My new pet peeve is becoming people who think that because they're interviewing at a nonprofit, they can dress down for the interview. I've seen too many candidates lately in business casual, which I'm pretty sure they'd never wear for an interview at, say, a bank.
Why are people doing this? Do they think other nonprofit standards are going to be lower too, like performance accountability? They're not. (Or at least they shouldn't be; if anything, they should be higher, given the importance of the work of many nonprofits.)
This is my PSA for the day: If you are interviewing at a nonprofit, you still need to wear a suit.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Monday, October 6, 2008
an ode to the bad managers of my past
I never had a mentor. Once a boss promised to teach me how to manage people, but then she promptly disappeared to "work from home" for weeks on end and was never seen again.
What I had instead were anti-mentors: bosses who were so bad that they unwittingly formed the start of my thinking on management, by providing a perfect model of what not to do.
My first boss was so afraid of offending anyone or making waves that he stood idly by while the organization crumbled around him. About half the staff there did little to no work, and he said nothing about it. He would sometimes complain about people behind their back but he never addressed anything to anyone's face. It was impossible to get warned about anything, let alone fired. One coworker and I used to speculate on how outrageous someone's behavior would have to be before he would be forced to say something to them. At one point, we decided that I could come to work wrapped in a bath towel, as if I'd just stepped out of the shower, and he wouldn't comment on it. We resorted to begging the higher-ups to hire a real manager, but our pleas went nowhere and we eventually left.
Later, I had another boss who openly talked about how she hadn't wanted the promotion that had made her the manager of our department, and it was clear that her strategy was to pretend nothing had changed. Requests from other departments for work from us would sit in her in-box for days because she either didn't want or didn't know how to assign work. Eventually the department that had sent the request would call to check on it, at which point she would assign it to someone who would be forced to drop everything to complete it at the last minute. A co-worker and I used to devise ways to get work done despite her; at one point we installed a work order box outside the department and announced that all incoming jobs had to be requested via a form left in the box, so we could just grab jobs and do them, before they got bottlenecked with our alleged "manager."
I had another boss who brought me in to "fix" problems on the staff and who loved to sit in his office and complain to me about how those problem staffers were holding the organization back. Ironically, he also loved giving flowery speeches about the importance of strong management -- until I told him it was time to start holding those problem staffers accountable and insisting they start getting some results. Then he filibustered for months, coming up with one reason after another why we couldn't take any action, until I finally realized he would never bring himself to make waves. Many years later, long after I left in frustration at his inaction, those problem staffers are still there, their problem behaviors unchanged.
I could go on and on. But the point is this: My bad bosses taught me what eventually became the foundation of my own approach to management, by teaching me what not to do. Once you know what not to do, the path to what you should do becomes remarkably clear.
By working for managers who allowed their desire to be nice to lead them to avoid unpopular/difficult decisions and conversations, I learned how crucial it is to address problems straightforwardly. By working for managers who tolerated shoddy work, I learned the importance of setting a clear and high bar and expecting people to meet it. By working with managers who didn't know how to delegate, I learned how key it is to be hands-on in keeping work moving, including laying out clear expectations about results, checking in on progress, and holding people accountable for their performance. And from various other bad managers, I learned to see and use authority as just one more tool in the toolbox for getting things done; it's not something that should make you nervous or something to lord over others, just something that helps you run things in the way they should be run, and to back up your words with action.
And now that I manage other managers, I make damn sure none of them are going to be the nightmare manager that someone else is writing about someday.
So here's a shout-out to all the bad managers from my past. You put me on the path to my current job and, in the words of the terrible Chicago ballad, you're the inspiration. Thank you!
What I had instead were anti-mentors: bosses who were so bad that they unwittingly formed the start of my thinking on management, by providing a perfect model of what not to do.
My first boss was so afraid of offending anyone or making waves that he stood idly by while the organization crumbled around him. About half the staff there did little to no work, and he said nothing about it. He would sometimes complain about people behind their back but he never addressed anything to anyone's face. It was impossible to get warned about anything, let alone fired. One coworker and I used to speculate on how outrageous someone's behavior would have to be before he would be forced to say something to them. At one point, we decided that I could come to work wrapped in a bath towel, as if I'd just stepped out of the shower, and he wouldn't comment on it. We resorted to begging the higher-ups to hire a real manager, but our pleas went nowhere and we eventually left.
Later, I had another boss who openly talked about how she hadn't wanted the promotion that had made her the manager of our department, and it was clear that her strategy was to pretend nothing had changed. Requests from other departments for work from us would sit in her in-box for days because she either didn't want or didn't know how to assign work. Eventually the department that had sent the request would call to check on it, at which point she would assign it to someone who would be forced to drop everything to complete it at the last minute. A co-worker and I used to devise ways to get work done despite her; at one point we installed a work order box outside the department and announced that all incoming jobs had to be requested via a form left in the box, so we could just grab jobs and do them, before they got bottlenecked with our alleged "manager."
I had another boss who brought me in to "fix" problems on the staff and who loved to sit in his office and complain to me about how those problem staffers were holding the organization back. Ironically, he also loved giving flowery speeches about the importance of strong management -- until I told him it was time to start holding those problem staffers accountable and insisting they start getting some results. Then he filibustered for months, coming up with one reason after another why we couldn't take any action, until I finally realized he would never bring himself to make waves. Many years later, long after I left in frustration at his inaction, those problem staffers are still there, their problem behaviors unchanged.
I could go on and on. But the point is this: My bad bosses taught me what eventually became the foundation of my own approach to management, by teaching me what not to do. Once you know what not to do, the path to what you should do becomes remarkably clear.
By working for managers who allowed their desire to be nice to lead them to avoid unpopular/difficult decisions and conversations, I learned how crucial it is to address problems straightforwardly. By working for managers who tolerated shoddy work, I learned the importance of setting a clear and high bar and expecting people to meet it. By working with managers who didn't know how to delegate, I learned how key it is to be hands-on in keeping work moving, including laying out clear expectations about results, checking in on progress, and holding people accountable for their performance. And from various other bad managers, I learned to see and use authority as just one more tool in the toolbox for getting things done; it's not something that should make you nervous or something to lord over others, just something that helps you run things in the way they should be run, and to back up your words with action.
And now that I manage other managers, I make damn sure none of them are going to be the nightmare manager that someone else is writing about someday.
So here's a shout-out to all the bad managers from my past. You put me on the path to my current job and, in the words of the terrible Chicago ballad, you're the inspiration. Thank you!
5 signs you're about to be fired
It's always baffling to me how many people don't realize when they're in danger of being fired, even when the signs are all there. When it finally happens, they're stunned and seem never to have seen it coming. Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I give five signs that your job might be in danger. Check it out.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
how does blogging affect job-hunting?
A reader writes:
What is your take on having a blog and how that might affect your career, especially if you are job-hunting?
I blog as a hobby for about five years now. I have a political blog where I often deal with controversial topics and issues and which I sometimes take staunch positions. It is well-written (I don't rant and rave -- this is where I do serious writing and reflection) and I try to be thoughtful in my posts. I also am linked to several nationally-known bloggers and have a growing readership.
My question is: as a hiring manager, what is your take on a potential hire having such a hobby? Would you hold their writings against them -- especially if they deal with controversial political and cultural topics? I make an effort to be anonymous and use a pseudonym but my true identity can easily be found out using a simple Google search. I do not mention any of my employers at all in my blog posts and tend to avoid topics that have to do with my employer's business. That said, I am not sure if that is enough precaution to keep me out of trouble.
Depends on the employer, and depends on how controversial.
Here's where I come down on it (and this is only my personal take, not representative of all employers): If someone is writing about a controversial issue and they're doing it in a thoughtful, calm way, then regardless of which side of the issue they're on, that's fine with me. But if someone is ranting, or so extreme in their views that they're scary (and that's subjective, of course), or just offensive, it's probably a deal-breaker.
Also, if I know about a candidate's blog, it's going to become part of their application package whether they know it or not. I'm going to look at it for evidence of how their writing is, how they use logic, what their judgment is like, and generally who they are -- like a MySpace page, it's definitely not off-limits. This could help or it could hurt, depending on the blog. (Side story: I actually once saw the blog of a candidate who had blogged about her interview process with me. It was well-done and it helped.)
In any case, personally, it's more about the type of thing above than whether or not I object to the particular views the person is espousing. In fact, I would rather not have a staff with identical views anyway.
However, it's a risk. Plenty of employers won't agree with me and if they disagree with your views may hold it against you. To some extent, this is human nature. Some of hiring involves personal chemistry.
Additionally, you need to be prepared for employers to require you to discontinue the blog once you're on the job, or at least give you rules about what you can and can't write about. In some fields you just can't have an outside blog that showcases your individual opinions. For instance, if you work on a political campaign that's moderate and you have a blog where you occasionally display more radical opinions, that's a problem for the campaign and they're going to make you shut it down -- because many people will see it reflecting on them even if it doesn't actually. So if the blog is important to you and you don't want to find yourself choosing between it and your job, it might even be worth asking about before you take an offer.
Anyway, this is a huge topic and we've only scratched the surface. Anyone else want to weigh in?
What is your take on having a blog and how that might affect your career, especially if you are job-hunting?
I blog as a hobby for about five years now. I have a political blog where I often deal with controversial topics and issues and which I sometimes take staunch positions. It is well-written (I don't rant and rave -- this is where I do serious writing and reflection) and I try to be thoughtful in my posts. I also am linked to several nationally-known bloggers and have a growing readership.
My question is: as a hiring manager, what is your take on a potential hire having such a hobby? Would you hold their writings against them -- especially if they deal with controversial political and cultural topics? I make an effort to be anonymous and use a pseudonym but my true identity can easily be found out using a simple Google search. I do not mention any of my employers at all in my blog posts and tend to avoid topics that have to do with my employer's business. That said, I am not sure if that is enough precaution to keep me out of trouble.
Depends on the employer, and depends on how controversial.
Here's where I come down on it (and this is only my personal take, not representative of all employers): If someone is writing about a controversial issue and they're doing it in a thoughtful, calm way, then regardless of which side of the issue they're on, that's fine with me. But if someone is ranting, or so extreme in their views that they're scary (and that's subjective, of course), or just offensive, it's probably a deal-breaker.
Also, if I know about a candidate's blog, it's going to become part of their application package whether they know it or not. I'm going to look at it for evidence of how their writing is, how they use logic, what their judgment is like, and generally who they are -- like a MySpace page, it's definitely not off-limits. This could help or it could hurt, depending on the blog. (Side story: I actually once saw the blog of a candidate who had blogged about her interview process with me. It was well-done and it helped.)
In any case, personally, it's more about the type of thing above than whether or not I object to the particular views the person is espousing. In fact, I would rather not have a staff with identical views anyway.
However, it's a risk. Plenty of employers won't agree with me and if they disagree with your views may hold it against you. To some extent, this is human nature. Some of hiring involves personal chemistry.
Additionally, you need to be prepared for employers to require you to discontinue the blog once you're on the job, or at least give you rules about what you can and can't write about. In some fields you just can't have an outside blog that showcases your individual opinions. For instance, if you work on a political campaign that's moderate and you have a blog where you occasionally display more radical opinions, that's a problem for the campaign and they're going to make you shut it down -- because many people will see it reflecting on them even if it doesn't actually. So if the blog is important to you and you don't want to find yourself choosing between it and your job, it might even be worth asking about before you take an offer.
Anyway, this is a huge topic and we've only scratched the surface. Anyone else want to weigh in?
Friday, October 3, 2008
should I stay or should I go?
A reader writes:
I have been with my company for over four years and was doing well until I went on maternity leave for a year. When I returned, I had a new boss (making me start the cycle of having to prove again my skills and worth) and a new role, which is more strategic than before. But because of my family commitments, especially with the new baby and sleepless nights, I am unable to give 100% to the job.
My current job involves getting very deep into the industry vertical to be able to participate actively in strategy discussions, sometimes with senior management. I am trying my best, I even joined a consulting course. But learning about the nuts and bolts of the industry has been a challenge, and I often sit through meetings with rarely any input. This is making me self-conscious and I often wonder if I am under-performing. My boss has already told me to take industry-related courses because he feels I need to work on this.
He is also sort of a micromanager compared to all my bosses before. He is very knowledgeable but would like me to rise up to his standards and often shoots down my work, which is very much demotivating. He also keeps talking about bringing a person from his previous company who is supposed to be smart, but mentioned that it will not affect my job.
My work in general has been perceived very well with every company I have worked till date (except with my new boss), and I am considered to be pretty good on deadlines and go to any extra ends to get things done. I like my new role but I am not sure if I will be able to perform according to the desired standards and ever please my boss. I am also worried if he will bring this new person in and slowly sidetrack me or fire me. These days, I have really lost my confidence and interest in the job and I am trying for new jobs. What do you suggest? Should I stick to my job or look for a new job?
It's hard to say with limited information, but these things jumped out at me from your letter:
- You feel you haven't been able to give 100% to the job because you have different commitments now.
- You and your boss both feel that you do not have the industry knowledge (at least not yet) to do the deep strategy discussions the job requires.
- You don't like your new boss' management style (and let's face it, that style may be becoming more pronounced because your boss isn't confident in your performance).
- You're losing interest in the role.
Rather than asking whether you should look for a new job, I'd be asking why you should stay. It doesn't sound like you believe this job is a natural fit for you, so why not start looking around for one that is?
We should all want jobs that we'll excel in. It feels crappy to be constantly struggling to succeed in a job, to see a disappointed or concerned boss, to have to worry about being pushed out. Don't stay for the sake of sticking it out; if this isn't right for you -- and I'm defining "right" as a role where you're going to shine, not as a job where you can get by -- start looking for what might be a better a fit. There's no shame in that.
But if you're not ready for that -- and maybe with a new baby you'd rather avoid more upheaval -- a middle ground would be to talk to your boss, and ask for some feedback. How does he think you're doing overall? Does he have confidence that you'll be able to perform at the level he's looking for in time? Best case scenario, his answers to these questions could provide you with some reassurance. Worst case scenario, they at least help you stop having to guess and give you some firmer facts to base your next move on.
Good luck!
I have been with my company for over four years and was doing well until I went on maternity leave for a year. When I returned, I had a new boss (making me start the cycle of having to prove again my skills and worth) and a new role, which is more strategic than before. But because of my family commitments, especially with the new baby and sleepless nights, I am unable to give 100% to the job.
My current job involves getting very deep into the industry vertical to be able to participate actively in strategy discussions, sometimes with senior management. I am trying my best, I even joined a consulting course. But learning about the nuts and bolts of the industry has been a challenge, and I often sit through meetings with rarely any input. This is making me self-conscious and I often wonder if I am under-performing. My boss has already told me to take industry-related courses because he feels I need to work on this.
He is also sort of a micromanager compared to all my bosses before. He is very knowledgeable but would like me to rise up to his standards and often shoots down my work, which is very much demotivating. He also keeps talking about bringing a person from his previous company who is supposed to be smart, but mentioned that it will not affect my job.
My work in general has been perceived very well with every company I have worked till date (except with my new boss), and I am considered to be pretty good on deadlines and go to any extra ends to get things done. I like my new role but I am not sure if I will be able to perform according to the desired standards and ever please my boss. I am also worried if he will bring this new person in and slowly sidetrack me or fire me. These days, I have really lost my confidence and interest in the job and I am trying for new jobs. What do you suggest? Should I stick to my job or look for a new job?
It's hard to say with limited information, but these things jumped out at me from your letter:
- You feel you haven't been able to give 100% to the job because you have different commitments now.
- You and your boss both feel that you do not have the industry knowledge (at least not yet) to do the deep strategy discussions the job requires.
- You don't like your new boss' management style (and let's face it, that style may be becoming more pronounced because your boss isn't confident in your performance).
- You're losing interest in the role.
Rather than asking whether you should look for a new job, I'd be asking why you should stay. It doesn't sound like you believe this job is a natural fit for you, so why not start looking around for one that is?
We should all want jobs that we'll excel in. It feels crappy to be constantly struggling to succeed in a job, to see a disappointed or concerned boss, to have to worry about being pushed out. Don't stay for the sake of sticking it out; if this isn't right for you -- and I'm defining "right" as a role where you're going to shine, not as a job where you can get by -- start looking for what might be a better a fit. There's no shame in that.
But if you're not ready for that -- and maybe with a new baby you'd rather avoid more upheaval -- a middle ground would be to talk to your boss, and ask for some feedback. How does he think you're doing overall? Does he have confidence that you'll be able to perform at the level he's looking for in time? Best case scenario, his answers to these questions could provide you with some reassurance. Worst case scenario, they at least help you stop having to guess and give you some firmer facts to base your next move on.
Good luck!
Monday, September 29, 2008
should you tell your boss you're job-hunting?
A reader writes:
I have a good relationship with my boss and enjoy my current job and employer, but I’m about to interview for another job that is both a career “step up” and a shorter commute. The organization requires an “assessment” on a Wednesday followed by initial interviews that Friday, which means I would need to schedule time off on both weekdays. Since I haven’t yet had a first interview, it’s not certain whether I’ll be among those chosen to go on to the next round.
My question is: Do I tell my boss the real reason I’ll be requesting time off as a courtesy to her, or do I wait until I find out whether I’m a finalist? If I don’t tell her the full reason for the time off, what do I say? I won’t lie, and I suspect that being vague will tip her off anyhow.
The answer to this is highly dependent on the culture at your workplace and your relationship with your boss.
The standard answer to this -- and the answer for you unless you have concrete reason to believe otherwise -- is that you don't tell your employer that you're job-searching until you have accepted another offer. This is because many employers, once they know you're looking, will begin treating you differently -- for instance, giving you fewer plum assignments or no long-term assignments, curtailing any investments in your training or development, seeing you as disloyal or a short-timer, and in some cases, even letting you go. And after all, you may not get this job, and then you could be stuck in an awkward situation for quite some time.
However, there are some organizations, and some bosses, where this is not the case. (If anyone who works with me is reading this, we're one of them.) I believe that in most cases, smart employers should cultivate an atmosphere where employees who are ready to move on can freely share their plans. Why? For two reasons:
1. When employers do this, they get employees who give them really long notice periods. I've had employees give me as much as eight months notice that they planned to leave! This is fantastic for me as a manager, because it allows me to structure the hiring of their replacement so that the new person starts with a week or two of overlap with the exiting person, which both helps with training and eliminates the vacancy period we'd otherwise have. (And since vacancies cause strain on other employees who have to pick up the extra work, this is good news all around.) When employers penalize employees for giving lots of notice, they guarantee that they will just get the standard two weeks, which leaves the manager scrambling to cover the vacancy and rushing to hire.
2. It's good for morale for employees to know that when they're ready to move on, they won't need to sneak around, and that they can even seek help from the person who may be best equipped to find them their next position -- their current manager. If a good employee comes to me ready to start looking at other options, I will likely try to persuade them to stay -- but if I can't, I will go all out for them as far as helping them network into their next job, giving interview advice, etc. I do this partly because I like helping people professionally (hence, uh, this blog), but also because I believe it is good for my organization to have employees who know that this is how we treat people.
So there's the argument for employers creating an atmosphere where employees know it's safe to speak up when they're job-hunting. But how do you, as an employee, know if your office is one of those?
Pay attention to how your employer has handled other employees who resign. Are people shown the door immediately? Pushed out earlier than they would have otherwise planned to leave? If so, assume the same may happen to you, and give two weeks and nothing more. But if your employer has a track record of accommodating long notice periods, has been grateful to employees who provide long notice, and has generally shown that employees can feel safe being candid about their plans to leave, take your cues from that. Some employers "earn" long notice periods and employees who keep kicking butt through their final day ... and some don't.
Oh, and if you decide you shouldn't risk being candid, the usual options when you have to take time off for an interview are to say you have an "appointment" or "something personal that you need to take care of." If your office is one where they'll push back at something like that, then they deserve being lied to.
I have a good relationship with my boss and enjoy my current job and employer, but I’m about to interview for another job that is both a career “step up” and a shorter commute. The organization requires an “assessment” on a Wednesday followed by initial interviews that Friday, which means I would need to schedule time off on both weekdays. Since I haven’t yet had a first interview, it’s not certain whether I’ll be among those chosen to go on to the next round.
My question is: Do I tell my boss the real reason I’ll be requesting time off as a courtesy to her, or do I wait until I find out whether I’m a finalist? If I don’t tell her the full reason for the time off, what do I say? I won’t lie, and I suspect that being vague will tip her off anyhow.
The answer to this is highly dependent on the culture at your workplace and your relationship with your boss.
The standard answer to this -- and the answer for you unless you have concrete reason to believe otherwise -- is that you don't tell your employer that you're job-searching until you have accepted another offer. This is because many employers, once they know you're looking, will begin treating you differently -- for instance, giving you fewer plum assignments or no long-term assignments, curtailing any investments in your training or development, seeing you as disloyal or a short-timer, and in some cases, even letting you go. And after all, you may not get this job, and then you could be stuck in an awkward situation for quite some time.
However, there are some organizations, and some bosses, where this is not the case. (If anyone who works with me is reading this, we're one of them.) I believe that in most cases, smart employers should cultivate an atmosphere where employees who are ready to move on can freely share their plans. Why? For two reasons:
1. When employers do this, they get employees who give them really long notice periods. I've had employees give me as much as eight months notice that they planned to leave! This is fantastic for me as a manager, because it allows me to structure the hiring of their replacement so that the new person starts with a week or two of overlap with the exiting person, which both helps with training and eliminates the vacancy period we'd otherwise have. (And since vacancies cause strain on other employees who have to pick up the extra work, this is good news all around.) When employers penalize employees for giving lots of notice, they guarantee that they will just get the standard two weeks, which leaves the manager scrambling to cover the vacancy and rushing to hire.
2. It's good for morale for employees to know that when they're ready to move on, they won't need to sneak around, and that they can even seek help from the person who may be best equipped to find them their next position -- their current manager. If a good employee comes to me ready to start looking at other options, I will likely try to persuade them to stay -- but if I can't, I will go all out for them as far as helping them network into their next job, giving interview advice, etc. I do this partly because I like helping people professionally (hence, uh, this blog), but also because I believe it is good for my organization to have employees who know that this is how we treat people.
So there's the argument for employers creating an atmosphere where employees know it's safe to speak up when they're job-hunting. But how do you, as an employee, know if your office is one of those?
Pay attention to how your employer has handled other employees who resign. Are people shown the door immediately? Pushed out earlier than they would have otherwise planned to leave? If so, assume the same may happen to you, and give two weeks and nothing more. But if your employer has a track record of accommodating long notice periods, has been grateful to employees who provide long notice, and has generally shown that employees can feel safe being candid about their plans to leave, take your cues from that. Some employers "earn" long notice periods and employees who keep kicking butt through their final day ... and some don't.
Oh, and if you decide you shouldn't risk being candid, the usual options when you have to take time off for an interview are to say you have an "appointment" or "something personal that you need to take care of." If your office is one where they'll push back at something like that, then they deserve being lied to.
how to deal with a micromanager
If you, like many people, feel your boss is a micromanager, head over to my post at U.S. News and World Report today for some advice. (Warning: You may not like the answer.) As always, I'd love your comments, either here or there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
