Or maybe we should all learn to be a little more empathetic and how best to work with our co-workers.
If you are going to invest 12+ months to working closely with someone, maybe you could spend 3 minutes reading how to best to work with them.
With all of this said, usually these are better bottom-up then top-down (a manager having reports answer a few questions so the manager can adapt their workflow)
Some people are making valid points (the documents tend to be managers selling themselves, or making excuses for themselves), but teams need to know how each other work. Assuming “being easy to work with” means being easy to work the way you want is even more self-centered!
This has been my experience. I've received phrasing similar to "After we learned to work together, we've got a pretty good canter going".
> usually these are better bottom-up then top-down
... which is what I suspect is a source of objection around the comments here. I have never received or been pointed to a document akin to a "manual for this person". It's all been direct person-to-person, hearsay, and a combination of both ["I heard Jimmy is always $This_Particular_Way, I took note but reserved judgement, and after I interacted with Jimmy enough times I figured that I personally find Jimmy to be $XYZ"].
Actually receiving a "Manual For Jimmy", especially from Jimmy directly, is an indicator of something other or more than simply "how to interact with Jimmy".
Rather than a long essay with a self-absorbed worldview, what might be helpful is a guide written by other people who have to accommodate this person. Just kidding, nobody should be thinking about accommodating anyone in this way or to this degree.
All those statements in the essay should be private guides to the author’s own personal development. For example, “I am frequently late to meetings,” should be taken as evidence of self absorption, poor time management, and a lack of respect for coworkers. The author needs to learn how not to be late.