You’ve been working on developing your ideas and projects for several years (or a long time).
You meet someone who seems to have experience in your area of interest and they propose a collaboration to maximise your efforts. The other person has practical skills in digital communication and media, and has connections into your area of interest, which is why it made sense to form a collaboration.
As you get to know them, you co-develop a workplan and share resources, some of which are your own unpublished works, data and partially developed ideas. They jump into the project and start conversations with people in their network about the project and share the content of the conversations and intended follow up actions verbally and in writing with you. As per your agreement, they do the stakeholder engagement and comms and you will do the content development. The project feels exciting and there’s great synergy in the way you work. After some time, you start to notice that the other person is less explicit about their end of the work and have adopted a ‘boss’ and project management role within your partnership without having discussed these changes with you first.
If you’re a researcher in a lab or research group, the other person is the supervisor/advisor and you’re the graduate student or postdoc.
Should you feel concerned? If so, what would you do about it?
Commenting guidelines to encourage respectful discussion:
There’s no right or wrong answers. All responses are valid and valued (unless they’re meant to be toxic).
You can ask any questions about either person, the situation and the backstory.
I will prompt and provoke deeper thinking when I comment on your response to encourage reflection, discussion and application of ideas to your own similar situations.
It is a red flag when someone is inconsistent in a professional relationship and disregards explicit instructions or previously agreed upon rules of engagement. When a superior or someone of more influence or of higher stature does this, it is all the more disconcerting. They are leveraging power, control and influence and in a deceptive way.
I agree Dr. Jordan! It can be difficult to see this as an anomaly if you trusted the other person. Often, people in this type of situation will gaslight themselves into believing that everything is still ok and the person is just 'stressed' or busy juggling tasks or taking the lead to get things down more efficiently. As you said, they're assuming a more powerful position to eventually dominate the other person and dictate the project direction.
I'm applying to be the Secretary of a professional organization and I can see myself taking on the role of project manager and will be seeking feedback from the group on my style of communication and be open to constructive criticism. With that thought, I would have discussion with my partner in the venture to discuss the intent of the communications style and if my perception is reality... I work with a lot of people who are very aggressive in their writing communications (ALL CAPS, BOLD, etc) that I and others get triggered but when you speak to the person, the style of writing doesn't match their intent... A conversation to reset the tenants of "Right Relationship" is appropriate when you feel like your being run over by the other... it may not be intentional..
Thank you C Rachel ! Developing agreements about communication style, what and how feedback is shared to ensure a psychologically safe workplace culture can reduce ambiguity. In healthy workplace cultures, the team co-develop these agreements and revisit them often (ie at the end of meetings) to check how the group went and what needs to be done differently.
If we go back to this scenario, perhaps this type of agreement between the two parties could have prevented what's happening now. What do you think?
Another scenario that could be playing out... is that the partner who is now acting as "boss/proj mgr" may not be having success... "Stakeholder engagement and comms" may include selling ideas of the venture or other soft skills that are difficult to execute... and if that isn't going well, that person may be acting to hide this from the other... They seem to be distancing them self from the partner..
They're trying to conceal their sense of inadequacy by dominating the project. You're also noticing that they've become more distant and evasive about their activities. This lack of accountability is definitely a red flag for the future success of this collaboration.
It is a red flag when someone is inconsistent in a professional relationship and disregards explicit instructions or previously agreed upon rules of engagement. When a superior or someone of more influence or of higher stature does this, it is all the more disconcerting. They are leveraging power, control and influence and in a deceptive way.
I agree Dr. Jordan! It can be difficult to see this as an anomaly if you trusted the other person. Often, people in this type of situation will gaslight themselves into believing that everything is still ok and the person is just 'stressed' or busy juggling tasks or taking the lead to get things down more efficiently. As you said, they're assuming a more powerful position to eventually dominate the other person and dictate the project direction.
I'm applying to be the Secretary of a professional organization and I can see myself taking on the role of project manager and will be seeking feedback from the group on my style of communication and be open to constructive criticism. With that thought, I would have discussion with my partner in the venture to discuss the intent of the communications style and if my perception is reality... I work with a lot of people who are very aggressive in their writing communications (ALL CAPS, BOLD, etc) that I and others get triggered but when you speak to the person, the style of writing doesn't match their intent... A conversation to reset the tenants of "Right Relationship" is appropriate when you feel like your being run over by the other... it may not be intentional..
Thank you C Rachel ! Developing agreements about communication style, what and how feedback is shared to ensure a psychologically safe workplace culture can reduce ambiguity. In healthy workplace cultures, the team co-develop these agreements and revisit them often (ie at the end of meetings) to check how the group went and what needs to be done differently.
If we go back to this scenario, perhaps this type of agreement between the two parties could have prevented what's happening now. What do you think?
Another scenario that could be playing out... is that the partner who is now acting as "boss/proj mgr" may not be having success... "Stakeholder engagement and comms" may include selling ideas of the venture or other soft skills that are difficult to execute... and if that isn't going well, that person may be acting to hide this from the other... They seem to be distancing them self from the partner..
They're trying to conceal their sense of inadequacy by dominating the project. You're also noticing that they've become more distant and evasive about their activities. This lack of accountability is definitely a red flag for the future success of this collaboration.