I think your reaction is common, your mindset is one that I recognize in myself and causes me many insecurities in relationships both personal and professional.

However, it's worth saying that: Being intentional about relationships is not manipulation.

If I decide "I want to be a better husband" and then spend time noticing and writing down a list of things that my wife says bother her or would make her happy or she thinks would be romantic, and then I go through and choose some of them and set myself reminders in my calendar to do them... Am I "manipulating" my wife into "thinking" I'm a better husband? Or am I just plain being a better husband?

Would it be worse if I got the idea from a book titled Would it be better if, instead of being so intentional, I just let my passions and romance sweep me into doing romantic things without any conscious thought? Why?

To make my point clear: Being very intentional about relationships (how others perceive and feel about you — and what actions you take to make them feel and perceive you that way) is not manipulation. If I act in a way that makes my coworkers think that I'm a good coworker, then I AM a good coworker! The fact that it was on purpose and not accidental is...?

Manipulation happens when you develop your "be-a-good-coworker" skills (which is good) and then use those skills in a way that intentionally hurts your coworkers or makes them act against their interests (which is bad).

I see evidence in the article of the first but not the second.

It's a fine line. Maybe it isn't necessarily manipulation, but it does come off as disingenuous to me.

To take your marriage example. The genuine motivation would be: "I acknowledge my flaws and I'm willing to put in the effort to change myself for the benefit of my wife". If the motivation is to just tweak your wife's views of you, that may not be manipulation but it's not very loving either.

People will be able to sniff out if the goal of his behaviour is to have people think of him a certain way, versus having the goal of wanting to bring beneficial change and helping a team out. The behaviour may be the same on the surface, but the intent is very different. I would be very wary of judging people's motivations, but the fact that the author explicitly mentions it bothers me.

The Turing test for husbands: determine if your husband is actually a good person or if he is acting like a good person so that you will love and appreciate him.

You say the genuine motivation would be: "I acknowledge my flaws and I'm willing to put in the effort to change myself for the benefit of my wife"

But... How do I know which actions will "benefit" my wife? I argue that one of the best ways to know is to ask myself: "Will this action make her feel positively about me?". That way, I'm not going to do things that are important to me but not her, or that I think she SHOULD appreciate but she doesn't actually care about, or whatever.

Of course, to answer that question accurately requires plenty of listening, understanding and empathy.

In the past, I thought more like you. But I think it harmed me. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that intentionally doing things so that other people like to be around you isn't "disingenuous", it's a wonderful thing to work towards!

For some this might have a bit of sociopathic creepiness to it which even seems more apparent in that marriage context than it does in the original article of an "deeply" structured coder.

Of course control might be a valid goal, and controlling your need to control might be a good meta step, too, in a professional environment. The issue of the line between caring and controlling just seems not been discussed enough. And not seeing and mentioning that obvious emotional aspect might already make it look a bit weird.

I don't agree. You should only do things that benefit the team if they are done out of a true sense of cameraderie, and pure desire to empathize and solve problems? Not everyone has natural empathy, and people who don't have it learning how to do it in a way that benefits them and the people around them is positive.

Re:'It sounds like a con artist', the techniques for getting people to trust and like you are often the same whether your intent is good or bad. I don't think these techniques should be reserved for people who have an innate wellspring of curiosity and cooperation.

This person is trying to earn credibility, and is specifically focused on the 'new' phase of being on a team, when you do not have a big pile of meaningful tasks yet and your primary goal is getting the lay of the land and establishing good relationships with your teammates.

Finally,

> Feelings are not something one goes around creating unless they are actively manipulating people around.

I don't really understand what this means. I create feelings all the time, intentionally and unintentionally. I often do things where the primary purpose is to make somebody feel good, usually things like 'make some effort to solve a problem that I don't think matters' or 'let somebody explain something to me that I already know about'. It's not about gaining power and status, it's about greasing social wheels and making friendly cooperation easier.

Am I 'manipulating' people? Well, I am often trying to influence them so that they act in a way that I believe will benefit both of us. I do want to rise in my career, but I want to do it by making positive impacts and relationships, not by stepping on others. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Without imputing any actual intention to the author, I agree with your points on tone. It feels focused on optics, not outcomes.

It's one thing to say that you want to get things done. It's another to say you want to be _seen_ as someone who gets things done.

Again, I don't intend to mind read here, and I think the author actually has some really good data gathering ideas. But the language definitely smacks of political motivation, which some folks (myself included) find off-putting.

Off-topic, but "imputing" is such a good word.

I get where you're coming from, but in a somewhat large or large organisation the organisation has a life of its own and it couldn't care less whether you're authentically you or not. If there is something to gain from throwing you out it will, regardless of how you feel about it.

Hedging against that with conscious social strategies can be a reasonable thing to do, at least if you are in or are likely to end up in such a large organisation.

I've made the choice to be in a small organisation, in part because my contributions don't need packaging and announcements to become known to those with more power in it than I have. If I were to change my mind and join a large organisation I wouldn't think twice about entertaining a 'game', balancing the degree to which I exploit other people and organisational weaknesses to gain money and stability for myself against a semblance of professional and personal ethics.

He thinks about those types of things and are acting on it (which is the key point in my opinion) because he is someone who thinks about those types of things.

I think thats a very good attitude.