Counterintuitively, I enjoy indexing because it is difficult. Sure, there are plenty of days I complain about a chapter being too obtuse or I’m anxious because an index is taking longer to edit than I anticipated. But if writing an index were easy, I’d lose interest and want to do something else.

I’ve been thinking of this in the context of a recent article by Rebecca Solnit, published in The Guardian. Solnit writes about the lies that Big Tech tells us, including about AI, and what we can do to resist.  One of the lies that really resonated with me is that our work is too difficult. Why should we have to do hard things ourselves? Better to give it to AI to do on our behalf. 

What Solnit points out, as does Oliver Burkeman in his book Four Thousand Weeks (which I also highly recommend), is that it is often the friction in our work and daily interactions that makes life meaningful. By friction, they don’t mean conflict, but rather things like needing to interact with a human barista to order a coffee as opposed to ordering through an app or screen. For me, tasks with good friction would also include mowing the lawn or shoveling snow, which, while involving time and effort on my part, are also opportunities to be physically active outdoors in the fresh air away from my computer screen. Or, the friction involved in writing an index. For me, at least, it is the intellectual labor of problem-solving and learning interesting things, along with feeling like I am part of a larger team working together to produce the finished book, that makes indexing a meaningful and worthwhile endeavor. 

Of course, no one wants their life to be all friction. What is a pleasurable challenge for one person may be someone else’s mind-numbing drudgery. For me, while I probably could design a new website for myself, it is not my top interest or skillset and I’m happy to hire someone else. I also see this with authors and publishers who hire me to write an index. Could they write the index themselves? Probably, given enough time and maybe some coaching. But they already have enough difficult things to do and hiring an indexer is easier. 

So the value of work, for our satisfaction and well-being, lies partly in its difficulty and our ability to overcome that difficulty, yet we don’t want everything in our lives to be difficult. Doesn’t this swing back around to the value of AI or other Big Tech tools? Why hire a web designer or an indexer when you can instead hire an AI tool to do the work for significantly cheaper and faster?

I think this speaks to another lie that Solnit identifies, which is the scarcity of people. It is too hard to find someone qualified and available. They probably don’t exist anyway. Better to use AI, which is always available.

I think this lie is quite insidious and perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we, as a society and industry, don’t nurture human talent, is it any wonder that it may disappear? But that human talent does exist. And the friction of interacting with other people, to delegate and work together, makes the work more meaningful. It cuts through the isolation of being siloed alone with my computer and whatever apps Big Tech sells me.

I am concerned about the new AI indexing tools which are being developed. There is the concern of whether those tools will ever develop to the point of being legitimate competition to the quality of human-written indexes. There is the concern of whether some publishers, in their push to industrialize publishing and squeeze out all the profit for themselves, will use AI anyway, despite quality issues, simply because it is cheaper and faster. Those are excellent concerns and worth paying attention to.

But what feels even more existential to me is the question, do I even want to work with AI indexing tools? Even if I could leverage such tools to work five or ten times faster, indexing ten or fifteen books per month instead of three to five, would I still enjoy the work? Would writing an index still be a satisfying intellectual puzzle? Or would I be delegating most of that intellectual labor to the machine, and churning out indexes too quickly to meaningfully absorb and process what I am reading and piecing together?

I think the answer is no, I would not enjoy that kind of work.

I have to admit I am starting to think about how I may exit indexing if the industry changes too much and human-written indexes are no longer valued. What else could I possibly do where I can continue to problem-solve, be creative, and still feel like I am part of a community of people?

Thankfully, I don’t think I need to make a decision yet. The silver-lining, perhaps, is that the publishing industry is vast and segmented. Even if some segments turn to AI tools—and I’m pretty sure some will, the same segments that are already heavily invested in contracting to offshore companies and industrializing the production process as much as possible—I’m hopeful that not all segments will. Some publishers are still committed to creating quality books and to working with human freelancers. 

I don’t want to be completely against AI. It sounds like there are some areas in which it is genuinely useful. And I don’t want to alarm you too much, especially if you are new to indexing. I want to believe there is still a future for human indexers, and that the work will continue to be challenging and meaningful in all the right ways.

I think it is also important to try to be aware of new developments and to think through all implications, beyond the hype and lies that Big Tech wants us to focus on. 

If AI tools are adopted by indexers and in the publishing industry, they need to be accurate and reliable, obviously. But more than that, they need to support human work and human workers. Replacing indexers (and editors, designers, etc…) does not make for a healthy work environment, nor, I would suggest, for books that are written and produced with humans in mind. For an industry and world in which humans can thrive, people need to be kept at the forefront. 

I’m looking to get into the business of freelance indexing, and I am wondering if the primarily bottleneck to taking on new jobs is finding them or simply having the time to even manage more and more clients every month?

Thank you for the question. There are a couple of things to unpack here, starting with what makes starting a freelance business so difficult.

One factor, definitely, as noted, is finding work. A freelance business isn’t going anywhere without clients or projects. So when starting, one of the first tasks is to market. Marketing can be as simple as asking family, friends, and acquaintances for referrals. Marketing can also be more involved, such as researching and contacting publishers that you’d like to work with. However you decide to go about marketing, yes, finding clients and projects is an important bottleneck to break through while developing a freelance indexing business.

Another important bottleneck is acquiring and building indexing skills. In addition to landing projects, you want to make sure that you are doing a good job. This is important for building your reputation and for encouraging repeat clients and referrals. Long term, filling your schedule is going to be much easier with referrals and repeat clients, as opposed to constantly needing to find new clients because past clients don’t want to return. So to avoid client churn, focus on delivering excellent work. (And, on a related note, be someone who is easy to work with.)

If just starting out, building indexing skills can feel like the classic chicken and egg dilemma. Should you focus on developing skills first and then look for work? Or can you go ahead and look for work, knowing that your skills are still a work in progress? I think you can go ahead and start looking for work, so long as you know more than the client. But remain open to feedback and be intentional about continuing to learn. Treat each project as an opportunity to practice. It may take time for your skills to improve, and you may lose some clients along the way if mistakes are made, but the important thing is to be aware of those mistakes and to keep trying to do better next time. After fourteen years of indexing, I am still on the lookout for ways to improve. Over time, as your indexes get better, repeat work and referrals should come.

The last point I want to explore is the question of time and client management. With the question phrased as “having the time to even manage more and more clients every month?” I wonder how many clients or projects you anticipate each month. For myself, I usually index 4 to 6 books per month. I am also in contact with clients about potential upcoming projects, whether negotiating details or checking in to see if proofs are on schedule. Many of these projects are for repeat clients, which usually means less management on my part because we have a history and certain details are already settled. So for me, at least, client management usually does not require a lot of time.

If anyone requires a lot of time, it is usually new clients, especially authors who may not know much about indexing or publishing. These can require additional work educating them about the process or explaining what I need to do my part, though I also use boilerplate language that I can customize, which helps to cut down on the time needed. 

As more work comes in, you will need to figure how how much work you can reasonably accommodate. More work may also prompt you to figure out how to streamline your process so that you can index more quickly (I still think about how to index more efficiently). More indexing work can also mean less time to market. This is where repeat work and referrals come in handy because once those relationships and systems are in place, they often don’t require much maintenance. But if you are having trouble retaining clients, or if you want to expand or shift clients, perhaps to indexing a different type of book or to higher paying clients, then that will require a new marketing effort, which can be difficult to find time for.

For now, though, when starting out, I think the main bottlenecks are finding those first few jobs and building your indexing skills. Gaining experience is tough, but if you keep at it, your efforts should begin to snowball. Focus on delivering excellent work and service, and clients should return or pass your name along. Once that happens, finding work should be easier, your schedule will begin to fill up, and you are moving past being a brand new freelancer.

I’ve written before about AI, here in 2023 and again in 2024. I’ve been thinking for a few months about writing on this topic again. Perhaps this will turn into an annual AI reflection, as the technology progresses and as society and publishing adapt.

Indexers are no exception to talking about AI. I think it has been on the agenda at just about every indexing conference in the last year or so, in Canada, the UK, and the US. Which is good. We need to be aware of what is happening and what our options and response are.

Elizabeth Bartmess, in the US, and Tanya Izzard, in the UK, have both been particularly active, and perhaps the most visible, researching and testing AI’s indexing capabilities. My thanks to them for all of their work. By AI, Elizabeth and Tanya specifically mean large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Claude, which is what most people think of when they hear the word AI.

For a quick reference of recent articles and resources, here’s a little round-up:

• Tanya Izzard has published two recent articles on AI. The article published in The Indexer is behind a paywall, while the article published in Catalogue & Index is open source and freely available. 
• The Digital Publications Indexing Special Interest Group (DPI-SIG) has released a statement on AI in indexing, prompted by Elizabeth Bartmess’s presentation at the ISC/SCI conference in Vancouver. The DPI-SIG has also created template versions of the statement for individual indexers to use.
• The American Society for Indexing (ASI) has released a white paper, by Elizabeth Bartmess and Michele R. Combs, on LLM-generated book indexes.

Bottom line: current LLMs do not write good indexes. 

AI-Powered Indexing Software

Indexing software utilizing AI is also now on the market. I expected this would happen and I have mixed feelings about it finally happening. There are currently two programs available that I am aware of. 

IndexStudio appeared first, earlier this summer. It is created by Peter Tanham and claims to create a full draft while also providing tools to edit the resulting index. I tried its free trial, which did not allow me to use the editing tools, but if the sample index it allowed me to see is any indication, it does not do a thorough job, showing many of the same problems found elsewhere by Elizabeth and Tanya. A few other indexers have tested IndexStudio more thoroughly, and have also found it to be significantly lacking. 

I also don’t trust the claims that Peter Tanham makes about IndexStudio. The testimonials on the website are obviously fake, as a google search fails to find any of the quoted indexers, authors, and scholars. The website also clearly sees Cindex as a direct competitor. It is hard to not get the impression that IndexStudio is intended to disrupt the indexing profession, as in replace professional indexers. Yet Peter left a comment on my blog claiming that IndexStudio is actually created for self-published authors and is not intended to replace professionals. I agree hiring a professional indexer is often expensive for many authors, which is a problem. But offering a poor quality alternative does not strike me as a good solution, and disingenuous marketing and messaging makes me suspicious.

AI-indexing, created by Ben Vagle, launched a couple of weeks ago. Ben also wrote an article explaining the program. This seems designed to be more of an assistant to professional indexers, rather than claiming to create an entire index by itself. The instructions explicitly state that the output will need further editing. The output can also be exported to Cindex, which is promising as Cindex does make editing a lot easier. I have thought that if AI was ever used in indexing, it would work best in an assisting role, so this program might be a step in the right direction. That said, I have been too busy this month to try this out, so I can’t comment yet on whether AI-indexing lives up to its claims.

AI and the Nature of Indexing Work

Much of the discussion around AI and indexing has focused on whether or not LLMs can actually write an index. Which is a very important question. I have no interest in using a tool that fails to deliver what I need. What I have not seen so much, beyond a fear that AI may replace indexers, is a discussion on how AI may change the nature of indexing.

I write indexes in part because I enjoy the creative and intellectual challenge of analyzing a book and piecing together an index that will serve readers. To write an index is to solve problems, trying to find the perfect balance between the contents of the book, the needs of the audience, and the space available on the page. It is difficult work, and rewarding because it is difficult. 

Is AI going to take away that sense of challenge and creativity?

A common fallacy about indexing I’ve noticed in non-indexers is the belief that writing an index is simply a matter of identifying and picking up terms. Before AI, this manifested as creating a list of keywords and using the search function to search PDF proofs for all relevant hits. When I first learned to index, in-house, my supervising editor sometimes used this method, seeing it as a way to get started on the index—creating the word list—before the proofs were ready.

But an index is more than just a list of key terms. Yes, there is an element of searching for terms, and some books lend themselves to keyword searches more than others. But an index also requires paying attention to the implicit content, which is often also indexable, as well as how the book is organized and structured. An indexer considers the audience and shapes the index accordingly. An indexer also shapes the index to fit the pages available, which can lead to drastically different indexes depending on how limited the space is.

All of these decisions, beyond identifying keywords, are uniquely suited to humans. It is a question of priorities, trade-offs, and knowing how to manipulate the index in response to the particular context of each book and audience. My concern with AI tools is that 1) the tool makers are operating under that fallacy, focusing on keyword search, and not making room or providing tools for these other aspects of indexing, and 2) that AI tools, by allowing the user to be more hands-off, will enable users—whether authors, publishers, or even indexers—to fall into that fallacy and to assume that whatever the AI produces is good enough. 

How can we keep indexing human centered, both the creation of indexes and their usability?

My other fear with AI tools is that instead of me being in control, problem-solving and making decisions, that I will become an assistant to the AI. By letting the AI create the first draft, I am ceding that initial decision-making about what is relevant and how the index should be structured. Instead of my approach guiding the way, I’m editing what the AI wants to do.

I wonder what is lost in that.

For the index, I fear a loss of value and usefulness. I don’t think an algorithm can properly discern what an audience needs or wants, or how to prioritize and juggle competing demands if space is tight. Not that I or any other human indexer will always get it right either, but I like to think that a human, coming at this from a human perspective, will usually do a better job. If I am simply editing what the AI decides, I am concerned that whatever errors are present, even subtle errors, will be reinforced rather than corrected. 

For myself, I fear a loss of creativity and meaning. For better or worse, and as difficult as it can be, I thrive on problem-solving and bringing order to chaos. This is part of what makes me human. If I surrender these aspects of my work to AI, I don’t think I’d want to index anymore, to be honest. I’d find some other line of work that allows me to be creative and to problem-solve. Maybe it is egotistical of me to say that I need to be in control, but I feel like there is something lost in my humanity if I give responsibility for the index to the AI and my role is simply to clean up what the AI produces.

Considering all of this, I’ve also been asking myself the question, is there a difference between using an AI tool and hiring a subcontractor? What is the difference, really, if in both cases I am delegating a portion of the index while retaining the final say? I have to admit I am struggling with the answer. I want to believe that a human subcontractor is inherently better, with their human perspective, which gives them the ability to look beyond a keyword search and the capacity to learn and incorporate feedback. Trust is also an important factor, in that I can build trust with a human subcontractor as we work together and they learn what I am looking for, whereas I have very little trust in an AI’s ability to learn and deliver. Corrections to an index are often very specific, not index-wide, like I assume an algorithm would try to impose. Perhaps it depends on what I am asking the subcontractor or AI tool to do, as sometimes all I want is a simple list of all names or scripture references, for example, and other times I do want the subcontractor to take on a larger role shaping the index.

At this point, the question of AI tools versus subcontractors is still theoretical. I don’t trust AI tools enough and I value what humans bring to the job. But if AI-powered indexing tools progress, this is a question that will need to be answered. Both by indexers who do use subcontractors and by all indexers on if and how to adjust how they work.

This question of subcontractors also ties back to my concern about who is assisting who when using AI. Subcontracting does involve giving up some control over the work, but I feel like the lines are still clearer with subcontractors. I can be clear about what I ask the subcontractor to do, in my review of the subcontractor’s work, and in what I retain for myself. With AI, the lines seem blurred. AI is so fast and at least gives the illusion of power and accuracy that it can be easy to trust the output, to the point where it is no longer really my index anymore. For an AI tool to be effective and for me to feel good about signing off on the index, it clearly needs to be a tool under my control, with me understanding the text, audience, and any other constraints, and making decisions accordingly. 

Ethics and Legalities

The last consideration, which is also important to keep in mind, are the ethical and legal dimensions of using AI tools for client work. At least one of my publisher clients has explicitly forbid all AI tools while working on their books. I think that policy is subject to change, as tools evolve and as privacy issues and concerns may be resolved or allayed, but for the time being I think AI in publishing remains a fraught subject and I want to respect my clients’ policies. If I ever find an AI-powered tool that I want to use, I would need to first discuss that with the client before using it with their books. 

What do you think about AI and indexing? Or about AI in general? Have you found any instances in which an AI tool is actually useful? Feel free to respond and let me know. I am curious.

As I’ve tried to explain above, I have questions and concerns about AI, not only about whether AI tools can produce quality work, but also about how it may change the nature of indexing work and how it may affect what makes us human. The claims of AI are very different compared to software such as Cindex. Cindex is powerful in its own right, but it still requires me to manually create all of the index entries and decide how the entries are structured together. Cindex is clearly a tool under my control. AI has the potential to blur that distinction. What is the effect on me if my role transforms into feeding the machine? I am concerned about the unintended consequences, both for indexers and the indexes we write, and wish I had more answers. Time will tell, I suppose.

If you are part of some of the indexing email lists, then today’s reflection may not be news to you. However, I think Cindex’s latest news could be of real value if you don’t yet use dedicated indexing software. I think it is also worth reflecting on what the future of indexing software may look like. 

Cindex

The software I use, Cindex, is officially open source as of April 1, 2024. (No, that’s not an April Fools joke.)

This was a huge surprise to the Cindex community. Cindex was originally developed by Frances Lennie, the owner of Indexing Research, in the mid-1980s, and has become one of the top indexing programs, especially for those of us on a Mac. As part of legacy planning, Cindex was sold to Scribendi, a larger editorial company, in 2022. I don’t think anyone anticipated that Scribendi would change their mind so quickly and seek to offload Cindex, though Scribendi was itself acquired by another company in 2023, so perhaps the new owners had different priorities.

Fortunately, the transition to open source has gone smoothly. A number of indexers have stepped up and have created free installers for both Mac and Windows, as well as have already made a few updates to the software. (I installed the latest version yesterday, which is working great.) Support also remains in place, with the Cindex email group continuing on. Maria Sullivan, an indexer who  has provided support for decades, is also making plans for how to effectively provide support in this new era. More details about all of that, including links to download the software, at the new Cindex website, here.

I have to admit I was apprehensive about this change. I have no technical skills in regards to software development and was concerned that Cindex would stagnate and eventually become obsolete. I am very thankful and relieved that others do have the necessary skills to keep Cindex going, and are willing to step in and make that happen. 

I have used Cindex since 2013. I find it intuitive and easy to use. The value for me to two-fold. Cindex handles all of the formatting, such as alphabetical sorting and punctuation, as well as easily flipping back and forth between run-in and indented formats, which is a huge timesaver, as well as ensuring I don’t accidentally introduce errors. Cindex also makes it easier to input entries, and to manipulate and edit the index. Cindex allows me to focus on the fun stuff—reading the book and crafting the index—by taking care of the fiddly technical details.  

If you’ve been considering using indexing software but haven’t yet made the jump, this is a fantastic opportunity to acquire professional software for free. I highly recommend Cindex. Again, you can find the download links and installation instructions here.

Picardy

I also want to mention another program. Picardy is freeware (not open source) and is currently available for Windows and Linux, with a beta version available for Mac.

I have not used Picardy. When I was writing my book, Book Indexing, Picardy was just starting to be developed and tested. At that time, I decided not to mention it because I didn’t know if it would work out and stick around. I’ve since heard of at least one professional indexer who has stated that they are happy with it. So, if you are looking for another free option, considering giving Picardy a try. You can find more details here.

The Future of Indexing Software?

One of the enduring problems that indexing faces is that it is so niche. Though integral to publishing, the number of indexers worldwide is small. I suspect this is why indexing software tends to be home-grown, initially developed by working indexers for their own use, as there is not enough of a market for larger software companies to be interested. This model of indexers developing their own software works fine so long as these indexer-developers remain active and willing to support their creations, but as I mentioned above, the indexing community seems to be in a time of transition.

I don’t think we can count on larger companies taking on these programs, as Scribendi was supposed to do for Cindex. Another possibility may be for indexer-developers to sell their software to a younger indexer who is willing and able to take over responsibility. I fully support software developers being compensated for their work. Michelle Guiliano, on this episode from her podcast, Freelance Indexer Exchange, suggests better compensation as a way to help keep these programs alive. Or, maybe the best long-term solution is to make these programs open source.

Open source does feel like a risk. What if the user base is too small and no one is willing or able to step in and volunteer to keep the software going? Some programs may fade away, which may also reflect that technology changes and that better options are now available. But the experience of Cindex gives me hope. Giving the software to the community can open up new opportunities and allow users to take the initiative to keep their favorite programs going. As indexer-developers think about retirement, maybe open source is the best way to ensure their legacy. 

What do you think? Do you have concerns about the future of indexing software? How would you go about making sure that these programs have a future? Feel free to let me know in the comments.

Before I dig into this topic, I want to acknowledge that I write from a place of having previously been on the inside, and from also now having been a freelancer for about eleven years. When I first began working in publishing, I worked in-house for two different publishers. I developed a strong sense of publishing as a team effort, with each person, whether in-house or freelance, contributing to the finished book. As a freelancer, I have retained this sense of being part of a team, and in my ideal working relationship with a publisher, we respect each other as team members. That said, I am also aware that many freelance indexers do not have in-house experience, and that publishers can come across as opaque and unapproachable. 

This reflection draws upon my own experience and what I would like to see. Your experiences and ideal working relationship may be different. I am curious to hear what you think, in the comments. If you are a new freelance indexer, I hope this gives you some ideas for what a positive working relationship can be like.

To start, let’s look at a couple of recent experiences I’ve had.

The Editor Who Couldn’t Care Less

Some publishers, or at least certain editors within those publishers, couldn’t seem to care less about the freelancers supporting their work. I encountered this a few months ago when I was hired by an author to index their book, which was being published by an independent academic press. (For the sake of this reflection, I’m keeping authors, editors, and publishers anonymous.)

Indexing guidelines were scant, though it seemed that both run-in and indented formats would be accepted. Working with the author, I submitted the index in run-in format. To our surprise, the editor unilaterally changed the format to indented, on the grounds that indented is easier to read. I actually agree with the editor on the format, but that’s not the point. If the editor felt so strongly about the format, they should have made that clear upfront.

We asked the editor about the change, and the editor confirmed that the press does indeed accept both run-in and indented formats, except, I guess, when the editor decides they know what is best. Reverting to run-in format was not an option. I followed up with some additional concerns, since the structure, as I originally envisioned it in run-in format, no longer worked quite as well. I also asked that in the future the editor provide clearer instructions, to avoid this extra and unnecessary work caused by this unilateral change. In reply, the editor made very clear that they had no interest in communicating with me nor in providing clearer instructions. The editor stated that they primarily work with scholarly authors who apparently get confused by too many instructions, and so the editor is used to taking whatever the author provides and formatting it as they see fit.

The irony is that I had already been hired by a different author to index a second book for the same press (which I submitted in indented format). The editor seemed unaware and uninterested in the fact that at least some of their authors were hiring professional indexers. Even if I am not in direct contact with the editor, I would suggest that we are still on the same team, and that better communication, whether directly or in the form of clearer indexing instructions, would make for a better book and a smoother production process for both of us.

The Editor Who Gets It

That same author who hired me to write the first index later passed my name on to a friend, who turned out to be the manager editor for two small university presses. That editor got in touch and, after a few emails back and forth sorting out the details for how we might work together, wrote, “Welcome to the team!”

Guess which editor I want to work with.

Being Part of a Team

Every publisher and project is going to be different. Some publishers prefer to be hands-off, making the index the author’s responsibility and not wanting to be in direct contact with the freelancer. I understand that the in-house editors are often very busy juggling multiple books. I respect the desire to be hands-off and I let the author take the lead on how communication flows between me, the author, and the press. In other cases, I am hired directly by the press, and so I am in regular contact with the in-house managing or production editor. For complicated projects, I may also be put in contact with the copyeditor, proofreader, or designer—whoever is best placed to answer my questions—which really does feel like I am part of the team. 

As a freelance member of the team, I recognize that I am being hired to perform a service. I realize that I don’t always get the final say, and if the author or publisher insist, I will revise the index as asked, even if I disagree. That said, part of being a team also means having my role and expertise respected. I appreciate at least being consulted on potential changes and to have my opinion taken seriously, even if the author or press ultimately decides otherwise. Respect also involves clear communication, whether direct, through the author, or through the indexing guidelines, so that I can properly do my job and have a way to ask questions. 

Being a freelancer also means recognizing when I am not part of the team. This took me a while to learn, as I was initially used to being part of the in-house team. But as a freelancer, I work with multiple authors and publishers. What is best for my business is not necessarily in line with what the publisher wants. While working together with authors and publishers on specific books, I also need to have boundaries with clients, to be able to say no when a project or publisher is not a good fit or if my schedule is already full.

For me, at least, it doesn’t take much to feel included. I don’t need a small gift or card at Christmas (though it is a lovely surprise when it occasionally happens), nor do I need to be included in company-wide meetings (though again, a nice gesture, especially if the meeting pertains to freelancers and my time is compensated, as did once happen). What matters is feeling appreciated. A word of thanks for the index. A willingness to answer questions. A desire to work together again in the future. Basically, an openness to a positive professional relationship that makes it easy to get the work done. 

What are your thoughts on the freelancer-publisher relationship? Do you feel part of a team? Or do you feel shut out or disrespected? What do you look for in a positive working relationship? Please feel free to reply in the comments and let me know.