“I can’t trust the snacks from my coworker, large employee won’t use heavy duty chair, and more” plus 3 more Ask a Manager

I can’t trust the snacks from my coworker, large employee won’t use heavy duty chair, and more
at what point in a very long cold should I stay home?
we are all awkward creatures
my boss cares more about “confidence” and “strength” than truth and accuracy

I can’t trust the snacks from my coworker, large employee won’t use heavy duty chair, and more

Posted: 16 Jan 2019 09:03 PM PST

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

1. My boss wants me to fire a heavier employee if she won't use a heavy duty chair

One of my employees is a rather heavy person and has broken four chairs in the past year. My office is pretty flexible about office equipment, so after the first chair, I gave her the catalogue to pick what she needed. After chair #2 and two conference room chairs broke, I suggested getting a heavy duty chair. She burst into tears and said she didn’t want a “fat lady chair” because it was stigmatizing. I get it. Our culture is unforgiving to fat people, especially fat women. Chair #3 met the fate of chair #2, so for chair #4 I ordered her a heavy duty chair. She swapped it with a coworker. That chair broke too. My boss, looking at our supply budget, said that she takes and uses a heavy-duty chair or she is gone.

So, my question to you is what did I do wrong to get to this point? And how should I approach the “use this chair or be fired” conversation? She’s an otherwise okay employee, not the best, not the worst. I just can’t have her absorbing the equipment budget for six people.

It's reasonable to require her to sit in a chair rated for her weight, but it doesn’t sound like you’ve told her yet that this isn’t optional — and if that’s the case, it’s premature to threaten to fire her.

I don't think you did anything wrong to get to this point — you were trying to be understanding — but you do need to be more direct now and say something like, "We don't have the equipment budget to replace chairs this frequently, so I need you to use the new chair I'm purchasing. You cannot swap it for someone else's." If she pushes back, say, "I'm sorry this is upsetting, but I don't have any flexibility with the budget anymore, and I do need you to stick with the chair I'm purchasing."

If your boss is really serious about firing her if she doesn’t comply, you'd be doing her a favor by letting her know that too. But ideally you'd explain to your boss that you haven’t yet been clear and direct with your employee that the chair isn’t optional (assuming I’m understanding that correctly), but that you’re going to make that clear now and announcing her job is at stake before you’ve done that will be counterproductive and alienating. If your employee refuses after you get clearer with her, that's a different issue — one that wouldn't about the chairs, but rather about her refusing to do something that you've explicitly told her she needs to do.

2. I can’t trust the snacks from my sort-of-vegan coworker

For about a month every year I go vegan. I'm newer to my current job so this hasn't yet happened but will very soon. The problem is that my coworker Bessy is vegan. But she's not. We're a very snacky office and food gets brought in a lot. One time I brought in a snack and read out the ingredients to make sure Bessy would know if it was vegan. The snack had skim milk and I expressed that I was sorry she wouldn't be able to eat it. But she ate it. We've also been out to lunch and she's eaten pizza with non-vegan cheese and Mexican food that says on the menu it's traditionally cooked in lard.

I am so not the food police and could care less about what Bessy labels herself. She's fantastic and I have a very good working relationship with her. The thing is that when I go vegan I try very hard to stay completely plant based. Bessy brings in homemade "vegan” snacks and desserts routinely. I've tried them every time she brings them. However, when I'm vegan, I don't want to take a chance that there are animal or dairy based ingredients in what I eat. How do I opt out of her food without implying I think she's not a real vegan? Just for clarification I'm connected to Bessy and other staff on social media where the vegan challenge is discussed openly so I can't pretend I'm not doing it.

The easiest option is to just not take the food she brings in and not say anything about it. But if she asks, can you say, "I'm being really strict about seeing the ingredients on everything I eat this month"?

Of course, that won't work as well if she sees that you're eating treats other people bring in. Ideally it would be nice if you were able to just say, “Oh, I'm being super strict and I know you're sometimes more flexible about ingredients" — but that's the kind of thing some people get weird and defensive about, so I wouldn't say it unless you know she won't react that way.

3. Taking another job with a boundary-challenged ex-manager

Last year, I relocated to a different state, leaving a job that paid extremely well and gave me tons of opportunity for growth. While I enjoyed the paycheck, my employer had some serious boundary issues, and I struggled to maintain work/life balance. The issues stemmed primarily from the fact that he thought of me as a friend, first and foremost, rather than his employee, and would do things like text me all the time about work (and non-work) related things all hours of the day. It's hard to get into specifics, because our whole relationship was a boundary issue in itself. I was a highly valued employee, and the company really tried to get me to stay.

I enjoy my new job, but opportunities for growth (especially in terms of pay) are somewhat limited, and the culture here isn’t all that healthy. Overall, though, I don’t have any major complaints.

My previous employer and I have kept in touch, and I now have an offer in front of me to work for the company remotely. The pay is significantly better than my current employer, and I’ll have more flexibility in terms of time off and scheduling.

Part of me thinks that working remotely will alleviate some of the boundary issues I experienced previously, but another part thinks I’m crazy for even considering it. I wish income wasn’t such a big factor, but I’m the breadwinner, and it is a significant factor in weighing the decision. Do you think it's possible to establish boundaries with a boss when you previously didn't do a good job of that?

I'd be very, very skeptical that it can be pulled off, especially about a relationship that you call "a boundary issue in itself" and especially with a manager who thinks of you as a friend more than an employee.

In theory, you could try having a very candid talk about what the issues were last time and what you'd need to be different this time … but even then I'd be skeptical. If you've seen this person be extraordinarily self-aware and able to make major changes in response to feedback, then maybe. But I'd go into it assuming that there's a good chance the issues will recur, and figure out how willing you are to deal with that if they do.

4. My coworker keeps commenting that I work all the time

I'm a manager at a Fortune 500 health care company. I work a flexible schedule of 9 hour days (with a required 30 minute lunch break) so I can have a half day off every other Friday. I'm the only employee in my smaller satellite office that has a flexible schedule, as far as I'm aware.

I get into the office by 7:45am and leave by 4:45pm most days. A new employee recently started at my office, and she sits near me even though we work in different departments. She works an 8 hour day, getting into the office after I'm already here and leaving before I do.

She has recently started making comments to me about how I must live in the office because I'm always here, I guess as a way to make some small talk? I told her I leave before 5 so I'm not at the office late, but she has continued to make these comments on a daily basis. I'm the only one in my area she makes these comments to, even though others are here before her. This morning, she made a comment to the tune of, "Hey, at least you had a change of clothes for today!" I gave her a half hearted smile and shrug and went back to my work because I didn't really know how else to respond. She seemed miffed that I didn't reciprocate more.

Should I have reacted differently? I don't complain or discuss my workload with her, so these comments seem really weird to begin with. Or am I just annoyed by some innocuous comments and I should just laugh and move on?

My bet is that she's latched on to this as your mutual "thing" — in her mind, this is the small talk you make together and she thinks it's enjoyable banter for you both, rather than realizing how annoying it is.

If you want to put a stop to it, you can say, "It sounds like you're really concerned about my schedule. Like I've mentioned, I work nine-hour days so I can take a half day every other Friday. There isn't anything weird about that, so I'm wondering if there's something you've misunderstood."

If it keeps happening after that, then she's not someone who picks up on subtleties (although the above isn't really subtle) and you'll need to be more direct: "All this talk about my schedule is unnerving. Could we find a different topic?”

Or, sure, you could ignore it. But it sounds annoying, and it's also not great if one of your employees happens to overhear her and starts thinking you're working crazy hours and then feels like their own hours aren’t sufficient.

5. Can I ask if there have been changes to a job I turned down that would make me reconsider?

Last August, I applied for a job at a very small nonprofit. I was interviewed three times, including a full day on site to meet the employees and the board. I really fell in love with this organization and I think the job would be a great fit for me personally and professionally. However, they made it clear early on that the salary range was lower than my expectations and current salary – also significantly under market value. Each time it was brought up, I was honest that I was only willing to consider a lower salary in exchange for more flexibility and generous PTO. They made an offer and, unfortunately, indicated that they were firm on only offering two weeks vacation and no option to occasionally work from home – so really no flexibility or extra PTO at all! I turned down the offer and explained that I would need significantly more time off to make up for the reduction in salary and wished them well on their search.

Flash forward to now. The position has just been reposted for the third time. Is it ever appropriate to reach back out to see if they have reconsidered their stance on time off and flexibility? To be clear, if they haven't I would not be interested in the job, but I'm wondering if seeing the candidate pool and their difficulty in filling the position would have made them soften the hardline stance. To add context, the board and the executive director have all been with the organization a very long time, and the previous person in this role worked there for 15 years, so I think some of the rigidity around time off and working from home was due to being unfamiliar with how the standards for flexible work arrangements have evolved in recent years. I imagine that other candidates are similarly turned off by the combination of low salary with high demands and no flexibility because otherwise this job would be quite desirable in my field and region.

Should I just assume that if they changed their minds, they would have contacted me and leave it alone? Or would it look strange or unprofessional to reach back out to see if they have reconsidered some of their positions?

It won't look strange or unprofessional to reach back out. That said, it's not likely to be terribly fruitful — they have the same info you do about what the sticking points were last time, and if they were ready to reconsider, they'd likely let you know.

But there's nothing wrong with saying something like, "I noticed the X position is still open. I know we couldn't agree on the terms of your offer back in August, but I wanted to reiterate how excited I'd be to do this work if you end up having any flexibility on the salary range or the PTO and remote work. I realize that likely hasn't changed — but if it ever does, please know I'd love to talk."

The issue is that our communication styles differ vastly. Fergus demands what he calls "decisive communication," meaning that people are expected to speak confidently and with finality, without phrases like "I think" or "I'll check" or "probably." He claims that shows weakness. He also tolerates no excuses, expecting employees to simply apologize for mistakes and accept that they did something wrong.

While I respect that, I prefer a different communication style. If an employee makes an error, I want to know why because that can lead me to greater understanding of that person and how to best communicate with them. More importantly, "decisive communication" trips me up because I have trouble distinguishing between what is true and what is the speaker's opinion stated as truth. For example, in a client meeting, my boss asked one of my direct reports whether Project X would be completed by the deadline. Following the lines of "decisive communication," my report replied that it would. Unfortunately, the situation was actually far more complicated. Due to factors beyond our control (outside contractors, mail), there was a good chance that the project might take several days longer than the deadline – and it did. The client was upset not because of the missed the deadline, but because of the unfulfilled promise. This sort of thing happens internally, too. When I’ve brought this up with Fergus, he says that we should always expect every statement to possibly be false, the important thing is that it is said with confidence and strength. I’m the opposite. If I ask Intern A if Client X has called, I’d rather hear, “I don’t know” than a flat “no” meaning that the client didn’t call her but might have spoken to someone else.

So how do we manage the communication and expectations of our reports? I recognize that it's difficult for them to pivot and change their communication styles depending upon who they're speaking to, but I also want them to speak honestly and explain things fully. I've been reprimanded for listening to an employee's "excuses," but those so-called excuses turned out to contain valuable information about a flaw in a system. Mostly, though, I want to understand what is actually true and not second guess everything. Can you help us navigate this issue? How do I address this with those I supervise?

You're presenting this a question of differing communication styles, each of which is legitimate … but that's wrong.

Fergus says that you should always expect every statement to possibly be false, but that's okay as long as it's said with confidence and strength??

WTF?

Here's something I'll say with confidence and strength: Unfortunately you are working for an idiot.

Of course you would rather hear "I don't know but I'll find out" instead of a statement that might be false! Of course a client would rather hear the truth than a lie puffed up with "confidence and strength." These are normal things — so normal that they are generally the default for communication.

Fergus is setting up a work environment where you'll never be able to rely on the information that you're given, where "weakness" (which appears to mean not being 100% certain of 100% of everything 100% of the time) is somehow worse than "flat-out wrong" or "lying," and where you completely mess up your employees' sense of how to communicate in an office (something that will no doubt follow some of them to future jobs, where it will cause them serious problems and destroy their credibility with their new colleagues, and maybe even get some of them fired unless they immediately recover and pivot back to normal communication).

You say you respect Fergus’s preferences. You should not. His preferences are ridiculous, harmful, and diametrically opposed to a well-functioning, effective organization.

It's very hard to believe that this is Fergus’s only serious failure of critical thinking. But even if it is, do you really want to lead a team that has this kind of dysfunction at the top? It's going to severely hamstring your ability to manage people and work, and his ridiculousness will splatter on you in myriad ways that could end up hurting you professionally in time. After all, you're the person who has to interpret Fergus to others, who has to manage your staff to communicate in the bizarre way he requires, and who presumably needs to act as if those expectations are reasonable when they are ludicrous (and who apparently gets reprimanded when you don't).

You asked how to manage your employees under these conditions. I don't believe that you can. You can't instruct people to lie to Fergus and to clients but to privately tell you the truth. You can't find a reasonable defense of Fergus's requirements that doesn't compromise your own integrity as a person with common sense.

I suppose if there are circumstances that ameliorate some of this — for example, if Fergus only shows up a few times a year and otherwise is basically out of contact, or if your sense is that a few strongly worded conversations will change his stance — then it's possible you could make this work. But it doesn't sound like that's the case, and I'm deeply skeptical that working in this environment is good for anyone's career, and particularly not for the person charged with overseeing the many highly problematic ways this will play out.

Rapitful Shqip

Search This Blog