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?