our new employee is coming in way too hot

by Alison Green on April 30, 2025

A reader writes:

I hired a new employee because she is clearly smart and her ideas align with where we want to take our team. But her approach to the job is rude, overwhelming, and sometimes insulting.

I hired “Dorothy” for a job for which she has extensive experience, but absolutely none within our industry. We work in a highly technical field, and it takes a long time to learn the space. We often suggest about a year to get comfortable.

We set the expectation that Dorothy would eventually take over the team she’s joining — the current team lead has his hands full and will appreciate passing things off — but not before she spends a year working with us and learning the business.

We’re still in the process of introducing Dorothy to everyone she’ll be working with and the products we sell, and she’s already advocating for huge changes that I wouldn’t recommend making until she fully takes over the team (lots of redesigns, restructuring team makeup, allocating budget that she doesn’t own). I’m in favor of this long-term vision — we wouldn’t have hired her otherwise — but these initial requests lack an understanding of what motivates the people she’ll be collaborating with, the industry, and how to get things done in our office effectively.

More importantly, her observations, feedback, and ideas can be too direct, often alienating. I know from speaking with references and directly asking her former managers about her work style that this is the big trade-off for her expertise.

Most onboarding sessions take twice as long as envisioned because of Dorothy’s interrogation. “Why would you do it that way?” or “I don’t understand how that would work” or “And this works for you?” or “Is there a reason you’re doing this?” are her typical conversation starters.

I sense that Dorothy asks these questions from a place of genuine curiosity. I can tell she even tries to soften some of her remarks, so I don’t believe she has the intention of insulting the people who are walking her through products and processes that have taken years to develop and improve. But it doesn’t always go down easy. Whether it’s nitpicking a project our team has taken years to complete or complaining about the layout of our office (something very much out of our control), I’m concerned that the displeasure of working with her might actually outweigh the benefit of her knowledge.

We’re currently in a three-month probationary period of her employment. I’m curious to know what we can do to make this a winning, positive working experience for all involved. Or, if necessary, how we properly adjudicate if this isn’t going to work out and part ways before the end of this three-month period.

– Wishing I would’ve hired the less-experienced, better-natured candidate

Have a candid conversation with Dorothy where you lay out your concerns without sugarcoating.

That gives you the best shot at figuring out quickly if this is something that can change or whether this is just how things will be if you keep her on. Not only is that the right move from a management perspective, it’s also kinder to let her know what your concerns are so that she can (a) change if she’s motivated to, or (b) choose to move on herself, or at least not be blindsided if at some point you decide it’s not working out.

I do think it’s interesting that you knew from references before she started that this was how she operated, but hired her anyway. I’m guessing it seemed like something manageable when it was theoretical, but now that you’re seeing it day-to-day, it’s worse/harder/more disruptive than you realized it would be. Still, you were warned and chose to hire her anyway, which feels like extra impetus to be as straightforward as you can, so that you’re both working from the same info and she has a chance to make good decisions for herself (whether that’s toning down her approach or concluding that this isn’t going to work, or at least understanding you might be headed there).

So: sit down and talk with Dorothy. You could start by asking how she’s feeling about the job, because who knows — maybe she has concerns of her own and it’ll be helpful to bring those out (and could move things toward a mutual conclusion that this isn’t the right match). But otherwise, you should say something like: “I have some concerns about how things are going. We talked early on about how you should expect to spend a year learning the business before you’ll be in a position to lead the team or assess potential changes. I’ve noticed, though, that you’ve been advocating for very significant changes already (things like X, Y, and Z). I like a lot about your long-term vision, but you won’t be well-positioned to propose things like that until you’ve spent more time building a better understanding of the industry and our office. So I want to ask, do you feel comfortable taking more of a back seat role for the next year than you’ve been doing so far? If that’s not your style, I understand — but it’s what we need for this role, and so if that’s not for you, we should talk about where to go from here.”

You can also say, “I’m sure this isn’t your intent, but the way you’ve been approaching people with feedback and questions is not working well for this context. My sense is that you’re coming from a place of genuine curiosity, but people are coming away from conversations feeling interrogated and even insulted. For example, when you talked with Cecil about the X project, you left him feeling he had to defend his expertise to you. And in yesterday’s meeting about Z, I think a few people felt insulted by the way you approached ABC. It’s not a style that will work well in this office, so is it something you’re open to approaching differently? I really value the expertise you bring, but if we’re just not well matched in this regard, I want to us both to be realistic about that.”

In other words: “Here’s what I’m seeing, it won’t work for this job, no judgment if what we need isn’t how you work, but this is what we need, so let’s have an honest discussion about whether this makes sense for both of us.”

To be clear, you don’t need her to agree that this isn’t working in order for you to conclude that on your own. You might end up needing to conclude it on your own if this conversation doesn’t change enough of what you need changed. But it’s the right place to start, and if you do decide to end things down the road, this will have laid the groundwork for being fair and transparent about how you got there.

You may also like:
{ 195 comments }

{ 195 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Ask a Manager* Post author

    A tech update:

    The reply function is not working consistently — it’s being worked on.

    The server migration was supposed to finish up Friday but ended up being bumped up to this past Monday because the old one kept crashing and, as a result, it was done as an emergency switch and so a LOT of things still need to be taken care of related to it. I’m hopeful they will all be fixed this week, but it’s going to be messy this week while they’re ironed out. (Other stuff already on my radar that doesn’t need to be reported: RSS feed isn’t working, still some weirdness with the header on mobile, the collapse/expand function missing, and Surprise Me being weird.) The “you may also like” links at the bottom of posts are temporarily off because they were causing some of the crashes and will return when they can do so safely.

    Reply ↓
  2. Escapee from Corporate Management*

    Alison has, as always, great advice. One additional question to ask Dorothy during your discussion: “what do you think about your new co-workers?” Find out if she has issues with processes or with the people. If she has a problem with processes, you can manage this. If you hear anything negative about people (e.g., they aren’t smart, they don’t know what they’re doing, etc.), cut your losses. Trust me from bad experiences.

    Reply ↓
    1. Knope Knope Knope*

      When I have had to have this conversation, I talk about it through the lens of empathy. Take that curiosity and assume good intent. What hurdles have people or teams faced. What lead to certain procedures or workflows that Dorothy finds perplexing? What challenges are her colleagues currently grappling with? If possible, can OP help shed some light on those things. It can help channel Dorothy’s impulses more productively and place her to emerge a stronger leader when the time comes.

      Reply ↓
  3. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

    I have to wonder if there was a terrible misunderstanding during the interviews and offer stage that is prompting Dorothy to be so aggressive. I think it would be worthwhile for OP to look back on their communications – maybe there was too much enthusiasm for Dorothy, or maybe Dorothy catastrophized the current situation. I might not help solve the current situation, but it would improve future hiring efforts.

    Reply ↓
    2. Anonariffic*

      I’m wondering how she understands the timeline- LW says that the plan was for one year of learning the business and then Dorothy can begin to take over the team after that. Dorothy seems to be operating under the impression that she’s there to take over the team now, it’s just going to be a 12-month transition period while she gets up to speed.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dust Bunny*

        I was wondering this, too. If Dorothy knows that she was brought in to change things, was it clear to her (or has she lost sight of the fact) that she wasn’t supposed to really get rolling for at least a year?

        Reply ↓
        1. Madtown Maven*

          Right! Maybe telling her to switch into a listen-and-learn mode could help. She clearly needs to learn about the industry, the company culture, and the people before she starts making suggestions or changes. It could be good to have her write her questions down for one-to-one time with the boss.

          Reply ↓
        2. Reading Rainbow*

          I had the same thought, especially since the LW directly says that they would support a lot of the stuff she’s saying later. A lot of this seems like a difference in expectation, and in that case they need to be really REALLY clear and direct with Dorothy before they start thinking about showing her the door.

          Reply ↓
        3. LizB*

          I had this same thought. OP seems to be viewing it as, Dorothy will be an individual contributor for a year and do IC work for a full 12 months before making any moves into leadership at all – if that hasn’t been made explicitly clear to Dorothy, it needs to be.

          Reply ↓
    3. Heck, darn, and other salty expressions*

      Or Dorothy may be trying to prove she can handle taking over the team now. She may not have the patience to wait if she knows the plan is for her to lead the team in a year.

      Reply ↓
  4. Jane Bingley*

    This must be incredibly frustrating for Dorothy. You hired her explicitly to make changes. She’s coming to meetings with a genuine curiosity for how things are done and why. And now she’s in trouble for it?

    I think you need to decide what the core problem is.

    Is the problem her tone? That’s likely fixable with a direct conversation or two about softening up more.

    Is the problem that she’s too quick to suggest alternatives? That’s likely fixable with a plan to collect her ideas and hold onto them til she’s further along in her onboarding, or by setting her up with a similarly future-oriented thinker in the organization who can explain to her why her suggestions may not work.

    Is the problem that your team is resistant to change? If so, this burden falls squarely on you – do you truly want change even if it bothers your team? If yes, you need to talk to the team, not Dorothy. If you’ve changed your mind on wanting change, and you’re not willing to change if it bothers people (spoilers: change will always bother people), then you should let Dorothy go and be extremely apologetic about it.

    Reply ↓
    1. Presea*

      Yeah, it really seems to me like this could be mitigated significantly just by Dorothy softening her tone and being more conservative/hypothetical with how she shares her environment of the future.

      Reply ↓
    2. Hannah Lee*

      “This must be incredibly frustrating for Dorothy. You hired her explicitly to make changes”

      While it may be frustrating for Dorothy, I’d argue that OP hired Dorothy with the understanding that she may recommend changes, improvements down the line. It sounds like OP was clear that the first year or so it was expected that Dorothy would be focused on gaining experience in this industry, learning how things are done so that she’d have some context for what changes would be useful …when she was in a position to make them.

      There’s a difference between coming in to an org with a “fact finding because this place needs a complete overhaul” approach and coming in with a “you’re completely new to this so consider Year 1 as a training year, we don’t expect you to be fully up to speed right away, take sometime to learn the ropes, become a valued member of the team who has some understanding of how we work, what we do, the culture” From what OP wrote, it seems they described the second approach to Dorothy but she came in blazing headstrong with the first. Which of course is likely to get everyone’s hackles up. Not because they are resistant to change but because she’s being rude and assuming authority way outside of her current role and is being disrespectful to them and their roles.

      Reply ↓
      1. Cmdrshprd*

        “learning how things are done so that she’d have some context for what changes would be useful …when she was in a position to make them……take sometime to learn the ropes, become a valued member of the team who has some understanding of how we work, what we do, the culture”

        But IMO sounds like a lot of the questions she is asking is about learning how things are done and why. Part of is learning the why and how we got to here. Making suggestions allows for people to say your suggestion Z won’t work because of this reason.

        Asking “Why do you do x this way?” “Wouldn’t doing Y be better?” allows her to learn.

        Reply ↓
        1. the cat ears*

          There’s this weird quirk of language and/or culture where a lot of people interpret “why do you/we do x” as “I think we shouldn’t do x, and you must defend it or I won’t go along with it.”

          It’s tough to get around but sometimes changing the phrasing to something like “can you help me understand the history of why we do x?” can help. But also, maybe in this case the other employees have to be made aware that this is part of her job and that they shouldn’t be taking the questions as attacks; at a certain point she will have to be able to communicate directly to do her job.

          Reply ↓
          1. Archivist*

            I have this problem more than I would like. I like to ask questions about what I’m doing so that I can do my own personal job better with fewer errors. I’m not particularly persnickety about doing a task in a specific way as long as I a.) get off at the same time every day, and b.) am not held accountable for problems when I do something as prescribed. I just want to do a good job the first time.

            Threading the needle of, “Can you please explain to me the history and thought process behind this task so that I have additional perspective on how to do this with minimal errors?” is a tough task. There’s no shortage of people who read, “How was this tested?” as “Was this ever tested with anyone, and why do you think I should have to implement it in this way?”

            Sometimes, questioning the context/how/why puts people on the defensive really quickly, even when that’s not my intent. I’ve personally found that it’s easier to thread the needle when I have a good working rapport with people, but that takes time. I try not to come in hot, which is something Dorothy would probably benefit from.

            All that said, Dorothy seems like a direct communicator, so mentally reframing this upcoming conversation as “info she needs to know” and not “here’s why you’re doing a bad job” would probably be helpful to the LW. Communicate directly with the direct communicator. If they blow up, at least you’ll know.

            Reply ↓
            1. Allonge*

              The issue is that Dorothy is meant to become a manager of people. LW can learn to take her style as a thing she has, it’s not fair to expect people she will be managing to do the same.

              Reply ↓
          2. Parakeet*

            Yep. This was also part of the training the first time I volunteered for a crisis hotline – that leading with “why” often puts people on the defensive and it’s better to use different wording. “Why would you…” seems even worse in that regard. Some off-the-cuff thoughts on rephrasing (which may or may not be appropriate depending on context):

            “Do you know why we do X instead of Y?”
            “Were there particular reasons you decided to do it that way?”
            “Is there a history behind doing X that way?”
            “What was the thought process in deciding to do it that way?”

            Reply ↓
            1. Lozi*

              Great suggestions . I just want to highlight something that your reframed questions did, whether intentional or not … changing “why do YOU do x, y, z” to “why do WE do x, y, z.” By positioning herself as part of the team instead of outside it, Dorothy could increase goodwill with the person she’s asking.

              Reply ↓
          3. Jack Russell Terrier*

            Right – this is me too. It’s something I’ve really tried to work with, making sure I do my best to come from a place of curiosity but often people feel on the defensive when asked these sorts of questions.

            Reply ↓
        2. Little Bear*

          I think tone matters too. A lot of the questions mentioned (“Why would you do it that way?” or “I don’t understand how that would work” or “And this works for you?” or “Is there a reason you’re doing this?”) I can hear being really off-putting when said in an incredulous tone, but much less offensive when said in a curious tone

          Reply ↓
    3. Not me but me*

      I’m in a similar position to Dorothy, and yes, it IS frustrating. It’s also demoralizing to the point that I will likely leave the position rather than later. I’ve actually sent a letter to Alison on this point and I’ll be curious if it shows up in the week to come as a counterpoint to this letter!

      I was hired explicitly to make changes, with my boss specifically seeking me out (I did not week out this job) because I have a réputation for getting things done. I can be (very) direct**, but in most circumstances, it’s considered a worthwhile trade off for what I bring to the table.

      Where have things gone wrong that are relevant to this post?

      -I think the person who hired me like the *idea* of change much more than the *reality* of change.

      -The team itself doesn’t really want change. They just want everything to « work better » but still doing exactly the same things in exactly the same ways.

      -The person who hired me to change things isn’t willing to back me up to the team if the team is unenthusiastic about whatever change I am suggestions we try out.

      -It may have been a culture mismatch from the beginning. I’m used to a « get ‘er done and YESTERDAY» type of environment, and they are, as a group, just way more chill and « live and let live ».

      I wish my os would have taken Alison’s advice and just spelled out what’s not working — I think I would have accepted a lot earlier on that this isn’t going to work. Instead, I’m the one who’s gone through the stress and vague nauséabond of *feeling* like it’s not working but not knowing whether it’s me or them, whether it’s fixable or not, whether it’s even worth trying or not.

      **direct, not rude or condescending, to be clear.

      Reply ↓
      1. Anonymath*

        Oh my god, this is me too! I was sought out and hired specifically to make changes in the area where I’m a subject matter expert and am receiving this exact same type of pushback you’re describing, even down to the person who hired me not being willing to have my back on making changes.

        I feel bad for Dorothy, who has been told to take a year to learn the company but is then being told not to ask questions. From what is described, she’s using reasonable language (not the direct “what you’re doing is horrible” but rather “help me understand why you do things this way” and is still being complained about. How is she supposed to learn about the company without asking questions?

        I can understand asking her to wait on suggestions for a year if you had been clear about that from the beginning, but how is she supposed to learn?

        Reply ↓
      2. Underemployed Erin*

        I experienced this type of mismatch too. There are some indirect cultures that get pretty passive aggressive about their preference for an indirect communication style in an environment where not much gets done.

        Reply ↓
    4. Strive to Excel*

      I’d guess that whether or not it’s her intent, she’s coming across less as having genuine curiosity and more like she’s asking people to justify their processes. People don’t like being put on the defensive. I can think of a half-dozen different ways where “And this works for you?” could go wrong, especially for any process that everyone knows is inefficient but is being done because there’s no good alternative/the boss insists on it/the inefficiency is a necessary side effect.

      Even if you’ve been explicitly hired to make changes, it’s usually better to hold off at least a month and give yourself and the business time to learn. Unless the changes are of the “we need to change yesterday or we’re going to get fined into oblivion by the EEOC/ERISA/SEC”, you can do very little harm by taking time to learn the process.

      Reply ↓
      1. Southern Violet*

        This could be. The counterpoint is that people really dont like change, ever, even if they were the ones who asked for it. So they may already be on the defensive for reasons that have zero to do with Dorothy.

        I wonder how the team was told what Dorothy’s role is, and if that’s causing some crossed wires.

        Reply ↓
    5. Sloanicota*

      Yeah, when I started reading I was panicked at first that my new boss wrote in about me, lol. I thought I was hired at a relatively senior level, having done this type of work for a decade, and they knew my experience and seemed enthusiastic. But now it seems like they don’t actually want me to *do* anything or make any changes … their sense is probably that it takes an entire year of just listening respectfully to truly catch up. But honestly … I don’t think it should – it’s just that all the higher-ups have been here forever (like 30-plus years) so they can’t wrap their head around feeling comfortable after a month or two … and honestly have needlessly complicated a few things. Anyway, Dorothy probably does need to slow her roll and I hope OP is able to convey clear expectations as well as be helpful about the “right” and “wrong” way to ask questions.

      Reply ↓
    6. Technical knowledge*

      “You hired her explicitly to make changes.”

      That’s not how I read the letter. To me, it’s more that OP is open to change. But Dorothy was hired for her technical knowledge.

      Reply ↓
      1. Corrupted User Name*

        Yes, LW said they respected her experience and background and the intent was for her to take over the department eventually to help balance workload, but not specifically to be a “change maker”. This is not a case of an employer saying they want change but not being willing to back that up, this is a case of a new employee overstepping and putting others on the defensive.
        Real, successful “change makers” work both with their higher ups and staff in collaborative, effective ways that acknowledge that change is hard. They don’t ask aggressive, accusatory questions or propose sweeping overhauls of existing processes or start spending money that isn’t theirs to spend.

        Reply ↓
    7. Ask a Manager* Post author

      I’m seeing a lot of “don’t hire someone to make changes and then be surprised when they want to make changes” here and below, but I think that’s a misread of what she was hired for/what the letter says.

      The LW says she hired Dorothy to eventually take over the team she was hired on to because the current team lead has his hands full and will appreciate passing things off, and her ideas align with where they eventually want to go, but she doesn’t indicate that she was brought in specifically as a change-maker.

      Reply ↓
    9. Northbaytekt*

      Process Improvement always begins with “why are you doing it this way?”

      If Dorothy is new to this field/industry, those why questions help her understand what changes can reasonably be made. If people explain the process, she may be less inclined to change it. But she needs to understand it and those questions are necessary.

      Otherwise it sounds like they want the outward appearance of change without really changing.

      Reply ↓
      1. Darastrix*

        OP never says Dorothy was hired to make changes. She was hired to eventually take over the team she’s joining after having at least a year to acquaint herself with the industry, because that’s roughly how long it takes to learn it.

        Reply ↓
    10. MCMonkeyBean*

      Yeah, OP lost me a bit when talking about how onboarding takes too long because she keeps asking why things are done a certain way–isn’t that exactly what she should be doing?? I get that you don’t want her to take over and make sweeping changes right away, but “why do we do things this way” is absolutely what needs to be asked of everything in the leadup to her taking charge and making changes in the future.

      If the tone is an issue then definitely talk to her about that, but if you don’t even want her to be asking those kinds of question then what on earth did you hire her for?

      Reply ↓
  5. Aaron Knight*

    Most onboarding sessions take twice as long as envisioned because of Dorothy’s interrogation. “Why would you do it that way?” or “I don’t understand how that would work” or “And this works for you?” or “Is there a reason you’re doing this?” are her typical conversation starters.

    I don’t think these are inappropriate or aggressive questions for someone who will eventually be team lead to ask. They wouldn’t even be inappropriate for an entry level staffer who is trying to understand the process. I’m failing to see an interrogation in them, for sure.

    Reply ↓
    1. Presea*

      Feels like a bit of a culture clash if asking questions like this during a meeting is coming off so negatively. Maybe Dorothy could ask these questions via email instead or something.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sloanicota*

        Yeah I would encourage OP to tell Dorothy to write down for herself the questions she has with current processes and NOT derail meetings with this right now. I have to do this myself when I start a new job because I have a bad habit of assuming hinky systems are just inefficient, even though I constantly try to remind myself there probably are REAL reasons why stuff is done in this seemingly-odd way. So I write everything down for the first month and then go back and see if I still feel that way in month 2 or 6 before I raise it with anyone.

        Reply ↓
    2. Dust Bunny*

      These feel kind of aggressive. Presumably they do work for LW’s organization or they wouldn’t be doing it that way. They may not be optimal, or maybe Dorothy doesn’t get it because she doesn’t have experience with this industry, in which case she would actually be better served by slowing down and listening first rather than charging through.

      Reply ↓
      1. Anonym*

        Yeah, “Is there a reason you’re doing this” is particularly aggressive. There’s not a polite version of that – it presumes they could be doing things for no reason at all. There’s always a reason, whether or not the asker would agree with it.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sloanicota*

          I think this would be a good conversation with OP to have with Dorothy, so they can really parse some of this phrasing and help explain why it’s not coming across super well.

          Reply ↓
        2. Disco Janet*

          I politely disagree, I don’t find this to be particularly aggressive at all. But also there are so many times when you ask a question like that and the answer is “Because we’ve always done it that way.”

          Yeah, maybe there was a reason 10 years ago, but the person who knew that reason is gone now and circumstances might have changed.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dust Bunny*

            I think tone very much matters for that one. “And this works for you?”, though, is, in my experience, always a bit sarcastic and not something I would deploy at work, especially if I were the one at an experiential disadvantage.

            Reply ↓
      2. Susan Calvin*

        I don’t exactly see her “not listening though – it really comes down to culture and communication style. Me, I’ve learned 90% of my workplace norms and behaviors form Dutch and German role models, and these would be a bit forward or overenthusiastic for a new junior team member (where the answer would tend towards “you don’t need to know that yet”), but for someone who is coming in at a senior level, with an explicit, fairly short term perspective on leadership, I’d be mildly concerned if she DIDN’T ask pertinent follow up questions to really get into the nitty gritty context, history, exceptions etc.

        I can appreciate that this is isn’t universal, and norms here are clearly such that she’s getting people’s hackles up. It’s a valid expectation that the external hire makes an effort to conform to existing culture, but depending on how wide the gulf is, it might also just be a mismatch – and LW should ideally try to match Dorothy’s level of directness when it comes to letting her know how she’s coming across, otherwise she’s not doing anyone any favors.

        Reply ↓
        1. Bird names*

          Agreed. Especially your last point is important. With the information we have it mostly sounds like that’s her way of communication and soft-pedalling the feedback could have her underestimate the seriousness of the current issue(s).

          Reply ↓
        2. Parakeet*

          I don’t think anyone’s saying that she shouldn’t ask questions (or follow-up questions) though. The issue is that the specifics of the questions and how she expresses them seem to be putting people on the defensive. Indeed, asking specific nitty-gritty questions could go over better than vague wording that could easily come across as scornful or incredulous.

          I gave some examples of rephrasing above. It’s not soft-pedaling anything to sound interested and respectful rather than scornful or incredulous, and it appears from the letter that right now she’s coming across as the latter.

          Reply ↓
      3. Hannah Lee*

        The “And this works for you?” and “Is there a reason you’re doing this?” would both set my teeth on edge. The both come across with a subtext of “this is so stupid you must all be idiots for doing things this way. I, having just walked into this workplace can see that a mile away” Maybe the second one could be okay given the right tone, but it doesn’t seem like Dorothy has that tone in her toolbox.

        I spent years managing process and organizational improvement projects as an internal consultant. Someone unfamiliar with the existing work, team, industry coming in with that level of aggressive inquisition would not get far. Because very few people are eager to take feedback, direction or be grilled by know it alls and jerks. And also, someone who does not demonstrate a minimal amount of open-mindedness to multiple ways of doing things, and the possible value that existing processes, standards may have is super unlikely to possess the creativity, practical knowledge come up with or apply new approaches that will improve things substantially (vs just defaulting to wanting their new workplace do exactly what they did at their old workplace.)

        Reply ↓
        1. Thin Mints didn't make me thin*

          It seems like a simple change to implement: “If you have questions about a process or system, ask about them neutrally, in the mode of a learner, not a critic.” Examples might be ‘I’d like to understand the background of how this process evolved.’ or ‘can you help me out by explaining the organizational goals of this system, and how it accomplishes those’?

          Reply ↓
          1. Hannah Lee*

            “It seems like a simple change to implement …”

            You’d think! :)

            and it should be.

            But for new hires in the internal consulting department I worked in, that change in attitude was one of the toughest things to teach and coach. These were all smart people with some amount of experience and confidence. But if someone had a critical (vs just analytical) habit of mind, who brought an air of ‘I know better” to a lot of interactions, it was really hard to get them to adopt a more open minded or curious information gathering style, even with direct feedback, mentoring, modeling. The ones who could make that shift could do well. But the ones who couldn’t or wouldn’t struggled, and often caused reputational damage to the team, or caused the project sponsor to pull support.

            Reply ↓
          2. CaffeineFiend*

            I think looking at all the comments immediately shows the issue with just saying “ask neutrally, as someone trying to learn.” It seems a lot of people don’t understand how the phrasing quoted in the letter wouldn’t come off neutral, even though each of them lean far into aggressive territory.

            Frankly, while the rest could be fine with the right tone and context, no matter how many handsprings and splits I do with my mind I can’t seem to come up with a reasonable situation where “and this works for you?” would not be insulting. (Assuming that there isn’t a large language and culture barrier, but I see no indication in the letter that this is a factor.)

            Reply ↓
    3. Marz*

      Eh, I think they are would mostly sound on the judgmental side of curiosity – of course there is a reason I’m doing this! Yes, it works for me, maybe not perfectly. Okay, if you don’t understand, ask about what you want to understand! I do it that way because that’s the way it’s done!

      Not saying they aren’t good kernels in there and that the questions aren’t valid, but I do personally find it pretty irritating when people appear to be couching judgement or disagreement as a question, which I think are easily read into these questions.

      I do tend to soften a lot and am not super direct but I think it makes me pretty easy to work with, so for instance, I would probably approach it genuine curiosity questions more like, “What’s the reasoning behind this?” “How did this process get put in place?” “What about that works better than this other method I’ve seen before?” “Hmm, I’m not sure I get why you’re substituting X where I would normally see Y – how would that work? I would expect this problem.” “Can you explain this part more?”

      Reply ↓
      1. Jennifer @unchartedworlds*

        Yeah, this. I think it’s fine for her to be asking how things work, even if it takes up some of people’s time. But there are much more diplomatic phrasings that a newcomer could usefully deploy to express their curiosity, so as to not come over like “you’re all idiots, lucky I’m here now to set you straight”.

        Reply ↓
      2. Southern Violet*

        Well… the reason for doing it 90% of the time is “cuz Jack set it up that way 40 years ago and eff if we know why” so I get the question.

        I think whether these questions are offensive or not is entirely in the eye of the beholder. No one is wrong for how they are wishing to communicate here. But its definitely a mismatch for this office.

        Reply ↓
    4. KateM*

      I in turn am failing to imagine a context where “And this works for you?” does not sound aggressive / insulting.

      Reply ↓
      1. Librarian of Things*

        Agreed. “And this works for you?” doesn’t generate a productive conversation because the answer is, “yes, that’s why I’m showing it to you.”

        The others could be restructured to better indicate they’re coming solely from a place of curiosity.

        “Why would you do it that way?” carries a lot of weight from the unspoken, “because this way is stupid.” “Can you explain how this process developed?” is curiosity.

        “Is there a reason you’re doing this?” would get my hackles up with the implication that we’re doing stuff just to mess with you. “Are there legal requirements or production needs that drive this process?” would not.

        “I don’t understand how this would work,” is the most tone-dependent. Is she just confused or is she scoffing?

        Reply ↓
        1. Pescadero*

          “And this works for you?” doesn’t generate a productive conversation because the answer is, “yes, that’s why I’m showing it to you.”

          I guess I’ve just worked a number of places where I regularly had to use processes that didn’t work for me – because that isn’t obvious to me.

          Plenty of times my answer would have been “No, this doesn’t really work for me – but it is what is required even though it’s illogical and inefficient.”

          Reply ↓
          1. Allonge*

            Sure, but asking ‘if we could change anything, would you have any suggestions on how to improve this process’ gets Dorothy that same answer without offending people.

            Reply ↓
      2. Ms. Norbury*

        Word. I would be very tempted to give a sarcastic answer to anyone who asked me that. Dorothy’s intentions may be be great, but if these questions are direct quotes, I’m not surprised she’s annoying people.

        Reply ↓
      4. Corrupted User Name*

        Same. I can’t imagine someone *not* being insulted or put off by these questions, especially from a new employee coming from another industry. There are so many better ways to ask about the reasons behind processes and workflows. Even if the processes seem sub-optimal, a truly curious and thoughtful person would take the time to understand them before interrogating the trainer. And that’s all aside from the idea that we should take the LW at their word that other staff are feeling defensive and that Dorothy is coming on way too strong.

        Reply ↓
    5. Myrin*

      Two people can say the exact same sentence in such a way that one sounds curious and possibly even naïve while the other sounds condescending and accusatory.

      Reply ↓
    6. LL*

      The way these are worded are definitely aggressive. Especially “I don’t understand how that would work,” which implies that you think the thing that’s clearly working is being done wrong, and “and this works for you?” which just sounds passive aggressive to me.

      Maybe you haven’t hung out with enough people who ask questions like this as away to just put people down, but I have and that’s how they come across. Dorothy might not mean it that way (although she might), but plenty of people would read these questions as critical and insulting.

      Reply ↓
      1. Disappointed with the Staff*

        “I don’t understand how that would work,”

        That’s just asking for “well no, you’re a novice who’s here to learn and I’m the established expert. After I’ve explained it again using simpler language I’ll answer any questions you have”

        Reply ↓
    7. Allonge*

      The wording sounds aggressive to me, but a lot of that will be tone. But it’s the frequency that would be the bigger issue at my org – if there is a learning curve of a year, you can afford to hold back some ‘is this really the bestest way’ questions until you know more. And doubling meeting time all the time is just not ok.

      Reply ↓
  6. learnedthehardway*

    I agree with other posters that the expectations may have been miscommunicated to Dorothy. That said, she definitely needs coaching on her approach and she needs to learn how to LISTEN rather than interrogate people. She should be looking for what the team / department/ company NEEDS – not criticizing what people think is working (even if she has ideas on how to improve their processes).

    I’m working on a confidential position right now for someone who will replace a Dorothy. While the Dorothy in question is an expert in their field, they have alienated all of the management team because they didn’t build the buy-in before trying to implement changes.

    Reply ↓
  7. FattyMPH*

    If she is coming in from another industry, she may be communicating according to their norms and not registering how they don’t translate. It might be helpful for you to spend some time talking about what she is trying to accomplish when she asks these questions. Presumably she is trying to get herself up to speed and orientated. If she really has no idea that she’s being perceived as rude — which I do think is the case here — she may need help figuring out what operating differently looks like. Probably a combination of a) looking for resources before asking directly and b) using slightly different wording/phrases to actually ask her questions. It might be helpful for you to help her develop some new scripts.

    Reply ↓
    1. Khlovia*

      Howdy there, Experienced Professional Colleague–If you had a magic wand and could change procedure x just by waving your magic wand, what’s the FIRST thing you would point your magic wand at?

      Reply ↓
  8. GwenSoul*

    I wonder if it would be helpful for the short term to ask her to bring these ideas to you so you can explain the environment and she still feels heard. Then after a few months she would be in a better spot to make the observations more widely and hopefully better communicate with others. it might be just covering up the problem but could also make breathing room for a new employee who you want to make changes eventually.

    Reply ↓
  9. Jennifer Strange*

    @Jane Bingley It doesn’t say Jane was hired specifically to make changes, it says she was hired to take over a team after spending a year in the business. The LW even says they support many of these ideas long-term (so I’m not sure where’ you’re getting anyone being resistant to change?), but Dorothy needs to recognize she doesn’t know the business/company well enough to know for certain if and how these ideas will work

    Reply ↓
  10. I don't like the pigs in Animal Farm*

    It sounds like Dorothy could be less abrasive, but it’s hard to bring someone in because you want them to make changes, then tell them they need to wait for a year to do anything about it.

    Reply ↓
    1. Myrin*

      Dorothy wasn’t brought in because OP wants her to make changes. Her ideas align with OP’s ideas for the team’s overall future direction but that’s not the same as someone being brought on board specifically to change things.

      Reply ↓
    2. Corrupted User Name*

      People who are actually good at instituting organizational change don’t make others feel defensive or like they are being interrogated. But, as has been pointed out, Dorothy was brought in to help balance the workload of the current lead after she’d been in the job for a year.

      Reply ↓
    3. Saturday*

      I went back and re-read the letter because I don’t see where the idea is coming from that she was hired to make changes.

      Because she doesn’t have any experience in the industry, she was hired to work on a team to get that experience, then eventually lead the team. Her “ideas align with where we want to take our team,” so the hope is that she’ll be a good team leader once she understands the industry better.

      Reply ↓
  11. soontoberetired*

    It seems from the letter she’s not letting the training continue the way it should continue, and that’s eating up someone else’s time. that’s a problem. We once had a contractor come in to our tech department who questioned everything we did and claimed he had a better way of doing things. It was annoying and desruptive to everyone else he was working with. It would have been better to offer those suggestions or questions after he learned our processes not while he was learning them. Suggestions for changes before someone understands what’s going on are never well received.

    Reply ↓
    1. BethDH*

      I kept reading the comments hoping someone would say this. My area often gets people who have overlapping experience with our tasks without having been in this discipline specifically. Once they get through all the training the reason for a lot of the differences is obvious. I’d be pretty annoyed if someone kept interrupting training to ask why we don’t do something differently, when if they wait till they’ve learned the process they’ll have a clearer answer than I can describe.

      Reply ↓
  12. Tracey the chaos gremlin*

    “We set the expectation that Dorothy would eventually take over the team she’s joining — the current team lead has his hands full and will appreciate passing things off — but not before she spends a year working with us and learning the business.”

    This just seems so strange to me, and unless you have specifically gone over expectations and roles, is bound to cause confusion. I think you should have either hired for the role right now, or waited a year to hire a team lead.

    Reply ↓
    1. Dust Bunny*

      They need the new team lead to spend a year in the industry to acclimate. And the way that’s worded sounds as though it was communicated to Dorothy when she was hired.

      Reply ↓
    2. Sloanicota*

      Actually yes I would also struggle with how to act under this set-up as an employee. Am I a leader or not? Which isn’t to say there’s anything wrong with it, I would just find it tough to navigate, especially since I’d assume you want me to “demonstrate” leadership before going through with that promotion we talked about.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hannah Lee*

        For me it seems really clear.

        Yes, they’re hiring me for my previous experience, expertise, but I don’t have experience in their industry, their particular work (even before getting into the nuts and bolts of how they do stuff and how their internal organization is structured, who is responsible for what.) So being brought in as some sort of individual contributor, with IC responsibilities for the moment (~ a year) I’d do that role, while also ramping up, learning what they do and how they do it.

        And, just as important for eventually moving into a leadership role, especially one expected to eventually make improvements … I’d be learning who’s who, where the formal and informal knowledge keepers, influencers, get-stuff-done people are and building my own reputation, other people’s trust in me as a co-worker. Which is where are lot of the “demonstrate leadership” stuff will play out over that year. Walking in the door, they don’t know me from Adam. 6-8 months from now, I want people in the new company to see me as someone who does what she says, meets commitments, shows up, pays attention, values others’ contributions, will help out others when she can, is able to seek out required info, work to understand complex situations, offer useful insight when needed. Basically that I act with integrity, can accumulate knowledge and understanding, have experience but am open minded, and that they don’t mind spending a workday with me, even if we’re not best buddies out of work. Basically all the things that build enough trust and respect between us so that when I have eventually an official ‘leadership’ role, they already see me as someone they are willing to follow or collaborate with. (and I also will have an idea of who or what might be more of a challenge for whatever reason)

        Reply ↓
        1. Myrin*

          Yeah, I don’t think it’s confusing or unclear at all, honestly. It’s like someone starting as a regular employee at their family’s company with the expectation that they’ll one day inherit the whole thing.

          Reply ↓
  13. Clorinda*

    Well, you know how Dorothy communicates, so please be as forthright with her as she is with everyone else. You lay the issue out very clearly. Just tell her.

    Reply ↓
    1. Agree*

      I agree. Dorothy is an experienced professional and should be able to understand this.
      It is a really fine line between “organisation not willing to reconsider things” and “employee being too pushy” and clear communication from managers about industry/budget/legal or organisational requirements/other limitations might be the only thing to be able to put some perspective into it.

      Reply ↓
    2. bananners*

      +1000! Don’t wait to do this, and don’t tell yourself stories about how you think she will react and try to soften your message. Clear is kind. Direct is how she communicates. Have the conversation now.

      Reply ↓
    3. Sara without an H*

      Yes. And, OP, please, please do NOT soften the message. It is maddening to try to decode feedback from a manager who will not be clear or specific. If Dorothy tends to be blunt, assume that’s her preferred communication style and be blunt in return. Sit down with her as Alison says, be very specific about what you need her to do differently, and provide examples.

      Reply ↓
  14. MrsDrRobby*

    I am also a person who always has lots of ideas about how to improve/fix things, but I also know that when I’m new to a situation, they aren’t always going to be the most helpful or effective since I don’t have the whole picture.

    Something I do is keep a list of observations and ideas, and then when I feel better informed, I look back at them. Some still stand out as good ideas, and some of them I look at and think, “That wouldn’t work because of XYZ, which I didn’t know when I had this idea originally.” Might be something LW can suggest to help Dorothy (maybe not explicitly explaining that she might look back on them and see that they’re bad ideas, but keeping track of her thoughts and ideas and revisiting them down the road). It could help Dorothy feel like she isn’t being completely discounted while also redirecting her from sharing these ideas right now.

    Reply ↓
  15. Chairman of the Bored*

    It is somewhat unclear whether Dorothy is a Dr. House type who thinks her expertise entitles her to treat everybody else like trash, or just a very competent person who was hired to drive positive change and is going about that in a way that is professional and direct.

    Given the types of questions she’s asking, I think it’s probably the latter situation.

    For example, “Is there a reason you’re doing this?” is a very fair and legitimate question about a process step. It’s not uncommon that the answer is some variation of “I’m not sure, that’s just how we’ve always done it” which opens the door for a conversation about whether it should be changed or eliminated.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      My guess it’s somewhere between the two; Dorothy is competent but also has a somewhat abrasive approach. And I trust OP that “And this works for you?” is not landing as neutral curiosity at least in this work culture.

      Reply ↓
      1. Judgement*

        I could hear the tone, with all judgement or doubt included: “And THIS works for you?” or “And this works for you???”
        This isn’t neutral curiosity, but coming from a position where one has strong ideas how a process should look like (and they can be correct about that – or not)

        Reply ↓
    2. Dr. Rebecca*

      I’m actually struggling to see how people see “is there a reason you’re doing this?” as anything other than ridiculously over-the-top confrontational. It implies the negative, it puts the ‘blame’ on the person being spoken to, and it could easily be re-framed to “can you please walk me through how this process originated?” Yes, it’s less direct/more wordy, but it’s also politer. Politeness can be a game changer when you’re going in and changing things, because people feel like you’re enlisting their help and collaboration, rather than setting yourself up as their adversary who is going to make top-down changes.

      Reply ↓
      1. Parakeet*

        Not only is it more polite, but it’s framed to draw out more details – which is presumably something she’d want to know! It seems like some commenters are thinking in terms of a false binary of “direct” and “polite” (or “clear” and “polite”). But there’s nothing indirect or unclear about your sample sentence, and if anything I would say it’s clearer.

        Reply ↓
        1. Hyena*

          Threads like this are always both fascinating and frustrating for me. I communicate like Dorothy does and I see “Is there a reason you’re doing this?” as a totally neutral request for more details, while “Can you please walk me through how this process originated?” is basically the same question but unnecessarily long. They’re both seeking the same information, and if they’re both delivered in the same tone of voice, I don’t understand why people are ascribing additional negative intent readings to the shorter phrasing.

          I have learned to try to add more “conversational padding,” as I call it, to avoid people’s hurt feelings, but I find it really tiring. I don’t really get why people need a bunch of meandering before getting to the point to not jump to conclusions about my character or make up adversarial intentions I don’t have. (This is again assuming both statements are delivered in a pleasant, neutral-curious tone of voice.) It kind of makes me feel like I’m constantly trying to anticipate other people’s imaginations and compensate for it instead of just everyone trusting that we’re all here to be cooperative adults and share a goal.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dr. Rebecca*

            As a self-diagnosed autistic person, I get that, but It’s not trying to anticipate other people’s imaginations. It’s the social rule that it’s in everyone’s best interest to be explicitly polite unless there’s a reason not to be. And no, no neutral-curious tone of voice is going to mute the sting of that phrase, because the phrase “is there a reason” is one that is often used from boss to underling, and quite frankly, also from parent to child. It carries the subtext of “you’d better have one, or else.” If you, or Dorothy, do not have adversarial intentions, your choice of words is a better way to signal that than bluntness/expecting people to implicitly understand that *you* aren’t using a commonly chastising phrase to chastise them.

            Reply ↓
          2. Hroethvitnir*

            It’s because even if you aren’t actively using the phrasing to be passive-aggressive (which is very common), the answer to “is there are reason” is always yes. It may or may not be a good reason. The question phrased as such is by definition implying the asker thinks there is *not* a good reason.

            What is the background to this process? = explain how it works since I do not know.

            What is the reason for doing this? = extremely tone-dependent. Asking the question does likely imply the asker thinks you shouldn’t be doing it, but can plausibly be a neutral request for background, which can be conveyed by tone.

            Is there a reason you do this? = I don’t think you should be doing that, please justify it to me. Since there is always *a* reason, asking a yes/no question doesn’t make sense on its face. This is an example of people thinking something is “direct” because it follows their internal processes, but it does not actually ask what the background of a process is if taken extremely literally.

            Reply ↓
            1. David*

              Sometimes you have to choose one of several ways to do a thing and there doesn’t seem to be any factor that would make one of them better than another, so you just pick one arbitrarily. In those cases I’d say “no” is a reasonable answer to “Is there a reason…?”

              I don’t know how common it is in general, but at least in my job we make plenty of decisions that way. And it is not uncommon that, say, six months go by and it turns out the other way would be better, and we find ourselves wondering if there was a reason to choose the way we did. (We’ve all learned to be careful about writing down why those decisions get made!)

              Reply ↓
            2. Hyena*

              Sometimes there isn’t a reason, though. Or the reason is just “I dunno, they told me to do it like this.” Plenty of people learn processes by rote rather than understanding the underlying structure or reasoning. Taking the question completely literally rather than ascribing all the potential implications, it’s the same request for information, and it’s extremely normal for a new hire to ask something like this even if they weren’t hired to explicitly understand the entire process in order to lead the team in the future.

              I’m not saying you’re wrong about how other people might frequently use that phrasing or how they might have those underlying attitudes – I have met plenty of people like this, absolutely, and they are super frustrating. But we don’t have the context to know if that’s the case here. My stance is that if the surrounding context all signal peaceful collaborative intent – tone, expression, reason for asking etc – it seems strangely adversarial to assume the OTHER person is being adversarial just based on minor wording differences.

              Reply ↓
          3. CaffeineFiend*

            Aside from the fact those both of those questions are very direct and not “meandering,” and the part where those are actually two different questions(though people innocently asking the first are usually trying to ask the latter)…

            It seems like a pretty big inconsistency to expect everyone to “trust that we’re all here to be cooperative adults” while taking the attitude conveyed in your comment.

            In this case, it’s pretty clear that whether or not you intend it a certain way, and whether or not you understand what the phrasing is usually implying, the phrasing is pretty commonly used with negative implications and most people will interpret it as such in most contexts. It is not a lot of effort to rephrase this, and there are numerous pages and comments where others have offered alternate scripts if you struggle to do so in the moment.

            Maybe it is not accurate to your actual attitude, but the attitude displayed in your comment does not really inspire one to trust that “we’re all here to be cooperative adults.” Saying that it’s exhausting to have to consider the feelings of the people around you does not really mesh with being a “cooperative adult.” Acting as if slightly rewording something that will pretty obviously read as openly hostile is like adding safety padding, because others feelings are ~oh so delicate~, and as if others taking the most common interpretation of your phrasing is the same as if they created some whole conspiracy theory about it… neither of those read as “cooperative adult,” either.

            Reply ↓
            1. Hyena*

              In my comment, I stated that it is tiring and difficult but I make the effort regardless because I do care about people’s feelings even if I don’t get why it’s necessary. I literally said I already have changed my approach to be more collaborative. You’re doing the exact thing I find so frustrating, not processing the words I am actually using in favor of applying an unnecessarily negative and demeaning interpretation.

              As a new hire with the direct purpose of learning about processes, asking “why do you do it this way” is a totally normal and valid question. Again, assuming that the tone of voice used is pleasant and inquisitive, I don’t really think people should get this hung up on the exact wording used for the question. The context, tone, and attitude all contribute to whether or not it should be read as “obviously hostile.” People DO get hung up on it, and learning new phrasing is a helpful tool to navigate if someone is reacting poorly, but I don’t see why it’s so upsetting to encounter the fact that a lot of this stuff is totally arbitrary.

              People’s interpretations of what is or isn’t “polite” can vary wildly. It completely depends on your local culture, how you were raised, neurodivergence etc. It’s all up in the air. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that I would prefer everyone just assumes everyone else is doing their best and probably doesn’t mean to be rude, instead of getting upset about totally arbitrary and uncommunicated standards. If someone is behaving in a way that doesn’t work for you, just talk about it instead of making up a motive for them to justify your dislike. That’s all.

              (Again, this is assuming the greater surrounding context is clear: tone, expression, general attitude should all be pleasant. Also obviously not referring to things like overt harassment or whatever. This is purely about the minutiae of specific phrasing.)

              Reply ↓
          4. Closetpuritan*

            IMO the most literal reading of the question “is there a reason you’re doing this?” is not a request for details—if you don’t fill it in with social assumptions, it’s simply a yes/no answer. “Walk me through how…” is more explicitly asking for details, and makes it explicit that the person is asking for details rather than implying that you might not have a (good) reason.

            Reply ↓
      2. Allonge*

        Totally agree! Also because, on many teams there will be people who can only answer ‘this is what I was shown to do’.

        Not everyone will be a change catalyst; many, many, many people are needed for jobs where you do the same five things to an invoice or a report or dataset and then you do it three hundred times more per day.

        Yes, I like to know why I am doing things but the complete dismissal of ‘this is how we do it, ask my boss if you want to know more’ as a legitimate answer is something I find pretty annoying. Not everything will have a deep, analytical, philosophically sound reason either. And the brilliant change catalysts can also learn to ask questions in a not so antagonistic manner.

        Reply ↓
        1. Myrin*

          Yeah, that’s actually what almost perplexes me most about Dorothy’s comments – that she’s apparently making them to random worker bees who are just showing her certain processes and thelike and for whom the answer to “Why are you doing it like that?” would probably (and reasonably!) be “Uh, I don’t know, because that’s how my predecessor explained it to me before she retired”.

          Whether the predecessor actually chose an especially cumbersome method of doing Thing and has thereby been making their successor’s life much harder than it needed to be is often (though not always!) something that might be better judged by someone higher up and not by the person themselves who might not even know that there is another way of doing it. So I imagine that, apart from everything else, these people often aren’t the correct ones to ask these questions on a very fundamental level.

          Reply ↓
  16. Red*

    I’m not entirely sure how Dorothy is coming off as aggressive. The conversation starters you gave all seem very normal especially in a very technical industry that I’m sure requires a lot of small moving pieces to come together.

    Also are these the same questions she was asking the employees, and they got offended? Why would they be offended by questions like these? You mentioned that she’s advocating changes “that lack understanding what motivates the people she’ll be collaborating with, the industry, and how to get things done in our office effectively”.

    This sounds like her changes are correct, but they aren’t being delivered diplomatically. Is your problem simply she isn’t diplomatic enough? Or is she making suggestions like someone says, “we always groom the llamas at 8am while they eat” and she’s coming in hot saying “no I think we should groom the llamas at 12 while they’re swimming” or other very out of touch and obviously incorrect ideas?

    Lastly, I’d reflect on what she was told during hiring. If she was told “we are bringing you on specifically to effect change and we were told you’re great with big ideas that work so we want that” then that might explain some of what you’re getting. She’s doing what she was told she was hired for.

    I get she’s not vibing with the company and that something is out of sync but it’s not actually that clear what it is and I’m not so sure it’s wholly Dorothy’s fault. You should absolutely follow Alison’s advice and speak with her asap because it sounds from the letter that Dorothy doesn’t know how much she isn’t vibing and to just let her go (in this economy) because you don’t like her tone is, uh, :(

    Reply ↓
  17. Tio*

    It might help if you suggest Dorothy perhaps take notes on process changes she sees that she thinks are inefficient or need change, and hold those notes while she learns and continue updating them. If you hired her to make changes, it might be a decent offering since you DO like her vision, as you said. This lets her organize them, sit and think on them, and potentially have something ready after she’s learned about the role for six months or so and has a better idea on where they may or may not work.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      I agree. I’d also suggest that OP offer to meet with Dorothy *after* some of these meetings, if Dorothy can hold off on some of her questions, to level-set. You definitely don’t want to tell Dorothy she shouldn’t be asking these kinds questions if you want to keep her enthusiasm and future leadership, but you should probably step in to protect her relationships with her colleagues.

      Reply ↓
      1. Myrin*

        Yeah, I was thinking that probably a big reason for why this is landing so poorly is that she’s whipping out these questions while meeting the people and hearing about the processes for the very first time (I imagine a rapid-fire barrage of them which would fit OP’s description of the whole thing as an “interrogation”). Possibly these people don’t even have the answer because they weren’t the one to develop the solution but only took over from their predecessor or similar.
        If she can speak to OP about it eye-to-eye afterwards, it might come across quite differently both to OP herself and to the other coworkers.

        Reply ↓
  18. Peanut Hamper*

    Oh, my. I really empathize with Dorothy.

    I was hired to make changes at my last job and could never find the pace during my entire first year. Either I was making changes too quickly or I was making them too slowly. Nothing made the boss happy.

    If you hired Dorothy to make changes eventually, then yes, her curiosity is a good thing, but you definitely need to have a conversation about how long away that “eventually” point is, and what should be happening in the meantime.

    I am also wondering how much the rest of the team knows about the role that Dorothy is eventually going to play. If they don’t know that she’s there to move everybody’s cheese, that could explain why they are having issues with her questions.

    Reply ↓
  19. huh*

    To what extent is this a problem? You don’t include any details of other people mentioning they were thrown off by Dorothy’s questions or her tone, just that the onboarding questions were taking longer (which is definitely something to address). Are other people in your office actually being bothered by Dorothy, or is it just you?

    Reply ↓
    1. Hroethvitnir*

      Most onboarding sessions take twice as long as envisioned because of Dorothy’s interrogation.

      I don’t believe she has the intention of insulting the people who are walking her through products and processes that have taken years to develop and improve. But it doesn’t always go down easy. Whether it’s nitpicking a project our team has taken years to complete or complaining about the layout of our office

      It’s pretty clear that there are measurable impacts here (time), and that she is rubbing competent employees up the wrong way. The second part is clearly phrased as an observed reaction from the people she’s questioning.

      Reply ↓
  20. TooMuchOfAManager*

    I agree that Dorothy needs to be told, in very clear terms, what is expected of her. A lot of folks have difficulty understanding that you need to build trust, develop relationships, and establish a reputation before you can be an effective leader and change maker. There’s knowledge and then there’s wisdom. She may have the knowledge but probably needs the wisdom to know how to apply that knowledge. If she’s as smart as she appears to be, clear feedback and expectations should go a long way.

    Reply ↓
  21. Lacey*

    I was at a company that hired a Dorothy. She clearly had more experience and, equally clearly, was going to be a pill to work with.

    Unfortunately, our management had blind eyes to how horrible it was to work with her, because she was extremely efficient.

    But I don’t think they ever understood how it warped our office culture.
    They’re still living with the effects of it, wondering what happened.

    Reply ↓
    1. Corrupted User Name*

      Yeah, I’ve been on the receiving end of a Dorothy and I’ve also managed staff who had a Dorothy foisted on them by higher-ups who wanted a “change agent” (without understanding that people who are really good at managing change have very high emotional intelligence and empathy). In this situation, Dorothy wasn’t even brought in to change things, certainly not right away. I can understand why she’s causing waves with staff and the LW is concerned about long term culture fit.

      Reply ↓
    2. Halloween Cat Lady*

      Same. This letter could easily have been about my team lead at Ex-Job, who was responsible for multiple employees quitting, in my case (because I worked the most closely with her) absolutely exhausted and demoralized, a former star performer now hamstrung by debilitating burnout. I cannot overstate the damage that three years of being interrogated about things to which there are no real answers (“I phrased it that way because it seemed like a good way to phrase it,” “I missed that one error because I can edit anyone’s work but my own, which is normal and no amount of micromanaging and guilting will fix,” etc.) can do to one’s mental health. By the time I left I was putting way more mental energy into trying to come up with something, anything I could possibly say to satisfy her and get her to leave me alone, than into my actual job, and it showed.

      Reply ↓
  22. Ringing a Bell*

    This post sounds a different point of view on the employees described in #12 (“The agent of change”) and #18 (“The change agent, part 2”) from the recent post titled “the warlock, the desk carving, and other memorable impressions made by new hires.” The OP might benefit from looking at those posts to get a sense of how current employees could be feeling about Dorothy.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      Haha I recognized myself as a younger employee in #18 because I didn’t have enough experience to recognize the common, petty tribalism of office departments where Comms is always a nuisance to Programs or whatever. So if I was transferred from, say, accounting which is constantly grumping about Programs getting their expense reports late or whatever, into that department, I would legitimately believe that was gospel truth and I was there to “whip these guys into shape” or whatever. Now I have more perspective on how different departments have coexisted since time immemorial.

      Reply ↓
  23. MsM*

    I think Dorothy is missing a key distinction between “being brought in to make changes” and “coming into conversations with predetermined assumptions that everything is being Done Wrong and needs to be changed from the ground up.” Literally, in the case of the office floor plan.

    Reply ↓
  24. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

    One thing I found interesting in the letter is that the LW acknowledges that Dorothy’s long-term vision is a good one. So it’s kinda awkward if the message is “yes, you’re right, but we’re not going to consider your suggestions for a year.” Like, the letter says she’s suggesting big changes that the LW wouldn’t recommend until she takes over the team. (Emphasis mine). So it kinda sounds like the LW may be evaluating Dorothy’s suggestions in large part based on the timing, rather than focusing on the quality of the suggestions.

    None of this is to say that Dorothy shouldn’t be mindful of how she’s coming off to her colleagues. I’ll take the LW at their word that Dorothy’s approach isn’t working and is likely alienating people. And that something needs to change. But it seems very odd to bring someone in as a “changemaker” and not let them make any changes for a year. Maybe the suggestion is for Dorothy to propose changes to the LW (or some other appropriate leader) and not to everyone. The conversations about the suggestions could also be illuminating about whether she’s jumping in too fast with these big swings, when she still has a lot to learn about your specific context.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      Yeah it sounds like even we here in the comments aren’t sure if Dorothy was brought in to make changes or not. I imagine Dorothy might be feeling the same way! It’s reasonable for OP to clarify, like, “I hope you will ultimately be able to manage X program and free up the Y division, but I should be candid that our organization is not likely to make big changes in A or B, and if we were, it wouldn’t come from your position anyway.”

      Reply ↓
    2. CaffeineFiend*

      I think that it’s possible that her experience means that she could have a general sense of things that could be improved, and roughly what those changes would look like, even if she isn’t familiar enough with the company and industry to account for quirks or unusual regulations, and it’s worth noting. There is definitely a middle ground between suggesting change that is perfectly aligned with the company’s needs with a clear and realistic implementation path, vs. suggesting everyone leave their computers awake and unlocked at all times to let the viruses out.

      She wasn’t brought on specifically to change things, and isn’t expected to have that kind of authority for another year, so immediately trying to fix everything in this way comes off as very poor judgement or perhaps self-importance. Stating that she’s not totally off base in her suggestions highlights that the issue is more to do with her people skills rather than other aspects of her performance.

      Reply ↓
  25. A*

    I think the LW would be well served to do some honest thought about this question:

    Would Dorothy be so off putting if she was a man?

    Reply ↓
    1. Yes*

      Yes, she would. I have come across enough of them in my office life and it is annoying for every gender to not take time to understand processes.

      Reply ↓
      1. Yes*

        .. no matter how genuine their suggestions might be.
        I work in a field with very interlinked processes and, depending on the industry, it can be complicated to nightmarish. It is super frustrating to have people come in suggesting some “small changes” not understanding how much work in the background is needed to make these changes happen and not taking the time to learn about it as long as they are stuck in their previous mindset of “just a small thing”.

        Reply ↓
      2. Hannah Lee*

        The only people I’ve ever seen be successful in their roles with interactions like OP described Dorothy’s were men, who happened to be in positions of established power in the organizations they worked at (CEO, CFO and VP of Engineering) They usually got things done their way based on their formal power/intimidation and political maneuvering. (Like, do it my way or you will be fired, demoted, transferred to xyz sleeper division)

        It was fascinating to see them all 3 in the same meeting where they’d be all “And that works for you?” and “Is there a reason you’re doing this?” at each other and each other’s teams, only with a lot of obscenities thrown in. And possibly something actually thrown down onto the conference table or across the room in disgust or impatience. But in each case, people only tolerated their behavior, attitudes *because* they already were in positions of authority. Very few people would choose to work closely with them if wasn’t required and didn’t offer opportunity for advancement, It was a very top-down, dictatorial culture.

        Women who were approaching that same level in authority had to take very different approaches for success (those who came in with that same direct/aggressive approach were tolerated for a while, but eventually knocked down or out)

        People outside the C-suite who came in with the attitude of knowing everything already, asking questions that were barely veiled judgements, leading questions were usually viewed as annoying wastes of time and were avoided, ignored, stonewalled whenever possible. So any big plans for change they may have had never got off the ground, and the manager who brought them in usually paid some political price for it.

        Reply ↓
    2. Peanut Hamper*

      This is a fair point.

      “Boy, that Jim. He really calls it like he sees it. He doesn’t pull any punches.”

      “Boy, that Dorothy. Just who in the hell does she think she is?”

      This is a bias that is held by both men and women, so it’s a fair point to consider.

      Reply ↓
    3. Dust Bunny*

      Women are very capable of just being f-ing rude, too.

      Dorothy sounds like an intern we had who almost didn’t get to finish her internship because she was such a pushy know-it-all. Most of our industry and thus most of our interns are women, so most of the comparison to be done is with other women (we’ve had one male intern in 20 years. He was nothing like this).

      Reply ↓
    4. Jennifer @unchartedworlds*

      I can believe that a man would pay less of a price for using confrontational turns of phrase, which I think these are – but I think he too would be paying some relational/cooperational price in people picking up the vibes & feeling condescended to. Neutral-to-respectful phrasing is useful to any new person when following their curiosity.

      Reply ↓
    5. Corrupted User Name*

      The person might be even more off putting if they were a man. Most people I’ve seen with these behaviors have been men (usually hired by other men who grossly misread how the new Go Getter is being perceived).

      Reply ↓
    6. Hroethvitnir*

      I think the unconscious misogyny of these situations is one where men who are steamrolling others should be slowed down more, not that women should be allowed free rein.

      I get that women can be perceived as abrasive when they’re polite but direct, but this letter comes with plenty of information about how she comes across as disrespectful.

      Reply ↓
  26. Honoria Lucasta*

    I agree with @TooMuchOfAManager above: “If she’s as smart as she appears to be, clear feedback and expectations should go a long way.”

    It also makes sense to me that with someone whose native approach is as direct as Dorothy’s, some very blunt feedback would be the most effective. Alison’s phrasing, “do you feel comfortable taking more of a back seat role for the next year?” — with heavy emphasis that it will not always be this way, i.e. that it’s not a bait-and-switch asking her to take a lower role than she was hired for, but rather an extensive period of getting up to speed and learning the ropes in the role she expects to be in — seems like a style especially suited to Dorothy.

    Reply ↓
  27. Busy Middle Manager*

    I agree with a lot that’s already written, so only have one tidbit to add to tell Dorothy.
    She might need a lesson in effecting change vs. being right/”owing someone” in the moment.

    Been there, done that.

    Over time I learned that with some people, a super-gentle approach actually produced better results long term. Not “OMG why are you wasting time on that! Who does that!” but “maybe one day we can meet to discuss automating that, I can show you how I did something similar.”

    Then let the person come to you, and they think the idea is theirs, so take ownership. If they drop the ball, then you escalate. But 80% of the time, it works out.

    Reply ↓
  28. Phrasing!*

    So often folks don’t realize their tone/wording can make them be taken in a completely different manner than they want.

    I had a wonderful (eventually!) boss who at first made me flounder and think she hated me because she’d look at me after I posited an opinion and say “Why would you think that?”

    Thankfully I figured out she wasn’t ATTACKING me when she asked that — although I did and still do think the phrasing was antagonistic. She literally wanted to know my reasoning/thoughts.

    Once I understood that it made ALL the difference.

    So maybe it’s just a communications issue.

    Reply ↓
  29. JustKnope*

    I’m intrigued by all of the commenters who seem to be taking Dorothy’s side. Things like “nitpicking a years-long project we just completed” and grilling people during onboarding meetings are clearly NOT a good way to create change… even if she was tasked with creating change right now, which she’s not! It’s really not all that confusing to bring someone on, tell them to be an individual contributor for a year while they learn the business specifics, and let them collect knowledge / brainstorm ideas for change over that year. And then have them take over as leader with a fully formed plan for what they’ll change and how to do it.

    Reply ↓
      1. Not All Overacheivers*

        You can be an overachieving, awkward, know-it-all who also is empathetic, can read a room, and knows when to pull back.

        I don’t believe people truly think it’s appropriate to ask a new coworker the questions Dorothy is asking. Why can’t we take LW at their word that Dorothy is difficult and that it’s souring people on her.

        Reply ↓
    2. Peanut Hamper*

      Yeah, but we don’t have any evidence that LW ever explained this to Dorothy. We weren’t in the job interview, and LW doesn’t say.

      Also, LW doesn’t say “grilling”.

      Most onboarding sessions take twice as long as envisioned because of Dorothy’s interrogation. “Why would you do it that way?” or “I don’t understand how that would work” or “And this works for you?” or “Is there a reason you’re doing this?” are her typical conversation starters.

      I don’t know why LW calls normal questions “interrogation” nor do I understand why she calls these “conversation starters”. If she’s asking questions like this, then the conversation has clearly already started in my mind. If someone had just explained what they do to me, and I have the understanding that I am eventually going to manage this person and this person’s team, those sound like perfectly reasonable questions to me.

      LW clearly seems biased against Dorothy by using words like “interrogation” or “nitpicking” and her last sentence (“– Wishing I would’ve hired the less-experienced, better-natured candidate”) seems to confirm that.

      Reply ↓
      1. CTT*

        “We set the expectation that Dorothy would eventually take over the team she’s joining — the current team lead has his hands full and will appreciate passing things off — but not before she spends a year working with us and learning the business.”

        It’s possible that LW set that expectation before Dorothy arrived and never told her, but it would be odd to say that so explicitly one time and then not tell her.

        Reply ↓
  30. SB*

    I’m curious about the references actually said to the OP. There is a huge difference between, “Dorothy is an expert but is often very direct when implementing process improvements” and Dorothy is an expert, but she’s often rude, condescending, and overwhelming when working on a team.”

    I don’t have any advice other than to be as direct with Dorothy as she is with you about her impact on the team. If she thinks her job is just process improvements and you think her job is process improvements AND navigating your company’s culture, you need to tell her that.

    And to be clear, I don’t like this behavior. I have very little tolerance for the Genius-Jerk archetype. There are plenty of socially competent geniuses too….but there are some workplaces and industries where this would be tolerated and/or encouraged.

    Reply ↓
    1. Decima Dewey*

      Dorothy’s references said she’d be like this. The company hired her anyway. They had fair warning.

      Reply ↓
  31. RCB*

    Early career me always came in and saw so much that needed changed to how I did things without realizing that there is often a reason things are done the way they are, and after several months at a place stuff started making more sense and while there were absolutely things that did need changed, some of the things I initially thought needed changed ended up not. This could be because they were actually fine, it wasn’t fine but there was an extenuating circumstance that made it impossible to change, or it seemed odd at first but made sense once you learned the process. Through this experience I learned to just shut up and observe for several months, sometimes even a year or more, and don’t come in guns slinging trying to revamp an entire organization, even if I thought that was what I was supposed to be doing.

    I agree with everyone that a conversation needs to be had with Dorothy to figure out where the miscommunication is. Does she think she’s supposed to be making changes? If so then let her know that she’s not, it’s totally okay to just observe and learn the industry for the first year and that you won’t see it as a negative if there are no observable changes in her first year of employment. We all try to make a good impression and have deliverables to show for it the first year we are at a new job, and I am sure that’s what she is trying to do here, based on a misunderstanding that her deliverables need to be changes to the organization, so just sit down and talk to her and make it clear what you really want her to be doing for the first year. If during that conversation it seems like you are very far apart on how you see the role and that you can’t reconcile that gap then go from there, but I am willing to bet that a straight-forward conversation about expectations will likely solve the issue.

    Reply ↓
  32. The Bureaucrat*

    One of the best lessons a former boss taught me was to hire someone who fits in with your team and who can grow into the role instead of hiring someone more skilled who won’t get along with anyone.

    Reply ↓
  33. But Of Course*

    Honestly, my question. I can see from the examples that these questions on the page sound abrasive, but there’s a difference between an invitational “and this works for you?” where you’re inviting the person to state whether it does or not and an incredulous “and this works for you?” that tacks on “you lunatic”. I do feel like the references’ comments make it clear Dorothy is direct, but … direct is penalized for women.

    Reply ↓
    1. Ask a Manager* Post author

      For what it’s worth, we’ve had more letters here complaining about this behavior from men than from women.

      It’s always useful for a manager to reflect on that question, but there’s nothing here that seems even approaching conclusive that this is gender-based or that it’s about directness rather than about rudeness/overstepping that would be a problem from a man too.

      Reply ↓
  34. MissMuffett*

    She can ask things like, can you help me understand why you do it this way? Or, I’ve seen similar things work using X, have you tried that? There are lots of ways to soften things that sound more like you’re in LEARNING mode and less like YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG.
    The reality is, if/when she does want to actually change some of this stuff, it will be a hell of a lot easier if people feel like she took the time to truly learn the ropes and the whys of the earlier way, and if they actually like her.

    Reply ↓
  35. Artemesia*

    I hired someone with the plan that she would take over the things I managed when I retired; she was super well qualified and incredibly smart. And yes, her references did describe as ‘New York’ and direct and sometimes abrasive. And woe is me I didn’t take it seriously enough. Within a very short period she managed to damage our reputation with the PTB; we were getting ‘WHO is this person ‘ calls from accounting etc etc. Her criticisms were not wrong but we were a stodgy traditional southern organization that had it ways and we also needed to maintain our reputation in the large organization (we were a merger entity that was already in general low esteem)

    She did so much damage in such a short time. And when I retired I appointed someone else to take over my critical roles and she ended up leaving. I did not manage the problem directly and well. I think in your case, you need to do what Alison suggests. Maybe her behavior can be modified but I doubt it. People are who they are and you need to listen when references tell you who they are.

    Reply ↓
  36. BobCat*

    My experience is that if you need to choose between an expert with an attitude problem or someone with less experience but has a good work ethic and is eager to learn, choose the less experienced. You can always teach the inexperienced how to do the job (especially if they’re very willing to learn) but you can’t teach work ethics to someone with an attitude problem.

    Reply ↓
  37. BatManDan*

    If Dorothy herself is direct, she’ll appreciate it if you’re direct with her in giving feedback. As a matter of fact, there is a real risk that if you are NOT direct, it won’t register with her at all.

    Reply ↓
  38. Lurker*

    If “Dorothy” was “Dan” and “he” was asking questions instead of “she” was asking questions would there be the same problem? I ask this because often women are viewed as being aggressive for the same behavior men are labeled “assertive” for doing.

    Reply ↓
    1. Myrin*

      If “Dorothy” was “Dan” and “he” was asking questions instead of “she” was asking questions would there be the same problem?

      As someone who worked with a Dan like that, yes, there 100% was the same problem.

      Reply ↓
  39. Dr. Rebecca*

    For all the “how is this aggressive?” commenters: it’s aggressive because multiple people are coming away from what should be low-stakes conversations feeling insulted and aggressed toward. If one person from the LW’s office had a problem with Dorothy’s communication style, that’d be one thing. But it’s universal, which indicates that it’s a “Dorothy” problem, not a “someone’s too sensitive” problem. And Dorothy can, and should, learn how to hold these conversations without implying–by tone or phrasing–that the people she’s working with are stupid, which she does in several of the quoted examples.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sparklefizz*

      Even if it was just one person being sensitive, that’s one person who may not share the information you’re trying to learn. I’ve always found approaching the discussion from the assumption that they’re the expert and I’m missing something is by far the best way to get people to open up about their processes.

      Reply ↓
  40. Anonymous supervisor under barrage*

    I had a similar experience to this with a staff member I brought on for their technical knowledge in a field similar to ours, coming from private industry into a public service context. However, in my case, my read on the staff member was that they weren’t coming from a place of genuine curiosity, but of judgement. From week one, they made knee-jerk assessments of our processes/projects for which she only had a few lines of context, and was rude and abrasive. Can our processes be improved? Of course. But many are dictated by national office and are mandated by legislation as a part of being accountable to taxpayers. Our direction as an agency is also dictated by extensive consultation with particularly Indigenous communities. This person would often dismiss the work colleagues had done in good faith with strong knowledge of the local community and assert that the local community would want X instead of Y, even though the staff member who was in charge of the project had done extensive consultation with the community and had discussed both options and they had indeed wanted Y and even Z… This person just wasn’t here to learn, but to judge. Very disheartening.

    Reply ↓
  41. Jennifer Strange*

    I see a lot of folks claiming Dorothy was hired to make changes, but that’s not at all what is stated in the letter. Dorothy was hired to take over a team, but still needs a year to learn the business. That’s not unreasonable if she’s new to the field, nor is it unreasonable to expect her to spend more than three months (since she hasn’t even been there that long) to understand both the field and this particular organization before grilling them and picking apart their processes. I have a decade’s worth of experience in fundraising for arts and culture organizations, but if I got a job fundraising for a university or a health-based organization it would take me time to understand how they differ from the roles I’m used to, because it’s not a 1:1 transfer of skills.

    Reply ↓
    1. Peanut Hamper*

      Fourth paragraph:

      and she’s already advocating for huge changes that I wouldn’t recommend making until she fully takes over the team (lots of redesigns, restructuring team makeup, allocating budget that she doesn’t own). I’m in favor of this long-term vision — we wouldn’t have hired her otherwise

      (Emphasis mine)

      So it sounds like she was hired to make changes, but wasn’t hired to make them right now (i.e., “long-term vision”). I’m just wondering how well this was communicated.

      Reply ↓
      1. Myrin*

        It doesn’t sound like that, actually.
        Dorothy’s ideas for future changes align with OP’s. “We wouldn’t have hired her otherwise” just means she wouldn’t have hired Dorothy if her ideas were the exact opposite of what OP has in mind. As it stands, OP’s vision and Dorothy’s vision for the general future go in the same direction.
        That is not the same at all as everything going terribly at a company and them then hiring someone specifically to change what all is going wrong.

        Reply ↓
  42. Eldritch Office Worker*

    I appreciate the people that are raising the question, but this really does not feel gendered. People are protective of the things they put a lot of time and effort into, and they do not react well to having it questioned by outsiders. Dorothy is still an outsider. This happens with men, women, hired consultants, new CEOs, anyone who comes in and questions the status quo. People who are supposed to be change makers, professional change makers, learn the best approaches to get others on board, even if takes time and tact. Dorothy is not displaying those skills, and it’s grating. That’s totally normal.

    Reply ↓
  43. EngineeringFun*

    As an engineer who has been brought into an organization to make change these are excellent questions. Sounds like you don’t want to make process changes, which generally is what needs to change to make any impact. People have reacted very aggressively to my changes. I’m guessing that the old guys, who really don’t want to change are the loudest!

    Reply ↓
  44. Ergobun*

    Using specific examples is so key here. I have had the feedback of “you’re too direct, you’re intimidating, you need to stop being so technical, you need a softer approach”… but with absolutely no examples in which I was too direct or too technical. I have always taken great pains to translate between the styles and expertise of different groups. Since I didn’t know what to address, I didn’t change the right things, and ultimately became a less effective leader.

    Clarity is kindness and in this situation, specific causes and effects like Alison gives are a gift!

    Reply ↓
  45. MsM*

    The more I think about it, the more I think the problem is that Dorothy’s not being direct enough. Obviously the answer to questions like “is there a reason you’re doing this?” or “and this works for you?” is yes. Whether or not it’s a good reason is a separate issue, but framing it like that isn’t going to get Dorothy any kind of clarity on whatever it is that’s making her skeptical; all it does is convey to the people she’s asking that she is skeptical. And as other people are saying, maybe it’d be better to hold any technical questions until she’s had a chance to observe the process in action, but I think people will be more receptive to explaining if it’s actually an explanation on how something specific works than “justify your basic thought processes to me.”

    Reply ↓
  46. Eldritch Office Worker*

    @MsM yes! That’s a great observation. This isn’t how you get the information you’re looking for from people.

    Reply ↓
  47. Oregon Girl*

    I wonder what the LW actually communicated to Dorothy and her new colleagues about her roll. Is everyone one the same page about her new/eventual leadership and directive to make changes? Also the information and tone of the letter sounds like perhaps Dorothy might be Autistic and that is driving the communication mismatch. She is “very direct” seems like code for doesn’t use subtext. If you remove the subtext from her questions then they aren’t rude but just trying to understand, as previous comments have pointed out.

    Reply ↓
  48. duinath*

    i have a lot of empathy for dorothy, here. while working on achieving a certain grace is important, my natural instincts feel like they’re very similar to hers.

    i say what i mean, and i mean what i say. subtext is your problem, and often your invention. asking questions for any reason other than “i want to know this” is something i would have to work on.

    on some level i do think you can take advantage of this, lw. when i speak in a very straightforward way, i do in many ways feel i have given people permission to do the same to me, and in some cases i myself would prefer it. it makes things easier to understand.

    i’m not advocating for rudeness, to be clear. i’m saying you can speak clearly and get to the point. if she takes offense at being talked to that way, that would, to me, indicate a deeper problem in her thinking. i’m very wary of people who don’t like being treated the way they treat people.

    so i do feel you can to some extent outright tell her she’s holding up meetings with her questions, and she should either ask fewer questions or ask them at a different time. i do think you can just tell her you’ll be interested in what changes she’ll want to propose when she takes over, but right now she needs to focus on learning the business (or the company) and forming a good working relationship with the people there.

    i think you can ask if she has concerns about the timeline. i think you can tell her she’s coming off rude, but i do think you should have a good explanation of how the thing was rude and what she should say instead hecause otherwise she may be lost.

    to be clear, this is all my opinion based on how i would see things in her position, and i may very well be reading her wrong. i just see a lot of people in the comment section here coming at it from opposing views, one being mine “this is perfectly straightforward and effective” and the other being more like i imagine your company culture of “this is unnecessarily abrasive and frankly unnecessary full stop”. (i do not mean this as an attack and i am not saying one is right and one is wrong. i am actively working on that grace i mentioned at the top, and i do see value in it.)

    the best thing is to be clear on where you stand and what you need to change, and i also think being clear on *why* can be very helpful for both of you.

    Reply ↓
  49. Jennifer Strange*

    @Peanut Hamper (since I can’t reply): Saying one is in favor of these long term and that you wouldn’t have hired them if you weren’t isn’t the same as saying the person was hired to make changes, it just means that you think they could bring good ideas to the table eventually. Every job (especially in management) should have the opportunity to effect change, but that’s different than hiring someone specifically to effect change, is what some folks are claiming is the case here (even though it’s nowhere in the letter).

    Reply ↓
  50. Hyaline*

    A minor detail but–I cannot imagine a circumstance in which the *specific phrasing* “And this works for you?” or “Is there a reason you’re doing this?” are not offensive, rude questions that result in people getting upset. Why? Because the question is phrased as a yes or no in such a way that one answer is essentially “Why, actually, I am a moron and am intentionally inefficient.”

    Q: “And this works for you?” A: “No of course it doesn’t! I’m just too stupid to do it any other way!” “Why no, it doesn’t work! Thanks for being the very first person to notice!”

    Q: “Is there a reason you’re doing it this way?” “Nope, no reason at all! But I have no critical thinking skills so I just keep doing it!” “Reason? Why no reason at all, never thought of it!”

    You just sound like an a-hole posing the question this way.

    Slight adjustments to tone and delivery would probably get poor Brillo pad Dorothy the answers she’s after without being an offensive buffoon.

    Instead of “And this works for you?” try “What do you find works well about this process?” “Are there any challenges about how this works?”

    Instead of “Is there a reason?” try “Tell me about why you do it that way.” “Has this process changed in the past few years at all/when was the last time this process was reviewed or revised and how did that go?” “What are the main/most important reasons we do this in this manner?”

    If Dorothy isn’t open to adjusting her communication, I have to wonder if she’s actually curious, or if she’s going for gotchas.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      I think OP should have this talk *and* be clear that it isn’t Dorothy’s role (yet?) to ask about 90% of the questions she’s asking. OP may have to be explicit about the behavior they don’t want to see in meetings going forward in addition to helping with some rephrasing.

      Reply ↓
    2. Yes/No questions*

      As explained above by Hroethvitnir, yes/no questions will always come across poorly in this context as they aim for a simple yes/no instead of an explanation. It doesn’t matter if it is “Is there a reason?” or “And this works for you?”. You really have to put in conscious effort to soften the message either through tone or padding.
      “I don’t understand how this would work” is worse as it is not even a question. What is the colleague supposed to say in such a case? “Well, too bad for you?”

      Reply ↓
  51. television*

    I think you’re probably still in a window where this is extremely irritating behavior, but reasonable from a newbie. It just needs to stop soon.

    My company is pretty prone to At-My-Last-Job-isms from new employees, because a lot of our processes are old, odd, and full of red tape. Everyone’s aware of this, and able to field questions from new engineers about why we need some sign-off, but there’s absolutely a grace period for being crabby about it. It just has to wrap up.

    Reply ↓
  52. Decima Dewey*

    Change doesn’t happen in a vacuum. If Dorothy changes the way process Q is done, that can affect processes G, K, U, and X. Dorothy needs to see the whole picture, including the way things are done now, before making changes.

    Reply ↓
  53. tabloidtainted*

    Dorothy was hired to “eventually” take over the team she’s joining. LW set the expectation that she’d need to spend a year learning the workings of the industry, which Dorothy has no experience in. LW agrees with Dorothy’s general aims (redesign, restructuring, allocating budget), but the specifics of Dorothy’s current suggestions reflect her ignorance of their industry and the office culture.

    No, Dorthoy is not a visionary changemaker being stymied by set-in-their-way colleagues; no, it doesn’t matter if a man in her position would be given more leeway for similar behavior; yes, we should take LW at their word that Dorothy comes across as insulting and judgmental, given that LW’s overall assessment of Dorothy and the situation seems balanced and fair, not malicious.

    Reply ↓
  54. Festively Dressed Earl*

    I had a problem with interrupting trainings/explanations/lectures by asking questions that came from a place of genuine curiosity and wanting to know how things worked, but came off as challenging and that derailed people too often. (ADHD, blurting is a big challenge for me.) The solution for me is to “park” my questions and ideas while I’m in listening mode. I jot them down and then wait to see if they’re answered. 75% of the time they are, and I still ask the ones that aren’t answered.

    Maybe a modified version of this would work for Dorothy – have her hold her questions when her coworkers are explaining things, and have a one-on-one with her once a week that’s explicitly for addressing those questions. If she thinks of any improvements, have her save them in a running document that you either go over at the one on one or save it for 90 days. Explain to her that this is because she’s coming off too harsh and you want her to have a fuller understanding of the workplace, but that you still welcome her ideas. Someone as direct as Dorothy will appreciate you being direct with her.

    Reply ↓
  55. DramaQ*

    “And this works for you?” Would piss me off so bad when I am training someone.

    I work in a lab so there are a lot of things that we do that look “dumb” to people outside of a lab and even between types of labs. We have to do it that way because of regulations, safety or company policy.

    It may be the most asinine thing ever and I don’t agree with it anymore than you do but it cannot be changed unless you want to head to Washington and talk to the people who make the rules.

    That being said I don’t mind people questioning SOPs or regulations they are perfectly normally questions to ask. If someone says to me “We used to do X in our lab but you are doing Y, how come?” or “Y doesn’t make sense to me can you explain why you’re doing that way?” I am more than happy to walk you through it.

    That is a dialogue and a normal part of training. You should understand why you are doing what you are doing.

    “And that works for you?” is condescending and starts things off with the impression that you know so much better than me how to do my job. If I had a dime for every post doc who acted that way then their project backfired because they didn’t listen to me I’d be rich.

    Dorothy needs to change her approach. You can be direct without coming off as condescending but it is a skill that needs to be learned not everyone comes by it naturally.

    I was lucky to have a boss at my first job who took the time to take me aside and tell me that “being direct” was actually coming across as quite rude and if I didn’t want to be the lab pariah I had to learn to “be direct” without coming off as a jerk. He then coached me on how to better phrase my questions and requests.

    If she is open to changing her approach it will probably work out. If she doubles down insisting she was hired to make change and knows better than the people doing the work come heck or high water then it probably won’t work out in the long term.

    Reply ↓
  56. Andy*

    Starting a question with “Is there a reason…” is almost always so passive-aggressive that it makes me twitch. It’s essentially never a good faith way to seek information and is almost always just another way to offer criticism.

    Reply ↓
    1. LingNerd*

      It is if you’re neurotypical! But for someone neurodivergent (especially autistic) it’s usually going to be genuine and not meant to be passive aggressive. Unfortunately it still comes off as passive aggressive to most people, which can be made worse if the person asking also can’t intuitively adjust their tone of voice. Personally, I choose to take those kinds of questions at face value – because option 1 is that it’s a genuine question, and option 2 is that they’re being a jerk, and a decent way to deal with that kind of person is to seem utterly unbothered by their rudeness

      This isn’t to say anything about Dorothy – we don’t know enough to make any kind of guesses about the root of her behavior. And it doesn’t really matter why she’s alienating people anyway, only that she is and her behavior needs to change

      Reply ↓
  57. WhaleINever*

    I think a lot of the comments here are focusing a little too much on the parts of this letter related to tone while skirting over some of the examples the LW gives. Three that jump out to me: Dorothy is making suggestions on already-completed projects, budgets that would not be under her control, and the layout of a building that cannot be changed.

    Some of the other examples, like restructuring teams, are things that could go either way. Her ideas could be 100% good ones that just aren’t landing because of tone, they could be 100% off-base and wouldn’t work in this office, or they could be 50% good in that the SPIRIT of them is definitely what LW is looking for, but putting them into practice will take more finicky, detail-oriented management that Dorothy won’t be able to accomplish until she has more experience.

    Regardless, those three examples do seem to suggest to me that Dorothy’s point of view is at least somewhat out of touch with the scope of what she’s being asked to do, and it is a problem that LW will have to talk with her to solve, rather than just a bias LW will have to get over.

    Reply ↓
  58. wavefunction*

    It’s wild to me that people think Dorothy’s questions are just direct and that her behavior is appropriate. I can’t imagine a tone in which “And this works for you?” doesn’t come off as rude. And “nitpicking a project [that took] years to complete or complaining about the layout of [the] office” are not good ways to make a first impression on your coworkers. Regularly DOUBLING meeting times also indicates the amount of questioning is probably unreasonable (possibly their meeting times are just far too short, but the nitpicking comment makes me think this is not the case).

    Reply ↓
  59. Selina Luna*

    I’m not Dorothea (no one would ever put me in charge of anything larger than a classroom or let me make institutional changes), but I have often annoyed people by asking why we do things the way we do. Sometimes there is a good reason (the state requires this paperwork, this makes something easier for the people at the district office), sometimes there is an actively bad reason (we need to pass x% of kids regardless of whether they actually know anything), and sometimes no one has thought of the particular reason behind the thing. Sometimes, bad systems won’t change until someone who knows nothing comes in and asks why.

    Reply ↓
    1. Allonge*

      Sure, but if you question everything, you will piss off all kinds of people whose support you will need later to make the changes.

      Also, asking why something is done in a certain way does not need to be aggressive. If your assumption is that people doing things in an ineffective way are obvious idiots, that will be very clear to everyone, and in the cases where the reason is a stupid regulation, you are losing a lot of goodwill by making it their fault in your question. Ask, but ask wisely.

      Not to mention regulations can be looked up, so if you ask a lot of why questions where the answers are ‘this is the law’, you will come across as uninformed.

      Reply ↓
  60. Office Manager*

    In my role now— it was the opposite! I came in with tons of pressure to implement changes to processes right away and find better ways to do everything.
    I remember having to talk my managers down and say “let me do it the way you have already been doing it for at least 3 months! Then we can just talking about potential changes.”

    This was so necessary, because there were many things they did that didn’t seem to make sense until I was doing them; and changes to be made that I wouldn’t have thought of if I hadn’t seen the problems firsthand.

    Reply ↓
  61. Madame Desmortes*

    I am reminded of the Parable of the Four Sons from Pesach, particularly the second “wicked” son. It goes a bit like this (from memory, please forgive any solecisms): The wicked son asks, “What is this service to you?” In saying to you and not to us, he sets himself outside the community and its covenant.

    This is something Dorothy is doing with her phraseology, based on OP’s direct quotes from her. Likely unconsciously, Dorothy is positioning herself as an outsider — not just an outsider, either, but a judge. The Haggadah says that the wicked son is not entitled to be part of the community and receive community benefits (i.e. freedom from Egypt). It shouldn’t be a surprise that workplaces believe and behave similarly.

    This doesn’t bode well for Dorothy’s planned leadership role. Yes, managers have to be a little separate from those who report to them… but not like this.

    OP, a concrete suggestion you can make to Dorothy is that she excise “you” from her questions and statements, replacing it with “we” or “us” as grammatically appropriate. Why do we do it this way? Is this working for us? I don’t understand how/why we do this.

    With luck, this will also help Dorothy reframe her thinking about her coworkers in ways that will improve her relationships with them.

    I don’t think this is enough on its own! Several excellent suggestions have been made above. But I do think this could help, and it’s easy to suggest and to assess.

    Reply ↓
  62. sometimeswhy*

    I work with a Dorothy and, LW, deal with this now before you lose people. Our Dorothy is alienating people with decades long subject matter expertise in this field, refusing to do any of the initial information gathering/understanding, and people are just up and retiring rather than have to continue to deal with her. The things that she is demanding aren’t even things that actually work in our industry. It sounds sensible because she has a great degree of confidence in the wrong things she’s presenting but she is well on her way to breaking things that can’t be fixed.

    Reply ↓
  63. Raida*

    Just some advice to any other managers out there since this advice is too late for LW:

    *Ideally* when she was first blunt in asking these kinds of questions you would have had a meeting with her and given her clear instructions thus:

    When people are showing you around, don’t interrupt. Make notes.
    1 They may well answer the question you’re going to ask already, 2 interruptions are rude at this stage, 3 you do not excel at off the cuff verbal communication 4 we don’t want every team to put walls up with you and 5 this is not the most effective way to get thorough answers.

    Getting all your thoughts down as a list means you’ll be able to work on them in written form and then use those as the basis for having a meeting with the exact people who can answer your questions *as they expect* rather than suddenly being quizzed during a tour. You’ll get better answers, have time to discuss, and be talking to the people with the subject matter expertise.

    why, how, when, why, why, how, how *interruptions* changes to

    “Morning Jo,
    Thanks for the Teapot Handles tour yesterday.
    As discussed, I’ve gone through my notes and have summarised them below. Please let me know who in your team(s) would be best suited to sit down with me and talk me through the following:
    1x Question around Tools
    2x Questions around Policy
    1x Question around Comms Process
    3x Questions around Product Feedback

    thanks,
    Dorothy”

    Then she can set up meetings with the people who already know the questions and have a half hour laid out to dig in and discuss.

    Reply ↓
  64. Raida*

    Hey, question – why is it you think Dorothy is a good choice for a leadership role if she sucks at communication skills?

    Do you mean “take over the strategic planning, change management” kinda stuff? Or actually be the manager who has to work with the team on holiday leave, sick leave, training, performance reviews, etc?

    Reply ↓
  65. BigLawEx*

    I may be an odd bird here, but I sympathize with Dorothy. I always want to know how people come to do things the way they do them. It’s purely curiosity.

    One of my direct friends and I have talked about this because people hear judgment – when we really just want to know the answer and don’t want to do all the fluffy talk around it. Plus, as a woman, I feel like there’s an expectation to soften things which I might do at a party, but is too exhausting to do all day at work.

    Reply ↓
  66. Recommendation*

    I am really surprised how many readers are sympathizing with Dorothy. Please imagine: you have a new colleague who is an individual contributor about two months in, who is still in her onboarding trying to get to know all processes and keyplayers in the company. You know that this person will be responsible for you down the road, but at the moment you have a different manager. And this new colleague is making suggestions about restructuring the team, process redesigns, allocating budget differently, is criticising the office layout and judging a project into which history she has no insight.
    Most people would be annoyed! Even if she has genuine interest in improvement, her actions are in large parts overstepping. She is endangering her working relationships and damaging the trust of people she is eventually going to manage because: who wants to have a manager who is too quick with judgement?

    OP, please talk to her directly. Make sure there is room for her to discuss her vision or problems she observed, but try to make sure there is a process (Only with her manager? The current team lead? In a weekly 1:1? After the probationary period?) and try to be realistic about it. Are those things she can expect to be changed, are they likely to be changed in your industry?
    Also try to understand if there is a communication mismatch. Some people hear “The teamlead has problems because of too much work. You will be helping the teamlead” and understand “You have to find ways to minimize the workload for the teamlead” even though this was never said.
    Third, talk to her about tone. If she is really coming from the right place, she will appreciate the feedback. Basics might help a lot as yes/no//open questions or being considerate of the length of meetings. Nobody can be expected to spend 2h instead of 1h repeatedly and not everybody might be comfortable setting boundaries if she is known to be the future manager.

    Reply ↓
  67. RagingADHD*

    Does the rest of the team know that Dorothy was hired as a changemaker and / or that leadership will transition to her, or was that a private discussion? And if it was private, was it made clear to Dorothy that this is on the QT for now?

    Because her manner would be a lot less off putting if the people she’s meeting understand that assessing processes and suggesting improvements is literally her job. And if that was not made clear to them, or if you expected Dorothy to be discreet about her goals without saying so, then I think a good portion of the friction here may have been avoidable.

    I understand that her tone could be better and people feel disrespected. That’s on her, whether her role is common knowledge or not.

    But having been in somewhat of a Dorothy position, it really is hard to disguise when you walk into a truly appalling situation. I was also told that I needed a year or two at my current job to understand the processes and reasons for them, but it was immediately obvious during my training that the majority of the processes are making more work for no purpose, control for the wrong things, and were created by someone who didn’t really understand the high level goals and requirements of the work.

    Fortunately in my case, the person who created the processes is no longer here. But her mentee is, and my tongue bleeds from biting it most weeks because I have to keep her on an even keel in order for us to get the work done. This place needs a complete overhaul in order to meet basic requirements, and it’s going to be a long, slow road.

    Reply ↓
  68. Emily Byrd Starr*

    I read the title and thought it meant that she came to work hot and sweaty every day because she was running to the office!

    Reply ↓
  69. LingNerd*

    I wonder if you can take a look at the trainings and see if you can flip them around. Some people learn better with bottom up information, and other people learn better top down. I know that I’m able to learn much better if I have the overall “why” first because any information that follows can be slotted into a pre-existing framework. Instead of “why do we do it that way?” my question becomes “do we do it this way because of the context you mentioned?”

    So instead of:
    “This is the process to do X. Here are the steps in order. Do you have questions about how to do the steps? Okay, now here’s some extra context and caveats”

    It might be:
    “This is the process to do X. Our main goals besides X are A and B, which we have to consider because of industry regulations. Do you have any questions before we jump into the steps of the process?”

    Reply ↓
  70. crumpet*

    So many words circling but not hitting the problem.

    She knows she’s abrupt. She doesn’t know how not to be abrupt. *Hand her some language.* Make suggestions. Do some roleplay.

    Also, if you’re a manager but not a technical person, consider that the other technical people may be totally accustomed to this directness — and it could be that you, as the people person, are the one who’s cringing. Brutal directness is often part of a technical education: your phrasing is exactly how graduate students are trained and talk with each other when fully fledged. One thing to watch for, if that’s the case: other team members, regardless of gender, may be having more difficulty with the directness’ coming from a woman than the directness itself.

    Reply ↓
  71. Halloween Cat Lady*

    “Reply” isn’t working again, so…for those suspecting Dorothy might be autistic, I just want to say that while that is possible, it does not mean that the people she is offending are necessarily neurotypical. I am autistic and was on the receiving end of a Dorothy for three years at Ex-Job. I wondered often whether the reason we could not seem to communicate effectively was that she was neurotypical and I was neurodivergent, or that we were both neurodivergent but in different, irreconcilably clashing ways. I also sincerely *worried about the person making my life miserable* by constantly wondering if the negative reaction to her, from myself and others, might be rooted in internalized sexism, for the reasons other commenters have stated. Ultimately, I don’t think it was, but one reason I never got as far as writing to Alison about her was that I spent plenty of time gaslighting myself that her questions *shouldn’t* be so offensive, that it wasn’t like she ever used abusive or obviously work-inappropriate language, so I guess I must be a wildly oversensitive, bad feminist hypocrite? Or just bad at my job despite being a star performer for the first two of those years, until the constant questioning finally wore me down and out to the point of being unable to do my job well under the weight of stress, so in other words…weak?

    I relate the above because this is my form of autism in action. It makes me overthink things to death, and constantly being asked accusatorily framed questions about *very minor things* to which there are no proper answers that don’t either sound like I’m making excuses to dodge responsibility, or blowing off something someone else perceives as serious, or else accepting the framing that yes, I am in fact a complete dolt who must need more coaching and micromanaging despite a lot of success in a challenging role when left alone…yeah, this was *not good*. So while it’s possible Dorothy is autistic or otherwise neurodivergent and unaware of how she’s coming across socially, she is going to be a problem and not just for neurotypical people.

    Reply ↓
  72. HalesBopp*

    LW has gotten a lot of feedback about Dorothy, but I think LW should also be looking at coaching for the team on assuming positive intent. I had a former coworker who was very intelligent but new to our industry. Frequently when we would meet, he would ask me questions similar Dorothy’s questions. Initially, I was on the defensive because I thought he was questioning my competence. But when I took a step back, I could see that this coworker had always been helpful and otherwise cordial to me. I realized that these questions were not about me – they were from a person who was genuinely trying to learn and understand our processes. When I started treating questions as curiosities, not personal attacks, I was suddenly much more comfortable providing information and even asking clarifying questions! Especially given the amount of change LW is predicting on the horizon, now would be a good time to work on instilling some general trust and positive intent.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS