you need the right person, not the almost-right person

Most managers say they know how important it is to have the right people on their staff, but many (or even most) don’t act accordingly.

We've all worked with managers who dance around performance problems rather than addressing them head-on, who don’t focus enough on developing and retaining their best people, and who are way too slow to fire, if they do it at all. These are managers who either under-estimate the importance of having the right people or overestimate their own powers to shape their staffers’ performance.

The impact of having a team of high performers is dramatic. I'm not talking about small gains, like 5% or 10% in productivity and effectiveness. I'm talking about massive, startling gains. Research from a range of fields shows that high performers can outpace lower-performers by factors of five times or more. In other words, one high performer can have the same impact as five average performers.

You've probably seen this in your own experience. Most people have had the experience of having an employee who struggled to handle the volume of work and who swore that there was too much work for any one person to juggle ... but when they left, their replacements were able to handle all of the work and then some, to the point that we ended up giving the replacement extra work. I once inherited an employee who had racked up a six-month backlog of work. I replaced him with someone new, who within one month had processed the six-month backlog and was fully caught up.

Having the right person in the job makes a huge difference. And having the wrong person will hold you back tremendously.

What does this mean for managers? You should put significant energy into getting and keeping the right people and moving out the ones who don’t meet that bar. And while it's certainly worth some investment of your time to help develop people who are struggling, ultimately the person needs to meet a high bar, not a medium one. Otherwise, the opportunity cost is just too high.

male team won't talk to me

A reader writes:

I am a female (in my thirties) working within a team of men (IT developers). I am a new role for me as a business analyst. I have been working in the team for approximately 6 months, and if they didn't say hello to me in the morning, they wouldn't speak to me at all. They speak fine to each other, often joking around, but spend the rest of the time with headphones on while they do their work.

I've tried initiating conversation with them. They respond well, but they don't initiate conversation with me. For example: I need to ask them how their weekends were, they won't ask me the same question. It is like pulling teeth. I am not sure what I am doing wrong.

I am frustrated that I cannot get to know these guys. They go to lunch with each other at least once a week and I am not invited. I am really not sure how to break the ice and get these guys talking and communicating with me. I have mentioned this to my manager (who I used to work with in another position) but he cut from a very similar cloth as the guys I am trying to get to know.

Warning: I'm about to make a wild generalization. Many men who work in IT don't have great social skills around people who aren't like them and/or aren't comfortable with the kind of small talk and chit chat that can be normal social currency in other groups.

Many men in IT don't fit this profile -- in fact, I've somehow ended up with an IT team who don't fit this stereotype at all (and if they're reading this, I don't want them to think I'm talking about them because I'm not). But for whatever reason, the field certainly attracts a decent share of guys who get along really well with guys who are like them, but not so easily with others. (Here are a couple of interesting takes on this.)

So I'd caution you against thinking that this is deliberate or about you. I think it's more likely that this is just how these guys are with everyone except other developers and they don't even know they're making you feel shut out.

What can you do to build relationships with them? Pay attention to what interests them (probably not small talk about their weekends, but try technical topics); ask them intelligent questions about complex subjects they know well, and listen to their answers; and don't take it personally if it takes a while.

Also, read The Nerd Handbook (his term, not mine) over at Rands in Repose, written by an engineering manager.

What do others think?

what it's like to make a job offer

One of my favorite parts of my job is making job offers. It's a great feeling to call someone up and offer them a job that you know they really want.

Most candidates, when receiving a job offer, fall into one of these five categories:
- the excited freak-out
- the pro-forma delay
- the play-it-cool
- the sucker-punch
- the unexpected refusal

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I explain each of these categories and which I like best. Please head over there and check it out!

Can I reapply after being rejected?

A reader writes:

I don't know if this is a scenario that happens very often, but I had what I believed to be a successful initial phone interview with a company in a similar field. The HR manager I interviewed with had been very enthusiastic about continuing the interview process. I felt confident that I had all the qualifications and skills needed for the job, and was waiting for news on an interview with the hiring manager, but two weeks later, I received a fairly formulaic "thanks, but no thanks" email.

I assumed they had found someone else for the position, but to my surprise a month later, the same job has been re-posted. Should I contact the HR manager again, and what should I say? I don't want to be a pest but I don't want to give up on this opportunity either. Any advice you can give me would be greatly appreciated!

I think you should give it a shot. There's no harm in contacting them and saying that you noticed the job has been reposted and that you'd like to reiterate your interest in it.

They may have reposted it because their chosen candidate didn't work out for some reason, or because they ended up dissatisfied with all of their finalists. Of course, it's also possible that they rejected you earlier for reasons that still stand -- that the match isn't right in some way. But you won't know unless you try, and in some situations they may be glad for the opportunity to consider you again (for instance, if they've reconfigured their ideas about what they're looking for, or if you were earlier a runner-up to someone else who ultimately didn't work out).

I wrote a few weeks ago about the usual futility of appealing a job rejection, but this is a bit different. You're not writing back right after your rejection and asking them to reconsider; you're saying you noticed that the job has reappeared and are wondering if circumstances might have changed.

Good luck!

don't mention your "affluent family" in your cover letter

Seriously, it's really not relevant that you come from an "affluent political family." Why is it in your cover letter?

too young/immature for a promotion?

A reader writes:

I'm young (19) and work for a video store chain. My store manager has told me she thinks I'm too young and too "emotionally immature" to become a manager. I'm not sure what to think of that. She's said some seriously inappropriate things to me in the past, such as berating me about my lack of religious beliefs and the like.

I'm not sure what to think. I'd really like to become management, I'm more than ready for it performance-wise, I've shown that left right and sideways. She's actually going to hire outside the company and train them from the ground up to be a manager (which is very rare in our company, which promotes within, very very few managers are hired from outside) as opposed to promoting me.

I hate to constantly put her down, but everyone saw it coming, because she's the kind of person who would put the store in a bad place just to be cruel/make a point. I know it'd be better for me to NOT seek anything UNDER her management, but I'm trying to make due with what I've got.

I figured I'd ask what you thought of the situation, and let me know: Is it ageism? Cruelty? Just a wish to keep someone from moving up?

There are a few possibilities:

1. The problem is her. She's not a good manager, has an unwarranted personal issue with you, and/or believes age matters more than abilities.

2. The problem is you. Maybe you are too "emotionally immature" for the promotion, although that kind of explanation is unhelpful in the extreme -- if there are real issues here, she needs to explain to you exactly what behaviors are problematic and what you should change, not just slap a vague label like that on you.

3. Some combination of the above. In fact, if the answer is indeed #2, she still sucks as a manager for not providing you with better feedback.

Now, you're pretty sure that it's not #2. But keep in mind that when an employee is part of the problem, they very often don't see it -- especially when there's a crappy manager around who it's easy to attribute everything to. So keep an open mind about whether she might have any sort of valid point underneath her crappiness.

So how to proceed? Talk to your manager. Drop any defensiveness (I'm not saying you have any, but many people would in this situation ... and if you do, getting rid of it before this conversation will increase your chances of a good outcome here). Tell her that you really want to move up in the company, if not immediately then in the future, and that you'd like her help and advice on figuring out what you need to do to lay the groundwork for that to happen. Ask her to give you candid feedback on how you can begin preparing yourself for eventual increased responsibility.

If she gives you vague, unhelpful answers like "emotionally immature," ask her to help you understand what that means with specific examples. If she just tells you that you're too young, ask her to help you understand how that affects your work performance so that you can work on whatever the obstacle is.

A key point: Be truly open to hearing what she has to say. Don't write her off just yet, no matter how tempted you may be to do so. Even if she's a terrible communicator (which seems pretty likely), it's possible she actually does have useful input to give you. And even if you end up deciding it's not useful, it's still helpful for you to know what she's thinking, so you can make your decisions with fuller information.

Of course, you do have another option, one I probably don't recommend: You could go over her head to your regional manager or whatever system the company has set up for that sort of thing, to explain that you haven't been able to get useful feedback from your manager. But that can potentially backfire on you, so you'd want to proceed very, very carefully with something like that.

By the way, a side note: Berating you about religion is a huge problem -- depending on the specifics, it's probably illegal (there are laws against religious discrimination in the workplace). She apparently doesn't realize that and it would be reasonable to point it out, either to her or someone above her. But again, proceed with some diplomacy on that one.

Good luck!

why you didn't get hired

The job looked perfect for you. The description matched your experience and skills so perfectly, you could almost visualize yourself at your new desk. But now you're staring at a rejection E-mail and can't figure out what happened.

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I lay out some of the most common reasons you might not have been chosen for a job, no matter how qualified you felt you were. Check it out.

4 questions with Ask a Manager

Check it out. It's four questions with me, over at William Tincup's JPIE blog.

can volunteering lead to a job offer?

A reader writes:

I've just starting reading your blog (obsessively) and completely love it. I'm about to graduate, completely terrified, and the advice you provide has made me feel infinitely more confident that I might not end up living in a cardboard box clutching my Bachelor's Degrees and sobbing into my UMass sweatshirt.

My question is this: There's a non-profit company in Boston that I really would love to work for. Their mission is in line with my own passions, I think that working for them would make my work feel truly valuable, and there are a lot of things that I could do there that I think I would enjoy. As a new grad however, I don't know that I have the experience to get hired for them, but I do have the option of volunteering. They have a lot of positions for volunteering, including some office positions to help with things like mailings and filing. I feel as though that might be an excellent way to get a foot in the door; I could meet people at the company and prove my enthusiasm and work ethic first hand. However, I worry that this is pointless either because volunteers are never really considered for paying positions, or because it might even be seen as underhanded because essentially I would be volunteering my time with an ulterior motive.

What do you think? Should I forget it entirely? Give it a chance but be upfront about hoping to land a job? Just go be the best volunteer they've ever had until they're begging to hire me? I should note that I completely understand that volunteering would in no way entitle me to a job, and I would be happy to give my time to a great company even if it didn't work out as I hoped.

Thank you so much for doing what you do! It really makes a difference. Reading your blog makes me feel that I might have a shot at getting to show someone what I am capable of. It's so frustrating to know that on paper you are someone that will just be tossed in the trash, and your advice gives me hope that I might be able to get someone to take a second look. Thank you.

I normally edit out compliments out of some weird sense of ... propriety? But what the hell -- these are so nice that I left them in. I enjoy lavish praise.

Absolutely you should volunteer! And you should tell them that you're hoping to be considered for a paying job at some point. People do this all the time; it's completely normal and you will not look underhanded in the least. To the contrary, they'll welcome this evidence of your engagement in their work.

If you want to work for a particular nonprofit, volunteering is a great, great way to get a foot in the door. You get to meet inside players and form relationships, get early leads on upcoming openings, and you get to demonstrate that you are reliable, talented, organized, efficient, skilled, and all the other things people look for in new hires.

Here's the most important part: By volunteering, you become a known quantity. If I have a candidate who's qualified for a job and she's a known quantity -- meaning that I know from direct experience with her that she's reliable, competent, sane, etc. -- I will almost always go with the known quantity over a marginally more qualified candidate who is a stranger to me. The reason for this is that you simply can never get to know someone as well in interviews as you can by actually working with them. The candidate who seems great in interviews can end up being flaky, disorganized, difficult to work with, all sorts of problematic things that someone can manage to hide during the hiring process. But someone you've actually worked with? You know what you're getting. And volunteering lets you become that known quantity.

(Of course, you have to be a good known quantity. That means you should treat your volunteer work as seriously as you would a paying job.)

By the way, I got one of my first jobs by volunteering. I'd been volunteering in a nonprofit's office for a few months when someone suddenly quit. They knew me and my work, and they plugged me right into the position without ever advertising it. In fact, that job led me on the path that put me in the job that I'm in today.

Go for it. Worst case scenario is that you don't end up being offered a paying job there but you've spent time helping a charity you feel good about, you've made new contacts, and you have additional work to put on your resume (because yes, volunteer work should absolutely go on your resume). Good luck!

rejecting candidates because of their neighborhood

A reader writes:

During a workshop I attended, an employment counselor mentioned that some candidates can be rejected simply because of their zip code. Apparently, some hiring managers will screen out applications when residences are in zip codes implicating problems, such as being chronically late for work. Is this something you've been aware of?

Not only am I not aware of it, but it would almost certainly raise legal issues if the neighborhoods being screened out happened to have predominantly minorities living there. But legal issues aside, it's obviously a terrible idea.

In fact, this is such a bad idea (and as far as I know, not a normal practice) that I can only conclude that the "employment counselor" at this workshop didn't know what the hell he or she was talking about. I'd love to know what else she told you.

phone interviews: the sanity check

I don't know how I didn't know about Rands in Repose until just now, but somehow I didn't. Go read the Sanity Check, his brilliant essay on phone interviews!

what makes a hiring manager fall in love?

In this economy, most hiring managers are flooded with well-qualified candidates for any job they post. When I'm faced with an overload of qualified candidates, there are some little things that can make me fall in love with one candidate in particular.

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I explain what those things are. Please check it out!

turnover and morale during a recession

A reader writes:

Like most companies today, we have recently gone through a series of layoffs, budget freezes, cost-containment measures, low morale, and just plain difficult times. We have traditionally been a company that has overflowed with abundance, and our employees are finding it extremely difficult to cope with the complete turnaround to a company that is now struggling. We are seeing some turnover from those employees who "survived" the layoffs, while other employees who have remained with us are simply "putting in their time" with no passion or enjoyment of their job. This is not a fault in the employees, but rather a result of the economic times.

What measures are your company, and other companies taking to try and stem turnover and improve morale during a time when most budgets are "frozen"? That is, how can we work on improving our morale and reducing our turnover without spending money? Communication obviously is key, but I would be interested in what other companies are doing.

I'm interested in hearing others' opinions on this too, including what has and hasn't worked at their own companies.

I tend to believe that the most important thing in a situation like this is to be open and candid. Too often, companies try to hold information close and not let it get out -- but then either (a) employees can tell that they're in the dark and that alarms them, or (b) information gets out anyway, through unofficial channels, and it gets mangled in the telling and/or it comes without the sense of perspective that could have been attached had it come out more openly.

If you're open and candid with employees about the company's situation, worries, and future plans, most people feel more a part of the company, that you're all in it together. You get people offering suggestions and feeling and acting personally invested. Not everyone, of course. But many.

Similarly, I think people get it when you say, "We're not doing salary increases this year because we're focused on protecting everyone's job stability right now. We're going to take care of you with raises once we can do it safely."

Yes, some people may jump ship if they hear bad news -- but I'd rather be honest with someone and let them make the decision they feel is right for them based on accurate information than not. And really, in this economy, most people are worried there's bad news whether they're hearing it from you or not.

Aside from that, I think the most important things at a time like this are the things that are important all along but which plenty of us don't get right -- making sure people feel valued, get recognized for good work, are getting useful feedback, have clear goals, have the resources they need to do their jobs, and so forth.

That's a boring answer though. I know the alternatives might be things like creative recognition programs or new free benefits, but I really think the above is what ultimately makes people feel as secure as anyone can right now and makes them want to stay.

What do others think?

don't mention your MENSA membership

Don't mention in your cover letter or resume that you're a MENSA member.

Just ... don't.

A candidate just told me that although she's unable to use the program that is a critical component of the job, she's sure she could do the job well anyway, and she added in parentheses: "(I am a member of MENSA)"

It's not convincing, and it's a little obnoxious.

(As an interesting side note, the qualifications for MENSA aren't even all that high, but that's so not the point.)

applying for a promotion vs. going to graduate school

A reader writes:

I work for a large non-profit, and absolutely love my job. My boss is leaving soon, and her position will be available. I have been at my job for a year, and could apply. As much as I love what I do now, I'm ready to learn new skills and am eager to move up the ladder. My performance reviews have been positive and I have a solid relationship with everyone in my department. A coworker recently confided in me that she is applying for our boss' job. I do not want to cause conflict in my workplace, nor do I want to make anyone feel uncomfortable. We all work very closely together. My coworker is more qualified than I am because she has an advanced degree, yet I have a better relationship with our boss' boss. Should I still apply for the job? If I don't get it, how much negative impact could it have on my relationship with my coworker (who would be my new boss)? If I stay in my current position, there is no possibility of a raise or much change in what I do.

An additional factor complicates my decision: I have been accepted to graduate school in another state, but cannot afford to go at this point. The degree I'd have would allow me many more opportunities in my field, but I could not work here and attend school simultaneously. I will likely not hear about financial aid until after my boss leaves and the hiring decision has been made. I have informed my boss and coworkers of this situation. I have the opportunity to defer my admission to the graduate school. Should I accept having debt, or stay another year in my job to save up?

I know I don't have a bad hand, but I'm struggling with what to do. Any advice you have to offer is very much appreciated.

If you think you want your boss' job, you should apply. However, be prepared for your employer to tell you that they can't consider you for it unless you're planning to put off grad school for longer than a year. They're probably not going to want to move you into a new position with management responsibilities if you're going to leave a year later -- there's going to be a learning curve and you're not going to really hit your stride in any new job for six months or so, so it wouldn't make sense for them to train you if you're going to leave so quickly. So you'll likely need to choose between this job or grad school for the time being.

How do you choose? By how much you want each option. And by how likely each is to get you to wherever you want to go. You say grad school will make you eligible for many more jobs -- but might this promotion have a similar effect?

In any case, if you do decide to apply for it, you should tell your coworker yourself before she hears it from someone else. You're going to feel weird about telling her you're both competing for the same job, but just be straightforward about it. Tell her you think she'd do a great job at it and will welcome her as your new boss if that's how it shakes out ... but that you feel like you owe it to yourself to try for it too. If you both handle it maturely, it'll be fine. (And if she does end up getting the job, she's far more likely to be worried about you feeling weird about it than to have any negative feelings toward you.)

And hey, if you end up as a boss, you're going to have to deal with all kinds of weird and awkward situations, so consider this training.

Personally, I think you should go for it. But I have a bias toward work over school.

update from laid-off reader -- being nice pays off!

Remember the reader from this post last month, who wrote in asking about whether she should send a thank-you note to her boss to thank him for the opportunity she'd had with him?

She just sent in this update:

I wrote to you on March 2nd asking if it would be proper for me to send a thank you note to my boss after getting laid off, because I felt bad for him/his company and I loved the job. Well I wanted to let you know it certainly paid off, because after 5 weeks off I was the first one hired back!!!! (And the only one so far.) Thanks.

What great news! This is awesome.

the right time to resign

Can you resign when your department is in the middle of a huge, important project in which you're playing a key role? Will leaving at a "bad time" hurt your relationships or references in the future?

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I answer a reader's question about this. Please head on over there and check it out! (And leave your own thoughts in the comments on that page.)

are bad references stored in a database?

A reader writes:

When I recently applied for a job, I gave my former boss' name on an employment form as supervisor. I was under the impression they would check only my personal references and limit discussions with my former company to dates, salary, job role.

However I am under the impression my former boss gave me a bad reference. I plan not to list him next time, but I wonder if it stays in a database for these 3rd party reference checkers. If my next target employer uses this same 3rd party, I am worried they may say what happen with the last potential employer. Can I assume they start fresh on each background check?

I know there is always a risk they can locate my old boss, but I am more concerned about the database piece.

There are weird assumptions in this letter.

First, good reference-checkers will not limit themselves to just the formal list of references you provide. They will call former managers, listed or not -- and sometimes especially those not listed, since they know the omission may have been intentional and thus notable. (After all, the list you hand over is of course the people likely to present you in the best light, and they want to see you in brighter lighting.) And they won't confine their questions to dates of employment; they'll ask what you were like as an employee.

The only thing typically considered off-limits in reference-checking is your current employer, so assume everything else is all fair game.

As for some sort of universal database for reference-checkers, I know of none. Good reference checkers want to ask their own questions and hear the answers first-hand so they can judge tone, inflections, and so forth. That said, I suppose that if a company uses a third-party reference-checking firm, and then you later apply to another company that uses that same firm, you might be already in their database. I don't use third-party reference checkers, so it's outside my knowledge range. But it's probably irrelevant for the reason above.

If you have a potentially bad reference in your past, here's a previous post on how to handle it. Good luck.

battle between old employees and new

A reader writes:

The company I work for as the HR manager first of all is a small, family-run business and has employees who've been with us since day 1 (25 years ago) and have been loyal and worked long and hard to help us get to where we're at today. The problem is times and attitudes have changed since then - but they haven't. There's a serious conflict of old versus new - and behaviors that may have been overlooked 20-odd years ago are proving to be unacceptable but hard to break now. As a result, there's a serious rift in the office between "us" and "them," the "old" versus the "young/new."

These older individuals constantly butt heads with the newer ones and it has gotten personal on several occasions. Ultimately, it ends up adversely affecting the customer, which is of course a huge concern for management. The relationship that management has with these older persons is also a personal as well as professional one so it makes the situation even more delicate. The newer ones have genuinely tried to make amends but to no avail, and it's breeding hostility, resentment and all round bad faith and mistrust.

Management is at its wits end. We've spoken with both sides on several occasions. We've tried to impress upon the older staff that they should take the lead in setting things right (this hasn't happened). The younger decision-makers (like myself and my husband) are really of the opinion that we'd rather get rid of 2 people than lose 6 - but upper management feels very uneasy about letting these people go because of their long-standing relationship.

What's the next step now?

When I first received this letter, I couldn't tell whether either side had an actual performance problem, or whether it was just a case of the two sides not getting along with each other. I wrote back and asked, and the letter-writer responded that the older side has an attitude problem that often affects performance since both sides are dependent on each other for any given job.

So. Why is management at wit's end? Management has authority to change things; it's just choosing not to use it.

Your management is uneasy about letting long-term employees go. And they should be uneasy, based on the way they've handled this so far. Up until now, it sounds like you've tried to persuade the problem employees that they must change, trying to coax them into it -- instead of set clear, non-negotiable standards and setting clear consequences for not following those standards. So far, your employees don't believe your demands have any teeth, because by allowing the behaviors to continue after multiple conversations, you've signaled that you're not willing to enforce those rules. It wouldn't be fair to fire them without having explicitly told them that was a possibility.

Instead, someone (you or whoever in the organization has the authority to do it) needs to sit down with the problem employees (individually, not as a group) and tell them clearly what must change and what the consequences will be for not changing. Give specifics about what you need them to do differently, and explain that their jobs will be in jeopardy if they don't meet that bar. For instance: "We've talked about this in the past and we haven't seen the changes we need. It's now at the point where I need to tell you that if we don't see significant, immediate improvement in this area, we would have to let you go. You've been a good employee and I hope you will be here for many more years, but that won't happen if we don't get on the same page about this."

If they argue with you, nicely explain that this isn't their decision to make, and that if they're not able to work happily under those conditions, this may not be the right job for them. See this post for some ideas on this.

By the way, if your upper management won't agree to this -- if they won't agree to set and enforce consequences -- then they're choosing to live with the problem. If so, at that point, you should all stop being all wit's end because a deliberate decision will have been made to accept the behavior. And for all I know, maybe that's a reasonable decision; maybe the problem is annoying but not bad enough to warrant firing. Plenty of problems fit that category. (And maybe you want less serious consequences instead, like telling them it will affect future performance evaluations and raises.) But either way, you all need to get on the same page about it: Either there are serious consequences or there aren't.

Good luck!

laying off a good employee

A reader writes:

Due to the recent economic downturn, I am obliged to fire one of my best employees: he is proactive, his work is always sharp, he is a team player, and he is an evangelist of the vision of the company, not only in his department but in the entire company. Unfortunately we are currently in "survival mode" and his position (software developer) is not fundamental for the survival of the company. So I have to let him go.

I'm not only sad because I'm losing a great person, but also because I don't want to lose his trust: he is at the top of my list when we will start hiring again - hopefully in a few months... But how could he accept the job again after we clarified that his position is not fundamental for the company's survival and therefore he could be let go again?

Well, first, make sure you don't say you're firing him, since that implies he did something wrong. You're laying him off. Firing is for cause, whereas a layoff is about eliminating the position.

Now that that's out of the way... well, this sucks. And all you can really do is tell him what you've said here. Tell him all the reasons you value him. And tell him the reality that you're being forced into by finances.

You should also tell him that he's at the top of your list when you're hiring again. You're right that he might be hesitant to return because he'd question his future job security. But he deserves to be able to make his decisions with full, complete, honest information -- and yes, his decision might be not to return in the future, if he judges it's not the best move for him. But all you can do is be straightforward with him, give him as much information as you can, and respect his decisions.

Actually, that's not all you can do. You can also help him in the way you handle the layoff. Specifically:

• Tell him as soon as possible. Don't leave him in the dark now that the decision has been made.
• Be as generous as you can in his severance package.
  
• Continue his health insurance if you can, for as long as you can.
  
• Help with job-hunting leads, including setting up introductions to others who may be able to help.
  

You're not alone in going through this, and neither is he. Good luck to both of you.

reporting a coworker

A reader writes:

I work at a wealth management firm for very high-profile clients and I've found myself in the middle of a ethically tough situation.

One of my co-workers, who has grown to be a relatively good friend, has revealed to me that he's begun to date a woman who was in our office doing our internal audit. Our firm hires her firm to review our own books. I already thought this was a bad lapse of judgment, but not my place to say something to our office manager.

At lunch on Thursday, he revealed to me that the auditor had shared with him everyone's salaries as well as how the partners' profit share was distributed. They have only been out a couple times and I feel that she is a complete idiot, for lack of a better phrase, for sharing this about a client.

I feel like I should report this breach of confidentiality on the auditor's part, and my friend for asking her for this information and "feeling good" that he now knows this.

I have been at this company nearly a year and feel I'm doing an excellent job, my friend only started 6 months ago and has had a few performance issues.

I'm also afraid to implicate myself and possibly risk my own position because I did not stop him immediately from sharing information with me - I did not know the scope of what he had found out and was interested at first, but once I realized what I was listening to - I told him to stop and I did not want to know anymore. However, I respect the partners of our firm and have a vested interest in its success and feel regardless of my position, I need to report this serious breach.

Do you feel I need to report this to our office manager, and should I let my friend know beforehand that I will be reporting his conduct? We have not spoken much since Thursday, but he does not know that he disturbed me with his and the auditor's actions.

Wow. The person really in the wrong here is the auditor, much more so than your friend. And I do think that you should let your manager know that the auditor who the firm has hired is disclosing confidential information. It's appallingly bad judgment, not to mention being against every code of conduct that industry has, etc. It's also really bad judgment for her to be dating someone at the place she's auditing; it creates an enormous conflict of interest.

As for your friend, while he's behaving like a bit of a tool, he hasn't done anything so egregious that you need to report it. Lots of people wouldn't refuse to hear this kind of info if it's being offered up; his biggest error was in repeating it to someone else and thus spreading it further, but once salary info gets out, it tends to get repeated.

If you need to mention that you heard about the auditor's indiscretion from him, then so be it -- but your complaint should be about the auditor, not your friend.

the Ask a Manager book for managers is here

It's here! My book, Managing to Change the World: The Nonprofit Leader's Guide to Getting Results, is now available.

The book is geared toward nonprofit managers because that's what my co-author, Jerry Hauser (former COO of Teach For America and current head of The Management Center), and I care about most -- we want to see more nonprofits being effective instead of just well-intentioned. But there's little in here that I wouldn't recommend to any manager.

Our goal was to create an easy-to-use manual that would help managers get better results by equipping them with hands-on, practical advice, covering what we think are the most important areas for managers to master -- from delegating tasks, to setting and holding people accountable to clear goals, to hiring and firing, to staying organized and using your time effectively, to managing your boss. We also included a bunch of tools, like sample scripts for conducting performance coaching or a firing.

Here's the table of contents:

Introduction: The Job of a Manager

Section I. Managing the Work
Overview: Sharing the Burden
Chapter 1 Managing Specific Tasks: Basic Delegation
Chapter 2 Managing Broad Responsibilities: Setting and Using Goals
Chapter 3 Managing the "In-Between": Building a Culture of Excellence
Chapter 4 Managing the Day-to-Day Work of Your Team: Structures to Bring It All Together

Section II. Managing the People
Overview: It's All About the Right People
Chapter 5 Hiring Superstars
Chapter 6 Developing People
Chapter 7 Retaining Your Best
Chapter 8 Addressing Performance Problems

Section III. Managing Yourself
Overview: Becoming a Manager
Chapter 9 How to Exercise Authority Without Being a Wimp or a Tyrant
Chapter 10 Time and Systems
Chapter 11 Managing Up

Conclusion: Personal Attributes of a Great Manager

And here are some quotes from readers:

"Managing to Change the World gives remarkably helpful and practical advice about important management strategies and skills in the nonprofit world. This book is a treasure with sound guidance on how to achieve organizational excellence." -- Heather Booth, founder and president, Midwest Academy

"This book captures the nuts-and-bolts of management in a comprehensive, insightful, and practical manner. What a great resource for both nonprofit and for-profit managers." -- Les Silverman, director emeritus, McKinsey & Company

"Our country needs more than good ideas and strong policies, we need leaders with the management skills to implement change effectively -- this book shows them how." -- Erica Payne, progressive strategist and author of The Practical Progressive: How to Build a 21st Century Political Movement

And hell, if you still want more, you can read the first chapter here.

You can buy Managing to Change the World here. Tell your nonprofit-y friends! Buy it anonymously for your incompetent manager!

the "burn your bridges" girl digs herself in deeper

A follow-up to yesterday's post on that ridiculous advice not to care about burning bridges: She's now posted a video response, making the same argument. Prepare to be really pissed off and disgusted.

Update: She also seems to have deleted the comment I left there. Twice.

Since she deleted my comment over there, I'll repost it here. This is the comment I left there that got deleted:

Rebecca! This digging yourself in deeper is crazy.

I've gotten my last three jobs through personal connections too. But on no planet would I tell people that they don't need to worry about references from past jobs. Even if you get your foot in the door through a personal relationship, it can turn out that the CEO or hiring manager happens to know your old boss, and your old boss mentions the bridge you decided to burn. Why take the risk, when it's perfectly easy to function in a way that does NOT burn bridges? What gain is there for people to squander good references when it's normally so easy to maintain them, and none of us know when we might be glad we did?

You found something that worked for you a couple of times. Good for you. You may have gotten lucky. That doesn't make it generally good advice.

As a side note, what do you think qualifies you to give out this advice? You don't seem to have significant (or maybe even any) experience doing hiring for multiple employers. You seem to be speaking out of your ass, no offense. I'm sorry to be harsh, but you are giving people harmful advice that could have a real and negative impact on their careers, and after multiple people pointed out how awful this advice was yesterday, you've now decided to dig in and defend it (without adding any new or cogent arguments, to boot).

It's an abusive use of the platform you have. Job-hunters deserve better.

She deleted that comment and sent me this email in response:

I appreciate your perspective and I've been nothing but nice to you on your blog, and am not offensive towards you and your opinions. I delete comments that I deem are inappropriate, which yours is on several counts. Also, you're misunderstanding a lot of what I'm saying. That's cool, but not when you comment in such a manner.

Thank you.

Rebecca

Personally, I think deleting comments is off-limits, unless they're spam. If you're going to put ideas out there, deal with the response like a grown-up. Otherwise, why have a blog?

Brazen Careerist gives bad advice again

Once again, Brazen Careerist has run a post giving terrible job advice, written by someone who has no expertise in the topic.

Brazen Careerist started as a good idea -- a site where 20somethings can learn about career topics from their peers. It was started by Penelope Trunk, whose writing I admire and who I love to read even when I disagree with her. But while Penelope herself is smart and savvy, many of her writers over at Brazen Careerist aren't. The site has gone terribly awry and is clearly more interested in being provocative than in giving good advice.

The latest today is a post arguing that "don't burn your bridges" isn't good advice. The author argues that you don't need to worry about burning bridges when you leave a job because "cool jobs" won't require references (!), among other ridiculous arguments.

At this point, Brazen Careerist is routinely doing its readers a disservice by allowing people who don't know what they're talking about to dispense terrible advice to people who might take it seriously. I want to remove it from my news reader, but it's like a wreck that I can't look away from. I wish it came with a clear warning label on it though.

can you appeal a job rejection?

Every few weeks or so, I'm contacted by a job candidate who asks me to reconsider our rejection of his or her application. This almost never works -- actually, I want to say "never" but there's one very, very limited case in which it might be okay to do.

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I write about why you generally can't appeal a job rejection, and the one time where you can. Please check it out here and leave your own thoughts in the comments over there.

laid off and then asked back

A reader writes:

I was laid off after working 2.5 years with a company I adored. I was devastated. I kept in contact with coworkers and was persistent about letting my Branch Manager know of my desire to come back.

Finally I landed a new job. But, 3 days later, my Branch Manager gave me an offer. I REALLY don't know what to do, stay or go.

I have tried to weigh the pros and cons in going back to my old company. Pro: It was a part of my life, I adored the company and I have the chance to return. A position I finally could be proud of proving my dedication and productivity. Con: fear/stability, I ask myself are they going to lay me off again? If so, I've lost my new job too and thus am unemployed again.

For new position I just accepted, the pros are that they are a stable company, in business for years, no competition. The cons here are: high expectancy of having 5 demands to complete at once whilst receiving 5 more, resulting in massive reaming. I can't do 5 things at once...sorry... (I'm not one that enjoys "reaming" and I don't have it in me to "give it back as it's dished out to me.")

Bottom line... Go back to the job I loved and take the chance of getting laid off or the company going belly up? Or stay at new employment and take the chance of being let go or leaving because of frustration?

If this were me, here are the factors I'd base my decision on:

* What's going on with your old company financially? It's reasonable to ask them what's changed since they laid you off. If you leave a new job to return to them, are they willing to guarantee you (in writing) that you won't be laid off again over the next, say, two years?

* What are your chances of success at your new job, the one you're currently at? Based on what you wrote, it sounds like it might not be a good fit for you ... and maybe that you might not be a good fit for them. If you think their demands are unreasonable, there are two things that could be going on: (1) they're unrealistic, or (2) they're not unrealistic; it's a company that strives to be exceptional and thus looks for employees who can and will work at a faster pace than what you were used to at your old company. If it's #1 and they've been operating that way for a while, they're unlikely to change. If it's #2 and you prefer a different pace, they will expect you to adjust or you may eventually lose the job. So you need to be brutally honest with yourself about whether this job is right for you.

Based solely on your letter (which obviously can't give me all the relevant details), I hear alarm bells about your fit at your current job. So at a minimum, please explore those as part of your decision.

Good luck!

accepted offer without asking about salary

A reader writes:

I'm fresh out of college, just got hired at my first "grown up job." I'm supposed to start training next week but my bosses haven't gone over pay with me.

The job is selling ad space in a magazine. They told me I would have the option of commission only or base plus a lower commission. They told me the commission only plan was 20% commission, but they never told me what the base was.

My mom thinks I'm an idiot for not addressing this yet. How do I politely inquire about this and my other questions like being reimbursed for travel to training, etc?

You're not the only person who forgets to ask this when accepting her first job -- often just out of excitement/relief at getting a job offer -- but you definitely need to. In the future, never accept a job without agreeing on a salary first! Even if you secretly are going to accept the job no matter what the salary is, you don't want them to know that -- it destroys any negotiating position you have.

At this point, you've already accepted it so it's unlikely you can negotiate, but you do need to find out what the salary is and decide if it's acceptable to you or not. Call up whoever your contact has been at the new company and say something like, "I feel silly not having asked this earlier, but I just realized we never got into the specifics of pay. We discussed commission, but what is the base pay?"

Also, know before you call what answer would be a deal-breaker for you. If the number is absolutely too low for you and you're not willing to accept the job at that salary, ideally you'd be prepared to raise the issue then and there, by saying something like, "That's definitely not what I was prepared for. Is there any flexibility there?" Again, because you've already accepted the job, you can't go into this planning to negotiate it higher -- but if they give you a number that you're not willing to work for anyway, you might as well see if you can get it higher before politely telling them that you're not able to accept at that salary.

Regarding being reimbursed for travel to training, are we talking about standard commuting costs or something like being sent out of state for training? If the latter, they should cover it, but you should find out up front, so ask that on your phone call too. But if it's something like 100 miles or less, generally you'd cover that yourself unless they offer otherwise.

And as for general advice, don't be afraid to ask this stuff. An organized employer will raise it themselves, but plenty overlook it -- so you shouldn't feel at all weird about speaking up and asking whatever questions you have at the time that an offer is made. Good luck!

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.)

job candidates who need to stop talking

I have a workplace and interviewing pet peeve: people who go on and on and on and on and on and don't get to their point reasonably efficiently, especially when they ignore cues that their audience is getting impatient. In job interviews, this is one of the most direct ways to torpedo your chances. And not just with me -- while my hatred of it may be at a crazy level, it can sink you with many/most interviewers.

Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I bitch and moan about this. Please check it out and leave your thoughts in the comments over there.

advice for a recent grad

A reader writes:

As a recent grad who is looking for my first real job in a market that quite frankly sucks, I've become an avid follower of your blog.

I have a bachelor's in Business Administration from a private university. Not exactly ivy league, but respectable nonetheless. My professional experience is limited to just over one year doing administrative tasks as part of my work study scholarship and a three-month international trade internship at a U.S. embassy abroad.

It seems like every job description (besides those entailing telemarketing) requires substantial experience. I was even told by one recruiter, "I don't doubt you're a smart girl, but you just don't have the experience." My question is, what options do I have in terms of my first job? It's frustrating applying for positions that I don't have a shot at, but at the same time, I want to gain some valuable experience.

I've been applying mostly for marketing assistant and sales/marketing positions. My concentration is in international business, but I've yet to find anything promising with an international twist. Also, I should forewarn you that the career placement office at my university is shamefully substandard and thus offered me little direction in terms of career options.

Thanks for whatever advice you might be able to offer!

This does suck.

A job market like this one is bad enough regardless, but having very light experience is posing an extra obstacle for you (and many, many others) because you're competing for the same jobs with people who have more experience.

First, a quick tangent that won't help you now but will help others still in school: Do internships every semester you can, so that you have work experience on your resume. Paid, unpaid, whatever it takes.

Okay, back to you. It feels like a catch-22, of course; how are you supposed to get experience when no one will hire you without it? There are actually two time-tested ways to do exactly that:

1. Temp. By temping, you'll get additional experience to put on your resume. It also has the added benefit of giving you an inside track for upcoming job openings wherever you're temping.

2. Volunteer. At a minimum, it will give you more experience to put on your resume. And it may also expand your network of people who can assist in your job search. (It will also make you feel good.)

So you're temping and/or volunteering and putting it on your resume. Meanwhile, you should also:

1. Expand the types of jobs you're looking at. I'm curious about why you're focusing on marketing positions. There's a whole world of other interesting work out there -- broaden your search to include other types of work, and you'll raise your odds. (Relatedly, be flexible on salary and location. You're not locking yourself in forever.)

2. Go for quality over quantity with your applications. This may feel counter-intuitive, but a smaller number of really well-done applications is going to get you better results than a generic resume blast to 100 places. This means, at a minimum, a cover letter that is tailored to each position you apply for. (And I mean really tailored -- at least several fresh paragraphs per job, not just plugging in the name of the company.) Read this post on cover letters. And read this one too.

And don't be afraid to show a bit of personality in your cover letter; hiring managers read so many dry cover letters all day long that coming across one that sounds like a real person, and one you might enjoy talking to, can really make a difference.

3. Be willing to pay your dues, meaning be open to low-level jobs that might have a decent amount of drudgery to them. (Nothing about your letter indicated you're not, but I want to emphasize this.) Take on the on menial stuff and do a good job with it, and eventually someone is going to let you do something more interesting.

You will get a job eventually, by the way. Hang in there, and good luck!

when your ex is a coworker -- and a silly one

A reader writes:

I work for a big technology company. We are the market leaders in what we do, and we are looking at doing more cool stuff everyday. And I work for HR in the global headquarters.

I have a 'frenemy' here. We used to date - our company is ok with employees dating and many employees are married to each other - and he treated me pretty badly. I am with a great guy now, but I still hang out with my ex socially.

Me and my ex are from two different cultures, and I am four years elder to him- I am in my middle 20s ( and no, he is not under 20 years ). We have not told our colleagues that we were dating, or that we broke it off.

My ex has posted his almost naked pictures online, posted drunk updates in various social networking platforms detailing his sexual exploits and his level of sexual frustrations, etc. He has even posted on public forums that he is going to apply for a job with a few competitors and has publicly disparaged our products in the past.

My question? To what extent can and should I be concerned? Personally, I would not hire a guy who is like this ( but that is my opinion). But I want to keep my comments professional. I am not sure that many people know that he talks that way about our products online. And yes, he proclaims that he works for us in his social networking profiles. I am yet to see him use our internal feedback and discussion channels to air his concerns about our products and services though.

My dilemma is this - I know more about how he is because of my past and current proximity to him. I have been with the company for around four years and do have a good HR network. I am not sure if I have to tell people who think of hiring him that he exhibits such behavior online. Many of my senior colleagues are not very well versed in social media and are not aware of all this happening in front of a large and varied public audience.

Should I mention that this guy is behaving in this way when someone mentions to me that they are planning to hire him? Or should I keep quiet? I want to be professional, and don't want my behavior to be any way affected by my personal equation with this guy.

Why not talk to your ex and tell him directly that this is the kind of thing that could hurt him professionally? You're in HR so you've probably got some stories of how you've seen this hurt candidates or employees; if he's skeptical, use those stories to clue him in. Tell him that you're worried that it's only a matter of time until this ends up hurting him.

In particular, tell him bluntly that if others in your company see him disparaging the company's products, chances are very good he could end up fired.

(What is up with this guy's judgment?)

Of course, a second option is to ask yourself how you'd handle this if it were any other employee, and then do that. And you could argue that your company is entitled to know that this guy is behaving like an ass. But he's your friend, and it sounds like you have the info that you have specifically because of that friendship and might not have it otherwise, so why not give him a chance to clean it up?

However, if you feel like you're in an awkward situation because you feel you have an obligation to share the info, a middle ground would be to tell him that this is the sort of thing that your job could obligate you to share, and that it's putting you in an awkward position, but that you want to give him a chance to clean it up before it comes to that. Then leave it in his hands and see if he pulls it together or not.

What do others think?

how to screw yourself in a job interview

Kerry at Clue Wagon has a great post up called "how to completely screw yourself in a job interview." Read it, and make others read it. (Also, subscribe to her blog. I'm a big fan.)

stop telling me you're a great writer

It's not a great idea -- nor is it necessary -- to brag about your writing skills in your cover letter or on your resume, via subjective assessments of yourself like the following that I've seen recently:

"Outstanding writing skills"

"Highly conceptual and great at expressing ideas in a fresh, new way"

"Able to present strategic concepts in clear, persuasive, technically sound writing"

Here's why. If you have great writing skills, I'm going to see them in the cover letter. You don't have to tell me they're there. If I care about candidates' writing skills (and oh, how I do), I'm going to be looking for them in your cover letter and other communications anyway.

But all too often, candidates give me their own assessment of their writing skills. And when it doesn't match up with the not-so-great cover letter they've written -- which is often the case -- now I'm doubting the other subjective statements they have on their resume too. If they're wrong about their writing skills, why wouldn't I think they might be wrong about other skills they're claiming for themselves?

Frankly, I don't like any subjective statements on a resume. As I've written before, resumes should present factual information about what you've done, not subjective self-assessments. That's because I don't yet know enough about you to have any idea if yours is reliable or not.

Telling me that you're a fantastic writer when I can see that you're not pretty much answers that question for me, and not in a good way.

Now, you might think, "But since I know that I am a great writer, it's okay for me to do this." And maybe you really are (although a lot of people think they are when they're not). But you still shouldn't do it. If you're a great writer and you want me to know that, write a great cover letter. That's how I'll know.

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 tell your boss he's breaking the law

A reader writes:

I am the tech supervisor for a pharmacy. I am responsible for completing the monthly tech schedule. I also work only on weekends and Monday evenings.

Today, I told my boss that I was going to try and find coverage because I wanted to spend my daughter's first Easter with her. He told me that if I could find coverage then it was fine, but he then said, "We have to have coverage, so if it is between Easter and work, which one is it going to be?" I did not answer the question and just looked at him.

In previous situations where an employee requested a day off and nobody would volunteer to cover, my boss would step in a talk to some of the employees and get the day covered. I would like for him to do the same for me for Easter, seeing as how I worked Easter last year, thinking I wouldn't have to work it this year. But, my boss seems to think that Easter is not a true holiday and like it is not going to be a big deal if I do not find coverage.

I know that most people don't make a big deal out of Easter, but my family does, and spending it with my family is VERY important.

So, if I do not find volunteer coverage, how do I politely tell my boss that I would like for him to talk to some of the employees and push for coverage for me? How do I politely convey to him that the answer to the question he asked me (Easter or work) is Easter with my daughter and family? Do you feel it was inappropriate of him to ask me that question? I was kind of offended and shocked when he asked me that. Should I say something? How do I approach this whole thing?

I wrote back to this reader and asked who the other techs report to. She replied, "I am their trainer and conduct their evaluations. I also manage them as far as minor/moderate personnel and performance issues go, but ultimately, they report to him. He is the director. I cannot demand that they work Easter and them have to do it."

Federal law requires that employers "reasonably accommodate" an employee's religious practices, unless doing so would cause undue hardship to the business. In a situation where an employee wants to take off a religious holiday and other employees can easily be scheduled to work that day, allowing you to take off Easter would fall under the "reasonable accommodation" portion of the law, assuming that you're asking for the day off for reasons of religious practice.

Your boss is likely not even thinking of the law. He may not even be thinking of Easter as a religious holiday. Your job, then, is to point this out to him without coming across as overly aggressive or litigious. I would start out without getting into the law at all and would escalate only if it becomes necessary. First, I'd say something like this: "We talked recently about Easter and you asked me to pick between Easter and work. Generally work comes first for me, which I think you know, but in this case we are talking about my religion. Easter is a religious holiday for me, and I know there are many employees who don't feel their religious practice requires them to observe it. I'd like to ask that we schedule them on Easter. In the past, you've asked people to work on days that someone else wanted off. Can you do the same here?"

If he refuses, then I'd say: "I think we're actually required by federal law to make those sorts of accommodations for employees' religious practices." Note that use of "we" rather than "you." The tone here is that you're making a helpful, neutral observation about the law, and you are looking out for the store, not making a legal threat -- say it the same way you'd say it if you were talking about another employee's request. You do not want to sound like you're hinting at any legal action. (You have the right to sound like that, of course, but it's rarely good for your career.)

If he still refuses, you have a decision to make about how far you want to push this. If you want to push, I'd then say, "I hate having to frame it this way, but there's actually a law about this. I think you know I'm not the legal action type, but we're talking about what's required by law."

Now, some people will disagree with me about that "I'm not the legal action type" disclaimer, arguing that employees should assert their legal rights more forthrightly. And you're absolutely entitled by law to do so -- but your goal here is not just to assert the law but also to keep a good relationship with your employer. It is possible to do both, but not if you wield the law like a weapon. Fair or not, the reality is that few relationships are unaffected when legal threats are made. There are times when an employee may have no other choice, but when the question is "what is the best way to handle this in order to maximize my chances of a good outcome?" and not "what am I legally entitled to do?" then outright threats should be a last resort.

The law, by the way, is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

being asked to "fix" a coworker

A reader writes:

I work for a very large company, on a very small team of specialists that does a ton of work. About a week ago, my boss pulled me aside for a one on one. I have a really good relationship with my manager, I can say without hesitation that I really enjoy working with the guy and he's very fair - and understanding to a fault.

A while ago I actually sent in an inquiry to you about a slacker employee on my team, and how to bring it up to my manager. Well, let's just say that this individual finally dropped the ball on something pretty big, and I had no choice but to clean up the mess. Let us also say that I suspect my manager took a fair amount of heat for the mistake once it was made, and came to a realization about how severe the nature of this person's slacker-hood is.

My boss moves my team around sometimes, and we basically had a conversation about how I would be moving next to this individual in hopes that my stellar work ethic and leadership skills will somehow rub off on this less than effective employee and make him a better worker. This happens to me at jobs. People assume that because I work hard, I am going to be able to help them make poor performers better at their job. It's never worked thus far, probably a reflection of my less than stellar leadership skills, but here I am again in this same situation, being asked to help this person who frankly has been in their position much longer than me and who is much older than I am better at their job.

I expressed this concern and frankly some doubtfulness to my boss that I could accomplish this given my track record, but he seems confident I can do this, yet has assured me he will not hold me accountable if this tactic does not have the desired effect.

Can you offer me suggestions on guiding this guy? The conversation between my boss and myself was definitely a confidential one, but I do feel I need communicate to this guy that if he doesn't shape up, he's shipping out - how can I accomplish this without letting on how much I know about his performance issues? I want to do this right (if possible) because I am trying to view it as an opportunity to develop some leadership skills and frankly, some cajones myself, but I have absolutely no experience with making this "Good Employee Fixes Bad Employee" thing work, so I am hoping for some expert advice on doing it in a tactful, clear, and concise way - IF it can be done.

Hmmm.

First, unless your boss has specifically told you that you can talk to this guy about the fact that his job may be in jeopardy, you shouldn't address that with him. That's the manager's job, not yours.

Speaking of things that are your manager's job, addressing poor performance is one of them. I hope that your manager's plan for this guy is something more than asking you to mentor him. A good manager would be addressing his concerns frankly with the guy, telling him what the issues are, the ways that he's falling short, and what the consequences are of not improving. I hope your manager is doing all that, and that having you model good behavior for the employee is just a bonus, but I have a feeling that might not be the case.

Your manager should not be putting you in a position where you feel responsible for a problem employee's success, because (a) that's his responsibility, and (b) you don't have the tools to make an impact -- because you don't have the authority that you'd need to address this head-on.

What exactly is it that your boss wants you to do? Just be a good role model? Or something more proactive? If the latter, you need to find out exactly what your role is supposed to be and what you have the authority to do. Without some authority over him, the most you can offer is help and guidance on specific projects. But if this guy is a slacker, I doubt he'll care to benefit from that, and that brings us back to your manager needing to manage.

For the love of god, what is up with managers who try to avoid managing? That's what it sounds like you've got here.

repulsed by office culture

A reader writes:

I work in a corporate setting within the Technology department. My direct supervisor who is a Vice President chews tobacco during business hours. The fact that he chews tobacco doesn't necessarily bother me. It's the spitting in a cup during departmental meetings that does. The only saving grace from me not puking is that the cup is coated with print and you cannot see the mucous.

Just for a moment’s time can you picture the following: "Now for this data set we are going to *SPIT* replicate this to the backup *SPIT* server then on every last *SPIT* day of the month the data should go *SPIT* off site."

His repulsive habits are not only disgusting, but it challenges my ability to take him seriously or even respect him as a superior. Furthermore, during said meetings he constantly checks his Blackberry for calls or emails with no regard to the persons actually talking to him. This type of behavior comes across as arrogant and makes you feel irrelevant.

This type of childish behavior is rather common place within my department. On a regular basis I deal with co-workers who don’t wear belts and bend over often, cuss at the top of their lungs, slam objects in their office as if mommy didn’t buy them that special toy, and computer equipment named after genitals (not kidding).

This is a small company with tight-knit relationships. I don’t feel comfortable confronting the issue head on and even contemplated talking to the President. However, he is friends with the offenders and is aware of the situation. I’ve overheard him making comments in a jokingly manner like “That stuff will kill you” or “Does your wife know you do that stuff?"

I take my job very seriously. I am very proud of my work ethic and quality of work. However, I feel as if I work for frat boys that only want to play in a sandbox. Am I just nitpicking or should I head for the hills?

I don't think you're nitpicking, but I don't think you can change this stuff.

This isn't a matter of one or two things that you'd like to see change; you're talking about an entire culture. And it's a culture that most other employees apparently like, including the president. Whether or not they should like it is beside the point; the fact is that they do. You can't singlehandedly change an office culture. And in this case, it's not really yours to change.

The thing you probably have the best hope of changing is your boss' habit of checking his blackberry while talking to you. This won't necessarily work, but you can try saying to him, "I've noticed that when we meet, it's usually at times when you need to be monitoring your blackberry. Is there a time we could meet when you wouldn't need to?" Might work, might not.

But it sounds like you simply don't like the office culture, and there's nothing wrong with that. No office culture will be right for everyone. My advice is to figure out if you can find ways to live with it and be reasonably happy. If you can't, you can't, and you need to proceed accordingly. But I wonder if there aren't ways for you to live in it peacefully.

liberated

I've fallen so far behind on answering questions that there's no way I would ever catch up. So I've discarded the 200+ emails sitting in my in-box that were sent before March. My in-box now has only March emails, and I might actually be able to answer most of them. It feels good.

If you emailed me a question earlier than this month and you still want it answered, please re-submit it. Otherwise, my apologies for never getting to you.

This was incredibly liberating.

when a job offer isn't acceptable

A reader:

I have been working for a very small company for about 8 months. One of my co-workers is leaving and they have offered me his position. However, they are offering my a much lower salary than he currently earns for the same position. The salary they are offering me is also much less than the average for the industry. I have tried to negotiate based on the duties/responsibilities of the job and my value to the organization. They produced little to no effect on the offer. I mentioned that it was hard for me to accept the offer knowing that the current salary for the position was much higher than the one they were offering me. The owner told me that the other employee's salary was an exception because this particular employee had quit his job in another state to help him start the company and did not receive payment for a few months. So, the owner pays him that salary in order to pay him back.

Is this a fair practice? Am I wrong in expecting a salary that is closer to what the person who currently performs the job makes? The current employee is also the owner's very good friend and they've known each other for years.

In addition, this company had also "promoted" me from an hourly position after the first two months I started. However, the salary and benefits that were offered (verbally) were never received and the position did not live up to what I was originally promised. This past situation makes me hesitant to believe what they are telling me. I am the only female in the office and often feel like I am treated differently because of this as well as the fact that I am not their
friend outside of the office. I am not quite sure how to handle the situation anymore. Thank you for any advice that you can provide!

It's dangerous to base your salary expectations on what someone else in the position makes. There are lots of reasons why someone might have earned a higher salary than what you're offered: maybe the person was hired when the market was tight and thus salaries were higher, maybe there was something specific in their background that the company found especially valuable, or whatever. You just can't base your negotiation on what someone else is making; fair or not, it's just not really done.

Now, you said that you didn't base your negotiation on that -- which is good, but you mentioned it as a major part of your thinking, so I think first you need to find a way to remove it from your mental framework about this. Base your salary requirements on the industry norm and what you'll be bringing to the company, nothing else.

Of course, the company can refuse, and you can't make them give in. They may be willing to hold firm, in which case you have to decide if the job is worth it to you at the salary they're offering. Ultimately, salary negotiation often comes down to the question of who is the most willing to walk away.

However, I'd question whether you should be accepting this position at any salary. This company has already misled you about salary, benefits, and job duties in the past; unless there has been a change in management, that's not a company you want to be working for anyway.

should you show up without an appointment?

A reader writes:

I know you cannot just send in your resume online and expect to get called. It is those applicants that are willing to try new things that might have a chance. I really want this job that was posted online. I have the experience and it would be such a good fit. Anyway, I applied online and I tried to get someone live just to talk with. I left messages for the H.R. people, but I did not expect them to call back. I want to go in with my resume and just say hello and talk. Is this going to help or hurt? I figure I have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

No! Do not just show up with no appointment.

It absolutely could hurt you. If a candidate did this to me, there is a very good chance that it would ruin the person's chances. This is because:

1. I'm busy. I set aside specific blocks of time for interviews, and the rest of my day is booked up with other things. There is zero chance that I would make the time to talk with a candidate who showed up unannounced, and a high chance that I would be concerned about a candidate who didn't realize this.

2. The nature of the hiring process is that the employer decides which candidates they want to call in to interview. It's their call, not yours, and I would be annoyed that you were trying to circumvent that process.

When I have many good candidates for a job and one of them is being a nuisance, I'm less interested in that person, not more. If you want to stand out, write a great cover letter, have a resume that demonstrates a track record of success in the area they're hiring for, and follow up once, politely. Good luck!