A reader writes:
I'm writing this for my wife, who has an interesting situation at work. Since it's the holidays, I figured that there may be other employees going through this same situation with their bosses. So here goes...
My wife was assigned a new manager 2 months ago during an office reorganization. Since it was the holidays, and is normal practice at her office, she gave both her old manager and new manager a small holiday gift ($10 gift cards). The old manager accepted kindly, as did her new manager. However, her new manager felt the need to extend an offer to her for a "belated" holiday gift of going out to lunch one day - just the two of them - we're assuming in response to the gesture.
Although the intent seems genuine (he's also married), and nothing to the contrary has been seen by my wife or the manager's prior employees, it has put her in an awkward situation - as her boss is male, and she female. The questions abound... what is the intent of lunch - just lunch or something else? Again, nothing prior has indicated otherwise. What will his other employees think - will she be outcast for being the boss' favorite? Will the other employees think something else is going on between them? Is she overanalyzing the situation?
Even if there is no ill-intent my wife has been struggling to figure out how to handle the situation professionally, and as not to damage an employee / manager relationship that's just beginning. It doesn't appear that a one-on-one lunch is a precedent in her office, although group lunches between managers and employees occur often.
Um.
Men and women who work together can't go out to lunch during the work day with each other?
I would like to think that I could take a male employee to lunch without someone reading more into it. Bosses take employees to lunch all the time, as a thank-you for a great performance, as a chance to discuss career goals in a more relaxed setting, or just because they feel like getting some food. Often just because they feel like getting some food.
You say there's been no indication of anything improper. That's all you, or anyone else, needs to know.
I have to wonder: Since you're the one writing in rather than your wife, is it possible that you're the only one who sees something suspicious here? If I'm right ... dude, stop harassing your wife and let her have a normal relationship with her boss.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 28, 2009
I hate talking on the phone
I hate talking on the phone.
When I was a teenager, I lived my entire life on the phone. I even worked a part-time job just to get money to pay for my own phone line, so that I could talk on it as long as I wanted without anyone kicking me off. I was a master of all forms of phone activity, including three-hour time-killers in which we covered nothing of substance, the non-emergency (except in gossip terms) emergency break-through, and some really exceptional prank calls.
Somewhere along the way, though, the phone and I had a break-up. Probably because I developed a raging hot love for email, which suits me on far more levels: I can talk to you whenever I feel like it, even at 2 a.m. I can answer you when it's most convenient, or after I've pondered my answer for a while, or during the commercial break from Law & Order. And I can talk to you without you knowing that I have a mouth stuffed full of tacos.
In a work context, I'm even more pro-email and anti-phone. Lots of conversations that would take five minutes in person take 30 seconds in email. If you email me instead of calling me, I can concentrate on other things without interruption and answer you when I'm at a good stopping point. I can write you back after hours, when I finally have time to focus on what you're saying.
Obviously, email isn't good for every situation. There are times when email is less efficient than talking by phone or in person, or where the situation simply requires a real conversation. (And god knows that I learn things in phone interviews that I wouldn't have realized from email, like that the candidate is crazy ... or, alternately, spectacular.)
But I have to think that in 10 years, we're going to be using the phone even less than we are right now. And I will not be sorry to see it go.
When I was a teenager, I lived my entire life on the phone. I even worked a part-time job just to get money to pay for my own phone line, so that I could talk on it as long as I wanted without anyone kicking me off. I was a master of all forms of phone activity, including three-hour time-killers in which we covered nothing of substance, the non-emergency (except in gossip terms) emergency break-through, and some really exceptional prank calls.
Somewhere along the way, though, the phone and I had a break-up. Probably because I developed a raging hot love for email, which suits me on far more levels: I can talk to you whenever I feel like it, even at 2 a.m. I can answer you when it's most convenient, or after I've pondered my answer for a while, or during the commercial break from Law & Order. And I can talk to you without you knowing that I have a mouth stuffed full of tacos.
In a work context, I'm even more pro-email and anti-phone. Lots of conversations that would take five minutes in person take 30 seconds in email. If you email me instead of calling me, I can concentrate on other things without interruption and answer you when I'm at a good stopping point. I can write you back after hours, when I finally have time to focus on what you're saying.
Obviously, email isn't good for every situation. There are times when email is less efficient than talking by phone or in person, or where the situation simply requires a real conversation. (And god knows that I learn things in phone interviews that I wouldn't have realized from email, like that the candidate is crazy ... or, alternately, spectacular.)
But I have to think that in 10 years, we're going to be using the phone even less than we are right now. And I will not be sorry to see it go.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
why do employers re-advertise jobs after interviews?
A reader writes:
Is it normal for employers advertise again a position after the second round of interviews?
I've encountered this situation a few times and the first thing I imagine is that none of the candidates met their expectations, but they still want to keep these people as second or third options.
What is your opinion about this behavior? Do you think employers should be clearer about the process and tell job-seekers what is going on?
I wouldn't read too much into this, although it's tempting to. It could be a few different things:
* Sometimes the employer may have one or two strong candidates but be nervous about not having a wider pool. After all, if I only have one person I'm excited to hire, I'm screwed if that person turns down my offer or we can't come to terms for some other reason. So I'd always rather have a handful of strong candidates, which could mean that I continue advertising even as I'm moving through the process with that one star.
* Some companies keep fresh ads up until the position is officially filled.
* Sometimes an ad is self-renewing, because the employer purchased a certain number to run. So the ad "reappears" but not through any action of the employer.
* Or yes, sometimes new ads may indicate that the employer isn't thrilled with any of the candidates it currently has and wants to explore alternatives.
Because there's such a wide variety of possible explanations, you'll only drive yourself crazy trying to interpret those new ads. Instead, I'd recommend just asking the employer straighforwardly for their timeline -- what are their next steps, and when should you expect to hear back. After all, those are the answers that really matter.
Is it normal for employers advertise again a position after the second round of interviews?
I've encountered this situation a few times and the first thing I imagine is that none of the candidates met their expectations, but they still want to keep these people as second or third options.
What is your opinion about this behavior? Do you think employers should be clearer about the process and tell job-seekers what is going on?
I wouldn't read too much into this, although it's tempting to. It could be a few different things:
* Sometimes the employer may have one or two strong candidates but be nervous about not having a wider pool. After all, if I only have one person I'm excited to hire, I'm screwed if that person turns down my offer or we can't come to terms for some other reason. So I'd always rather have a handful of strong candidates, which could mean that I continue advertising even as I'm moving through the process with that one star.
* Some companies keep fresh ads up until the position is officially filled.
* Sometimes an ad is self-renewing, because the employer purchased a certain number to run. So the ad "reappears" but not through any action of the employer.
* Or yes, sometimes new ads may indicate that the employer isn't thrilled with any of the candidates it currently has and wants to explore alternatives.
Because there's such a wide variety of possible explanations, you'll only drive yourself crazy trying to interpret those new ads. Instead, I'd recommend just asking the employer straighforwardly for their timeline -- what are their next steps, and when should you expect to hear back. After all, those are the answers that really matter.
do managers this bad really exist?
A reader writes:
I've enjoyed reading your blog the last few months. I am however left wondering - where do these people work? After reading about the interactions your readers have with their leaders, I am stunned. Am I this sheltered? Do managers this clueless and/or evil really exist?
They do exist.
I don't believe any of the managers I've written about here are evil. They are, however, often incompetent, weak, or clueless.
They're also what inspired me to pursue the career path I ended up pursuing.
If you haven't encountered them, count yourself very lucky.
I've enjoyed reading your blog the last few months. I am however left wondering - where do these people work? After reading about the interactions your readers have with their leaders, I am stunned. Am I this sheltered? Do managers this clueless and/or evil really exist?
They do exist.
I don't believe any of the managers I've written about here are evil. They are, however, often incompetent, weak, or clueless.
They're also what inspired me to pursue the career path I ended up pursuing.
If you haven't encountered them, count yourself very lucky.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
will being on reality TV hurt my job prospects?
A reader writes:
Do you think that being on a reality TV show would adversely affect my ability to get a job? I am not currently slated to be on one, but if I were to do this, I wonder what the ramifications on my future job prospects might be. I'm talking about a Survivor-type show, nothing like sexy, island orgy stuff.
As a major fan of a slew of reality TV shows, especially bad ones, this question is like a Christmas present to me, so thank you.
First, may I say that I love your confidence? You are not slated to be on TV currently, but feel that there's a decent chance you could make it happen. And that is awesome.
Okay, so let's look at best case and worst case scenarios.
Best case, you're on a respectable show and conduct yourself in a respectable manner. You don't freak out on other contestants, you don't become known as the a-hole of the cast, and the show itself isn't about drunken antics or sexcapades. In this scenario, nothing negative attaches to your reputation, but you acquire a persona that may or may not accurately reflect who you are. So prospective employers -- at least those who may know you from the show -- feel like they know things about you, and those things may not be (a) accurate, (b) relevant, or (c) any of their business. You come with baggage, which could be good or bad -- maybe they like the idea of hiring the guy from that show and think it's a cool novelty perk, or maybe they'd feel cheesy hiring that guy.
Worst case, you implode in some spectacular way, or are edited to appear like a jerk, or end up on a show that develops some notoriety. (For instance, did those "Jersey Shore" people realize what they were getting into?) Then you've got all of the factors from the previous paragraph, but with a particularly negative spin on them.
You also have to remember about unintended consequences. The show could be totally respectable, your behavior could be impeccable, and you could still end up associated with something negative through something you didn't anticipate -- some unforeseen action of your castmates, or, hell, even just the fact that if any of us were filmed 24/7 we'd be highly likely to say or do something unfit for public consumption. (Oooh, that reminds me! I once knew someone who went on the WB's "Blind Date," accidentally behaved like a douche, and nearly lost his job over it.)
That said, I suspect there are always people who will hire someone specifically because they've been on TV. So it depends on who you want to work for.
On the other hand, if you're on a show designed to showcase your professional talent, like Top Chef, none of these rules apply.
If anyone wants to work other things I like into a question, you are pretty much guaranteed a fast reply.
Do you think that being on a reality TV show would adversely affect my ability to get a job? I am not currently slated to be on one, but if I were to do this, I wonder what the ramifications on my future job prospects might be. I'm talking about a Survivor-type show, nothing like sexy, island orgy stuff.
As a major fan of a slew of reality TV shows, especially bad ones, this question is like a Christmas present to me, so thank you.
First, may I say that I love your confidence? You are not slated to be on TV currently, but feel that there's a decent chance you could make it happen. And that is awesome.
Okay, so let's look at best case and worst case scenarios.
Best case, you're on a respectable show and conduct yourself in a respectable manner. You don't freak out on other contestants, you don't become known as the a-hole of the cast, and the show itself isn't about drunken antics or sexcapades. In this scenario, nothing negative attaches to your reputation, but you acquire a persona that may or may not accurately reflect who you are. So prospective employers -- at least those who may know you from the show -- feel like they know things about you, and those things may not be (a) accurate, (b) relevant, or (c) any of their business. You come with baggage, which could be good or bad -- maybe they like the idea of hiring the guy from that show and think it's a cool novelty perk, or maybe they'd feel cheesy hiring that guy.
Worst case, you implode in some spectacular way, or are edited to appear like a jerk, or end up on a show that develops some notoriety. (For instance, did those "Jersey Shore" people realize what they were getting into?) Then you've got all of the factors from the previous paragraph, but with a particularly negative spin on them.
You also have to remember about unintended consequences. The show could be totally respectable, your behavior could be impeccable, and you could still end up associated with something negative through something you didn't anticipate -- some unforeseen action of your castmates, or, hell, even just the fact that if any of us were filmed 24/7 we'd be highly likely to say or do something unfit for public consumption. (Oooh, that reminds me! I once knew someone who went on the WB's "Blind Date," accidentally behaved like a douche, and nearly lost his job over it.)
That said, I suspect there are always people who will hire someone specifically because they've been on TV. So it depends on who you want to work for.
On the other hand, if you're on a show designed to showcase your professional talent, like Top Chef, none of these rules apply.
If anyone wants to work other things I like into a question, you are pretty much guaranteed a fast reply.
where are they now: update #12 - when the boss owes you money
Remember the reader who was promised a stipend when she was interviewing for her internship, but never got the money she was promised? She wrote in asking how to ask her boss for the money she was owed.
http://askamanager.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-do-i-ask-my-boss-for-money-they-owe.html
Here's her update:
I took your advice and went to my manager and asked directly for the money. He (the EVP of the dept / Interim President) suggested we go back to the contract I had signed at the start of the internship, and when it turned out the transportation money wasn't included in the contract, he said that he couldn't pay the money. Needless to say, I was pretty frustrated - partly with myself for not insisting that the money be included in that contract, and partly with him for not relenting, when it seemed like such a small thing.
The good news is that the next week - the second week of August - I interviewed for two full time positions at two other environmental nonprofits, and happily received two offers! I started my new job the last week of August, and am thrilled with both the work and the organization.
I also recently found out that the organization where I interned has been going through some severe financial stress - they laid off another 10 or 15% of the staff of 20 people, including one of the SVPs, and are now renting out half of the office that serves as headquarters. Having heard that I have a hard time holding that $250 against my former manager.
Thanks again for your help - even though it didn't turn out how I wanted, it felt good to stand up for myself a little!
http://askamanager.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-do-i-ask-my-boss-for-money-they-owe.html
Here's her update:
I took your advice and went to my manager and asked directly for the money. He (the EVP of the dept / Interim President) suggested we go back to the contract I had signed at the start of the internship, and when it turned out the transportation money wasn't included in the contract, he said that he couldn't pay the money. Needless to say, I was pretty frustrated - partly with myself for not insisting that the money be included in that contract, and partly with him for not relenting, when it seemed like such a small thing.
The good news is that the next week - the second week of August - I interviewed for two full time positions at two other environmental nonprofits, and happily received two offers! I started my new job the last week of August, and am thrilled with both the work and the organization.
I also recently found out that the organization where I interned has been going through some severe financial stress - they laid off another 10 or 15% of the staff of 20 people, including one of the SVPs, and are now renting out half of the office that serves as headquarters. Having heard that I have a hard time holding that $250 against my former manager.
Thanks again for your help - even though it didn't turn out how I wanted, it felt good to stand up for myself a little!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
the weirdest interview question ever?
This amazing story comes from one of the commenters on my U.S. News & World report post earlier this week about how to handle inappropriate interview questions.
Linda R. wrote:
When I was just out of college (ahem...the early 80's, a less enlightened age), a friend went on an interview for an administrative position. She felt the interview was going very well. Then, the interviewer asked, "Can I look in your purse?"
In response to her shocked expression, he explained that he finds that to be the best indicator of how organized a woman is. She lost her composure for a minute, she was taken so by surprise, but wound up handing it over. He fingered through it, muttered something, thanked her and handed it back. She didn't wind up getting the job -- not due to a messy purse she was sure, since she had just cleaned it out. Nothing I've ever heard since then has struck me as a weirder question than that one.
Several reactions:
1. This would really annoy me. To the point that I might not take a job working for him.
2. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy for their purse contents.
3. Most importantly, I wonder what he asks men.
Linda R. wrote:
When I was just out of college (ahem...the early 80's, a less enlightened age), a friend went on an interview for an administrative position. She felt the interview was going very well. Then, the interviewer asked, "Can I look in your purse?"
In response to her shocked expression, he explained that he finds that to be the best indicator of how organized a woman is. She lost her composure for a minute, she was taken so by surprise, but wound up handing it over. He fingered through it, muttered something, thanked her and handed it back. She didn't wind up getting the job -- not due to a messy purse she was sure, since she had just cleaned it out. Nothing I've ever heard since then has struck me as a weirder question than that one.
Several reactions:
1. This would really annoy me. To the point that I might not take a job working for him.
2. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy for their purse contents.
3. Most importantly, I wonder what he asks men.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
