

HP pavilion explicitly allowed you to go above your immediate boss. It would be investigated. You could not do it twice.

[nctnico]

Sending a letter to a CEO is counterproductive and results in people having a negative vibe about you. The notion of keeping YOU on board as something that is important to the company should come from other people, not yourself. And even then management can decide to make the company less dependant on a single person.

I think this may differ by country.
I suspect employees communicating with the CEO or upper management is just never done in some countries, eg America?

In some parts of the world is more normal when you have a serious problem and it's not getting any attention. They welcome occasional emails on important issues employees may have.  Of course if you go to the CEO with something stupid or you're a Karren then you face the consequences.

The latter is precisely the problem in the case of the OP: it is very easy to be perceived as somebody who is just complaining about what -in the end- is a personal problem. There is a difference between raising an issue that can have serious consequences for the business as a whole and an issue between employees. And even if you think there is a major problem ahead, it could actually be part of a business strategy you are simply not aware off. IOW: if you want to raise an issue with a CEO or anyone at upper management, be prepared to present an iron clad case to them.

[rstofer]

Sending a letter to a CEO is counterproductive and results in people having a negative vibe about you. The notion of keeping YOU on board as something that is important to the company should come from other people, not yourself. And even then management can decide to make the company less dependant on a single person.

I think this may differ by country.
I suspect employees communicating with the CEO or upper management is just never done in some countries, eg America?

In some parts of the world is more normal when you have a serious problem and it's not getting any attention. They welcome occasional emails on important issues employees may have.  Of course if you go to the CEO with something stupid or you're a Karren then you face the consequences.

HP pavilion explicitly allowed you to go above your immediate boss. It would be investigated. You could not do it twice.

A CEO doesn't have time for petty personnel problems; they should have been resolved by a manager closer to the problem.

Then there is the question about whether a CEO wants an email trail about a product deficiency.  They may not mind finding out in a 'water cooler' conversation but I doubt they want it written down and subpeonable.

[tggzzz]

Sending a letter to a CEO is counterproductive and results in people having a negative vibe about you. The notion of keeping YOU on board as something that is important to the company should come from other people, not yourself. And even then management can decide to make the company less dependant on a single person.

I think this may differ by country.
I suspect employees communicating with the CEO or upper management is just never done in some countries, eg America?

In some parts of the world is more normal when you have a serious problem and it's not getting any attention. They welcome occasional emails on important issues employees may have.  Of course if you go to the CEO with something stupid or you're a Karren then you face the consequences.

HP pavilion explicitly allowed you to go above your immediate boss. It would be investigated. You could not do it twice.

A CEO doesn't have time for petty personnel problems; they should have been resolved by a manager closer to the problem.

Then there is the question about whether a CEO wants an email trail about a product deficiency.  They may not mind finding out in a 'water cooler' conversation but I doubt they want it written down and subpeonable.

HP was notably flat. There were only 5 layers between me and CEO. The HP Way ensured that it was almost unthinkable that they would feel the need to go over their boss let alone all the way to CEO. MBWA was a significant contributor to that.

I once told a new employee/boss how easy it was to access the CEO. He didnt believe me.

After about 6 months the CEO rang him personally   (The CEO told him he was doing a good job, but was unknowingly causing problems with AT&T,so please stop)

[Psi]

The latter is precisely the problem in the case of the OP: it is very easy to be perceived as somebody who is just complaining about what -in the end- is a personal problem.

Yep, that's why I said that he resign at the same time.  It mostly eliminates those suspicions about false complaints because he'd be leaving anyway.  He wouldn't have anything to gain by sending the letter other than giving the CEO a heads-up about the problem.

It very much depends on the company, some CEOs are hands on and always happy to hear about how the company can improve, some hide away and want nothing to do with you.

[virtualparticles]

This is awful. I've been through it a few times though and I feel your pain. Best of luck sir.

[Kasper]

I had my immediate report and the CEO talking to me. "We would like to keep you, but..."
[...]
Deep down, I was aware that it's a toxic management company. I kinda got used to it over the years. I had 6 manager in the past 5 years, they were coming and going. Each one with different requirements on Project management tools, one wanted constant booking of hours, the other was the CEO himself, who was managing us without being in the office for a full day in a week, and not responding to emails.

Bad coworkers come and go.  They become a problem when the boss lets them.  In which case, the boss is a bigger problem and that is difficult to fix.

Sounds like your ceo is the problem.  Lots of turnover in a small company and siding with someone who has been there 1/5 as long as you is not a good sign.

Some prospective employeers look at how long you typically stay at jobs and ask why you left.  I think prospective employees should be asking how many staff are employeed on average, how many leave each year and why they left.

The 2 worst places I worked had high turnover.  Vastly higher than other places I worked.  At both of them, I regretted not leaving as quickly as my coworkers.  I'm actually still at one of them.  The ceo was recently let go and things seem to be improving but I still think I'd have been better off leaving long ago.

I think 5 years is plenty and I don't think potential employeers will scrutinize the reason you left.  If you feel the need to explain, I wouldn't get into the drama and specifics, just mentioning how high their management turnover was should suffice.  That could backfire though, if they suspect you were the cause of the high turnover.  Complimenting the ones that left could help eas those suspicions.  Perhaps one of them could be a reference for you instead of one of the toxic ones that are still there.

It may be frustrating to let this bad coworker cause a change of employement but hopefully in the long run, their impact on your life will be positive.  Maybe they will motivate you to leave that toxic company and find a better one.

[fourfathom]

Yep, that's why I said that he resign at the same time.  It mostly eliminates those suspicions about false complaints because he'd be leaving anyway.  He wouldn't have anything to gain by sending the letter other than giving the CEO a heads-up about the problem.

(I bolded the important part).  He might have something to lose though.  A letter to the CEO will likely do no good whatsoever, and may still damage his career should a prospective employer contact the previous employer for a reference.  Sending a letter to the CEO just looks bad, and you owe them nothing.  If the previous company management wants feedback they will ask for it during an exit interview.

[nctnico]

Yep, that's why I said that he resign at the same time.  It mostly eliminates those suspicions about false complaints because he'd be leaving anyway.  He wouldn't have anything to gain by sending the letter other than giving the CEO a heads-up about the problem.

(I bolded the important part).  He might have something to lose though.  A letter to the CEO will likely do no good whatsoever, and may still damage his career should a prospective employer contact the previous employer for a reference.  Sending a letter to the CEO just looks bad, and you owe them nothing.  If the previous company management wants feedback they will ask for it during an exit interview.

Exactly! Remember it is a small world out there; 6 degrees of seperation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation)! It happens to me regulary that when I talk to a customer that they know several people I have worked with in the past. So burning one bridge leads to a raging forrest fire quickly. Even when asked for feedback, bite your tongue hard and stay positive.

[Nominal Animal]

On the other hand, if all the people on the other side of the bridge are truly horrible and you are sure you never want to be in a project where they are even incidentally involved, then bridge-burning is warranted.

Sure, it may/will reduce job opportunities in the future, but it is more important for ones own sanity to only consider jobs one is suited for.
One does not need a large number of job opportunities to choose from, if the set contains good ones.
Conversely, if all job opportunities are horrible, it may be time to switch careers.

[nctnico]

On the other hand, if all the people on the other side of the bridge are truly horrible and you are sure you never want to be in a project where they are even incidentally involved, then bridge-burning is warranted.

I'm too lazy for that. I just put such people on my mental ignore list. Why dignify horrible people with spending any of your precious time and effort on them?

[themadhippy]

Is a quiet word in a dark  corner of the carpark no longer an option?

[tggzzz]

Yep, that's why I said that he resign at the same time.  It mostly eliminates those suspicions about false complaints because he'd be leaving anyway.  He wouldn't have anything to gain by sending the letter other than giving the CEO a heads-up about the problem.

(I bolded the important part).  He might have something to lose though.  A letter to the CEO will likely do no good whatsoever, and may still damage his career should a prospective employer contact the previous employer for a reference.  Sending a letter to the CEO just looks bad, and you owe them nothing.  If the previous company management wants feedback they will ask for it during an exit interview.

Exactly! Remember it is a small world out there; 6 degrees of seperation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation)! It happens to me regulary that when I talk to a customer that they know several people I have worked with in the past. So burning one bridge leads to a raging forrest fire quickly. Even when asked for feedback, bite your tongue hard and stay positive.

There's a lot of validity in that.

One bridge I don't mind burning is my "Erdos Putin number". Me->relative->wife->mother->Putin

Then there's my "web number" from when I was a kid. Me->Tim Berners-Lee. Haven't seen him since, but did re-meet his lovely parents

[fourfathom]

On the other hand, if all the people on the other side of the bridge are truly horrible and you are sure you never want to be in a project where they are even incidentally involved, then bridge-burning is warranted.

I guess it depends on your definition of bridge-burning, but I suggest just crossing that bridge, and leave your troubles behind on the other side.  Don't turn back and there's no need to burn anything.  You don't want to tarnish your reputation just to make some kind of useless statement.

[james_s]

Yeah it's a small world. Multiple times I've been asked about somebody I used to work with somewhere. I've also bumped into several people that happened to know other people I've worked with.

[Nominal Animal]

I guess it depends on your definition of bridge-burning

Quite.  If it matters, I'm not sure I've ever burned any myself –– figuratively speaking; I'm quite sure I have never burned an actual physical bridge.

There are some people (half a dozen or fewer) whose presence or even incidental involvement will make me nope out right quick, because I do not like how they treat other people and their work.  (They're also from jobs almost a quarter of a century ago.)  That is basically the extent of my bridge burning, I believe.  I've only discussed the details with friends when talking about horrible work experiences, and even then avoid naming names.  Mostly.

It is not like withdrawing from a project or moving on from a job is that big a deal, really.
"I do not believe I would be a good fit in this particular project/task/job" is a pretty complete but polite explanation to anyone who asks.

Funnily enough, I have one kinda-sorta inverted case: there was a software project long ago that I had to maintain/support for a few years as a paid job, written by people I actually like... but the software was so horrible copy-paste spaghetti I developed a serious dislike of Perl that still afflicts me today.

[fourfathom]

This conversation reminds me of one employee I had to work with.  He talked the talk for a while, but became incredibly disruptive, non-productive, and actually unethical.  Once we managed to fire him he next turned up as a founder of a competing startup, with $2 million in venture funding (which is another story).  He had claimed that our company's big success was largely due to his brilliance (nothing could have been further from the truth.)  His new company quickly crashed and burned, with him literally (!) being dragged out of the building by armed guards.

On topic, after that he sent out an open letter to "the networking industry" where he blamed his many failures on other people and a general industry conspiracy against him.  The letter was broadly circulated for it's "WTF? You've got to be kidding me!" value, and it made him look like a deluded sociopath. I'm not saying that the "letter to the CEO" being discussed in this thread is anything like that, but this story might still be helpful if anyone is considering something similar.

I don't know where he is now, but if you run into someone who describes himself as "First ever Telecom Eagle, a networking & telecom visionary" take my advice and run away as far and as fast as you can.

[Someone]

Yeah it's a small world. Multiple times I've been asked about somebody I used to work with somewhere. I've also bumped into several people that happened to know other people I've worked with.

When chatting to colleagues socially:
colleague found out who their new direct manager was after re-organisation at company A, "I moved here [country] to get away from that person"
working at company B, talking to another ex-employee of company A, "I remember that person, everyone avoided dealing with them"

Some times a good company can have some really terrible people inside them, so much that people will leave the company for that single employees presence. Those are the people that management need to know about, as the turnover/exodus may not make sense when the normal reporting lines aren't going to mention it.

[fourfathom]

Some times a good company can have some really terrible people inside them, so much that people will leave the company for that single employees presence. Those are the people that management need to know about

Which is why a company should conduct an exit interview, at least when someone quits.  Even then, during your exit interview don't go on and on with a long litany of the problems and insults you've suffered.  Keep it short and sweet.