What Ivar Kroghrud's first personal user manual still teaches us

On 31 March 2013, The New York Times published Want to Know Me? Just Read My User Manual, an interview by Adam Bryant with Ivar Kroghrud. Kroghrud had co-founded feedback company QuestBack, served as its chief executive for thirteen years and was then leading its strategy.

Among questions about leadership and job interviews, he introduced an idea that would later appear in many workplaces: a one-page personal user manual. New colleagues would not have to spend months discovering how to work with him.

The strength of the example lies in more than the document. Kroghrud described the behaviour he appreciated, invited people to challenge him and asked them to suggest missing points. His manual was therefore not a final truth about his personality. It was the first version of a conversation.

A leader as "chief ironing officer"

Kroghrud calls himself a chief ironing officer in the interview. A fast-growing company always has wrinkles: processes that stall, unclear responsibilities and work that distracts people from what they do well. In his view, a leader's job is not to solve every problem personally. It is to ask what prevents someone from doing even better work.

That image fits a personal user manual. Much friction does not begin with people refusing to collaborate. It begins because small instructions remain hidden. One colleague wants to explore an early idea together. Another only wants to respond after considering the consequences. One person hears a direct question as clarity. Another hears the same question as a decision that has already been made.

A manual does not iron those differences away. It makes them visible early enough to form agreements around them.

Why Kroghrud's single page works

The examples in the NYT interview are short and behavioural. Kroghrud says that he is patient and even-tempered, appreciates direct communication, welcomes different viewpoints and likes ideas whose author has considered their wider business impact.

That answers questions a new colleague would otherwise have to resolve through trial and error:

• Can I disagree with this leader directly?
• When is an idea ready enough to share?
• Does this person want the conclusion first or all the context?
• Does a calm response mean agreement, doubt or simply time to think?

The wording is not perfect. "I appreciate directness" can mean different things to different people. It does provide a starting point. After a meeting, a colleague can say: "I thought I was being direct, but apparently my conclusion was still missing." A general preference can then become a specific agreement.

A good personal user manual does exactly that. It reduces not only the distance between two personalities, but also the distance between an abstract word and observable behaviour.

The most important line comes at the end

Perhaps the strongest part of Kroghrud's manual is its closing line. He says that the list is not exhaustive and asks colleagues to propose points for the next version.

This acknowledges two limits to self-knowledge. First, other people see behaviour that you may not notice. You may consider yourself patient while colleagues experience your silence after bad news as tension. Second, a preference works differently across situations. Direct communication during a crisis is not the same as direct feedback on work in which someone has invested months.

A manual should therefore be open to correction. That matters not only because people change, but also because the author is never the only reliable observer.

Use three sources for a future revision:

1. Your intention: what are you trying to achieve or protect?
2. Observable behaviour: what do colleagues actually see or hear?
3. The effect: when does that behaviour help, and when does it make collaboration harder?

"I value clarity" then becomes something useful: "When there is bad news, give me the conclusion first and the context second. I will probably ask many questions. That means I am trying to understand the problem, not blaming the messenger."

A boss's manual can also go wrong

The NYT interview focuses on a leader's manual. That makes the example recognisable, but it also introduces a risk. A manager can easily present a personal preference as a rule everyone else must follow.

"I appreciate direct communication" sounds open. In an environment with little psychological safety, an employee may still wonder whether that applies when the message undermines the manager's decision. "I expect ownership" can encourage initiative, but it can also be read as: only come to me once you have solved the problem.

Reciprocity is the test. Can a colleague state what they need too? Can they say that your preferred style sometimes fails? Does anything really change after people comment on the manual?

That is why a personal user manual works better as a team practice than as a top-down instruction. Everyone writes, everyone explains and nobody's role gives them the final word on another person's experience.

From self-description to working agreement

A manual becomes useful when two different preferences produce one agreement. Imagine a leader who wants ideas early and a quiet colleague who wants time to reflect. Neither person has to abandon their preference.

A reciprocal agreement might read:

Add a short description of a new topic to the project document first. We discuss it the following morning. The author may still call the idea unfinished, and the reader may ask for one extra day before a decision.

Both sides gain something. The leader hears ideas early. The colleague gets time to investigate the implications. The agreement also defines the channel, timing and decision space. That is more precise than two separate statements about personality.

The same method works for feedback, planning and conflict. Start with individual preferences, locate the point of friction and then write one rule that protects both contributions.

What the article does not prove

Kroghrud says that reactions to his manual were positive and that people approached him sooner. That is valuable practical experience, not controlled evidence about the effect of personal user manuals.

The interview does not tell us how colleagues used the manual months later, whether they felt free to correct it or whether collaboration measurably improved. Nor does it prove that one page can prevent every conflict. Differences in interests, power, capacity and expertise do not disappear when people write down their preferences.

The modest claim is strong enough: explicit information can replace some of the guessing. A manual gives teams language for questions that might otherwise emerge only after a misunderstanding.

Write a starting point, not a portrait

To use Kroghrud's idea today, keep your first version to five short answers:

1. What can colleagues expect from me when work is going well?
2. How do I prefer to communicate when there is bad news?
3. Which of my behaviours is often misread?
4. Which of my preferences must never become an obligation for others?
5. What would my colleagues probably add?

Discuss the answers with someone who works with you regularly. Ask not only whether they recognise you, but also which sentence is unclear and which agreement is still missing. Set a date to revise the document straight away.

That is the lasting value of the NYT interview. Kroghrud was not trying to capture himself completely on one page. He gave new colleagues a head start and left room to improve the description together.

Ready to begin? Use the practical guide to creating a personal user manual. You can also read how Tom Haak later described the personal guide as an HR trend.