“candidate said she’d relocate but then backtracked, employee plays with her hair in meetings, and more” plus 3 more Ask a Manager

candidate said she’d relocate but then backtracked, employee plays with her hair in meetings, and more
we need to end Secretaries Day
what your tone should sound like in tricky work conversations
is it okay to blindside your boss when quitting?

candidate said she’d relocate but then backtracked, employee plays with her hair in meetings, and more

Posted: 25 Apr 2018 09:03 PM PDT

It's five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. Candidate said she was open to relocation and back pedaled once she had an offer

I work for a very small company as the HR manager. We have found a candidate for one of our teams who would be perfect. The role is based in New York and our candidate currently lives in LA. Before initiating the interview process, I asked my candidate if she would be open to relocating. We prefer to start employees in our office full-time, and once we see the quality of their work/ become confident in the quality of their work allow them to work from home occasionally or, in extreme circumstances, full-time remote work for people who have been with the company for 2+ years or who have extenuating circumstances. The majority of our office comes into the office and we're not interested in hiring full-time remote from the beginning of employment. At the beginning of our process, my candidate said she was looking and willing to relocate.

Fast forward to giving her an offer, and she has asked that this position be remote from the get-go. While we do have some full-time remote employees, I'm disappointed in this turn of events and feel that I was misled by the candidate. The fact that she is going back on her word does make me question her integrity. What is the best way to proceed here?

I wouldn't assume this is an integrity issue. It's possible that she genuinely was open to relocating at the start of the process but has since realized that it's not something she wants to do. Or she may still be open to relocating but would prefer to be remote and is just asking if that's a possibility.

If you don't want to hire someone who's remote from the start, just explain that that's not possible but I wouldn't hold it against her that she asked. (The exception to that is if she said something indicating that she'd been planning on this from the start and hoped you'd agree once you'd gotten to know her through the hiring process, in which case, yes, she was acting in bad faith with you and wasting your time.)

2. My employee examines her hair during meetings

I work for a relatively small company that is pretty matrixed. My direct report works on some projects with me and some with other people. She is receptive, eager to learn, and generally good at implementing feedback.

She has a habit that I'm puzzled about. In meeting situations, she will grab sections of hair and examine the ends, as if she were looking for split ends. I didn't really notice it before but a higher-up mentioned it as something that makes her seem checked out. Now I notice it quite frequently. When working with my boss (male, all other people mentioned are female) during her review process, I mentioned it as something that I might coach her to be aware of. He didn't think that was a good idea at all.

However, people might get the impression that she is not thinking about the content of meetings or is not listening to them. I haven't seen her do it with clients, but she and I don't share a lot of clients where we meet face-to-face. Is this something worth mentioning or did my boss have it right that I shouldn't go there?

I disagree with your boss that you shouldn't mention it. You already know that at least one higher-up has commented on it, you're noticing it frequently yourself, and it's likely that other people have noticed it too. It would be a kindness to her to flag it for her, since she may not even realize she's doing it or how it's coming across. That doesn't mean you should make a big deal out of it — you shouldn't (and it definitely shouldn’t be part of her performance review). But it would be fine to say something like, "This is a small thing, but I've noticed that in meetings you often play with your hair. I suspect it's an unconscious habit, but it risks looking like you're not engaged in the meeting, especially with clients or higher-ups."

3. I'm left out of conversations with my boss

I have a question about including myself in conversations at work. I’m on a small team: me, another person with the same level/title as me, and our boss. My boss and my coworker sit next to each other and I sit across from them in a different isle of desks.

The issue I’m having is that, when my boss has a question or is trying to work through a problem, he’ll turn to my coworker to talk about it. Since I’m physically separated from them and further away, I’m never part of these conversations. I find this frustrating — I often have something to add, and even when I don’t, I feel like I’m missing out on learning opportunities. The kinds of things they talk about impact all of our work, and there’ve been a few instances where I don’t get told important information because I’m not part of those conversations. There’s an additional dimension that both my boss and my coworker are men and I’m not, but I don’t think they mean to exclude me for that reason.

I’m struggling with how to address this. I’ve tried walking over and participating a few times, but that feels like just butting in where I’m not welcome. I think my boss just doesn’t see this dynamic and would want to include me if he did. In situations like performance reviews and check-ins he seems very interested in both getting my opinion and mentoring me. I’m unsure how to even bring something like this up without sounding like a brat, or if it’s something worth bringing up at all. Do you have any advice for how (or if) to talk with my boss about this? Or is there another way I should approach this situation?

Yes, talk to your boss! You could say something like this: "I've noticed that you and Bob have a lot of ad hoc conversations throughout the day, especially when you're trying to work through a problem. It makes perfect sense since you sit next to each other, but I'd love to have more of a chance to be involved in those conversations. Assuming that our desk configurations can't change, I wonder if there's a way to structure things so that I'm included more often? Maybe more frequently brainstorming meetings with the three of us, or even just making more of a point to include me when you think it would be worthwhile?"

If your boss is a decent manager, then even just having this conversation should make him more aware of what's happening and drive him to do things a little differently. It's natural to talk to the person who's sitting right next to you, but once he realizes he's chronically leaving you out, it might be relatively easy for him to be more deliberate about calling you over (or finding other ways to mitigate it).

4. Recruiter wouldn't tell me what company the job was with until after I applied

I was recently contacted by a recruiter via LinkedIn, about a job in my industry that’s senior to my current job. I asked for more information about the job requirements and the company, and while the recruiter was forthcoming about the job duties and skills needed, she was oddly tight lipped about the company itself. All she would reveal was that it was the same subsection of the industry that I am currently working in, and said they would reveal the name after I submitted an application.

Is this usual for recruiters? It seemed really bizarre to me. Why would I want to apply for a job if I don’t even know which company it’s with? Before I spend time on an application I’d want to know if it’s a company I’d actually want to work for. Ours is not a huge industry in my country and I know most of the companies. There are some that have poor reputations for toxic work environments, and I definitely wouldn’t want to work for them.

In the end I decided that the job wasn’t quite for me anyway and declined but thanked her for considering me. But I still wonder what’s going on with this secrecy. Is it because it was a management position? Or perhaps they haven’t yet told the person who’s currently in the role that they’re being replaced? I just can’t understand why they would need to keep it a secret.

It's because they don't want you to go around them and apply on your own, because then they'll be cut out of the fee for recruiting you, which is how they make money. They're trying to avoid the situation described in letter #4 here.

5. Can I ask if I'm no longer being considered for a job?

Is it ever appropriate to ask if you're no longer being considered for a position? For several months, I've been communicating with an old colleague who expressed interest in bringing me onto his team at his new company. He organized a handful of informal chats for me with his other team members, and they all seemed to go well. But eventually our talks seemed to stall out, mainly due to his being out of the office. (We're Facebook friends, so I've seen him post about a few trips.)

He emailed me once to say that he was still working things out on his end and to thank me for my patience, and I assured him I understand how this process can be slow and that I'd be ready when he was. But that last communication was more than a month ago, and I've heard nothing since.

Given the lapse in contact, I'm starting to think that he no longer wants to hire me and simply doesn't know how to tell me. If that's the case, I'd be disappointed but I'd understand. Is there any circumstance in which it would be appropriate to ask if he's moved on? To ask him to let me know, one way or another, with no hard feelings? I'd love to work at this company but would also like to be able to put it behind me if I need to.

I wouldn't directly say, "Have you decided not to move forward with this?" If he hasn't, it's going to seem strangely pessimistic. But since it's been a month, it's okay to check in and say something like, "When you have a chance, I'd love to touch base about where things stand. No pressure, though — I know you're busy!" And then when you do talk, you could say something like, "Do you have a sense of what your timeline is for figuring out whether to move forward?"

Meanwhile, though, the best for you to do is to proceed however you would if you knew this job was definitely off the table. It's not clear from your letter if you'd be looking for other jobs in that case, but if you would be, continue doing that actively now. If you get close to the offer stage with any of them, at that point you can let your friend know, tell him you'd rather work with him (if that's true), and ask if there's a way to expedite things on his side.

The "holiday" – more recently updated to be called Administrative Professionals Day – was created by the International Association of Administrative Professionals back in 1952, when the organization was known as the National Secretaries Association. If you haven't encountered this celebration in your office, it's intended to recognize the work of administrative assistants, receptionists and other administrative support workers – with cards, flowers, and lunches.

Administrative workers certainly do deserve recognition and appreciation. They often have tough jobs, they serve a key role in keeping organizations functioning efficiently and, in many cases, they function as the right hands of busy executives who wouldn't be able to perform their jobs without them. And support work is hard. Anyone who has ever worked in an admin role can tell you it's a lot harder than it looks from the outside. Good admins make it look easy – being calm and unflappable is part of doing the job well – but it can be stressful, challenging work.

So given all that, what's the problem with Secretaries Day? Why wouldn't we want a holiday to mark these contributions?

The problem with Secretaries Day is that it's patronizing and demeaning. Having a special holiday for administrative workers separates admins from the rest of the office, marking their work as somehow different from other professional occupations. After all, if we value our admins as we would any other employees, why do we require a special holiday to mark their contributions? We don't have Accountants Day, Copy Editors Day or Actuaries Day. What is it about administrative workers that requires setting aside a calendar day to recognize their work?

The argument in favor of Secretaries Day appears to be that the role is one that often isn't fully appreciated by the people who admins support. But the day itself actually adds to that problem, by further ghettoizing the job and pigeonholing admins into a different category from everyone else. It says: "You are different from the rest of us, and we're going to patronize you with a card rather than giving you year-round professional respect." The day itself actually adds to the problem that it was created to address.

Complicating matters further, there's even confusion in some offices over who is supposed to be recognized for the holiday and who isn't. There are sometimes hurt feelings when someone isn't recognized but wanted to be, and even more hurt feelings when someone gets a card and didn't realize he or she was seen as support staff. Plus, some admins are paid more than the people plying them with cards and lunches on Secretaries Day, so they understandably find it awkward to be treated by people who make half as much as they do.

On to top of that, plenty of managers spot how the holiday is patronizing the very people who they want to value, but worry they'll offend their assistants or make them feel unvalued if they don't recognize the day in some way. It's on the calendar, after all, and people know about it! And so the cycle is perpetuated, even though people on both sides of the exchange are often feeling awkward and uncomfortable about it.

And making matters still worse, it sure does feel like there's a gender component to all of this. The majority of admins are still women, and there's something particularly condescending about a holiday that says "rather than paying you well and showing you year-round respect, we're going to give you flowers and trinkets." And it's surely no coincidence that many of the traditional gifts for the day – flowers and perfume – are ones that tend to be gendered in our culture. When is the last time someone gave the mailroom guy a rose as thanks for a job well done?

The bottom line is this: Admins deserve respect and appreciation year-round. They deserve professional development opportunities, useful feedback and to be taken seriously as people doing important professional work. And they deserve to be compensated and rewarded in accordance with the work they perform.

Flowers and a card once a year are no substitute for any of that, and continuing the practice threatens to keep them from being seen as professionals like every other professional in the workplace.

I have a question about how unprofessional it is to “blindside” your boss when quitting. Six months ago I started a new job with a multinational company. I asked the internal recruiter specifically about travel expectations and how much interaction I needed to have with the other office. I’ve worked across countries before and I know it’s just not for me.

Unfortunately the recruiter’s answer didn’t match reality: while most departments were located in one office, the one I was joining was split across the ocean. I decided to cut my losses at this place early and accepted an offer from someone in my network, even though I hadn’t worked a full year.

My frustration is that after I put my two weeks notice in with my boss, he said he was very upset by the fact that I hadn’t expressed that I had any problems with the way the place was run. From my perspective, I would’ve been complaining to him about something he had no control over. I didn’t want to be transferred to a different job because I wanted to build skills used only in this department. He also said he wished I had declined a recent plum assignment and told him I didn’t want to stay long term, even though I hadn’t had a job offer at that time. I did try to recommend a colleague for that work instead, but my boss insisted I was more qualified.

Overall, I’m frustrated with them. I tried very hard to come in with a positive attitude every day and do good work, even though I felt the interview misrepresented the job. Now I’m hurt by their suggestion that I was rude to not give them a bigger heads-up. Are they right? I try to take pride in my work and it’s really discouraging to think I was unprofessional after all.

Your boss is wrong and is being unrealistic.

It's true that as a manager, it can be frustrating to learn that someone had problems with the job that they didn't try to fix. Sometimes problems are easily fixed, or at least more easily than people assume they will be, and sometimes that's true even when something looks like it's a fundamental part of the job. And it sucks to find that someone has been unhappy and didn't raise it and give you a chance to try to address it.

But not everything falls in that category! Sometimes it's reasonable to assume that something can't be fixed. And other times, people just don't feel like dealing with the headaches and stress that raising it may entail, and that's their call to make.

And your manager is particularly being unrealistic because sometimes there can be real risk in saying "I'm unhappy with this significant thing about my job." Even if you're asking with the intent of just gathering information and not making any demands, some managers will take that as a sign that you're not well suited for the job or that you're on your way out the door.

Managers who really want to ensure that they'll hear about it when people are unhappy will go out of their way to make it safe for people to speak up, and they'll explicitly check in with people and ask questions that are sufficiently probing that they'll be more likely to hear about concerns. (And even then, they won't hear everything! That's just how it goes.)

I do think that the fact that you were there for less than a year may be playing a role in your boss's response. He's probably frustrated that he's losing someone so soon after he invested in training you, and he might be thinking that could have been avoided if you'd talked to him. And who knows, maybe it could have been. Maybe there are plans coming to change the way the role works, and if you'd talked to him, he could have told you that all the things you disliked were about to change. It's possible! But you specifically asked about this stuff before you took the job and you were given an incorrect answer, so it's pretty understandable that you preferred to just leave. He might be disappointed by that, but you didn't do anything wrong.

As for him saying that he wished you'd declined that big assignment … well, you didn't know at the time that you'd get an offer you wanted to accept, so you didn't have many other options. I'm sure he does wish you'd turned it down anyway because that would be better for him, but that's not a realistic thing to expect. It probably would have harmed you professionally to turn down a key assignment without explanation, so you'd have had to either lie or reveal your job search. When people are job searching but don't have firm offers yet, and don't know when said offers might materialize, they continue working normally at their current jobs because that's the only practical way to navigate that. Again, he's being unrealistic.

I don't doubt that this was inconvenient for him. But you didn't do anything wrong here, and if he's expressing anything more than a mild "ahhh, I wish you'd talked to me because we might have been able to fix this," he should be keeping his frustration to himself.

Rapitful Shqip

Search This Blog