Ask a Manager came into being two years ago today. I had no idea whether anyone would be interested in reading what I had to say, but that's never stopped me from babbling before, and I'm glad it didn't stop me this time. Thank you guys for reading and commenting and emailing and giving me the incredibly satisfying realization that there are other people out there who obsess over this stuff like I do.
In a fit of self-indulgence, I'm presenting a list of my favorite posts during those two years. (And weirdly, I didn't realize it was the two-year anniversary until I had already drawn up the list and was about to post it; don't know what to make of that.) Here goes...
Bad candidate behavior:
I think this is the only series I've ever run:
job rejections and vitriol, part 1
job rejections and vitriol, part 2
job rejections and vitriol, part 3
And I also still really like this post. Even better, since I wrote this a year and a half ago, the guy whose friend ratted him out as not having done "anything last summer" was hired, has been promoted, and is completely awesome at his job.
Bad employer behavior:
danger signs when you're interviewing
why companies don't get back to applicants
when your manager won't manage
you are high maintenance and full of yourself
Advice on being a good employee:
taking criticism gracefully
instant credibility
what to do when you make a mistake at work
when you disagree with your boss
what can't you not do
how to get the most out of your internship
Advice on being a good manager:
deathbed advice
new managers and authority
confession: I used to suck at firing people
alternatives to firing
how to mentor someone
what reality-based management looks like
posts on being both a chick and a boss:
male and female bosses judged differently?
on balls and lack thereof
my very favorite post of all time:
an ode to the bad managers of my past
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
teacher's boss expanding job requirements
A reader writes:
I am a teacher. I have a specific job description with specific duties outlined. Two years ago I got a new boss and she began adding duties to that list. The list includes:
- Visiting students' home prior to the start of school and the beginning of the contract. I have to call families to set up the appointment and drive my own car to the visit while finding childcare for my kids.
- Working a 4-hour Saturday event once a year.
- Additional monthly meetings. Previously, there was one monthly staff meeting, one monthly committee meeting and one monthly study group meeting. She has added an additional staff meeting, weekly team meetings and monthly assessment meetings. This equals many extra before and after school hours.
- Recruitment in which teachers walk around the neighborhood, knock on doors and tell people about our school. We are expected to help do this over the summer.
During that two years, I have not gotten any additional compensation. Some of these additional duties cost me money, yet the school does not reimburse me because they don't have funds. Am I wrong to expect some sort of compensation for this?
Working a four-hour Saturday event once per year and having additional monthly meetings: No, not outrageous. At least not in my opinion. The occasional weekend event and extra meetings aren't generally the type of thing you can make a big fuss about in salaried positions.
Visiting students' homes before the start of the school year: Probably not too outrageous either. Some schools do this as a matter of course. It sounds like your new boss is trying to increase teachers' effectiveness, and whether she's going about it rightly or wrongly, that's her prerogative. (Now, I'm not a lawyer and maybe there's something in your contract that expressly prohibits work outside of the school year. So obviously, you'd want to read your contract. But speaking in general terms, this doesn't sound over the line.)
Door-to-door recruitment: Here's where you're going to get some sympathy from me. This is so wildly outside the scope of what your job is -- you're a teacher, not a salesman -- and it taps such a different set of skills and interests that I think it's reasonable to be rubbed the wrong way by it. This is where I'd focus, if I were going to tackle it. On the other hand, it sounds like you're working for a private or charter school, and they can have a very different ethos, one that expects everyone will pull together on matters like this.
Two pieces of advice for you:
1. If you want to change these new policies, you're going to have far better luck if you have other teachers on your side, dealing with it as a group, not individually. (No teachers' union, I'm assuming?)
2. If you decide to deal with it on your own, I'd say that you're likely to get better results if you explain to your new boss that some of the new duties conflict with other commitments you have and ask her to work with you on finding a resolution. I do not think you'll get great results if you just ask for additional compensation. And no matter what, leave the small things, like one four-hour Saturday meeting per year, out of it, since including that will detract from your case.
But ultimately it's your boss' prerogative to make these changes ... and yours to decide if you're still interested in working there under the new conditions.
By the way, of course it's not "right," in a larger societal sense, that the school doesn't reimburse you for expenses because they have no funds. That's common among teachers, and it sucks. I'm not endorsing it, by any means. But it does seem to be typical, and since you're asking me for career advice, I doubt you'll help your career any by refusing to play along with those practices.
Good luck!
I am a teacher. I have a specific job description with specific duties outlined. Two years ago I got a new boss and she began adding duties to that list. The list includes:
- Visiting students' home prior to the start of school and the beginning of the contract. I have to call families to set up the appointment and drive my own car to the visit while finding childcare for my kids.
- Working a 4-hour Saturday event once a year.
- Additional monthly meetings. Previously, there was one monthly staff meeting, one monthly committee meeting and one monthly study group meeting. She has added an additional staff meeting, weekly team meetings and monthly assessment meetings. This equals many extra before and after school hours.
- Recruitment in which teachers walk around the neighborhood, knock on doors and tell people about our school. We are expected to help do this over the summer.
During that two years, I have not gotten any additional compensation. Some of these additional duties cost me money, yet the school does not reimburse me because they don't have funds. Am I wrong to expect some sort of compensation for this?
Working a four-hour Saturday event once per year and having additional monthly meetings: No, not outrageous. At least not in my opinion. The occasional weekend event and extra meetings aren't generally the type of thing you can make a big fuss about in salaried positions.
Visiting students' homes before the start of the school year: Probably not too outrageous either. Some schools do this as a matter of course. It sounds like your new boss is trying to increase teachers' effectiveness, and whether she's going about it rightly or wrongly, that's her prerogative. (Now, I'm not a lawyer and maybe there's something in your contract that expressly prohibits work outside of the school year. So obviously, you'd want to read your contract. But speaking in general terms, this doesn't sound over the line.)
Door-to-door recruitment: Here's where you're going to get some sympathy from me. This is so wildly outside the scope of what your job is -- you're a teacher, not a salesman -- and it taps such a different set of skills and interests that I think it's reasonable to be rubbed the wrong way by it. This is where I'd focus, if I were going to tackle it. On the other hand, it sounds like you're working for a private or charter school, and they can have a very different ethos, one that expects everyone will pull together on matters like this.
Two pieces of advice for you:
1. If you want to change these new policies, you're going to have far better luck if you have other teachers on your side, dealing with it as a group, not individually. (No teachers' union, I'm assuming?)
2. If you decide to deal with it on your own, I'd say that you're likely to get better results if you explain to your new boss that some of the new duties conflict with other commitments you have and ask her to work with you on finding a resolution. I do not think you'll get great results if you just ask for additional compensation. And no matter what, leave the small things, like one four-hour Saturday meeting per year, out of it, since including that will detract from your case.
But ultimately it's your boss' prerogative to make these changes ... and yours to decide if you're still interested in working there under the new conditions.
By the way, of course it's not "right," in a larger societal sense, that the school doesn't reimburse you for expenses because they have no funds. That's common among teachers, and it sucks. I'm not endorsing it, by any means. But it does seem to be typical, and since you're asking me for career advice, I doubt you'll help your career any by refusing to play along with those practices.
Good luck!
Monday, May 25, 2009
boss won't socialize with staff
A reader writes:
Actually, from what's written here, he sounds pretty nice. He's buying you pizza, letting you have various celebrations in the office, and frequently telling you that he wants you to be happy.
He could be avoiding these gatherings because he's swamped with work ... or because he believes that his presence would inhibit whatever fun you'd normally have ... or, hell, because he's shy.
My advice to him would be to put in some face time at these gatherings occasionally, but I certainly don't think he needs to attend every one of them, as it sounds like there are quite a few (beginning of spring?). And if he chooses not to, I don't think you guys should be offended by it; it sounds like you're attributing motives to it that you don't have any evidence are actually there. Sometimes you can choose not to be offended, and I think this is one of those times.
But if you would like to have him there sometimes, why not invite him explicitly? Next time you're organizing a gathering, just say to him, "We would love to have you join us at this lunch. We never get to see you socially."
It's a rare situation that can't be fixed by candor.
I work in a rather small office, and occasionally we will have short in-office lunches to celebrate a special occasion (weddings, new babies, beginning of spring, etc). We usually have no more than 15-20 people at a gathering.
Our new boss of one year never attends these functions. Sometimes he will buy pizza for us as a nice gesture, yet he doesn't enter the conference room to sit and mingle and chat with his employees. Every blue moon he will enter (late) just to get his food and walk back to his office. He's always mentioning how he wants people to be happy and cheerful and love where they work, yet when the time arrives for us all to get to know each other a little better and to relax, he retreats. Occasionally, you'll hear someone say, "Where's the boss?"
I'm quite offended by him being so anti-social and a few co-workers are, as well. How can he constantly ask people if they are happy at work, yet clearly avoids social situations? I feel he thinks it is unprofessional for him to mingle with his subordinates. Should any of us really feel offended by his behavior? Should he attend these gatherings?
Our new boss of one year never attends these functions. Sometimes he will buy pizza for us as a nice gesture, yet he doesn't enter the conference room to sit and mingle and chat with his employees. Every blue moon he will enter (late) just to get his food and walk back to his office. He's always mentioning how he wants people to be happy and cheerful and love where they work, yet when the time arrives for us all to get to know each other a little better and to relax, he retreats. Occasionally, you'll hear someone say, "Where's the boss?"
I'm quite offended by him being so anti-social and a few co-workers are, as well. How can he constantly ask people if they are happy at work, yet clearly avoids social situations? I feel he thinks it is unprofessional for him to mingle with his subordinates. Should any of us really feel offended by his behavior? Should he attend these gatherings?
Actually, from what's written here, he sounds pretty nice. He's buying you pizza, letting you have various celebrations in the office, and frequently telling you that he wants you to be happy.
He could be avoiding these gatherings because he's swamped with work ... or because he believes that his presence would inhibit whatever fun you'd normally have ... or, hell, because he's shy.
My advice to him would be to put in some face time at these gatherings occasionally, but I certainly don't think he needs to attend every one of them, as it sounds like there are quite a few (beginning of spring?). And if he chooses not to, I don't think you guys should be offended by it; it sounds like you're attributing motives to it that you don't have any evidence are actually there. Sometimes you can choose not to be offended, and I think this is one of those times.
But if you would like to have him there sometimes, why not invite him explicitly? Next time you're organizing a gathering, just say to him, "We would love to have you join us at this lunch. We never get to see you socially."
It's a rare situation that can't be fixed by candor.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
if you wanted to telecommute, you should have said so earlier
I think I want to start a "turn-offs" series where I just complain about things that turn me off about candidates. (Or maybe, um, I already have.) Here's the scenario for today's:
We place an ad. It clearly states that the position is based in our headquarters in Washington, D.C. The candidate, who does not live in Washington, applies. We go through a phone interview. We go through an exercise or writing sample. We go through an interview.
At same point not at all near the start of this process, the candidate mentions, casually, that they'd want to work from their home in a city hours and hours away from D.C. I tell them that actually, as the ad said from the beginning, the position is based in our office, and that we're committed to that for various reasons. They then act (a) surprised and (b) often, as if it's too bad that we're not open-minded and visionary enough to see why their plan is a better idea.
Look, I am a huge fan of telecommuting. Huge. I work from home on occasions when I need to, and I'm fine with others doing that too. And I have some employees who work remotely full-time. But for that latter group, the full-time telecommuters, they either (a) worked with us for years before converting to full-time telecommuters, so they knew our culture and expectations well, and we knew and trusted their work ethic, or (b) have jobs that require that they be based in some other city because of the nature of the work.
But with most of the jobs I'm hiring for, it's far better for the organization if the person is based in our office ... because they have to manage people, or work with others where face-to-face conversations help a lot, or absorb stuff that you'll take in like osmosis if you're physically present but really have to work to get if you're far away, or whatever.
And yes, I know that all of that can be done remotely, and there's technology that helps, but I have watched people try, and an awful lot of the time, it's just not the same. At a minimum, it can inconvenience other colleagues. And worst case, the person never quite picks up on our culture and way of doing things and it shows. And that's not a risk I want to take with a stranger when I don't have to. Maybe if you're a rock star candidate and I have no other rock star candidates. Maybe.
But I don't like the bait-and-switch. I advertised the position as based in a specific city for a reason. If you want to know if being a full-time telecommuter is an option, raise it up-front, not halfway through the process. I know they've waited to raise it because they're hoping to wait until I'm so impressed with them that I'll be willing to be flexible on this point, but the problem is that it comes across as disingenuous to wait that long.
And that's today's turn-off.
We place an ad. It clearly states that the position is based in our headquarters in Washington, D.C. The candidate, who does not live in Washington, applies. We go through a phone interview. We go through an exercise or writing sample. We go through an interview.
At same point not at all near the start of this process, the candidate mentions, casually, that they'd want to work from their home in a city hours and hours away from D.C. I tell them that actually, as the ad said from the beginning, the position is based in our office, and that we're committed to that for various reasons. They then act (a) surprised and (b) often, as if it's too bad that we're not open-minded and visionary enough to see why their plan is a better idea.
Look, I am a huge fan of telecommuting. Huge. I work from home on occasions when I need to, and I'm fine with others doing that too. And I have some employees who work remotely full-time. But for that latter group, the full-time telecommuters, they either (a) worked with us for years before converting to full-time telecommuters, so they knew our culture and expectations well, and we knew and trusted their work ethic, or (b) have jobs that require that they be based in some other city because of the nature of the work.
But with most of the jobs I'm hiring for, it's far better for the organization if the person is based in our office ... because they have to manage people, or work with others where face-to-face conversations help a lot, or absorb stuff that you'll take in like osmosis if you're physically present but really have to work to get if you're far away, or whatever.
And yes, I know that all of that can be done remotely, and there's technology that helps, but I have watched people try, and an awful lot of the time, it's just not the same. At a minimum, it can inconvenience other colleagues. And worst case, the person never quite picks up on our culture and way of doing things and it shows. And that's not a risk I want to take with a stranger when I don't have to. Maybe if you're a rock star candidate and I have no other rock star candidates. Maybe.
But I don't like the bait-and-switch. I advertised the position as based in a specific city for a reason. If you want to know if being a full-time telecommuter is an option, raise it up-front, not halfway through the process. I know they've waited to raise it because they're hoping to wait until I'm so impressed with them that I'll be willing to be flexible on this point, but the problem is that it comes across as disingenuous to wait that long.
And that's today's turn-off.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
get the job title right
I can't tell you how many cover letters I receive from people who get the title of the job they're applying for wrong.
I know what job they mean, because they've put it in the subject line of the email. But when I open the cover letter, there it is -- a totally different job, presumably one they applied for somewhere else right before sending me this letter. Often it's a job that bears no relation to anything we do.
Not really a turn-on. Even if the rest of the application is great, it's hard to get past a big red flag screaming "no attention to detail."
I know what job they mean, because they've put it in the subject line of the email. But when I open the cover letter, there it is -- a totally different job, presumably one they applied for somewhere else right before sending me this letter. Often it's a job that bears no relation to anything we do.
Not really a turn-on. Even if the rest of the application is great, it's hard to get past a big red flag screaming "no attention to detail."
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
out-of-control employees and unhelpful boss
A reader writes:
How do I handle a supervisor who insists on interfering in decisions I make regarding my personnel -- such as leave time, work assignments, staff not coming into work and then apologizing to him with no explanation to me, etc.
When I approach this supervisor regarding very specific issues that have arisen such as false comments made at work by those I supervise that cause relatives (whom I do not know) to come to my home to "confront" me, he laughs because he finds the topic humorous (never mind the fact that I felt threatened--a topic he never addressed). Or when threatening calls are made and messages left on my work voice mail, he does nothing. He has never addressed those involved in the situation. He's only said to me basically to ignore it. H.R.is not much of a help either.
I asked this writer to clarify exactly what her role is in regard to these staffers, and she said, "I have hire and fire authority and I am their direct supervisor."
Um. I'm going to be a little harsh here, because I'm a bit stunned by this letter.
Either you have authority or you don't. Right now you're acting like you don't.
Why are you asking your supervisor to handle these issues for you? You are the manager of these people. You need to manage them.
Your staff's relatives are coming to your home to confront you? People are leaving threatening messages on your voicemail?
You have completely lost control of your staff. You need to get it back, immediately. You need to address this on three fronts: your staff, your boss, and yourself.
1. Your staff. You need to sit down with each staffer, individually, and explain what is and isn't acceptable. For instance, they are to clear leave time with you, not your boss. If they do not do this, it will be considered unapproved leave. And, uh, having relatives come to your home or call you is not acceptable. Explain that you've tolerated more in the past than you should have, that that's changing immediately, and that you expect them to comply. Period.
If they don't comply, warn them once. If they still don't comply, fire them and hire people who will behave appropriately. What you're talking about is far too over the line to mess around with. And frankly, the situation sounds so far gone that you may not be able to recover the respect that you need to properly manage with this current crop of staffers anyway.
2. Your boss. Why is he undermining your decisions? Has he lost confidence in you? Either he is a bad boss who doesn't know how to properly delegate authority, or he's stepping in because he's not happy with the way you're running things. Actually, either way he's a bad boss, since if he's unhappy with your management, he should have talked to you about it by now. So he sucks either way, but you're stuck with him.
You need to have a candid talk with him. Tell him that in order to manage your staff effectively, you need them to see you as their final authority, not him. Explain that he undermines your effectiveness when he reverses your decisions. Ask him to resist the impulse to meddle in individual decisions you make. If he has concerns with how you're handling things, you and he should work those out on a big-picture level. Either he's assigned you true authority or he hasn't, but he can't have it both ways.
3. Yourself. How did the situation get to the point that you have a staff doing these things? This is not normal. At a minimum, it's indicative of a staff that doesn't respect you (possibly because you haven't exercised your authority correctly with them). You need to figure out how this happened so that you really understand how this all unfolded and what to change.
Here are two previous posts on exercising authority in situations like this that may help:
How do I handle a supervisor who insists on interfering in decisions I make regarding my personnel -- such as leave time, work assignments, staff not coming into work and then apologizing to him with no explanation to me, etc.
When I approach this supervisor regarding very specific issues that have arisen such as false comments made at work by those I supervise that cause relatives (whom I do not know) to come to my home to "confront" me, he laughs because he finds the topic humorous (never mind the fact that I felt threatened--a topic he never addressed). Or when threatening calls are made and messages left on my work voice mail, he does nothing. He has never addressed those involved in the situation. He's only said to me basically to ignore it. H.R.is not much of a help either.
I asked this writer to clarify exactly what her role is in regard to these staffers, and she said, "I have hire and fire authority and I am their direct supervisor."
Um. I'm going to be a little harsh here, because I'm a bit stunned by this letter.
Either you have authority or you don't. Right now you're acting like you don't.
Why are you asking your supervisor to handle these issues for you? You are the manager of these people. You need to manage them.
Your staff's relatives are coming to your home to confront you? People are leaving threatening messages on your voicemail?
You have completely lost control of your staff. You need to get it back, immediately. You need to address this on three fronts: your staff, your boss, and yourself.
1. Your staff. You need to sit down with each staffer, individually, and explain what is and isn't acceptable. For instance, they are to clear leave time with you, not your boss. If they do not do this, it will be considered unapproved leave. And, uh, having relatives come to your home or call you is not acceptable. Explain that you've tolerated more in the past than you should have, that that's changing immediately, and that you expect them to comply. Period.
If they don't comply, warn them once. If they still don't comply, fire them and hire people who will behave appropriately. What you're talking about is far too over the line to mess around with. And frankly, the situation sounds so far gone that you may not be able to recover the respect that you need to properly manage with this current crop of staffers anyway.
2. Your boss. Why is he undermining your decisions? Has he lost confidence in you? Either he is a bad boss who doesn't know how to properly delegate authority, or he's stepping in because he's not happy with the way you're running things. Actually, either way he's a bad boss, since if he's unhappy with your management, he should have talked to you about it by now. So he sucks either way, but you're stuck with him.
You need to have a candid talk with him. Tell him that in order to manage your staff effectively, you need them to see you as their final authority, not him. Explain that he undermines your effectiveness when he reverses your decisions. Ask him to resist the impulse to meddle in individual decisions you make. If he has concerns with how you're handling things, you and he should work those out on a big-picture level. Either he's assigned you true authority or he hasn't, but he can't have it both ways.
3. Yourself. How did the situation get to the point that you have a staff doing these things? This is not normal. At a minimum, it's indicative of a staff that doesn't respect you (possibly because you haven't exercised your authority correctly with them). You need to figure out how this happened so that you really understand how this all unfolded and what to change.
Here are two previous posts on exercising authority in situations like this that may help:
asserting authority with bullying employeesThere are also tons of good books out there on good management (including my own!). I think you'll find they might really help too. It's can be hard to find the right balance when it comes to authority -- avoiding the two extremes of wimp and tyrant and instead finding that spot in the middle -- especially when you don't have good models for it. Your boss doesn't seem willing/able to help, but there are many resources out there that can. Good luck!
new managers and authority
Monday, May 18, 2009
using a third-person bio instead of a resume
Occasionally someone sends me a bio instead of a resume. By that, I mean a narrative of their career, written in the third person. (Am I explaining this right? Like a magazine profile, without the colorful tidbits. Or, well, like an obituary.)
Don't do it.
It's odd.
Maybe celebrities do this, but I'm unnerved to see you, a regular person, talking about yourself in the third-person, and I wonder why you chose to jettison a regular resume in favor of this weird profile/bio.
What's wrong with a regular old resume format?
Don't do it.
It's odd.
Maybe celebrities do this, but I'm unnerved to see you, a regular person, talking about yourself in the third-person, and I wonder why you chose to jettison a regular resume in favor of this weird profile/bio.
What's wrong with a regular old resume format?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
