Okay, so let’s talk about this Carter Sean situation I went through. It wasn’t exactly a project, more like dealing with a particular way of doing things, personified by this guy, Carter Sean.
When I first got put on that team, everything seemed okay. Carter was presented as the go-to guy, the one with all the historical knowledge. So, naturally, I started by trying to sync up with him regularly. My plan was simple: understand the existing workflow, figure out his methods, and then see how we could integrate my tasks.
The first few weeks, I spent a lot of time just observing. I attended the meetings he led, I read the documents he wrote, I tried to follow his logic on the shared tasks. He had a very specific way he wanted things done, down to the smallest detail. It felt rigid, very structured.
Then came the actual collaboration part. I would prepare my work, following what I thought were the guidelines. I’d send it over to him for review or integration. And almost every time, it came back. Not just with feedback, but often completely redone. He wouldn’t just suggest changes; he’d just do it his way. So, I tried talking to him directly. I set up one-on-one calls, tried to walk through my process, asked him where I was going wrong.
He’d usually say something vague like, “It just needs to fit the system,” or “This is how we’ve always done it.” He wasn’t great at explaining the ‘why’. It felt like hitting a brick wall sometimes. My progress slowed right down because I was spending so much time trying to decode his expectations or redoing work.
After a month or so of this back-and-forth, I realized just talking wasn’t enough. I needed a different approach. So, I started documenting everything meticulously. Before starting a task, I’d write a short plan: “Here’s what I’m going to do, steps 1, 2, 3. Based on guideline X.” I’d send it to him beforehand. Sometimes he’d reply, sometimes not. But at least I had a record.
Then, when I submitted the work, I attached that initial plan. If he redid it, I’d compare his version to my plan and submission. I started seeing patterns. It wasn’t always about strict logic; sometimes it was just his preference for certain tools or ways of phrasing things. Things he never actually wrote down anywhere.
This documentation helped a bit. When issues came up later, I could point to the plan and the submission. It wasn’t about blaming him, but about making the process visible. It forced a bit more transparency into how things were getting done.
Eventually, management noticed the friction, mostly because timelines were slipping. We had a few team meetings about workflow. My documentation actually became useful there. It wasn’t a magic fix, but it led to us establishing clearer, written procedures for task handoffs and reviews. Things Carter Sean also had to follow.
It didn’t completely change Carter’s style, but it made working with him manageable. I learned that sometimes, it’s not about changing the person, but about changing the process around them to create clarity and accountability. It was a grind, for sure, but that whole experience taught me a lot about navigating difficult work dynamics and the importance of clear, documented processes, even when it feels like overkill.
