June 2010

A reader writes:

Does it seem strange that my manager wants to know what I’m doing for any vacation request I submit? And not in the friendly conversational way of “where are you going” or “big plans?” but in the way that he’s asking if it’s worthy to give the vacation days. Is this right? I know it’s the latter because he asks what the plans are before he grants the request. And I get the impression if I said staying home and relaxing, the answer would be no. Seems kind of odd to me. What are your thoughts?

Yes, it’s odd. It’s also unreasonable and bad management, if indeed your interpretation is correct.

Your vacation days are your own, to use in any way you want. You don’t need to prove their worth in order to get them okayed.

However, there are two possible explanations that would let your manager off the hook:

1. He really might be trying to be friendly and doesn’t realize he’s giving you the impression that his okay your request hinges on whether your vacation plans meet his approval.

2. He might have someone else who has already requested those days off, and he’d rather not be short-staffed — but if you want the time to do something like attend your brother’s wedding, then he’s going to okay it and just work around it … but if it’s something more flexible, he’s going to ask you if you can pick a different week. In this case, he has a legitimate reason for asking but there’s a better way to handle it. (He should say explicitly, “Jean already has those days off and I’d rather not have you both gone at the same time; are your plans flexible at all?”)

My recommendation is that the next time he does this, smile and nicely say, “Does my ability to get the days approved depend on the answer?”

{ 13 comments }

This is pretty fascinating:

“A particularly amusing study — undertaken by Keltner, Gruenfeld, and another colleague — shows that giving people just a little more power than their colleagues causes them to eat more cookies, chew with their mouths open, and leave more crumbs.” — Bob Sutton, writing for Business Week

More info from the study:

The experimenters “examined whether power would produce socially inappropriate styles of eating. In same-sex groups of 3 individuals, 1 randomly chosen individual (the high-power person) was given the role of assigning experimental points to the other 2 on the basis of their contributions to written policy recommendations concerning contentious social issues. After group members discussed a long and rather tedious list of social issues for 30 minutes, the experimenter arrived with a plate of five cookies. This procedure allowed each participant to take one cookie and provided an opportunity for at least 1 participant to comfortably take a second cookie, thus leaving one cookie on the plate. Consistent with the prediction, high-power individuals were more likely to take a second cookie. Coding of the videotaped interactions also revealed that high-power individuals were more likely to chew with their mouths open and to get crumbs on their faces and on the table.”

I have crumbs all over myself right now, and I have no power over anyone anymore. So make of that what you will.

{ 11 comments }

A reader writes:

As a future employer (I hope!), I have an idea that I’ve been kicking around in my mind for awhile. I feel that a five-day work week is stifling and that people in general would be happier with a four-day work week at approximately 32 hours a week. However, in my scenario, this would be considered full-time: such employees would qualify for benefits through the company, and the wages (much of the initial staff will be exempt; however, I would apply this to hourly workers as well) would be roughly equivalent to working full-time. I believe in the living wage and it would be important to me to do right by my employees.

Is this just pie-in-the-sky thinking? Is it feasible to run a company like that, provided that the CEO is not making $5 million a year (in any for-profit business I owned I would have salary caps, I think, but this particular adventure would be a non-profit, so the salary caps kind of come with the territory anyway)? Do you think this would be reasonable, and welcomed?

Can it work? Absolutely. Will it work? That depends.

Things to think about:

* If you’re going to shave off 20% of the standard work time, are you going to expect your employees to work harder/smarter in order to achieve the results that another organization of the same staff size would get with five-day weeks?  With a strong culture, strong management practices, and great people, it’s feasible that you could achieve that, but you’d need to have a plan for how you’re going to build that culture, find those people, and achieve that high bar.

* Or, if you don’t have those things and instead are a more typical organization, does that mean you’ll be producing at 80% of the rate you’d achieve otherwise? Are you okay with that? Alternately, are you willing to hire additional employees if that’s what it takes to get your productivity up to what it would be with a longer work week?

* As a nonprofit, you have special obligations: Your donors are donating money to support your mission because they want to see it realized, generally as soon as possible, and you’re accountable to them. If you’re not getting results at least at the same rate as similar organizations, but you’re paying similar salaries, a smart donor is going to send their money somewhere else. To attract donors, you’ll need to be able to show that it’s not going to take you 20% longer to get the same or better results at the same cost.

* Nonprofits also tend to have workloads far higher than their staffs can juggle, and in many cases have staffers who work long hours (depending, obviously, on the organization). Most of them are looking for ways to fit in an extra 20%, not shave it off. Is a shortened work week realistic for the mission you’re setting out to achieve? Will you have to compromise on your goals or shortchange the interest groups you’re serving?

Now, if you can pull this off without sacrificing results, it would be a huge recruiting and retention tool for employees. But the key would be to execute it in such a way that you’re not losing the performance-oriented culture and drive for results that characterize high-performing organizations. So you’d want top-notch managers, really rigorous hiring practices, high performance standards, a willingness to let go of people who don’t meet that bar, and a culture that reinforces that drive to achieve.

What do others think?

{ 26 comments }

A reader writes:

In most of the jobs where I’ve been interviewed and rejected the rejection letter says something like “We will hold on to your resume and contact you if we ever have any jobs that meets your needs” or something like this. Is this just being polite or is it possible that some time down the road they will actually contact me with an offer?

Well, it’s highly unlikely they’ll contact you out of the blue with an offer. But they might contact you with an invitation to apply for another position.

That said, this statement has become part of the standard pablum that a lot of companies include in their rejection letters and, more often than not, has little meaning. On the other hand, some companies do mean it and do search previously submitted resumes looking for well-matched candidates when they have new openings.

So the answer is unsatisfying: Sometimes they mean it and sometimes they don’t.

(For what it’s worth, I think the phrase has become so meaningless that I’ve started saying this in the rejection letter I send to candidates who I think would be promising for the future, since I want them to know I really mean it: “We are keeping your materials on file and will notify you about future openings that seem like they might be a good fit. We only keep on file the materials of strong candidates, so please take this as an indicator of our interest in talking further with you in the future.”)

But either way, I would put them out of your mind and move on. If they do contact you in the future, let it be a pleasant surprise, rather than something you wait for (as it may never happen, no matter what their intentions).

{ 38 comments }

A reader writes:

Here’s a situation I never would have seen coming in this market. I received an offer for a job about 1.5 years ago. Ultimately I rejected it to stay at my current employer because the compensation package as a whole was just not quite enough to allow me to pull the trigger.

Fast forward to today – my current job has lost a little extra luster due to precarious security (ongoing layoffs) and reduced benefits. I start looking for jobs and lo and behold, the same company needs the very same position. Naturally I apply, although of course I’m looking elsewhere as well. I interview with all the same people and more. And now it appears an offer is imminent. I expect it to be similar to last year’s, only this time I’d take it for sure.

Except….I also have late word of another imminent offer (or at least I think it is) that promises a significantly better package and a comparable quality of job.

Neither offer is in hand yet, but I’m already dreading the potential of turning the same employer’s offer down a second time – if it were to come to pass. I guess it’s just human conscience, but that just feels like it’s wrong in some way. But then I think I’m just following all the rules, applying and applying until I get offers in hand, and logically I can’t think of anything I’m doing that’s really wrong here. Can you? Give me some assurances that an employer, even in this situation, has to know that I’m not only looking their way!

I don’t think you’ve done anything wrong at all;  you’re just dealing with a convergence of events that’s going to put you in an unfortunate situation (if having two job offers can be considered unfortunate).

My take would be different if you had allowed yourself to become a serious candidate with little intention of accepting the job, or if you’d had serious reservations you hadn’t shared with them. But neither of those things is true. Your interest was genuine, you didn’t hide anything from them, and you planned to accept an offer if you received one. And of course it’s reasonable that you were looking at other jobs as well — it would have been foolish not to, in fact, since there were no guarantees that you would get this job, no matter how promising things looked.

As is so often the case, the best way for you to handle this, if it does come to pass, is to be candid and straightforward. Tell the company that you’ve been seriously interested in the position all the way through and had every intention of accepting an offer if one came, but there’s now another offer in the mix that you can’t turn down. (Also, keep in mind that they may want to counter that other offer; you never know.) Explain that you’re worried this is frustrating for them, and that you feel terrible and hope that won’t think you wasted their time, and that that was never your intention.

Of course, a lot of people in their shoes wouldn’t seriously consider future applications from you, out of fear that they’d be wasting their time. But if you express yourself well, a really good employer will be able to read you well enough to see that you operated in good faith. Good luck!

{ 5 comments }

I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that I was moving into consulting, and I’m now officially opening my doors.  See that “hire me” link up top? You’ll find more info there about what I do and how to work with me. So … hire me!

If you’re a new manager looking for some training, a more experienced manager looking for coaching, or any level manager looking for help with hiring, dealing with performance problems, role development, or other managerial issues facing you, I can help. As one example, here’s an outline of my hiring boot camp.

And for inspiration (and because I love best-of lists), here are some highlights from posts on good management over the last three years.

you need the right person, not the almost-right person
10 mistakes employers make in hiring

how to fire someone
managing outside your area of expertise
mistakes bosses make when giving critical feedback
struggling to manage an overly social staff
should I fire the office assistant?
what reality-based management looks like

{ 5 comments }

A reader writes:

I have a friend at work, Anne, who joined our office a couple of years ago. She is frequently asking for my help – most of the time, it’s to explain procedures or policies (not to actually do her work for her). She seems to be understanding most of it, but she still comes back to me “just to check” that her plan of action is correct.

I wonder if I’m actually hindering her progress, because she relies on having that “safety net” there. I get that she might not be confident in her ability, but in our line of work, if you make a mistake, you just go back and fix it. Obviously, we don’t want to make mistakes but we all do at some point and it’s not like we’re doing brain surgery or something that can’t be fixed.

It doesn’t bother my bosses that I help her and it doesn’t affect my work. In a way, it helps me sharpen my skills by having to teach her. However, Anne is in a higher position so it looks strange to our coworkers and other people in our office that she has to run stuff by me. Sometimes people go to her for help, and she asks me to join the conversation. I’ve heard from coworkers that Anne’s boss is befuddled that I seem to always be helping Anne. Anne’s boss has made one teasing comment (in my presence) about how she should just give me Anne’s job since I do the work. And Anne doesn’t hide the fact that she asks me – she tells everyone how much I help her out.

So I’m wondering if there’s some way that I can tell Anne that I believe she understands enough of what she’s doing and that she should trust that she can take care of her work alone? I obviously don’t want to just say “stop asking me – figure it out yourself!”

I think you should be straightforward with her and tell her something like, “You know, I’m happy to be a resource for you, but I worry that you’re selling yourself short by not trusting your own instincts more often. I’m worried we’re creating a dynamic where your boss and others think you rely on me, and then you won’t get as much credit as you should.”

However, Anne may not care. She may be someone who is simply happier having the security of the safety net you provide, even if that comes at a cost to her career advancement. So your obligation is really just to point out to her the impression she may be creating and the fact that it may have consequences to the way she’s perceived. What she does from there is really her call.

Now, if you were annoyed and wanted to get out of helping her so often, I’d give you different advice — along the lines of setting boundaries, being unavailable more often when she comes to you for help, and so forth. But you don’t sound annoyed, and in fact — wisely, in my opinion — recognize that it’s developing your own skills to be put in that role.

So I would say point out to Anne what she may not see, but then let her figure out how she wants to act.

And by the way, at your next performance review, you should definitely point out that you are a much-relied-on resource for Anne. This is the kind of thing that is often a precursor to higher level positions.

{ 11 comments }

A reader writes:

My wife and I go back and forth about this one all the time.

A former secretary of hers was moving and searching for a new job in her new city. The problem was that this person wasn’t the most reliable employee. She was always late, took days off without calling and had some other quirks but when she was there she did good work.

My question is if someone calls you about a former employee what can you say and what can’t you say?

I have always believed that you have to tell the truth because if you give a shining recommendation to a crappy employee it will come back to you.

A lot of others tell me that it is illegal to say anything bad about a former employees.  Is it really illegal?

No, it is not illegal, as long as what you’re saying is factually accurate.

What has happened is that some companies, in an effort to avoid the headache of nuisance lawsuits, have implemented policies that they’ll only confirm dates of employment and title, rather than commenting on performance. These policies are pushed by lawyers who believe in playing it safe; after all, even if you can easily win the lawsuit, it’s still a huge pain to have to deal with. So, the thinking goes, why even invite that hassle? It’s easier to just refuse to comment.

As a result, this urban legend has sprung up, where tons of people seem to believe that it’s actually illegal to give a bad reference. But corporate policies are not the law. (They’re often not even followed by the companies that have them.) It’s perfectly legal to give a bad reference, as long as it’s honest.

I have always given honest references, because I want others to provide me with the same courtesy. However, when I can’t give an employee a good reference, I’ll warn her in advance, so that she knows not to offer up my name. (Some employers will still call anyway; really good reference-checkers won’t just stick to the list of names the employee provides.)

In any case, you win the bet with your wife.

{ 53 comments }

In a comment on a recent post about employers who don’t return phone calls, one commenter suggested not leaving voicemail when you call and an employer doesn’t answer, so that you can then call repeatedly, until you get a live person.

Shawn took issue with this, responding:

it isn’t uncommon for me to be at my desk between phone screens or meetings, talking with a coworker, or just plain busy, and to just let a call go to voice mail. we are a non-profit but can afford phones with caller id. i’ve had candidates call every 15 minutes. it’s obvious when the same number keeps calling. this looks extremely needy, besides flat out annoying me.

find an email address and use it.

I agree wholeheartedly with Shawn. Most people have Caller ID these days. I frequently let calls go to voicemail when I’m in the midst of something else and not at a good stopping point, and I’ve seen candidates call over and over without leaving a message. You may think you’re being strategic, but if the person is sitting right there, it’s annoying. And you look a little stalker-ish.

I used to have a coworker who bragged about using this technique (not in a job-searching context; in a business context). He seemed to think he was being crafty, but in reality I’m sure he was annoying the crap out of the person sitting there seeing his number pop up over and over again.

Leave a message. And like Shawn says, email is better.

{ 28 comments }

A reader writes:

Recently I faxed my resume and cover letter to a company that had a job posting on Career Builders. About a week later I received a call from a lady in HR asking that I return her call. I got home about an hour and half later and returned the call and received her voicemail. I left a brief, polite message. 

Two days passed and the lady did not return my call. I called back on the third day and left another message stating who I was and that I had returned her call three days ago and asked that she call me back and said that I hoped to hear from her soon because I was eager for a chance to talk to her about the position available. Another week passed with no call from her. I emailed my cover letter and resume to her again with a brief message that I was interested in knowing if the position was still available. I never received word from her. 

What was the reason she called in the first place and is this just a missed opportunity because I missed her first call by an hour and a half?

Unfortunately, she has probably moved on and you should too.

Here’s what likely happened: She’s looking for, say, four people to interview in-person. She’s going to phone-screen promising-looking candidates until she finds those four. When she gets to four, she’s done with the phone screens. And she found four before you called her back. (I don’t like this method because it means the strongest candidates may never get identified, but it’s not uncommon.)

There are other possible explanations too, although I think the one above is the most likely: After calling you, she found a stronger candidate who bumped you out of the running. Or she found out that the hiring manager has settled on a candidate. Or changed the job description. Or canceled the job altogether.

Now, in any of those cases, she should have gotten back to you to tell you, so that you weren’t left hanging — no matter what, but especially after seeing you follow up more than once. Not doing so is rude and inconsiderate. It’s also sadly typical of the increasing number of employers who feel no obligation to treat candidates with politeness once they decide they have no further use for them.

Now, what could you have done differently? Short of never being away from your phone and always being prepared to talk — which is unrealistic and no way to live your life — nothing. It’s something you’ve got to chalk up to an irritating reality of job hunting. And you’re entitled to feel frustrated.

{ 21 comments }