“candidate was arrested for peeing in public, am I being too helpful, and more” plus 4 more Ask a Manager

candidate was arrested for peeing in public, am I being too helpful, and more
how to tell an employee to stay in their lane
should I pay a fee for a networking meeting?
ask the readers: reply-all horror stories
this is how to assemble a professional wardrobe without spending a ton

candidate was arrested for peeing in public, am I being too helpful, and more

Posted: 21 Feb 2019 09:03 PM PST

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

1. What should I do about a candidate with an arrest for urinating in public?

A candidate recently applied who is decently qualified and who, normally, I would phone screen without a second thought. After googling the candidate, we found a record in the local newspaper that this candidate was arrested a number of years ago for disorderly conduct and urinating on a building.

How would you move forward? Would you automatically rule them out? If you did decide to move forward with them, how would you address it on the phone call? I know it is illegal in my state to ask about a criminal record but in this situation where it's public knowledge, we're not really sure what to do.

Who among us has not urinated in public at some point? Let she who has not peed cast the first stone.

Okay, I suppose a lot of people haven't. But if you found out that one of your current employees had peed on a building once years ago, would you question their suitability for their job now? The only difference here is that this candidate had the bad luck to get arrested for it.

Yes, people should not urinate on buildings. And yet, it's a thing that happens, often by otherwise abiding citizens (late at night, on the way home, in desperate circumstances). This is not likely to interfere with this person's performance at work; it's not a sign that they'll urinate in the CEO's office or anything like that.

Arrests are not "do not hire" me signs. They're just information about someone's past. In this case, the information — a minor misdemeanor from years ago — is irrelevant. Ignore it.

2. Should I stop being so helpful?

I’m known as the go-to person for help on my team. That doesn’t only apply to people in my department — I’m also known outside my department for being knowledgable, helpful, and willing to assist. My manager has told me that other teams/depts managers have told him that I’m a great asset and they appreciate what I do for them. I like to be helpful, and I like to feel like I am contributing in more ways than just my job description … most of the time.

Probably four out of five days per week, I am more than willing to put my work on hold to help other people with theirs, but on that fifth day I just can’t. Sometimes it’s because I actually do need to work on my assignments so that I don’t fall behind, but a lot of times it’s because I’ve just had enough of trying to teach people how to do things or research problems that they’re having. There is a (rotating) on-call person on my team each week who should be fielding these requests, but 1) other departments don’t know who that person is without asking someone and 2) that person typically would take significantly longer than me to solve the problem. Therefore, I kind of feel guilty redirecting requests to someone I know is going to struggle with them.

Is it okay for me to say “I can’t help with that today” when really I can? Should I feel bad for redirecting people to the on-call person, knowing that person is going to have a hard time with the task? Am I allowed to just ignore chat messages from people if I know they’re going to ask me for something that I can’t deal with today? Should I just rein in on all my helpfulness to try to reframe people’s idea of my availability?

If there's an on-call person charged with fielding these questions, you should mostly direct people to that person. That's the system your company has set up, and you shouldn't overrule it. By overruling it, you're potentially keeping the on-call people from getting better at solving problems themselves (which takes practice), and you might be covering up an actual problem your company needs to address (like better training). You're also allocating your time differently than your company has asked you to. Plus, constantly interrupting your own work might have consequences you don't see — like maybe you're good at your job now but you'd be great at it if you had more uninterrupted space to focus. (And "focus" isn't just about not breaking your train of thought. It's also about having expanses of time to just step back and think and reflect on how you might do something new or better or differently.)

That's not to say there's no room for individual judgment, which is why I said you should "mostly" send them to the on-call person rather than "always." Of course you can step in when someone is desperate or you're looking for a break or so forth. But your default shouldn't be to ignore the system your company has for this.

So yes, you can and should say, "I can't help with that today, but Jane is on call for questions and she should be able to." More here.

3. Employees spending time starting up/winding down

I have an issue with two employees. They both work 8-4. The first employee often comes through the door often a couple of minutes after 8 and then proceeds to make a drink for himself and others. He is a very nice guy and nothing is too much trouble and often works the odd five mins past his finish time. The second one arrives early to avoid traffic but then reads a book until bang on 8 am but then starts packing up around 3:45 and is through the door around 3.58 without fail.

You might think my issues are petty and not worth bringing up with them but it really rankles with me. Surely if their working hours are 8-4, then they should actually start work at 8 and finish at 4 before getting their coats, etc. on. Or are they entitled to some form of "washing up time"?

In general, you don't want to nickel and dime good employees. How much time is the first employee (the one for whom nothing is too much trouble) spending making a drink for himself and others? Assuming it's 5-10 minutes, let it go. If he was doing the same thing at 2 in the afternoon, presumably it wouldn't bother you and you'd consider that part of a normal work day.

But the second person sounds like he's nickeling and diming you and is ending his work day 15 minutes early every day. The nuance there is different, and it's reasonable to say to him, "Would you wait until your work day ends before you start packing up?" (Although if he's stellar at his work, consider letting it go unless it's causing any actual problems.)

4. What should my references include?

Thanks to your stellar advice, I just got a job interview. I haven’t had to interview outside my current employer for over a decade, so I haven’t had to use references since I was in grad school.

Two of my three former managers have changed roles and/or companies since I worked for them and I’m unsure how to indicate this on my references. Do I include their current title and employer as well as their title and employer when I worked for them? Do I need to indicate when and how long I worked for them, similar to a resume format? I’ve read a lot of advice about choosing references but not a lot about how to lay them out.

The most important info to include is their connection to you — so usually that will mean the employer name and their title from when you worked together. But if they've since moved on, you can make a note about that too. Info on how long you worked together can be really helpful, although it's fine if you don't include that (but I definitely would if it was a long time, because that strengthens the value of the reference). There are lots of different ways to do it and they're all fine as long as they include the basics, but here's one way:

Falcon Piffleploff (phone number, email address)
– Director of Oatmeal Analysis at the Barley Basement (managed me my last two years there)

Tangerina Stewpot (phone number, email address)
– Was my manager for four years at the Barley Basement (now head of production at the Porridge Post)

5. Bringing notes to informational interviews

In my current position, I go on a number of informational interviews each month (the interviewees are all within my organization; the interviews are partially for personal development and partially to make connections with folks who can help in my career).

Is it weird to bring notes to informational interviews? I like to draft 6-8 questions ahead of time and bring a printed copy for myself. This helps me actively research the person before the interview, but frankly, I also like having my questions pre-drafted because I sometimes get nervous meeting with senior officials. On a tertiary note, I frequently reference my notes after the interviews as well.

No one has said anything to me about them, but I also don’t know how I come across. I glance at the paper as I’m asking the questions. If the conversation is going in a different direction, I let the conversation flow naturally and disregard my questions. What say you, should I bring my questions or no?

Yes, definitely bring your questions written down! That's respectful of the time of the people you're meeting with — it shows that you put thought into this ahead of time and aren't winging it. It means that you're not going to take up meeting time with, "There was something else I wanted to ask … what was it … hmmm, maybe it'll come to me." (The same is true for job interviews; it's fine to bring in notes on the questions you want to make sure you ask.)

I’ve been at my company for about a year, and I inherited most of the large team I manage. Their job descriptions and roles are pretty clear and specific, but one of our subject matter expects, "Jane,” is constantly questioning the work of other team members on projects she doesn’t have a stake in (and by default, my support for that work/the decisions being made). I want to encourage feedback and discussion, but I also need to let this employee know she has to trust her coworkers and their expertise, and the boundaries of who “owns” what.

I think one of the issues is the company and my team has grown from a small one to a larger one with new leadership (including me!). So we’ve gone from a place where a lot of decisions were made by committee to one where some people are stakeholders and others are not. Jane has been at the company for a while but is not in a leadership or management position, so is often not a stakeholder in key decisions/projects.

I’ve tried to put better guardrails around feedback or limit involvement in some projects but then she says she doesn’t feel heard. How do I respectfully communicate that she should focus more on their role and her direct sphere of influence, without stifling creative collaboration and discussion?

For example, in meetings she’ll announce that something feels off-brand to her, or she doesn’t like the colors used in a design or particular language chosen to describe something, or she doesn’t think sufficient progress has been made on a campaign — all for projects that she’s not involved with. This is all addressed to me — she's not in any meetings with the other stakeholders and decision makers so when these questions come up, especially in all team meetings, it feels like things get derailed since I have to try and defend things and walk her through hours of discussion or context she wasn't present for (and make it clear I support the decisions of the people who run those areas).

She is great at her job. But she doesn't have experience in any of the areas where she questions decisions and wants input.

Am I being a grinch when I want to grit my teeth and want to flat out say "You don't have to worry about that because it has nothing to do with your job — plus trust your team to make good decisions based on their expertise"?

Nope, you're not being a grinch.

Of course you want your staff to feel free to ask questions and give input. But you also want them to have the judgment to know where it does and doesn’t make sense for them to weigh in, and to pick an appropriate time and place to do it, and to understand what their role does and doesn’t encompass.

It sounds like you need to have a conversation with Jane where you say something like this: "Jane, you're great at your job and I'm glad to have you here. But there's something I want to talk to you about that is impacting the team and I want to ask you to change. You often question other people's decisions in meetings — like saying that something seems off-brand, when it’s been thoroughly considered by the people whose job it is to make branding decisions, often in meetings that you weren't part of, or criticizing the direction of a campaign, when you haven't been in those strategy meetings and don't have the full picture that the people making those decisions do, or other criticism of choices that other people are in charge of thinking through, like design and copywriting. I know that when the team was smaller, decisions were more often made by larger groups — but as we've grown, that's no longer practical. We have people now with specific expertise in brand strategy, design, social media, copywriting, and so forth, and the reality of this larger staff — and of your role — is that you're not going to be a stakeholder in most of their projects. Constantly questioning those decisions and criticizing without full information isn't great for our working environment, and it's derailing our meetings. It's not practical for me to walk you through hours of context that you weren't present for, so I need you to trust your coworkers to manage their own realms.”

You should also say, “To be clear, it's fine to ask for more information about why we've chosen a particular direction if you genuinely want to better understand to do your own job better. But I need you to stop the frequent criticism of projects that you haven't been involved with."

And then, importantly, talk about where she does have room for input, and where she doesn’t: "In your role, I'd expect you to have substantial input into things like X, Y, and Z, and there's a lot of room for creativity there. And certainly you might have occasionally questions about A, B, and C. But your role isn't brand strategy, design, or copywriting, and I need you to respect the expertise of the people in charge of those areas."

If she says that she feels she's being stifled or that she doesn't feel heard … well, that might be a sign that the role, as it's evolved, isn't a great fit for her anymore. And that's okay! If she's only going to feel fulfilled if she gets to keep questioning her colleagues and derailing meetings, it's better for both of you to be realistic that her job isn't delivering what she wants from it anymore. That happens! Roles evolve, organizations grow, and sometimes a culture that was a great fit previously evolves into something that isn't right for the person anymore.

So if she says that, you might say something like, “I understand. I want to be clear with you about where your role does and doesn’t have substantive input. I know this is a change from how things used to be, but I do need you to respect these boundaries.” If you want, you can add, “If you decide the job has evolved in a way where it’s no longer for you, I’d certainly understand, but I hope that won’t be the case.”

Ultimately, though, your job is not to make Jane feel heard and creatively fulfilled at all costs. Of course you want your staff to feel those things, and you should never shut down someone's input or questions altogether. But when someone isn’t respecting reasonable boundaries for where they do and don’t have involvement, it's okay for you to set up those boundaries yourself, and to say "this is what will work for us and this is what won't."

Rapitful Shqip

Search This Blog