Best way to display two way relationships between users

Question

Background

We are working on a web application where users can connect with eachother and, as part of that, choose how they are related to each other.

As an example, I can connect to Joe Bloggs as an employee. The system would then know I am Joe Bloggs employee and he is my employer.

Problem

How do we best ask the user for this information and then display their connections afterwards?

Currently, we display: Joe Bloggs is my [Dropdown with options].

This means for each relationship type we need 2 options (1 for each point of view). It works fine for the employer example; I would see "Joe is my employer" or "Joe is my employee" and Joe would see the opposite.

The problem comes when we have relationships with no obvious reciprocal, such as manager. What do we put in the dropdown in this scenario? You could argue for we could use some wording like "Managed Colleague" but lets assume we have a case where there is absolutely no opposite.

Another thing to consider is how we display existing connections. Currently we show them in a categorised list with sub-headers: "My Employees", "My Employers" etc.

Edit

Not having set relationships types is not an option as some functionality of the app depends on the types.

Don't get caught up in the examples, I was trying to simplify the scenario (perhaps didn't explain it very well). The relationships will be between people and organisations, not just people within the same company. More along the lines of; Supplier, Lawyer, Client, CEO, Subsidiary etc.

Answer 1

But lets assume we have a case where there is absolutely no opposite

This point has not been covered or answered so I will focus on this one.

If you don't have opposites or don't find anything suitable: just change the sentence:

• You are the manager of X
• Y is your manager

I mean I think people will more often say "I'm his manager" than "he's my subordinate". Just pick what people say the most. And often a senior will say "I'm his senior" than "he's my junior". When a relationship indicates that someone is above someone else this is just how people will refer to it.

To be honest I would find it weird that an application would say "you're the junior of X", but maybe it's just me.

Finally think about whether your relationship is really bidirectional or just unidirectional.

• If it's unidirectional, which involve someone above someone else: go for what I said.
• If it's bidirectional on the same level: go for what you have already.

Answer 2

Someone else may give a better, more evidence-based answer but, for now, here are my thoughts:

I think the best reciprocal for "Manager" is probably "Colleague".

However, this approach requires examining each set of relationships on a case-by-case basis and you can bet that, once you've got it all sorted out, a major stakeholder will come along and say "Oh, we don't call them that!". In other words it just doesn't scale well.

Just looking at the structure of the information, you might want to allow users to declare their own positions "Phil is a Colleague", "Jeff is a Line Manager", "Bob" is a Head Of Department" (Possibly from a drop-down list that uses the company org structure) and then declare their seniority of their relationship with their connections: "I am Jeff, Bob is senior to me, Phil is junior to me", "I am Bob, Jeff is junior to me, Phil is junior to me".

You can, of course, word this however it is appropriate and build the interface to suit but it is one way of thinking around the problem of specific reciprocal relationships within a business structure.

Answer 3

I'd think twice before force-fitting this kind of hierarchical relationship in an attempt to describe all possible organizational charts, work relationships and cultures.

• It introduces an enforced tree relationship where actually the culture may be quite flat.

• The relationships may be dynamic as people move between teams and take on different roles.

• It creates a structure that goes out of date easily as people get promoted, move department, leave the company etc.

• It enhances a feeling of power for those who manage and feeling of belittlement for those 'at the bottom of the tree'.

• It won't cover all cases.

In my opinion it's better to give people the option to say if and how they are connected and just let them use whatever phrasing they want. You'll learn a whole lot more than forcing people to fit your own set of options.

Then learn from what you see, and adapt accordingly.

Answer 4

Have you considered just not having any text for relations at all and use symbols or other graphic indications of the relationship?

For example, a popular way of showing relationships is an organogram:

You could do this in multiple ways: let users drag themselves to the right spot, enter their names in the right spot, click on the right icon,...

Answer 5

It might be enough to let the people set their own positions and later pick the colleagues they work with. Having that set, the machine could actually figure out the hierarchy (if any) or other types of relationship.

E.g. Bob says ‘I’m the owner of the corner grocery’. Jane: ‘I buy cabbage at the corner’. You don’t need them to declare ‘I am the seller for Jane, and she is my buyer’.

If you create a rigid system that forces people to strictly define their relationships you might end up with a set of cumbersome rules no one likes to use.

I would try to let the people describe themselves in their natural language (for reasons stated by Roger Attrill) and make the service do the boring part under the hood.