over-sharing in your out-of-office messages

A reader writes:

I work in R&D for the computer industry, where technical staff have few meetings with customers and generally are given a fairly flexible schedule. It's not uncommon for people to send to a broad team mailing list (~20-50 people) messages like:

"I'll be in around 10:30. The contractors are just starting to pour the new foundation this morning." 

or
"Leaving early at 4. I need to take my kid to the dentist."

Now first, I really don't think the details of why you're going to be away from the office are important. We're all adults here. We trust you to make good decisions on what constitutes a good reason to be gone. Besides, work hours are flex. If you take off a couple hours in the morning or evening one day, maybe you do some more work later that day, or sometime in the next week.

But what I take the biggest exception to is the lack of discretion when deciding on what to send in a mass email to the team. Sure, you should let your direct manager know, and any core people that you work with very closely who might be looking for you. But to send it to the entire team seems overkill. Seriously, what are the odds that someone other than your manager or your closest co-workers will need you while you're out? Especially in the era of smartphones.

Back when I managed people, I used to tell my employees to just block the time off on their calendar and make sure that at least I had their cell number. Seriously, you don't see people sending messages like "I'm going to be in a 2 hour strategy meeting this morning, but I'll be out by 10:30 if anyone needs me." If the time you're out of the office is about as long as a meeting you might be in while at work, I don't think you really need to tell anyone your plans.

Ok, so it's not really a question. More of a recurring situation that I've seen at every company I work at. What are your thoughts on this situation?

Before anyone complains that this is too nitpicky, let me say: Nitpicky stuff can be fascinating, and I think this is a perfect example of it. No, you don't want your company to issue policies and directives about things at this micro of a level, but it's interesting to dissect nonetheless, especially when you enjoy over-thinking things (as many of us do).

I agree that the reasons you're going to be away aren't relevant. What's relevant is simply that you will be away. And yes, sometimes even that is overkill. As you point out, at least in cultures like yours, a good rule of thumb for people who aren't regularly looking for you or aren't your boss is, "If the time you're out of the office is about as long as a meeting you might be in while at work, you don't really need to tell anyone your plans."

Sometimes the over-sharing of plans can even come across as suspect -- similar to how when someone's calling in sick with genuine illness, they usually just say, "I'm going to be out sick," but fakers will generally give you a long list of overly specific symptoms, like they feel they have to convince you.

On the other hand, sometimes it's interesting to hear that your colleague is remodeling his kitchen or taking his kid to her first day of school.

But it can become too much. I used to work with a guy who used to all-staff his every move: "I'm running some errands after lunch and will probably be back by 2:30 but it might be 3:00."  "I'm leaving 15 minutes early today, so see Dan with any end-of-the-day questions." "I'm going to be on a conference call about our new report all morning." It got to the point where I started to expect to receive, "I'm headed to the bathroom. Probably back in 5 minutes, but it might be 10."

And then there are the self-aggrandizers. Another guy I used to work with was notorious for messages like this: "I'll be late today because I pulled an all-nighter getting our new ad ready."  He claimed to have "pulled" so many "all-nighters" that people generally assumed he was either (a) lying in a bizarre attempt to inflate his image or (b) really, really inefficient. 

Overall, though, I'd argue that this kind of thing adds entertainment to the day. You're best off simply appreciating its amusement value and not getting too annoyed by it.

(By the way, for people who enjoy analyzing this sort of minutiae, the Wall Street Journal recently ran a piece about overly-personal auto-replies.)

how long should it take a new hire to get up to speed?

A reader writes:

I'm a former academic mathematician who left academia, because...well...suffice it to say that I didn't go to college for nine years to become a glorified babysitter. After a job offer from a Very Large Government Agency fell through, I found myself severely underemployed. While slowly crawling out of the deep, dark depression in which I found myself, I started slowly picking up some extra skills so that I could start a new career (and no, I found myself unable to go back to academia, as the thought of entering the classroom again literally sent me into panic attacks). That all of this happened was bad enough; that all of this happened as the economy started circling the bowl made things even worse.

Finally, after two years, I have a job as a Data Analyst for an advertising company, with slightly over two weeks from the recruiter saying "Hi, I passed your resume to the hiring manager, and he'd like to talk to you..." to the job offer, with two phone interviews, an online programming exam, a personality profile, and a problem that the hiring manager gave me to see how I thought on my feet in between (there might have been a partridge in a pear tree in there somewhere, too :P ). The interview advice on your blog was invaluable, especially for the phone interviews. I think I impressed the hiring manager with my questions, especially "What differentiates a good employee in this position from a great employee?"

The work environment is great, and the people are awesome--not to mention the pay and benefits! However, I find myself in a completely new industry doing work I've never done before, and despite the fact that I've only been here less than two weeks, I'm taking longer in getting up to speed than I would like. I recognize that I'm putting a significant amount of this pressure on myself--as the old saying goes, I am my own harshest critic. I have received many assurances from my manager that he's confident in my ability to catch up, and he proactively suggested weekly meetings to keep track of my progress. However, I want to make certain that I stay on task and don't fall behind, especially as this is a contract to hire position.

So, my question is this: What, generally speaking, is a reasonable amount of time for a new hire that is talented but inexperienced to get up to speed?

I think this varies widely from job to job, and also depends on factors like how well the company trains you, exposes you to resources, etc.  However, based just on watching people over the years, I'd say that there's often a moment of clarity that occurs about four to eight weeks in -- when suddenly all the pieces start to fit together in a way that makes more intuitive sense, and all of a sudden you don't feel quite as much like you're treading water. I'm not talking about mastering the job -- that takes way longer. I'm talking just about getting that sense that you're no longer in a foreign and mysterious land.

Again, this really varies depending on the job. But you've only been there two weeks? There's a good chance that you're putting unrealistic pressure on yourself, as you seem to recognize.

Now, another good question is whether there are things you can do to help yourself acclimate faster.  To answer that, I'd want to know whether there are specific things that you know you're struggling to learn, or is it more a general feeling of being overwhelmed?  If there are specific things, can you ask a colleague to walk you through them again? It's very, very hard to retain all the information that's thrown at you in your first few days on a job -- so if most of your training happened early on, you might find that you can retain it better now. Also, if possible to do diplomatically, you might even seek someone different than whoever taught you the first time; different people teach things in different ways, and you might get someone who presents it in a way that resonates more for you. 

If it's more a general feeling of being overwhelmed, the weekly meetings with your manager are going to help. Make sure you prepare for these ahead of time so you're getting as much as possible out of them. For the next few weeks, it might be useful to send him a list ahead of the meeting -- here's what I accomplished this week, here's what I'm planning to do next week, here's what I have on my longer-term to-do list -- to ensure it lines up with his thinking and to catch any areas where you're out of alignment.

Also, ask your manager what he'd like you to have achieved by the end of your second month and by the end of your first six months. If you have a very concrete sense of where you need to be headed, it's easier to figure out what you need to do to get there.

While we're on the subject of getting new hires acclimated, one thing that I like to do is to give each new hire an outline of all the things they'll need to learn about to really know the job. This includes everything from the basics of how to do the job, to who key internal and external figures are, to what they do and don't have authority for, and on and on. To be clear, this is just an outline of topics, not fully fleshed out information on each (they'll get that in face-to-face conversations with the various people participating in their training). I've found it can be really helpful for them to have a written list like that to consult a couple of weeks in -- because it can make you think, "Oh, I vaguely remember a mention of Topic X on my second day, when it made no sense to me and I didn't retain it. So let me seek out information on it again now, when it'll make more sense." Or you might realize that no one talked to you about Topic X at all, and then you can proactively ask your boss about it.  It can also just help to get your arms around the breadth of the job if you see each aspect outlined like that.

You may not have that exactly, but do you have any other written materials you can review -- department manuals, etc.? I've found people often don't take advantage of those things after the initial read, even though reading them again a few weeks into the job can be a lot more useful than the first read was.

I suspect you're going to do just fine. You sound like you're having normal first-few-weeks-on-the-job jitters. You also sound like you've landed in a really great situation. So congratulations, and good luck!

call center job misery

I'm calling on the readers' help with this one. A reader writes:

I recently took a job in a call center doing order entry. I'm very overqualified but it's a job and my unemployment ran out so I had to find something with an income. 

As part of being a call center agent, I'm expected to maintain certain stats. One of them is called "accountable time," which means the amount of time you were clocked in vs the amount of time you were logged in on the phone. We're supposed to maintain a level of 90%, which doesn't sound so hard. For a 30-minute day, that gives you 48 minutes leeway, including two 15-minute paid breaks. The problem is that the company uses something called "required time off." This is where the call volume is low and they don't need as many agents answering the phone. I understand why they do that, it's better to send a few folks home early than to lay them off permanently. 

I'm not too thrilled that I took a 40 hour a week job that rarely results in 40 full hours but that's not what ticks me off. What does tick me off is that when they figure out your accountable time, they don't seem to take into account the fact that they send you home early and after you've already taken both of your paid breaks. For instance if I'm sent home an hour and a half early I only have a 39 minute leeway and with just 9 minutes to "play" with that cuts it kind of close when you're waiting for the computer to boot up or adjusting your chair (since we don't have assigned seats, I have to readjust the chair wherever I land that day). 

I'm not normally the type to complain about a simple rule like this or claim something isn't fair but this detail ticks me off. The first week I was on the phones and didn't get sent home, I had no problem meeting this 90%. Since then I've been sent home 3-4 days a week and haven't hit the 90%. And of course you never know if/when you are going to be going home. Further, after my probationary period of 60 days, they look at your performance including these stats (and others, this isn't the only one) and decide whether or not to keep you on. So now I'm worried because of this problem that I might be out of a job once the probationary period is over. (It is an at-will state and I fully understand that I could be fired the day after my probationary period ends for whatever reason they like.) Since this isn't an ideal job for me, I haven't stopped looking elsewhere and I hope something else comes up, but given that I was out of work for so long I fear that I won't be able to find anything and that I'm at the mercy of this company. 

I'm not sure what to do. Do I skip my breaks? Or only go long enough to use the washroom? Is it right for them to make people's job dependent on a statistic that they have so much control over? I've pointed this out to my manager and he just told me to work on getting my number back above 90%.

First, in case anyone else makes the same mistake I did at first: When I first read this, I thought they were requiring you to be at 90% of a full 40 hours, even if they only allowed you to work 32 hours that week. But that's not it; the issue is that you're taking breaks during the day on the assumption that you'll have a full 8-hour day to make your 90%, but then they send you home early without warning, which throws your numbers off.

What do other people there do, people who do regularly hit 90% or above? Do they skip their breaks? Eat at their desks while they continue to work? That's the first thing I'd look at.

It's also worth mentioning that call centers are notorious for being miserable workplaces. I don't know why -- I assume it has something to do with the high turnover meaning that they don't really care about people's quality of life, because they're not making a point of trying to retain people. Therefore, my usual advice about trying to make a rational argument to your manager about how this is impacting you probably doesn't apply, because they probably don't care.

In fact, it could be that they're hoping this system will actually encourage people not to take breaks, which is obviously really jerky.

I'd love it if any readers with call center experience weighed in on this one.

why you should take the time to debrief after a project

Did you know that Harvard Business School researchers found that among a group of surgeons learning a new operating technique, those who discussed each case in detail and debriefed with team members after procedures managed to halve their operating time … while those who didn’t discuss and debrief hardly improved their time at all?

People don't debrief enough after a project is over, particularly when a high workload makes you harried. But as that study shows, there's real value in it. Even when things have gone well on a project, both you've likely learned from the experience and picked out things that could be done differently next time to get even better results. Writing those up, even as just a quick bulleted list, can be an invaluable resource to have on hand the next time you conduct a similar project.

One small step that can help you do this is to build a brief reflection meeting into your schedule when you're scheduling out a project. If you have it on your calendar as part of the project steps, you're more likely to do it.

5 signs you might be a bad coworker

I get a lot of email from people who are being driven crazy by their coworkers. In most cases, I suspect the coworkers have no idea that they're even doing anything irritating.

At U.S. News & World Report today, I wrote about five signs that you might be the one pushing your coworkers to the limits of their sanity. Please check it out!

can I be written up for spitting?

A reader writes:

I work in a small IMO insurance firm as a marketer and graphic designer. Today while outside smoking (I spit when I smoke), my boss came to me and told me that if he ever found me spitting on the walk way again he would write me up. We rent the building we are in and there is nothing in the lease (according to my office manager) about the condition the walk way is left if we should move to a new building. My question is: Can he really write me up for spitting out of habit?

I don't see why not. That's disgusting.

complaining about work on Twitter

A reader writes:

I'm a fan of twitter and have recently started a departmental twitter feed for my branch library. I'm encouraging my student staff to come up with ideas for posts, and they've been very enthusiastic.

However, one of them sent a tweet from his personal twitter account, while he was at work, which talked in a disparaging way about another department.

I approached him and asked him not to say negative things about our workplace and fellow staff on a public account, or if he wanted to, not to mention any specifics that would link it to our library. He is 19 or 20, and though he said he would refrain, I don't think he got the picture.

How can I say this without sounding like I'm snooping, but let them know it's not appropriate? I don't want to say "no tweeting at work," but I also don't want the privilege taken away from myself too, when the higher-ups see negative tweets from workers during working hours.

As his account is public, has his picture, and he mentioned both departments by their proper names, it seemed in poor taste, especially since he tweeted it during his shift. It seems akin to someone complaining about work on facebook, while at work, when you're friends with your boss.

I'd just be straightforward. Tell him, "I know this is your personal Twitter account, but the fact is that you're connected on it to many people at work. Sending out a message that disparages another employee isn't okay, just like it wouldn't be okay if you printed up a flyer about him and passed it out in the parking lot. Just because it's your personal account doesn't mean that it doesn't have ramifications or affect the way you'll be perceived."

You'd also be doing him a favor to spell out for him that this stuff isn't private, now or in the future. If he's job-searching and a prospective employer searches for him and pulls up his twitter page, it's not going to look good to have posts like that there. As many others before me have observed, this generation is so comfortable with social media and so used to living their lives on it that they don't always understand the need to censor themselves in public spaces where they might be observed and judged by people they want something from (like a job, professional respect, etc.).

what do do when you're frustrated at work

I frequently hear from people who are frustrated and unhappy with their jobs and want to know how to change whatever is making them unhappy. Often what they're chafing against is some inherent aspect of their job or their manager or their workplace.

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I talk about what to do when you're in this situation -- frustrated by some aspect of your job and not sure what to do about it.

I suspect this topic applies to everyone at some point in life (more likely, many points), so please head over there and check it out -- and leave your own thoughts in the comments over there.

annoying vendor behavior

From a colleague of mine:

I've noticed that many of our vendors have an old-fashioned way of doing business: They seem to think that calling or coming by (in response to an e-mail) is the way to show me that they value me as a client, when I would like to see that they respect my time enough to efficiently provide me with the information that I've requested via the same medium by which I requested it.

For example, if I e-mail one of our reps about pricing for a new module, she replies by calling me back (which I don't answer) and asking me to call her back for the information. (I've taken to emailing her back and asking her again for the information.) Plus, when I talk to her on the phone, she always wants to upsell me.

I can't be the only person who finds this behavior strange and annoying.

She's not alone. I totally agree with this.

Like her, I rely heavily on email because it makes my job a lot more efficient. I can send and read information at a time when it's convenient for me, and so can the person I'm emailing. It means I get info in a more streamlined fashion, without small talk. It eliminates phone tag. Good god, I love it.

I assume some vendors often prefer to return email queries by phone because they think it will help them to build the relationship more than email will. But in the process, they're actually damaging the relationship with people like me and my coworker, who become progressively more irritated by their refusal to use the medium we're clearly trying to operate in.

Have you been guilty of this behavior yourself? Tell us your side.

how to get a reputation for credibility

One of the most important types of capital you can build at work is a reputation for being highly credible. But it takes time to build it, and you can significantly undermine it through even a single bad move. Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I talk about how you can build unshakable credibility. Please check it out!

when professional contacts contact you via Facebook and other personal sites

A reader writes:

I work for a mobile company which is the market leader in what we do. I have been working in India, and has now been working out of the global head office for the past three years. I work on HR projects which have nothing to do with recruitment in either the country that I live in, or my home country.

I have a corporate LinkedIn account - the company is paying for it - and hence I use it as a work tool and connect to whomever sends me an invite. However, this has resulted in people sending me friend requests in facebook ( which I decline, I only add close friends or close colleagues in facebook and I give them the reason for declining) and then calling me up and demanding I find them a job. Some of them got my mobile number from some mutual friends under the pretext of wanting career advice from me, while some never told me how they got my mobile number. Some try to add me to gtalk and then chat without any context or reason. I have blocked the gtalk baiters after politely explaining to them how I do not mix my professional and personal life, but some were miffed that I did not want to add them as friends.

I also get group emails for various HR Services and recruitment brochures from various institutes from my home country and other parts of the world. If I get a email in my office ID or LinkedIn profile, I forward it to the right person in my organization. When I get them at my personal ID, I often mark them as spam - especially the "surveys," which are often just a ploy to get the email address, office address and mobile numbers of some of the highly placed people in the organization.

I understand that these are difficult times, but I don't want my personal life to be encroched upon. My LinkedIn profile clearly requests all professional requests should be sent via my office email or LinkedIn account. It also explains where I am working now, and what I am doing. People who would take two minutes to read my profile will not be sending me these emails.

Is it ok to block / mark as spam these people, who do not do me the common courtesy of reading up a bit about my work before generically spamming me? I had to block a few men in the past week on gtalk, and got a bunch of spam emails. I am at my wits end.

Different people use social networking tools differently. Some people have no barrier at all between professional and personal contacts, and freely intermingle their work and personal personas on Facebook, etc. Other people don't. Because there are no clear guidelines or commonly accepted mores, you're going to have people attempt to cross this boundary in ways you don't like.

But you're entitled to enforce whatever boundaries you want. I'd start by removing your gmail and other personal contact info from your LinkedIn profile. (I assume that's how people are getting it.) If you put it there, it's not unreasonable that people think they can use it, so don't offer it up.

From there, of course you don't need to "friend" people on Facebook who you don't feel you know. And you can set your privacy settings so that people you don't approve don't see much, or any, of your profile. You can do this with or without explanation -- an explanation will likely irk at least some people (rightly or wrongly), so it may be easier/kinder to do it without one.

As for companies that are sending you work-related advertisements on your personal email, you're as free to ignore this as you are junk mail you receive at home. But again, you might be better off short-circuiting the problem by not making your personal email address available to those you only want to interact with in your professional sphere.

helping a boss manage his time better ... my time management rant

A reader writes:

How do you put order/structure to a boss’s calendar that is out of control with constant meetings and no time to get any work done? Due to downsizing, etc., he oversees three departments now instead of just one. My boss has meetings on top of meetings on top of meetings, many of which he requests. I block off “Office Time” on his calendar and those times only get bumped for more meetings. I simply must help him take control of his work days, but can’t figure out where to start. HELP?

You've come to the right place on this one. I'm obsessed with this topic.

At its core, good time management is about clarity – clarity about what the person is there to accomplish. I'm assuming that your boss has important things he must accomplish other than sitting in meetings, right? But his schedule indicates that he is not being honest with himself about how he allocates his time and that he's not applying the necessary level of rigor required to have his time reflect his priorities. He has a lot of company in being that way.

Obviously, there's only a finite amount of time in the day. That means that people with lots of demands on their time need to pick and choose what they will and won't do. When people refuse to make those decisions, often because they aren't being honest with themselves about the fact they can't do it all, they still end up not doing it all -- but since they won't make deliberate decisions about what won't get done, they instead end up letting those undone items get picked by default. And that's no good. If some things aren't going to get done, it's far better to choose those things strategically, not just wait to see what's undone at the end of the week.

People who mismanage their time are people who aren't thinking clearly and logically about this. Just because there are a lot of things you'd like to do, or that you should do, doesn't mean that you can do them all. People who refuse to recognize this reality will find themselves overextended, stressed out, and often neglecting high priorities in favor of lesser ones. This can turn someone who should be a high performer into a weaker performer, all because of fuzzy thinking about priorities, time management, and what's realistic.

Ultimately it's about being brutally honest in response to this question: Since we can see there isn't time to do everything, what things can you decide to cut out? Most people in this situation initially respond, "I need to do it all." But what they keep forgetting is that they aren't doing it all now. It's not happening, because it's not possible. Like with your boss, they're not getting to everything, and often some of what doesn't get tended to is more important than what their time is getting spent on. So since you can't do it all anyway, you need to pick consciously and deliberately, not leave those choices to chance.

So. Where does that leave you with your boss? You have the right idea about scheduling your boss appointments with himself -- work blocks that are deliberately built into his schedule. But your boss is then overriding this by letting those work blocks get bumped. So you need to sit down with your boss and talk straightforwardly about what's happening.

Your boss needs to be honest with himself and decide whether or not he's committed to having room in his schedule for this. If he is, point out to him that he's been routinely sacrificing that need and that you're both going to need to more strongly commit to protecting that time from intrusions. This is a painful concept for people when they first grapple with it, and if he agrees too quickly, it means he's not fully processing it -- so tell him, "Look, this sounds easy now, but in practice, things are going to come up that will tempt you to backtrack. I think we need to agree that we will protect these work blocks at all costs, except in very unusual cases."

If he's logical, he's going to see the reason in this. If he's not logical, well, good luck with that. You may not be able to change him much.

(By the way, I also wonder whether your boss really needs to be in all those meetings. I'm skeptical of most meetings, let alone a day or week packed with them to the exclusion of all else. Your boss may need to delegate more, or say no more things, or teach his staff to use his time better. And if all the meetings truly are necessary, then it sounds like your boss's job is more than a one-person job, which means that either his job description needs to be pared down or he needs to compromise on issues like how much he'll involve himself in certain areas. But trying to magically do it all, when it can't all be done, guarantees he'll fail at some of it.)

disgruntled Facebook postings

I was just reading this post by Martin Burns about a Facebook status update that read as follows:

"___ is jealous of people that love their jobs…wish I was one of them..or at the least had a manager that gives a crap!@@%%&&"

Martin raised the question of whether this kind of post is job suicide.

I think it depends on who you are and who your manager is.

If I saw this kind of thing from a good employee, I'd be concerned about her unhappiness and would probably sit down with her and say something like, "Hey, I saw your Facebook status update. Was that just normal blowing off steam, or something more? If you're unhappy, I really want to know about it and figure out how we can help."

On the other hand, if it came from a bad employee or an employee with attitude problems or whatever, I'd take it as symptomatic of that, and our conversation would have a very different feel -- more along the lines of "rather than stewing in your unhappiness, let's figure out if you can be happy here or not, and if you can't, let's talk about where to go from here."

And then, of course, there are managers who would handle it totally differently -- ignoring it entirely, penalizing the person for it, or whatever.

What about you guys?

how to take criticism without getting defensive

If your manager takes the time to give you constructive criticism, responding defensively is the worst thing you can do. My post at U.S. News & World Report this week talks about what not to do -- and what you should do -- when your boss gives you feedback. Read it here.

9 ways to start your new job right

How you handle your first few weeks on a job can set the tone for your entire stay at the new company. Here are nine ways to set yourself up right:

1. You might be overwhelmed by all the new information: Don't freak out about it. I have a theory that you can only retain one third to one half of the information that's thrown at you during your first day on a job if the environment is a fast-paced one. This is normal. Eventually it'll all come together.

Want to read the rest? Head on over to U.S. News & World Report, where the full column is posted.

10 ways to make your boss love you

Want to become your boss's favorite? My U.S. News & World Report column this week suggests 10 habits that, if cultivated, will have your boss showering you with lavish praise. Read it here. And I hope you'll weigh in on the "he/she" issue raised by the first commenter on that page; I'm curious to know what others think.

protecting your time from long-winded interlopers

When you're racing to get something done on a deadline and you get interrupted by a long-winded caller, do you:
(a) Let them talk, trying to politely hint that you don't have much time
(b) Say, "I'm actually short on time right now. Could I call you back?"

Far more people do (a) than (b) -- because people want to be nice and aren't sure how to nicely protect their time, or if it's even possible to do it nicely. It seems to me that people often get so focused on wanting to be nice to the long-winded caller or visitor that they forget that -- when at work -- we have a larger obligation to use our time in the ways that are most effective. And yes, it can be done without being rude. Here are some principles to use (all of these assume that your job isn't to take long-winded people's phone calls):

1. Your obligation to the long-winded caller is to be polite as you're ending the call, but it's not to allow them to cut into time that you could be better spending on something else.

2. White lies are made for this situation. Say "I've got to run to a meeting that's about to start" or "I have someone standing right here waiting to talk to me" or "I've got to grab this other call coming in" or "I'm on deadline" or whatever. If the person ignores you, repeat it again firmly -- right away, not after letting them go on for another five minutes.

3. Set a time limit for the call at the very start, such as "I've only got a minute to talk" or "I appreciate the phone call but only have a second to talk."

4. If the above doesn't work, don't be afraid to interrupt a long-winded person who doesn't pause to take a breath or let you get a word in. Remember, you are responsible for how you spend your time; they don't control it.

5. If the interruption is in person and the interloper won't leave your office, stand up with some papers in hand. Sometimes this alone signals that you have something else to do. If the signal doesn't take, say, "I've got to run these down the hall."

The general idea that you should take control of your own time applies in other ways too: For instance, if you're a manager who finds it hard to focus because an employee interrupts you with questions throughout the day, ask the person to save up their questions and ask them in bunches. Or if someone asks you to do something right away that's less of a priority than what you're working on, say "I need to finish this first, but I'll get to it as soon as I can." (Although if it's your boss, reword it to: "If I do this immediately, it'll delay X"; this gives her the chance to tell you that X is less important after all.)

The key point is to be nicely assertive and not let others control your day.

You made a mistake at work. Now what?

How do you handle it when you've botched something? First, you need to know what happens in your manager's head when you make a mistake. Beyond thinking about the repercussions of the mistake itself, she's worrying about what it means for the larger picture: Did the mistake happen because of sloppy work habits or was this one isolated incident? Is there a fundamental problem with your systems or approach to the work? Do you "get" that this is a big deal, or are you shrugging it off and thus likely to let something similar happen in the future?

Once you understand this, the formula for handling a mistake well becomes more intuitive.

And if you want to read that formula, check out the full post, which is posted at U.S. News and World Report.

instant credibility

Here is a way to gain instant credibility with your boss: Tell her about a mistake that reflects poorly on you.

People's instinct is so often to hide or soften this kind of thing, but in fact the more blunt you are, the better you will come across. Just say it: "I really screwed something up." "I was completely wrong about this." Explain what you did, why you were wrong, and what you propose doing about it now. This also works in retrospect. Tell your boss, "Do you remember how last month I argued for moving forward with that project when Bob insisted it was a bad idea? I was wrong. Here's what I've realized since then."

Not only is this incredibly refreshing, but it's powerful because it instills in your boss the confidence that you will give her bad news directly -- she doesn't need to worry that she'll only get negative information if she digs for it. It also tells her that you have integrity and that your priority is to be honest and objective, not to protect yourself. And if you're ever in a he-said/she-said situation with someone, the person more likely to be believed is the person who has a reputation for being scrupulously open even when doing so won't reflect well on them.

Disclaimer: If you are confessing a mistake every week, this will not work well for you. This only works when you're competent overall but making the occasional normal human error. (Although, frankly, if you're incompetent, you're probably better off being up front about mistakes and asking for help than hiding them. But I do not have incompetent readers.)

what to do when you make a mistake at work

When you make a mistake at work, how you handle it can often say much more about you than the mistake itself.

Reasonable bosses understand that no one is perfect and mistakes will occasionally happen -- what they care about is how you follow up on that mistake. As it happens, there's a pretty foolproof formula for handling it well. If you follow this formula (and have a reasonable boss), you'll likely be surprised at how well he or she responds.

Here's the formula:

1. Tell your boss what happened -- immediately. Do not put it off out of fear. I will be far more upset if time is allowed to pass before I'm informed. Delaying sends the message that you value your own comfort over the needs of your work.

2. Take responsibility for it. Don't make excuses, and don't be defensive.

3. Tell me how it happened. Not only do I want to know, I want to know that you know.

4. Most importantly, explain how you plan to ensure it doesn't happen again.

This formula works because when someone makes a mistake, what a boss needs to do is make sure that the person understands the seriousness of it and knows how to avoid it in the future. If you take the initiative to cover those things yourself, then your boss doesn't need to do it herself (and having your boss impress upon you how serious a mistake was tends to be much less pleasant than saying it yourself).

In other words, do your boss' job for her -- eliminate the need for her to reprimand you by reprimanding yourself.

Why don't more people realize this?