Ask a Manager

It’s four answers to four questions. Here we go…

1. The better I do, the more resentful my boss gets

I’m a manager in a technical field and my boss used to be a huge micromanager. He is one of those senior leaders who is good at delegating tasks, but not at delegating decisions or leadership responsibilities, so he wants every decision, big and small, to go through him. Classic case of a person who worries nobody else can do it making that fear into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Recently the company has been going through a reorganization, which has been distracting him from his normal micromanagement. Because he’s not inserting himself into routine work and making himself a bottleneck as much, my team has been knocking it out of the park — about 20% above our targets on the year, largely attributable to better process efficiency.

The thing that’s confusing me is this: The better my team does, the more moody and resentful he seems to get. If I, as a manager, had a direct report who was firing on all cylinders, I’d be thrilled. Yet, the better my team does, the more sour he looks, the more he makes backhanded comments to me in front of my team, and the more dismissive he gets of my ideas and input. I don’t get it. He’s the sole owner, so it’s not like I can threaten his role.

I’ve been looking for a new role for a while, but for personal reasons I don’t have the freedom to be without an income right now. So in the short term, I need survival strategies to keep myself sane. What’s driving this behavior of his, and what can I do to keep the peace while I continue my job search?

He feels important by feeling essential. You’re threatening his self-image by showing that not only is he not essential, your team actually performs better with him out of the way. A more secure manager would think, “Great! I’ve hired great people and set them up well, and their achievements are a credit to me.” (And even if they couldn’t take any credit, they’d recognize that having a successful team under them was still good for them.) But he’s not a secure manager, so he feels threatened and resentful.

You have two paths. You can decide to ignore his moods and resentment and keep knocking out achievements that you’ll parlay into a better job for yourself. Or you can choose to cater to him a bit: find things to let him weigh in on so he can regain some confidence and feel important again, give him credit even where it’s not deserved, and generally play to his ego a bit so that his ruffled feathers are smoothed. Which you pick should probably depend on how much ability to has to affect your day-to-day quality of life, how petulant he’s being, and which you have the stomach for.

2. Should I contact my husband’s old company about how bad his boss was?

Should I tell the HR person of my husband’s former supervisor’s inappropriate and incompetent managerial skills?

My husband was hired by a company under the old department head. His direct supervisor did not like him for the role, and expressed that to my husband. The department head left, promoting the supervisor to department head. Since then, the training my husband was supposed to receive has been lacking to none, he was written up for asking questions about a new skill he is learning, and he was put on a PIP a month after being told everything was going great. None of the items on the PIP were addressed prior, denying him the opportunity to improve before a PIP. Three weeks after he comes off the PIP, he is fired, without a conversation to improve. Directions given throughout his tenure were incomplete and vague, yet the chief reason for his firing was that he failed to follow instructions. Essentially every instance where the manager was supposed to support and improve, he set my husband up to fail, all while telling my husband to his face that everything was going fine.

The company culture purports to be supportive, open to initiative, and embracing of the skills people bring. It claims to encourage people to think outside the box, use their skills in creative ways, and propose new solutions. For my husband’s role, it also required someone who could work independently. His boss was none of those things in action, and barely in verbal context. Essentially his boss set my husband up to fail by not being clear on expectation or instructions and moving the goal posts with every task. My husband would finish a task, his boss would say good job, and then a week later would pull him aside and tell him how he didn’t do a good job on the task. Not there in the moment, when it would have been appropriate, not the next day – a week. The toll of this repeating over and over caused mental anguish in my husband. He would come home feeling good about himself and proud of his work and then suddenly would come home and say things like “I’m such a loser” because of some interaction with his boss where my husband thought everything was going well, and out of the blue his boss would say something to the opposite. He’s a bad manager, and as a manager myself, this behavior is appalling to me.

You should not contact your husband’s former company on his behalf. It would be incredibly undermining to him, and it wouldn’t carry any weight with the company. They don’t care what someone outside the company who they have no relationship thinks about how they manage people, and any merit to your message would get overlooked because of the weirdness of a spouse weighing in. It would get talked about, but not in a good way.

Your husband had a bad boss. It happens. Your husband sounds like he was really suffering from the experience, and that’s hard to watch as a spouse. But your role is to support him, not fight his professional battles for him. You can help him see who he is and who his boss is, but you can’t seek justice with the company or set the record straight there or tell off his old boss. The impulse to do those things is very human, but you don’t have the standing to do any of them in an effective or credible way, and they’d make the situation worse, not better.

3. My boss gave me thank-you money in secret, but it feels like hush money

I work as an office support member. There were some minor issues with some seasonal employees in my area who didn’t like some changes I made, so they went to one of the bosses who abruptly dismissed the changes and put old ways back in place.

Fast forward to after our busy season. A week ago, my boss called me to his office and thanked me for all my hard work and gave me several hundred dollars — stressing it was from him personally, not our firm, and not to tell anyone else about it, and specifically stating not to tell the other bosses or aforementioned coworkers.

Although I didn’t know the exact amount of money at the time because it was folded up, it felt a little weird. I asked several times why he was doing this, and he assured me it was a thank you.

I have held onto the money for about a week. I’m a single mom and could use it, but it just felt like a strange situation, especially since it was done in secret.

A couple days ago, I just found out that the other bosses knew about the issues previously mentioned and are unhappy with those employees and that particular boss for undermining me. Suddenly it hit me — I think he was giving me a sort of “hush money” to make him feel better and to buy my loyalty. Am I wrong?

Although I could use the money, and he has demonstrated generosity in the community, I feel like this makes me beholden to him and is just not professional. Am I wrong? If not, how do I give it back without creating more issues?

I don’t see any reason to assume it’s hush money, like that he’s paying you to not talk about what happened. Using money to make you feel better, yes, but not hush money. It sounds like he felt guilty about what happened and wants to smooth it over, so is handing you some cash from his own funds and hoping it functions as an apology/morale-boost. A smoother boss might have taken you to lunch or bought you flowers. Cash makes it weirder, but it doesn’t mean it’s hush money. I read it as “I F’d up” money.

To be clear, if it will feel like hush money to you, you shouldn’t take it. If you’ll feel obligated not to raise issues you’d otherwise want to raise or to downplay what happened, you shouldn’t accept the money. And if you’d just feel better returning it, do! You could say, “I appreciate the thought, but I don’t feel right taking it, especially if it’s something others aren’t supposed to know about.” But I think you’d be fine keeping it if you want to and if you can see it purely as appreciation and nothing else and if it won’t make you hesitant to speak freely.

4. Should a 25-minute interview trump a year of great performance?

I’m a reading teacher. My job was a one-year position that became permanent, which is why I had to interview for my current job. I received “stellar” reviews in all four observations and throughout the year. I voluntarily attended meetings to learn, grow, and become part of a new school community. I went over and above because that’s my nature and they noticed this.

Admin urged me to apply, saying the job was 90% mine. I prepared for the interview and I didn’t rest on my laurels. The interview didn’t go well. I was very nervous despite how prepared I was.

They said that the interview didn’t go well and that was the sole reason they didn’t pick me. They choose another candidate who has never done the job. I am not overqualified for the job. Can a 25-minute not-so-great interview really trump 150 days of a “stellar” performance?

It depends on specifically what happened in the interview and what made it so bad. If you were just nervous and stumbled through a few answers, no, that shouldn’t trump what they’ve seen of you on the job. On the other hand, if you couldn’t answer key questions or answered crucial things badly — not just fumbling a little, but truly badly … well, maybe. I’d still hope they’d compare that to what they’ve seen of you actually doing the job and allow for nerves, and maybe even suggest a redo, but I can also imagine interviews going badly enough that they could end up being prohibitive.

It’s also possible that they were bound by internal hiring policies. For example, if they score candidates on a rubric and commit to hiring the best scorer, the interview could definitely do you in, regardless of what your actual work on the job has been like. (And if they do use a scoring rubric like that, they might not be able to offer a redo on grounds of fairness to other candidates.)

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. Should I correct a service person’s grammar?

Our family held a special event, and the staff at the venue were excellent, all very helpful and competent, they know their jobs well and I have nothing but good to say about the event. However, during the process of making arrangements via email, the young lady who was my contact person needed my credit card for a deposit and for a couple of payments. Each time, she sent me an email saying, “I have ran your credit card.” In the same way that a woman would subtly tell another woman that she has lipstick on her teeth, I would like to gently tell her that “have” and “ran” do not go together. I want to see this event planner be her best. Is there a best way to do that? Or do I let it go?

Let it go! It’s not your job to correct other people’s grammar; you’re not her teacher or her parent (and she’s not a child). I appreciate that you’re coming from “I want to help her fix something she would want to fix if she knew” but it’s an overstep. It doesn’t rise to the level of requiring correction from a stranger.

2. Flower-arranging as a staff appreciation event

This week the company I work for hosted a flower-arranging workshop as part of staff appreciation week (all our support staff is female). This was held in-person, and remote workers had the opportunity to participate virtually (the firm would arrange to have the flowers delivered to your home).

It all sounds nice, right? But why does this feel icky to me? It just seems so gender-specific. Am I too sensitive, or is this problematic. (For the record, I work remotely and declined to participate — this is just not something I’d enjoy, period.)

I think you’re reacting to the fact that flower-arranging feels gender-coded and your group is mostly women. Would you really see a flower-arranging workshop offered to a group of men? Plus it plays into “women’s job is to decorate and make the world more beautiful” tropes.

If a lot of people on your team were enthusiastic about it, I don’t feel super strongly about it . But if most people’s response was “this feels random and out of the blue, and none of us care about arranging flowers,” it comes across as your company just seeing you as Ladies and not as People.

Related:
we got weight loss tips for Women’s History Month

3. Who are big corporate meetings really for?

I work for a large international company and it’s my first office job outside of college. I mostly like it. The pay isn’t amazing but there are other benefits, a decent culture, and work that actually interests me. The one thing I don’t like is a two-hour mandatory staff general meeting where several thousand of us sit on uncomfortable chairs and are told how great a place to work this is.

Does anyone actually like these? I’m happy to know about the company’s successes, and even things that need to be improved on. I’m happy to learn about long-term strategy, and what projects are coming down the pipeline. But I’d much rather read a summary than sit in a crowd in an uncomfortable chair, all the while thinking about how much work I have to catch up on. It doesn’t help that for two areas in the business, mine being one of them, we’re in a particularly stressful period of trying to deliver a huge project on a constrained time frame. So losing two hours to what feels like an exercise in corporate fluff is a bit of a tough pill to swallow.

I struggle with the forced fun of it all, and I imagine most people do too. Everything is talking about how we need to get involved, join the fun, etc. They even hired a regionally relevent somewhat well known comedian for it. I just don’t know who this is for — is it exclusively for the high level CEOs? Do they just want to stand on a stage with a celebrity?

Some people like these. Most people don’t. They typically happen because high-level execs and the people who plan these meetings have lost touch with what actually resonates with and will feel relevant to the people working for them. It makes them feel good about themselves and the company they’re leading when they imagine running down the aisle to AC/DC and getting people all pumped up. Plus, they’ve seen other companies do them and so now it is The Way We Do Things.

But the reason they don’t email out a summary instead is that tons of people won’t read written materials. If you want to make sure everyone actually hears something, sometimes the only way to do it is a meeting. A long, boring meeting that could have been an email — but it would have been an email half the recipients didn’t read.

4. Should I not bring up with interviewers why I left my last job?

Last fall, I resigned from my job without another position lined up. I’d completed a major project and felt good about closing this chapter, but also wasn’t really happy with the way my role was shaping up after many re-orgs, didn’t feel like I fit in with the broader culture of the office, had concerns about my supervisor’s integrity, and (the final straw) had some family medical issues come up. This wasn’t a role I wanted to return to after time off, so I’ve used the break to spend time with family and recalibrate what I want in my next position. I left the office on good terms and am still in touch with people from the office.

Now that I’m interviewing, either as part of “tell me about yourself” or elsewhere in responding to questions, I’ve raised this work gap myself. I typically say something like, “I made the decision to leave Organization due to timing: I’d finished setting the groundwork for Project, and some family medical issues arose. I’ve been lucky that I’ve been able to spend some time thinking about what I’d like in my next position,” and then explain how this role meets those needs. At least once the interviewer appeared surprised when I said this.

However, now I’m wondering: Should I not bring up that I left my last job? Should I wait for them to ask about it? It’s very clear on my resume that the job ended in November 2023. Part of me feels like I’m being proactive so the interviewer can’t assume I was fired or let go if I own the story myself. Am I hurting myself?

I don’t see why that would be hurting you; that’s a pretty unremarkable thing to bring up. That said, I think the responses you’ve seen might be that you’re offering more information than they’re looking for. They don’t need to hear about family medical issues unless it’s directly relevant (like in response to “why did you leave your last job?”). Combining it with “I’ve been lucky that I’ve been able to spend some time thinking about what I’d like in my next position” might sound … not defensive, exactly, but like you’re anticipating a concern and trying to address it before they’ve even brought it up. Which you are! And that’s fine, and potentially even smart to do, but if you notice people reacting to it, that’s probably why. I also wonder if it sounds slightly overly polished/rehearsed, which will make people wonder if there’s something underneath it that you’re uneasy about.

However, did this happen with only one interviewer or multiple interviewers? If it was only once, I wouldn’t read much into it at all. In that case, you could try experimenting with not raising any of that on your own (but still using it if you need to in response to a direct question) and see if the conversation goes more smoothly, but I wouldn’t worry much about it at all.

5. Inconvenient internal interview location

I was just offered an internal interview for a job I know I want due to the exposure to the business and the executives. Multiple reliable people have told me I’m a great fit for it and it would be a good move for my career. I preface with that because it’s the only reason I didn’t bail on the interview, given the red flags I’m seeing.

The hiring manager asked to meet in person at an office that is two hours away from the local office where this position will report. No one interviewing for this position will live far from the local office because of the nature of the work (it is a requirement that we be able to commute within X time), so they should know what they’re asking. It would be perfectly reasonable for a candidate to be three hours from the office they are suggesting plus tolls and heavy traffic. The nature of the position means I would rarely be expected to visit other offices. The hiring manager is regularly in the local office for meetings.

I wrote back and asked to meet at the main office, which is about an hour for each of us, or on another day where my business takes me closer.

I confirmed with people who know the hiring manager that this is not thoughtlessness. It’s at best laziness, as that is the office closest to his home. At worst, it’s test to see if I’ll do what I’m asked.

I’m at the point in my career where interviews are as much about me interviewing my potential manager as it is for them to interview me. However, I’d like your opinion on the pushback I gave. Is it alright, especially internally, to negotiate the interview location, especially given how ridiculous of an ask they were making? Would your advice change based on the level of seniority of the interviewee? I would say the hiring manager is technically one rung above me in company hierarchy. If they were a VP I would not likely have pushed back, which is why I ask.

Obviously, red flags are everywhere (they have gone through three people in the last six months in this position) so I am approaching this very cautiously. However, I’m not looking for advice on if I should take the job itself.

Nope, you’re fine. The answer might be no, it needs to be at the local office, but it’s not unreasonable to ask and see what they say.