my boss is resentful when I do well, contacting the company that fired my husband, and more

by Alison Green on April 26, 2024

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.)

You may also like:
{ 306 comments }

{ 306 comments… read them below }

  1. PleaseNo*

    #3 I don’t think I have total clarity on what happened initially, but as Alison says, it’s up to whether pragmatism or morality is higher for you. I don’t think there’s a right or wrong answer for anyone but you.

    If this all ends up becoming a strange middle ground where you try to give the money back and he insists you keep it, perhaps you could use it to improve your community in a way that you would feel good about.

      1. ecnaseener*

        I agree — if you treat it as thank-you/I’m-sorry money, and don’t factor it into any decisions about what to say or not say about the boss, then there’s no moral component.

    3. Sloanicota*

      I think the boss may have been thinking pragmatically, “what would this employee, who is a hard working single mother, like as an apology/thank you gift?” and the advice given on this board is often “please just give people cash.” Flowers are so expensive and gift cards can miss the mark, and I not-infrequently think that people probably would have rather had cold hard cash they can use on their rent. My read is this guy went about it clumsily (a gift card to a widely usable place would probably have been smoother) but is sincere, and it wouldn’t be at all immoral for OP to just accept it as probably intended since she does say she could use the money. More, one assumes, than flowers.

      1. Kay*

        This is my take. It is a bonus, and the boss felt it was easier to take it from his personal account rather than spend political capital to get the company to do it.

      2. Adds*

        Once upon a time, the owner of a company I worked for gave me and one other employee a personal check from his bank as an additional Christmas bonus (we all were already getting a full week’s pay as a bonus from the company). It was super appreciated as it was lean times in our household. It probably felt less … weird … as it came in a Christmas card with a note than in OP’s instance but I think it’s a similar sentiment.

      3. Cash only please*

        Yes this.

        Every time this board discusses employee appreciation gifts, the cry goes up ‘just give cash.’

        So he’s given cash, and people are still complaining??

        1. Boof*

          XD I know! But cash is complicated, we’re taught both “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” as well as “don’t look a gift horse in the mouth”. From the sound of it this is just supposed to be a bonus and no reason LW shouldn’t go ahead and run with it but I get why the whole thing felt a bit weird and why in some cases one might not want to accept a cash handout if it ends up having strings attached.

    4. Stymied*

      Thanks for your thoughts. I feel he is genuine, as he has a demonstrated pattern of meaningfully thanking employees and others. I also think Allison’s comment that it is probably his way of acknowledging he messed up.

      Reading yours and others’ replies helped me get to the bottom of my concerns. I realize my real discomfort came once I learned there was a rift between him and the other bosses – which really isn’t my business or concern. Before I was aware of any of that, I was just a shocked employee who thought her boss was trying to make things right in a super generous way.

      Thanks everyone! Lots is insight!

  2. Off Plumb*

    LW4: Years ago, I applied for a permanent position at the office where I had been a grad school intern and then a temp. There were two openings, and two of us who’d graduated from the same program and started as interns at the same time. Everyone figured the jobs were ours. But an external candidate scored highest, and the other temp scored higher than I did. (I didn’t do anything wrong; I suspect it was mostly due to differences in the assignments we’d gotten and therefore the experience we had.)

    The external candidate declined the offer, so I got a permanent job after all (and was much better at it than the woman who’d out-interviewed me). But when it all happened I was devastated. I’d been there for over a year and had done excellent work and they wanted to hire me. But government hiring tends to be very rigid, and for some very good reasons.

    Yes, there are arguments to be made that managers should be able to use their discretion in edge cases like ours, but that opens the door to managers using their discretion in ways that are biased/discriminatory/unfair. I’ve made my peace with the equity and efficiency tradeoffs inherent in government bureaucracy. But it still really sucks. I’m sorry you’re going through something similar.

    1. bamcheeks*

      Yes, this is the same in public sector hiring in the UK. People will tell you this very clearly though, so that you know the interview isn’t just a formality, and usually a colleague or two will help you practice the interview. But once you’re in the interview, it is up to you to take that year’s experience and showcase it well in the interview.

      I’m sorry you didn’t get the job! I hope another opportunity comes along soon.

      1. Alanis*

        I’m in the UK public sector as well. I’ve interviewed people who were already temping in the post and asked questions about stuff that I knew they knew because they were already doing it. And just had blank looks in response. I’ve been told off by my boss after interviews for giving hints to the answers. But even with hints, the person not answering the question. And this happened repeatedly with different people. We can’t give points if you don’t answer the question so these people lost out to other candidates.

        1. Janeric*

          I think this is why putting people on hiring panels as early in their career as possible can be a real boost to their careers — because when they know what their government requires from the other side, they know how to tick those boxes (with the experience that they already possess).

    2. Green great dragon*

      Same for us. I can see why they do it – to avoid people slotting their favourites into a position above better external candidates – but I think it’s a bad case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It’s very frustrating from both sides, whether it’s spending hours applying and interviewing to tell managers things they already know, or having no way of taking account of your knowledge of how the applicants actually operate.

    3. Michigander*

      I work at a university in the UK and there are always lots of maternity cover and secondment positions open. I remember a few years ago someone who had been covering for someone else for a year interviewed for that job when it became open, but didn’t get it. The interviewer didn’t give exact details to me of how she didn’t do well in the interview, but the main gist was that she seemed to think that the job was already hers and so didn’t interview as well as someone external.

      1. Chas*

        I’m also at a UK University and have seen this go both ways- my old boss once wanted to hire a post-doc who’d worked for the University previously, but because she wasn’t currently employed by them we had to advertise the job to external candidates, and I felt so bad interviewing the other candidates when it was an almost foregone conclusion that our ex-internal candidate would get it (she WAS far more experienced than the other candidates and did well in the interview, so she’d have got the position even if we didn’t know her).

        On the other hand, a guy I knew back in my PhD days was convinced he’d get a post-doc position his supervisor was advertising for, since the role was to carry on the project he’d spent 3 years of his PhD working on. His supervisor ended up picking a post-doc with way more experience in the field instead, because there were so many high-quality candidates applying for entry-level UK post-doc positions at the time (or at least it felt that way when I was applying for jobs)

      2. Katy*

        I once interviewed for a long term sub position where I assumed the job was already mine – because it was 4 pm and the interview team told me the start date and it was the following morning at 8. Most of my interview was me trying to find out enough about the job to know if this was even possible for me to do. Turns out they got the date wrong and it was the day after – which is still insanely short notice but apparently enough time that they were running a full set of interviews. I didn’t figure that out until the end of the interview though.

    4. Harper the Other One*

      I came to say this too – education hiring in my area is specifically designed to minimize the impact of personal opinions about a candidate. This is great when it comes to things like “I don’t believe men should teach elementary school; why would they want to be around little kids” or “I’m suspicious of anyone of a different race/culture than me” but can be frustrating when it’s something like “I personally know how well this candidate performs.”

      That said, it sounds like you’ve come out of your temporary position in a way that sets you up well for great references and that will make a big difference! So while I know the current situation is really discouraging, try to hold onto that: your good work will still be to your advantage in future.

      1. Humble Schoolmarm*

        OP, I also lost out on my first teaching job after a year of doing it successfully. I did interview well, but the other candidate had more teaching experience in general, so I completely understand how much this hurt. On the bright side, my work did pay off in a great reference which got me my next job and I never looked back.

    5. Also-ADHD*

      To be fair, I think I’d recommend LW get the job without even needing to interview. I think the req shouldn’t have even been opened if not required, and you always place in district folks (even temporary) who want to stay first if you can in hiring, because school boards that adopt policies like that build more loyalty, which is an essential component of keeping teaching jobs stocked. And they’re hard to fill over time and keep full in many places—even if they aren’t now, building loyalty for the future might be what saves you from a shortage later.

      However, if the job is externally posted, you have to consider everyone equally. (And if the other candidate was an internal, district employee, the loyalty above is fully negated by their application, because both deserve full consideration plus that.) It’s wrong to post a job and interview people with no intent to give them a real chance. I know this is done sometimes (I think less than people speculate) but it’s a bad practice.

      And, coming from some time in teaching, I don’t think having done that exact job is necessarily going to mean you’re the best candidate if they do open it up. It depends how “bad” the bad interview was, how good the results were — I can’t tell. You can get good a teacher evaluation at some schools in your first year and not be that good; others, you can’t, but generally you SHOULD be able to be rated okay to good as a 1st year teacher even though, (as someone who trained and coached them) they’re almost always struggling most of the year.

      If the other candidate is an experienced reading teacher and interviewed well, I can see how not doing that particular job didn’t matter that much. But I don’t know if they’re a brand new teacher from LW’s description.

      All that said, a 25 minute interview process sounds not quite great either. For single interviews and actually comparing candidates for a teaching role, I’d want an hour. I’ve definitely had 10-20 minute teaching interviews on both sides—because they were desperate or hiring internally without posting—but not for a competitive process.

      1. Irish Teacher.*

        In Ireland, it is required that in order to get a permanent teaching job, you have to reinterview at the end of your first year teaching. Normally, this is just a formality which can be really annoying if you are one of the other candidates (I am still somewhat peeved by the school which called me for interview about 220km away and then kept me for three minutes. Like seriously, if the interview is just a formality, call people who live nearby, at least.)

        But I think the aim is to prevent schools from just hanging on to a teacher who is not skilled just because it’s too awkward to tell somebody “sorry, we’re going to reinterview because we don’t think you are good enough.” If every job is readvertised, then when somebody isn’t suitable, you can easily find somebody else before the job becomes permanent.

        So here the school wouldn’t have any choice but to readvertise and to compare everybody equally would mean schools would almost never have the same teacher two years in a row for certain subjects – while subjects like Irish and Physics are short of teachers, other subjects like History or Geography could have 50 or 100 applicants and the odds of the same person being the best available two years in a row is probably low.

        And a 25 minute interview would be on the longer side here. I had two interviews that were 45 minutes long and well, the one I mentioned above that was 3 but most were between 10 and 30 minutes and most are single interviews. I have never had an hour long interview.

        Mind you, I think it unlikely the LW is in Ireland because at primary level, teachers teach all subjects and at secondary level, it would be an English teacher, not a reading teacher, but just to mention that there may be reasons that a job would have to be readvertised that would be outside the school’s control. Here, I think it is an agreement between government and the unions: basically, “OK, teachers can get permanent contracts more quickly but we don’t want parents to complain about it being ‘impossible to fire bad teachers’ so we want to make sure that schools have an opportunity to let those who are not bad enough to be fired once they get permanency but who nonetheless aren’t very skilled.”

        1. Happily Retired*

          In my experience as a parent, a reading teacher in the US s a specialist who works with students reading below grade level, or who may speak English pretty well as their second language but struggle with the written word, and so forth.

          Reading specialists generally have students in multiple classrooms and at multiple grade levels.

          1. Irish Teacher.*

            Ah, makes sense. We’d just call that a learning support teacher or a resource teacher and somebody wouldn’t necessarily be hired separately at primary level. Like they might be hired initially in that role, then the following year, they might be assigned to teach 1st class and another teacher might be assigned the learning support role.

            Though it probably should be a specialist role with additional training, but then, Ireland was well behind other countries with regards to special educational needs right up to the end of the 20th century.

        2. Also-ADHD*

          I think that would be fine, but it sounded to me like LW was in the US and doing one of the worst teaching jobs (reading was created as a punching bag for standardized testing) so I would try and build loyalty. As a former teacher who has done several other things, I’d never recommend teaching in the US, and the one year I taught some reading (not even my full schedule) was the worst year of my life. If you were going to teach, I’d never teach that.

      2. The Meat Embezzler*

        Well, for all we know the interview was supposed to be an hour but the LW butchered the interview so badly that it only lasted 25 minutes.

      3. mgguy*

        At my current job I’ve unfortunately been on committees a few times where it was a foregone conclusion, but because of state government policies(I’m a faculty member at a community college, which sometimes feels like working for a K-12 school board. sometimes for a big university, and sometimes just for a generic government office with all the accompanying red tape) we had to post the position and interview a certain number of candidates.

        In one case, we wanted a part time lab tech, and we wanted to rehire the person who’d been laid off during COVID. That one was a strange case and considering that she’d never cleaned out her office and they’d kept her in furlough limbo for a year(this was before I started there…) it felt like we “should” have just been able to recall her but HR told us we had to do a full posting and interview. The only other person we interviewed…well fortunately it was an easy justification because they had very little job experience in general and none related to the sort of things that we needed this candidate to do. That one was quite an interesting interview-we are in a state that’s well known for our “big city”, but we’re at the opposite end of the state(about 5 hours away). This was an out of state candidate, and they spent a lot of time in the interview telling us how much they loved our state’s big city and seemed to lose a lot of interest when we told them how far away that city was.

        The other was a PT lab tech position at our affiliated research center that they were making FT, and of course wanted the person who had been PT for 20 years to do it. The description for that one was VERY carefully written, including things like requiring huge amounts of experience with specific models of equipment(that the PT person just happened to have given, well, 20 years there). That one wasn’t altogether bad, though, as one of the other applicants was outstanding but grossly over-qualified for the role(masters degree where the description wanted an associates) and also lacked the hands on experience needed. The chair of the hiring committee reached out to the excellent candidate with another posting that was a great match for this candidates expertise, and they ended up interviewing for and being hired for that position.

        Still, though, a lot of these sort of postings happen at our place because things like promotion for staff don’t just happen and any promotion requires an open posting. We did recently have a couple of postings that were marked “internal candidate only” but I think those are special circumstances as they are basically VERY part time adminstrative tasks(on the order of probably 10-20 hours a semester-I think the official pay credit was equivalent to 2 credit hours of teaching). It was also strange to me that they were even posted because normally someone in the department just volunteers or is voluntold to do it, but these were for small departments that didn’t have someone willing. Sometimes temporary/interim roles for administrative vacancies get posted as internal-only, but of course that’s its own special situation considering that an open search for the permanent replacement is also generally going on also(although our last few major administrative appointments have been internal-of 3 external hires in the time I’ve been there, one has been the best thing to happen to the school in a long time by most accounts, one was just okay, and the other came in like a bull in a china shop and left behind so much destruction after spending 6 months there that I think people are a bit gun-shy).

    6. Jennie*

      Thank you so much for your insight! I know I didn’t do great because my nerves got the best of me. I answered their questions but I didn’t elaborate as much as I could have. Afterwards I was one of those..why didn’t I say this or why didn’t I show them that. I have anxiety and felt prepared, but the nerves took over.
      I’ve been teaching 20 yrs, I think the one who got the job has a bit less experience.
      I believe they hired a teacher they used to work with or traded teachers from another school.
      Thank you again for your time and advice!

      1. Double A*

        If it’s a union job they could have also hired the person who was cheaper because they have less experience… There are a LOT of background politics at play in hiring in public education.

      2. Butterfly Counter*

        I also teach.

        Maybe go into the interview very much in the teaching role? When they ask you a question, pretend they’re a student who doesn’t understand something about you and break it down like you would with a student (obviously age up your tone if you’re used to talking with children). I have a lot of speaking anxiety in social settings, but the moment I pretend I’m teaching someone something, all of that anxiety falls away. I love teaching and sharing things that other people aren’t aware of until they have spent time with me. I haven’t interviewed in a while, but I think going into the interview in “teacher mode” would definitely be a strategy of mine.

    7. Jennie*

      Thank you for your comments. I didn’t elaborate on my questions. I was so nervous and I have anxiety so I didn’t perform very well. I was very prepared but I froze.
      Giving me a second interview would have been the right thing to do but their mind was made up before I stepped into the room. They hired someone they worked with in the past.
      Boo…thanks again for your reply!

      1. E*

        I am also an educator and have also bombed parts of an interview for a job I already was doing at the time. I just want to say I know this exact sort of pain and embarrassment. But also (as you know if you’ve been teaching 20 years), schools tend to be insular places, and much as I love them, the nepotism can be very real. Given that they picked a teacher they already knew, or traded a teacher with a different school (possibly to get rid of a different “problem” staff member?), then I would bet that this really is not about you. It might be that that person just got a literacy cert or something, but overall, schools tend to go with the most-known entities, in my experience. I’m wishing you good vibes in this hiring season. Remember, you kicked butt doing something new on short notice! You’re going to be a great candidate!

      2. Lucia Pacciola*

        Interview do-overs aren’t really a thing.

        Also, if their mind was made up already, then your nerves weren’t really an issue for them.

    8. Greg*

      This issue seems to be situational as well; we had a high profile position open up on my team and we all assumed going in to it that a high-performing longtime employee, including him.

      The interview was a disaster, to say the least. We went in expecting him to articulate how he was going to do the job, an expectation that was laid out, and he bombed. It was awful. At one point he answered, “Well, you know me and what I’d do.” Just an all-time fumble at the goal line.

      He didn’t get the job. It was a rough time for him and it took a bit of coaching to get him back on track, but once he understood what happened he worked on it and the next time he had an opportunity he didn’t stumble at all. And if we hadn’t done the interview and treated it as a foregone conclusion it would have been a disaster.

    9. Lenora Rose*

      I work for a system very like the one LW4 works in, and I know the people in charge of hiring have a very strict scoring rubric, and it has to be truly exceptional circumstances to ask for another candidate over the highest score.

      I have also seen the same person score multiple points difference between two interviews. Chances are good that if the LW works in a system with multiple schools, or near another such locale, another school will be hiring now or very soon, and their scores through the school year, not the interview, are what gets taken into consideration for whether to get another interview.

    10. Willem Dafriend*

      Yep. When I was finishing up grad school, I got to the final stage of interviews for a permanent (public sector) position somewhere I’d interned. The role would have been an expansion and application of my internship work, so everyone encouraged me to apply. I felt like a shoo-in.

      I ended up not getting the job because the other finalist had a necessary qualification I didn’t, and that weighted him higher. I was devastated, and had several good cries about it, but it ended up working out for us both – he was able to finally fix this persistent weird problem I’d been wrestling with, and I found a job that was a stepping stone to a role that was an even better fit for me.

      I’m so sorry you didn’t get the job, and you’re absolutely entitled to be upset about it, it feels awful when you’re told you’re a shoo-in and don’t get it. But you’ve got your experience and qualifications, and it sounds like a good reference to boot. I hope you find another opportunity soon.

  3. Star Trek Nutcase*

    LW4, at my job we used a rubric and scoring on the questions + score on testing were sole determinants. We made a conscious effort to question each applicant the same – e.g. rewording as necessary, pushing for elaboration. But there were some applicants that just couldn’t provide relevant answers and sometimes it was obviously nerves or bad interviewing skills. (Testing was also sometimes affected by nerves.) Unfortunately, we could only do so much and ultimately it was in the applicant’s hands.

    1. Jennie*

      Thank you for your reply! Yes they did use a rubric and asked the same questions to each candidate. I don’t think I’m horrible at interviewing but it was definitely awkward interviewing in front of 8 people I know.
      They were desperately looking for a sub at the beginning of the school year so I took a maternity leave for them for the first 3 months. I didn’t have to, it was the right thing to. I don’t feel like they owe me the world but they could have offered another interview.
      They hired someone they taught with before or traded teachers from within the district.
      Even if I did a better job in the interview I think their minds were already made up.
      Thanks again for your time!!!

      1. M2*

        But giving one candidate two interviews isn’t fair and most likely goes against policy.

        I’m sorry that happened to you and I hope you find a good permanent position somewhere else.

        My child has a reading specialist at school and goes to 1-on-1 tutoring with them and it has been very helpful. I hired an outside tutor before the school was able to get them a specific teacher (due to all the boxes needed to be ticked off because the district would allow it) and still continue that tutoring. We need all the good teachers we can get!

      2. Ace in the Hole*

        When you say they could/should have offered you another interview… do you know if they actually could?

        In my experience hiring policy for public agencies are extremely rigid and have to be decided well before the interviews are conducted. They may not have had an option to do any additional interviews regardless of circumstances, or they may have only been allowed to offer second round interviews to candidates who scored above a certain threshold on their rubric, etc.

      3. Esti*

        I’m confused as to why you’re upset at the idea they hired someone based on having worked with them before, when that’s exactly what you wanted them to consider and decide on when it came to you. Either you think the interview should be more important than having past experience with the candidate (in which case you know you didn’t do well on that aspect and the decision not to hire you is understandable) or you think they should decide based on who they’ve worked with before and think is the better candidate from what they saw during that prior experience with the candidate (here you’d both worked with them before so if that’s why they chose the other person then they must have impressed them even more than you did in their prior teaching role).

        Sometimes, even if you’ve worked hard and can do the job, there’s just a better candidate who gets chosen instead. It doesn’t mean they did something wrong or the process was necessarily unfair.

      4. linger*

        With the caveat that we’re a very different audience to your interview panel, so we focus on different things, and probably will be told different things as a result:
        The details you’ve provided (in several comments) of filling in as an emergency sub for 3 months, while working without any assigned office space, speak to your loyalty either to the profession or to this school, and explain why you feel frustrated at not getting this position. But I hope that’s not what you led with in the interview, because they do not speak to the quality of your work, beyond your ability to be a warm body in a room. And while you may be correct about being under-resourced, administrators sitting on the panel will look askance at comments that cast the school in a poor light. So for future interviews — because I think you can trust their statement that they do want to consider you for future positions — you’ll need to put those frustrations aside and focus on articulating how you bring quality to the classroom, and how you enjoy working with these students and colleagues. I’d guess it’s that sort of response, and the “tell us about a time when…” questions that are an opportunity for that sort of response, that you failed to elaborate on in this interview.

    2. Java*

      In addition to a rubric I think it’s worth considering that the way you evaluate someone who jumped into a 1-year position and the way you evaluate someone who is ideally going to be long term and permanent is often different.
      LW could have received “stellar” reviews within the expectations of that position at the time but may not have been as competitive of a candidate when they were looking for someone who would take ownership of the position.

    3. Boof*

      Any rubric that doesn’t take into account known performance (if available) is not a good rubric :P Sounds like the rubric you described is trying to eliminate bias, but my guess it’s just swapping one sort of bias for another (how well they can answer a few specific questions).

  4. Zarniwoop*

    #3
    Sounds to me less like hush money than like “I’m sorry you had to put up with those @$$#0/3s.” And so it would obviously be very awkward if the @$$#0/3s heard about it.

    1. Myrin*

      Yeah, I don’t get where the “hush money” idea comes from. I initially read the letter wrong and thought the OP’s boss was the same person dismissing the changes she had made and now wanted to use money to appease her (although that still wouldn’t make it hush money) but no, it was another person/boss entirely.

      So yes, it reads to me exactly like you say, and also like boss didn’t have enough of a backbone to come right out and say that he’s actually in favour and support of OP’s changes (although who knows, maybe that would’ve been a lost cause and he decided to not even try it).

      1. fhqwhgads*

        I think OP’s brain heard “keep this secret” and immediately jumped to “something must be wrong here” and couldn’t shake it. That’s where the idea of “hush money” came from, even though other than “don’t talk about the money” the boss isn’t actually asking OP to “hush” about anything.

        1. Tio*

          This. Plus, the fact that it was straight cash is just an odd factor. I think to me, who doesn’t use cash much anymore, it feels like “cash=untraceable, and secret=BAD, so it seems wrong. But when our new boss here came on he gave us all gift cards for starbucks as a welcome gift (although we all got the same card and knew, so that helped). But my point is if I got a gift card or something like a lunch like Alison mentioned I wouldn’t find it as odd. I think that the boss really just fumbled his apology.

    2. Leenie*

      Yeah, it doesn’t really sound like anything improper. Just a little compensation for her trouble. Unless I’m missing something major, if #3 were a friend of mine and asked my advice, I’d tell her to take the money. And spend it on herself and her kid in whatever way she’d enjoy or value most, with no guilt. Unless it’s immoral, illegal, or harmful in some way, the answer should usually be take the money. You don’t get extra points for denying yourself the rare, small reward that comes your way.

    3. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      It’s guilt — boss screwed up in not having OPs back and insisting on the changes, instead having the changes reversed because a bunch of whiners didn’t see why things had to change and didn’t like it. The real test will be whether boss has OP’s back in future. I suspect boss will not, and I bet this isn’t the first time they’ve tried to buy their way back into someone’s good books. Remember the boss (and other bosses) didn’t actually agree that the changes should be undone, but went along with it for the sake of harmony. Probably has also found that money is the easiest way to appease annoyed people (usually).

      1. Allonge*

        Still, boss could have done all that (for good reasons or bad, we don’t know the whole situation) and not acknowledged in any way to OP that this was a pain.

        It’s not that I think this is the optimal way to operate, but a boss that at least feels bad to be part of the cause for issues like this and tries to offer some recompense is better than one that does not do even that.

        Plus, don’t we always conclude that money is the best way to show appreciation?

        1. Phryne*

          – Plus, don’t we always conclude that money is the best way to show appreciation?

          Yes, I was a bit surprised at the answer that flowers or a lunch would have been a better way of showing appreciation… I would think that the boss showed some pretty good insight in what would help a single mom most, cash or some flowers, and made the right call…

          1. BubbleTea*

            But this wasn’t appreciation. LW made changes that the boss reversed for bad reasons. What’s being appreciated? The fact that LW made the changes? Then why not keep them? The fact LW accepted the changes being reversed? That makes it feel like being paid off. It’s just odd to give someone money for the fact you did your own job badly and they were affected.

            1. Phryne*

              We don’t know any of this though? It is all speculation by OP, and anyway even if it was, flowers would not have fixed that and be less useful to boot.

            2. Jennifer Strange*

              It sounds like the boss who gave LW money isn’t the boss who reversed the changes, though.

            3. fhqwhgads*

              I think the situation was there are many bosses. LW’s boss was onboard with LW’s changes both before and after. One and only one boss was approached by some subset of employees and asked to change it, and did. When all the other bosses – including LW’s – found out they were displeased. Why they didn’t catch on sooner and stop the one person from undoing everything is unclear.
              But what the LW’s boss did was basically give a bonus out of their own pocket for the good work that was done, even though some jerk undid it.

          2. Chas*

            I think Alison meant, that in this case, flowers or a lunch would have been a more normal way of a company showing appreciation, which would make this interaction seem less sketchy to LW. But those are also more visible rewards which I guess is why her boss didn’t want to do something like that. (Which is a shame, because having a more visible reward for OP would probably make others reconsider undermining her again, so in that sense it’s a shame that her boss has decided to keep the thank-you gift a secret instead)

          3. WellRed*

            It’s weird because the boss gave her money out of his own pocket. It’s not a work bonus.

            1. Alanna*

              Yeah, I don’t blame the LW for feeling weird about this. It would deeply weird me out for a boss to offer me cash out of his own pocket as compensation for work weirdness, no matter how weird.

              If it came out of official business funds (like, the boss submitted “spot bonus for LW” for reimbursement), it’s less weird, but being handed a fistful of cash absolutely would make me feel like something shady or under the table was happening.

            2. MigraineMonth*

              It does feel sketchy, but it’s also how things work sometimes.

              My manager treated us to lunch and gave all his reports gift cards at the end of last year. They never specifically mentioned, but from what I know about org policy I’m pretty sure that all came out of their own pocket.

              Yeah, it’s more personal than a business expense would be, but it’s the kind of thing managers sometimes choose to do when the org won’t reimburse.

          4. ecnaseener*

            I was thinking the same thing haha! The usual advice is “stop agonizing over what employee appreciation gift/event will please everyone and just give them money” — but when you’re giving one employee an unofficial, secret bonus, maybe a fistful of cash is just too weird.

            1. Allonge*

              I totally agree it’s weird, but dinner out of boss’ own pocket has some weird elements as well…

          5. fhqwhgads*

            There’s more nuance than that. The company wants to show appreciation: money. Absolutely. Individual boss wants to show appreciation out of their own pocket: gift generally lands better. Be it flowers or lunch or heck even a gift card.
            It’s the mixture of it’s the company’s job to pay employees and when the boss wants to give the employee more money but the company won’t…then it gets more tricky. It’s not that flowers or lunch is a better way to show appreciation. It’s that it’s a less awkward way, when it’s the boss paying directly rather than company funds.

            1. Allonge*

              ‘Dear Alison, my boss, as he seems guilty about [story], gave me a bunch of flowers. As he never does this to anyone, everyone asked what was up, and half the office now thinks I am his lover. Please advise.’

    4. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      It sounds more like “apology money” to me than hush money.

      The OP says she could use the money, so several hundred dollars cash (tax-free!) is much more useful to her than say taking her out to lunch (which Alison suggested would be more professional)

    5. Sharkie*

      Exactly. This is my read as well. His hands can be tied in ways he could make this right. Like for example if he gave you a bonus maybe he would have to give all people bonuses.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        Yeah, my understanding of the situation is that he appreciated LW’s work and was sorry the changes were rolled back due to political stuff. He might also have felt that a restitution was owed if LW would have been in line for a bonus had the changes not been rolled back, but knew he couldn’t get a bonus approved from corporate.

        I don’t think it’s hush money at all, LW. It’s a gift in gratitude for your hard work and in apology for your having to deal with the political undermining. Go spend it on what you need.

    6. kalli*

      It’s essentially a bonus for managing a complicated task, just not done through payroll – in some cases it can still be taxed, but that’s not relevant here past whether ‘don’t tell’ includes don’t declare it as income come return time.

      It comes off as the equivalent of ‘you had a record month, here’s a trophy’, ‘you landed a big client’ flowers, or ‘you’re super good at your job so we’ll get you for a more expensive tool than you really need and if you happen to take it home we didn’t see it’. Sometimes they’re disclosed or advertised or awarded in front of people because it serves as a performance incentive to others, but sometimes they’re not because that’s not the point/there isn’t much to incentivise because of how the work is structured, or because it could affect the office sense of camaraderie or it’s just not always the kind of work that gets seen so a big visible ‘great work’ sign could accidentally create discord (especially with admin, because some people just don’t see what admin do!). In this case it’s probably that, because if the seasonal workers found out that LW got a bonus/apology for how they handled the situation and the busy season, they’d probably not be super charitable about it – more so if there’s been disciplinary or other review action that LW isn’t privy to but could absolutely compound with ‘and we gave the person whose work you messed up a bonus’ to make LW’s life harder.

      You don’t generally broadcast a bonus even if it’s done through payroll anyway.

    7. I should really pick a name*

      Just a heads up that it’s okay to use the word “asshole” and it’s easier to read.

      2. Happy*

        I had no idea that’s what that gibberish was. Thank you!

        Ciphers and euphemisms used to avoid more direct language can really can make it harder to understand some comments – and a lot of readers here have a different first language than English.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          A lot of comment sections (including this one) automatically flag certain comments as requiring moderation. Some of the more creative spellings were developed to get around the filters on sites that flag or delete all comments containing profanity.

          @’I should really pick a name’ shared that this site doesn’t flag profanity, so we’re safe saying ‘asshole’. (We aren’t entirely sure what it does flag, apart from web links; AAM’s filters work in mysterious ways.)

    8. learnedthehardway*

      While I don’t think that it is a good idea for managers to be giving bonuses out of their personal finances, for all the reasons that bother the OP, in THIS case, the manager seems to be doing this out of pure motives – ie. he knows the OP had a great idea, someone on high reversed it, which created all kinds of issues for the OP and the business, and he can’t push for the OP to be given a bonus because he’s not in a position to call out the senior exec who made a bone-headed decision. The best he can do is to find a private way to express his appreciation, but at the same time, he can’t afford for this to become common knowledge, as it would create resentment in the team and effectively proclaim to senior leadership that he thinks the person who made the stupid decision is an idiot.

      That said, it’s a bad idea all around to give secret bonuses out of one’s personal finances – it doesn’t feel right and the business should be paying bonuses out.

      In this particular case, it doesn’t create any kind of obligation – other than not mentioning the bonus. Other managers/leaders in the business also agree with your manager that the bone-headed person made a mistake and that the seasonal employees were creating problems. So I think the OP is okay to use the money, so long as they don’t feel they are under any personal obligation to the manager. It’s still a grey area, but I’m assuming that the money is of a fairly nominal amount.

    9. theletter*

      I would totally think of it as a bonus for a great year of handing corporate BS with patience and grace.

  5. Joe Lies*

    Re #4….I was a dream candidate for a role but the agency was forced to take an internal transfer which was a demotion. It completely tied their hands under the administrative rule. It happens unfortunately.

    1. Jennie*

      Thank you for your reply! I love your name…it’s from Say Anything, right?
      I hear you but in this case, I believe they hired a candidate they worked with before or a trade from another school. However, admin could choose whomever they want.
      Admin seems to feel awful and they said “they are committed to finding a position for me.” After this it’s hard to trust them.
      Thanks again for your insight!
      Thanks again for your comment!

      1. Lenora Rose*

        Keep applying. It sounds like you’ll have the opportunity to actually knock the next one out of the park.

  6. Mark*

    #4. I interviewed an internal candidate for a permanent position. She interviewed terribly. We took the process seriously but she was super casual and did not give comprehensive answers even when we hinted at direct experience she had in those skills working for us. In the end we offered her the job based on her experience rather than her performance in the interview. HR recommended we not hire her based solely on what they saw in the interview.

      1. Mark*

        Brilliant, really competent. She went for an internal promotion to another department, and did not get it. The hiring manager told me she interviewed very badly. So my next step is to improve her interview skills because I should not let this stop her from growing in her career.

        1. Phryne*

          I’m curious. Do you think that this: “she was super casual and did not give comprehensive answers”, was because she took the process too lightly, thinking it was a formality when it was not, or more something like crippling nerves?

          1. GythaOgden*

            Yeah. I’ve been burnt a couple of times by coming off as a bit flippant in interviews. It’s often an over-correction for stiffness due to nerves, but it’s a balance I have trouble keeping in other parts of my life (autism can be like that and I grew up never masking, which makes it harder to rein myself in sometimes as an adult), so I just have to go in confident but mindful.

            1. Phryne*

              People react to nerves in different ways. I can totally imagine someone trying to come across calm and overdoing it into what looks like indifference. Or trying to break their suspense by making a joke that falls flat.

          3. Ellis Bell*

            I think there’s a lot of people who have the know-how, but don’t have the wording for how they do their jobs either. I know a lot of very skilled people who if you ask them how they do what they do, would reply with oversimplifications of what it involves. In their case it is because their automaticity is so good and so fluent they don’t unpick what makes them that way.

    2. Retired VA Professor*

      I had a very similar experience with a different ending. The internal candidate thought he had the job sewn up. He forgot to explain to the hiring committee why he was right for the job. He was a horrible, distracted interviewee. I was the only one on the committee who had previously worked with him closely and though I argued his case, I was outvoted decisively. The job went to someone else. Frankly, the committee could do nothing else. State law requires us to score each candidate on the same rubric and in the same manner. I debriefed him and he said he just didn’t think he had to convince us. He thought we would know since we knew him. A couple of years later, a new position opened up and that time he sold himself and was easily selected. But he lost a few years of the higher position and higher salary.

    3. Jennie*

      Wow, I love the fact that you added a human element to the process. I was very well prepared and I didn’t rest on my laurels. I just froze with anxiety and nerves and didn’t give enough examples, etc.
      I moved within the building 3 times, due to renovations. I started in a make-shift room in the gymnasium to a storage closet to a power supply room. Needless to say, I NEVER complained and they mentioned my positive attitude and flexibility.
      I think they hired a teacher they used to work with in the past.
      Thanks so much for your comment.

    4. Jennie*

      Thank you for your reply! This team certainly took the human element out of the process.
      I’m a bit bitter because I did SO much for them…I subbed for a maternity leave for 3 months and I could have said no, I moved from the gym to a storage closet to Power Supply Room for my small groups because they didn’t have a room for me. I was positive, loyal and flexible. I did the right thing but it doesn’t seem like they did. They hired someone they used to work with.
      Thanks again for your help!

      1. Yoli*

        I don’t think you need to beat yourself up about how the interview went, but as someone who does early literacy work (including hiring), positivity and flexibility absolutely would not trump knowledge, skills, and evidence of impact. This comment section is an appropriate place to get your frustrations out but I wouldn’t recommend sharing them with anyone even remotely connected to the position because it will come off as entitled.

      2. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        You seem really hung up on things you’ve done, as though they owed you the job. It’s great you did a great job, but what you’re saying now sounds entitled.

        You are saying you did “the right thing” – what does that even mean? You did a good job. This isn’t a morality tale. They didn’t do you wrong by not hiring you. (Also, if they “took the human element out” then they couldn’t also have hired someone just because they knew them. That would be human.)

        The fact that they say they still want to find you a permanent position is a positive but you are talking about it like it’s bad.

        Be careful you don’t cut off your own nose to spite your face. Neither side did anything wrong. If you still want to work here, behave professionally and with grace.

      3. biobotb*

        Did you pass up other opportunities to sub for them? Would they have been unable to find a sub if you didn’t take the position? You appear to think you did them a big favor, but as someone who’s not involved with teaching, I’m unclear as to why.

      4. Starbuck*

        So it sounds like they had one position open, and two people to consider that they’d worked with before – you and someone else. Just because they chose the someone else for the current position doesn’t mean they won’t consider you for others. The other person who worked there, may have done things just like you to go above and beyond!

        It really seems like you feel they owed you this job because you’ve worked for them, but I don’t think that framing really helps you. By that logic, why wouldn’t they also have owed this other person a job?

    5. learnedthehardway*

      This is a big issue – so many people really do not interview well, but have great skills/abilities.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Yes this letter is an interesting one. On one hand, for many jobs, how you present in an interview may be pretty irrelevant to how you will ultimately perform. It’s like how people are excluded from jobs due to spelling errors on their resume in a job that has no professional writing component; it’s just an old convention and basically a way to gate-keep the “right” people, who were educated or present a certain way, in. On the other hand, I’ve been the internal candidate who thinks I should have been given the inside track, and I’ve also been the outside candidate wondering why it’s not a level playing field; just because they happen to know someone doesn’t mean they’re better than me for the role. From your comments OP it sounds like what’s really bugging you is that you went over and beyond for them; unfortunately, with that strategy (“you have to do the job before you get the job”) sometimes it gets you what you want, but there’s no guarantee *and* you’re definitely out all that labor. I certainly think it’s fair to be looking for other opportunities after being passed over like this but maybe it’s also a sign not to give to the point where you’d be resentful if it wasn’t quid-pro-quo, which is a really tough boundary in the job world. Good wishes to you.

        1. Ace in the Hole*

          It’s also worth noting that, according to LW’s comments, they *also* had first-hand experience working with the candidate the ended up hiring!

          I get the impression she feels she should have been awarded the job based on how accommodating and flexible she was rather than on superior skill/performance/experience. I can empathize with LW’s disappointment and frustration… but ultimately they are supposed to choose the candidate they believe can do the job best, not the candidate they think has the most positive attitude or best personality. To a certain point positive attitude, temperament, flexibility, etc. are actual qualifications, but once you hit a threshold of “good enough” those qualities have diminishing returns.

        2. Yadah*

          “It’s like how people are excluded from jobs due to spelling errors on their resume in a job that has no professional writing component; it’s just an old convention and basically a way to gate-keep the “right” people, who were educated or present a certain way, in.

          Not to get too off topic, but I’d counter the notion that excluding candidates for spelling errors regardless of the writing component of a job isn’t about “gatekeeping” the “right” people in – it signals attention to detail and ability to quality check ones own work in important situations which is also important in a lot of jobs.
          It’s not the be-all-end-all a lot of the time, but counting is as a strike against a candidate rarely has to do with demonstrating writing skills or a particular kind of education.

          We recently hired a specialized accountant at my company and anyone with spelling errors in their resume went right in the trash because the role required a high level of detail and accuracy in the final submissions.

          It’s not a 1-1 skill check, it’s about what it signals to the reader.

          1. Dido*

            yeah, maybe spelling errors wouldn’t have been a big deal in the age of handwritten resumes, but there’s no excuse for that in this day and age

            1. Who Plays Backgammon?*

              Absolutely! I don’t know if there’s any job that doesn’t require communication of some sort. And your resume is where you put your best foot forward.

      2. Margaret Cavendish*

        And the reverse is also true – I’ve seen people ace the interview just because they’re good at interviewing, and then turn out to be not very good at the job. It’s an imperfect process, but it’s often the best one we have!

  7. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP1 (micromanager owner is resentful about OPs success) – I think the motivation is this: it’s his company, his ‘baby’ if you like, and now feels like control and direction of it is being taken away from him. I think it’s a fairly common feeling (whether or not someone tends to be a micromanager in general) when you’ve created something from the ground up and then it seems to take on a life of its own that doesn’t involve you.

    1. Spiteyourface*

      I worked for this type of boss too. Anything I did that helped the company was perceived by her as highlighting her failing to recognize and do the same process improvement steps earlier. It is definitely a self-confidence/image issue with the boss. I would recommend finding those easy/inconsequential decisions to send to the boss as ego-balm so they can feel involved and important, while also looking to get out of these ASAP.

      I never understood this either, I would be thrilled as a boss to have competent people working for me and helping the business!

      1. Zona the Great*

        I had this boss as well. However, instead of being dismissive or irritated, he was sad and despondent and needed emotional support. “I feel out of touch” said with a whine instead of, “can you keep me in the loop more?”. I think I’d rather have him be irritated than need a figurative hug from me.

    2. Antilles*

      I think you’ve nailed it. He’s built the company himself and that’s why he’s so insecure about it because it feels almost like the company is starting to move past him, that he’s no longer Needed For Everything the way he used to be…and being the owner, there’s nobody above him who can help “straighten him out” so to speak:
      If the situation was exactly the same but there were layers of management above him, he’d be getting showered with praise from upper management about his team being 20% above target, great job managing your department Bob, etc etc and THAT would salve his ego about feeling needed. But of course, that’s not a thing when he’s the owner, there isn’t anybody higher who can tell him how great he is.

      1. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

        Good analysis here.

        But there is somebody higher who can tell him that – the company’s bank account. It seems like a no-brainer that “more profits, less work on my part” ought to make him happy, but there it is…

      2. Miette*

        And ironically, this showering of praise is a practice he should have leaned into himself over the years so that his employees excel and feel appreciated, instead of driving them off like OP.

    3. Not on board*

      I think your analysis is spot on, and the reason he just acts moody and resentful instead of worse things is because he logically knows this is good for him but feels irritated that the success is happening without him.
      But maybe when you hit big targets you can attribute the success to his “mentorship”. It’s very brown-nosing but it sounds like some kissing a$$ could go a long way to making this situation better until you find a new job. Saying things like “I made decisions that I thought you would make – I learned so much over the years from watching you”. “Working for you has taught me so much – I wouldn’t be as good without you.” Or something to that variation. You’re basically just handling his feelings but if you phrase it as your boss is ultimately responsible for your success because he taught you everything you know – whether true or not, his ego will get puffed up and he’ll be less moody.

    4. PotsPansTeapots*

      Yep, I don’t think it’s uncommon for small business owners to 1. Conflate their business with themselves and 2. Look to their business to satisfy their emotional/social needs. I think OP 1 has a boss with both issues.

      You may be helping his bottom line, but it sure sounds like you’re blocking personal validation or w/e else he’s getting from this job.

    5. Sloanicota*

      Yes, my current manager in our nonprofit suffers badly from Founders Syndrome. She is trying to retire but wants to ensure she still controls the decision the org makes because it is, as you say, “her baby.” She is definitely not happy when she sees us succeeding in areas that aren’t her strengths or interests and doesn’t want to feel left behind by the org.

    6. theletter*

      I think there might be a couple of ways to redirect him away from Micromanaging and more toward real Owner duties.

      One could be identifying some new product or tool set that you’ll need to implement in the future, and complaining that you have no time to research or explore it.

      Two could be stating that underlings would love ‘big picture’ updates on how the company is doing, which would be an opportunity for him to get into some real leadership tasks like regular speaking.

      Basically, you want to state that you are able to take care of all these ‘small things’ under your control, but you’re looking for him to explain/expand on the big picture as well as big client concerns. Succesful ownership usually comes from maintaining client relationships, while distributing tasks based on what they want or request, to competent people.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        That’s an interesting idea. Is the owner clinging to lower-level management decisions because they’re uncomfortable with higher-level tasks? If not, would it be possible to manage up by emphasizing the importance of those tasks and how much they’re needed in those customer cultivation/strategy/vision areas?

    7. Chortle*

      I also worked for this boss, who told me directly to stop making suggestions to improve things, and just be a cheerleader for his ideas. So I put a little note on my desk to remind me to shut up and play a cheerleader when he was around, and then go back to being competent at my job when he wasn’t.

      It really helped me to remind myself that this is his company, and if he wants it to be bad just so he can get his way, that’s his prerogative. I’d still point out anything offensive or illegal, but everyday “this could be done much better than the way he wants me to do it” stuff I just let go and did it his way. There wasn’t any winning.

      1. Chortle*

        Oh, and the update to that is he was super happy with my ‘improved’ performance, even though he was literally insisting I do my job less well. 100% illogical ego thing.

        1. anonymouse*

          I work for this boss too, right now. I’ve had to resign myself to the fact that I can’t care more about the quality of the product or the process than the company does.

    8. Cedrus Libani*

      One thing I’ve learned in my career is the importance of alignment: you need to figure out what your boss’ idea of a good outcome looks like, and then adjust your own optimization functions accordingly, rather than blithely assuming that it’s obvious and you already know what to do. This boss wants to feel important. They would prefer to have a team of C players who rely on the boss for every little decision. Poor boss, they can hardly take a long weekend, everything will fall apart if they aren’t there to help…

      That’s not a bug, that’s a feature. Even if that team barely scrapes its way to 70% KPI while very much being carried by said boss, it’s a “better” team than the one OP1 has built, which has A players who can do 120% KPI with minimal oversight. From the perspective of what the boss actually needs from OP1’s team, OP1 has done a bad job – the team has gotten less effective at meeting those needs!

      I have learned that it’s hazardous to my career and my sanity to work for such people. I am the stereotypical INTJ nerd who would find it deeply humiliating to have such irrational emotions exposed to public view…and while I have full control over my mouth, I can’t say the same for my eyebrows, which are unfortunately both very expressive and as truthful as Shakira’s hips. As a co-worker once put it, “if looks could kill I think I just watched a Saw movie”. Basically, I can’t hide my opinion of people forever, and these types tend to interpret an expression of “oh for bleep’s sake, grow up” as a personal attack that deserves retaliation, rather than an invitation to reflect on their own childish behavior. But as a short term survival strategy, I’ve learned to take my ego out of it. Boss wants, boss gets. You pay the piper, you call the tune.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        I also need to get my eyebrows under control. Especially since we’ve just hired a consulting group to tell us which software package we need to buy, configure and upload all our data into. I really need to stop bursting into laughter every time someone says “After we’ve transitioned to the new software…”

        We’re never going to transition to the new software. The consulting group is going to spend 18 months analyzing our needs and eventually a recommend a software package that meets 80% of those needs. We will buy the software and spend 5 years attempting to transition to it, before realizing that the software doesn’t actually meet our needs and developing a custom solution instead. There will be a post-mortem where we try to figure out what went wrong.

        Then we’ll hire a new consulting group to to tell us which software package we need to buy, configure and upload all our data into, and the cycle will repeat until the end of time.

    9. Cacophonix*

      This motivation sounds right. I’m a contractor/consultant so my only interest is to achieve the outcomes I was hired to do with a side of making my client manager look fantastic for getting results. But I think Alison could have added a third option: Have a conversation. This worked for me several times when this or that client manager became intimidated at how effective I was and it goes something like this:

      “My job is to achieve your objectives and I’m so grateful for the wisdom, guidance and space you gave me to do just that. I’m aware that unlike all the leadership accountability and strategic expanse you must surely have in your position, I have one job with a much narrower focus than you do. I just want to make you look good is the crux of it. My team can only be as successful as leaders like you create the environment we need to do it in. How do you think it’s going? I’d love your thoughts specifically on our approach to XYZ in case we’re missing something we may not be aware of. Also your approval to move forward on ABC.”

      I’ve also found that feeding information to nervous managers for course correction and quick gut checks puts them more at ease with the process and that they’ve had an opportunity to engage without bottlenecking anything. Have 2 or 3 quick asides at the ready for the fleeting hallway convo.

  8. Derry Girl*

    #4. Because we have extremely strict rules around employment here in Northern Ireland for historical reasons, everything goes on the interview. I’ve been on both sides, been the person who wasn’t made permanent from the temporary post- and like you, the person who got ‘my ‘ job had never done it but was much more polished at interview. Years later I was on interview panels where the best candidate on paper didn’t perform well on the day, probably due to the weight of expectations. It sucks- I wish I could tell you something better- and it took me 4 years to finally get a great job but I mightn’t have tried had I got the first one because I would have sat comfortably in it and not stretched myself. Small comfort at the moment but you’re doing everything right except maybe believing enough in yourself, that will come.

    1. Jennie*

      I LOVE your name! Derry Girls was such an amazing show!
      Thanks for your comments. I believe they hired a teacher they worked with in the past so I think my interview was a curtesy interview.
      Obviously this is not where my feet were supposed to land. I did so much for them in terms of covering a maternity leave to moving 3 “rooms” times in 6 months due to renovations. From a make-shift classroom in the gym to teaching a storage closet then to the Power Supply Room. They didn’t have a place where I could take my small groups, “this year.” I was commended on my positivity and flexibility. Look where it got me!
      Thanks again for you insight.

      1. Lenora Rose*

        The thing with a “courtesy interview” is that if you had knocked the interview out of the park and the other person hadn’t, you’d have got the job. It’s easy to speculate that they were planning on this other candidate in advance, but while it might help make you feel better about your own weaker interview, it’s also in danger of leading to you resenting the other person, which will weaken your own position in the long term.

        And if they’re telling you they’re committed to finding you a role, take them at their word and take every opportunity that you can to apply again and maybe you’ll take all your internal “I know now what I should have said during the interview” thoughts and interview better the next time.

      2. Saturday*

        The fact that they urged you to apply and that they still want to find a position for you makes it seem less likely to me that this was a courtesy interview. I agree with Lenora Rose that it makes sense not to be too quick to assume they weren’t being straightforward with you.

        You may not have been able to provide the info in the interview that they needed to support hiring you this time – I have issues with anxiety too, and I know how much stuff like that sucks – but if they still want to find a position for you, that’s a really positive sign!

  9. Rain*

    I’m confused by people who want want to know contact their spouse’s manager/HR department on behalf of their spouse.

    It just seems like one of those things or the answer is obviously “No”.

    I guess I wonder what good these question askers believe It would do? Or is it just a knee-jerk reaction of wanting to defend someone you love?

    (I’m also super curious about if anyone has ignored Allison’s advice and reached out to their spouses manager or HR anyway, and how it went.)

    1. Kay*

      Even more confusing that this person said they were a manager. I’m hoping it is the knee-jerk clouding of the judgement.

      1. A Significant Tree*

        I agree, I think the LW was upset on the “I’m a manager” level because the other manager seemed really awful. But I wonder if (with some time and distance from the situation) the LW would recognize that being approached by one of their own direct report’s spouses over a similar issue would be completely inappropriate.

    2. ClaireW*

      Yeah I was thinking the same, I feel like if your question ever starts with “Should I tell my spouse’s boss…” and the context isn’t that they’re ill or otherwise incapacitated in such a way that they can’t personally say they won’t be at work, then it’s pretty much always going to be a no.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        “Should I contact my [any relationship]’s employer because [any reason other than they are incapacitated]?”

        “No.”

        Not for your adult child, not for the person you’re dating, not for your spouse, not for your identical twin or next door neighbor. Just don’t.

    3. Irish Teacher.*

      I reckon it’s just protective instinct in a lot of cases. Seeing somebody you love unhappy makes a lot of people feel they have to do something about it, especially if they are naturally “fixers”. I think even if people know logically that it’s not a good idea and would realise it immediately if anybody else asked them whether somebody should do it, there can be a kind of instinctive “somebody has threatened my spouse (or child or elderly parent or sibling). I must protect my loved one from this person who is a threat.”

    5. Bes*

      Our owner once fired someone for utter incompetence and her husband, at a industry outing the owner was not attending, said the owner was “too afraid to face him” and that owner “used” his wife and fired her because someone (in another position) had come back from maternity leave. We all had a nice laugh after hearing it.

  10. ceiswyn*

    I’m very surprised that OP1 is surprised by her boss’s response. It’s been my experience that it’s common for people in positions of authority (especially micromanagers and older men) to get bent out of shape if you succeed without their advice. I actually blinked at seeing Alison lay out strategies I’ve been unconsciously using to manage certain people since I was a student.

    Fortunately as a senior person in my field I haven’t had to deal with that for years now, but I’m surprised it’s the first time that OP has come across it.

      1. MP*

        @Happy — Not All Bosses? May be worth asking yourself why you’re negating this commenter’s experience?

        1. Happy*

          I’m not trying to negate the commenter’s experience! Of course lots of people have awful bosses, and some are more interested in self-aggrandizement than good management.

          My comment was specifically addressing the “I’m surprised it’s the first time OP has come across it” part. If you spend a lot of time reading advice websites like this (as we do!) then it can seem like most workplaces are dysfunctional, because people from good workplaces don’t as often need to reach out for help.

          But I do think it can be helpful to point out that there are lots of people who have good jobs, where they have supportive bosses and coworkers whom they like. Ceiswyn may be in a particularly rough field or have had bad luck, but I don’t want people to think that’s the norm everywhere, or that they necessarily have to put up with such treatment, just because that’s the way things are.

          1. SnP97*

            Absolutely! People have very different experiences, fortunately Alison and some commenters recognise that diversity to be able to offer help :)

          2. SnP97*

            Absolutely! The beauty of this site is Alison appreciating the diversity of experiences and offering help accordingly.

      2. TeaCoziesRUs*

        But so many have lousy ones that we’ve all been able to enjoy Allison’s wisdom for over a decade.

    2. Budgie Buddy*

      OP 1: “My boss has always an inveterate micromanager. I was surprised recently when he behaved like an inveterate micromanager.”

      I agree it sucks but this is just how the dude operates. Better to just assume he’ll keep behaving like always instead of being surprised every time he does something that undermines his own interests. Don’t be the frog in the scorpion and the frog story.

  11. Jae*

    #2.
    Alison, thank you for answering my question! I appreciate you recognizing the humanity in my question and even more so, I appreciate you taking the time to consider it, and your candid answer. It helped me shift tñmy focus from the negative perdon to how I can be positive and supportive. Thank you for that.

    1. JustaTech*

      Kudos to you to reaching out for advice, and for wanting to support your husband. I hope things are getting better for both of you, and he finds a more supportive job!

    2. Aglet*

      It sounds like you’re in a better mental space, so you should probably ignore what I’m going to say, but… I’d put it on Glassdoor. I’d make it a lot more succinct and not say “my husband.” Or I’d suggest my husband put it on Glassdoor. I might wait until after my husband had another job if I thought the company would figure out who it was and it might impact his recommendation. Although really, how good of a recommendation would he get after this experience?

      1. Azure Jane Lunatic*

        Yes, I was also thinking that Glassdoor is the best forum for this grievance. The time to draft it is now, while the details are fresh in everyone’s mind, and the time to post it is probably later, when the hurt is less fresh and any references are given.

        While it’s not as satisfying as emailing it straight to HR, there’s a strong chance someone from HR will check Glassdoor from time to time. And if from there HR thinks there’s good reason to look into it, they will. Even if HR doesn’t, other people researching the company will know that there’s at least one lousy boss and may be prompted to ask detailed questions about the training procedures, et cetera, during their interviews.

  12. Jellybeans*

    2. Absolutely TONS of fired people say, “I was fired for no reason!” AAM regularly posts letters from bosses frustrated because problem employees don’t listen to warnings or to requests (or straight up orders) to change, then claim to be blindsided by PIPs or being fired.

    I’m not saying that’s the case here, just that the boss’s version of events would likely be very different.

    1. bamcheeks*

      Firing someone three weeks *after* they came off a PIP is weird, though. Not giving them proper feedback before the PIP is poor practice, but also, the point of a PIP is to make sure that feedback and the consequences of not following it are absolutely clearly communicated: LW’s husband not knowing about the issues until the PIP could just be the PIP working as intended to bring everything into the light. But getting fired three weeks after the PIP ends suggests the PIP wasn’t effectively managed unless LW’s husband deliberately went back on the PIP behaviours immediately it finished. Either he didn’t meet the terms of the PIP, and should have been let go at the end of it (or had it extended), or he did and they should have moved forward. And three weeks isn’t long enough to have slipped back into poor behaviours if the PIP was properly managed.

      That said, there’s nothing actionable for LW here, except explaining to the husband how this is supposed to work.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        Not saying anything about LW’s spouse, but I’m not sure that’s true in general. Depending on the behavior, 3 *minutes* is plenty of time to have slipped back into poor behaviors.

        I’m embarrassed to say I was once fired for writing an angry email after I’d already been warned about the tone of my emails. It doesn’t make sense to put an employee on another PIP every time the same problem behavior recurs.

        1. Irish Teacher.*

          Yeah, while I’m not saying it’s true of the LW’s spouse and I would expect there to have been some mention of it, there are people who will just follow the rules as long as something like a PIP is happening and once it’s over, will think, “right. Did that. Now I don’t have to bother following those rules any more.”

          As a teacher, it is very common for teens to be placed on a behaviour monitoring card and behave for exactly as long as that lasts, then the class after they are no longer being monitored, they go back to their previous behaviour.

        2. bamcheeks*

          I think I’d say a PIP finished too early if that happened, though, and that’s what I mean by poorly managed.

          If someone deliberately complied with the terms of the PIP and then makes a conscious choice to go back to the old behaviour as soon as they’re off the PIP, well yeah, you’re not going to get anywhere with them. If they’re trying but the new behaviour hasn’t yet become habit and a couple of accidental / careless slips can’t be tolerated, I think you should have extended the PIP until you were confident that was the new norm.

      2. Jellybeans*

        “Not giving them proper feedback before the PIP is poor practice”

        We don’t know how the LW’s husband defines “no proper feedback”.

        That’s my whole point – there are regularly letters here from managers who are frustrated because they’ve done everything they can to not have to fire problematic employees, but the employees just don’t listen, then act shocked and blindsided by being fired. We’ve seen this exact letter from the alternate position a million times – “I had to fire an employee because he wouldn’t listen to feedback and now he claims he had no idea his job was at risk, what do I do?”

        LW’s husband behaved so poorly he was put on a PIP and then fired. That doesn’t just happen for no reason.

        1. bamcheeks*

          Right, that was my point. If there was feedback given but it wasn’t sufficiently clear OR LW’s husband didn’t recognise/understand it until the PIP appeared, that’s the PIP working as intended. The whole point of the formality of a PIP is to make sure the feedback and standards expected ARE communicated clearly and that the individual understands the gravity of the situation.

        2. Denny Anonymous*

          With respect, we see more letters about bad and abusive bosses, including those who misuse and abuse their power.

    2. Falling Diphthong*

      You can be righter than right, and as soon as you explain that your connection to the situation is “I’m a family member of the aggrieved person” no one is seriously crediting your objective take on things.

    3. Justout*

      I completely agree. There are two sides to every story and I could easily imagine some of the people I’ve had on PIPs and/or managed out of the business going home and telling a story like this to their spouse. I understand the temptation to weigh in, but Alison is 100% right that it wouldn’t help anything.

    4. SheLooksFamiliar*

      I’ve run into former colleagues at industry events and they’d eventually talk about getting fired from our employer. They were always ‘fired for no reason’, except I knew they were not – I was often involved in the decision to terminate, along with my boss and grandboss.

      In one case, a former colleague in a different business unit had told me she was on a PIP, and was worried she wouldn’t ‘pull it together’ enough to save her job. She was eventually let go because of that PIP, which had been extended an additional 2 months to give her every opportunity to improve. Yet was bitter she had ‘zero warning.’

      1. Joanie*

        I was put on a PIP years ago, and while my performance may not have been the best, certain things brought up at my review I was completely blindsided by. I had been dumped into a different department and job than I was initially hired for, and given little to no training. And certain things I had been doing a certain way, daily, and all of a sudden they were wrong. yet no one had EVER said anything about it until then. Or things I should have been doing, but was never told or asked to do, and they weren’t obvious as to having been needed to be done.
        Thankfully, my immediate boss did not agree with the PIP; it came from higher up, and I did everything and then some that was in it, and managed to keep my job. I had to meet weekly with my boss to go over my “progress” and hit every mark. So really they had no grounds to let me go, and 20+ years later, I’m still there!

        So while I agree the fired employee isn’t always never at fault, sometimes it can be fault on both sides.

        1. SheLooksFamiliar*

          My point wasn’t about fault, it was about awareness – about people who claimed they were fired without any warning.

          If you’re on a PIP, then you should know you’re on thin ice, whether or not you believe the PIP is warranted.

          1. MsM*

            You’d think, but my husband’s bad boss was such a lousy communicator, he genuinely didn’t know he was on a PIP until he had a chance to sit down and talk about the problems with HR. (I might not be able to complain directly, but I make sure to warn anyone in our shared field about applying there, and I laughed at the recruiter who tried to pitch a job to me.)

            1. Laura*

              If your husband truly didn’t know he was on a PIP then his boss is terrible and he should be glad to be away from there.
              I was on a PIP once and I definitely knew I was on it.

            2. SheLooksFamiliar*

              Your husband’s situation is not the norm IME, or for most of the people in my sphere. His boss was clearly not good at being a boss.

              My original thinking still stands: once you know you’re on a PIP – whether it’s right away or after the fact – you cannot claim you ‘had no idea’ there was a performance issue as far as your management was concerned.

    5. Also-ADHD*

      Sure, but when someone is hired by someone that leaves, and the other supervisor is immediately hostile to them, it’s often not about the employee’s performance. (Whether it’s actual baggage or fit to need, which the leaving person assessed wrong, but not actual bad performance on what the hire thought they needed to be good at.) That happens all the time too and is some BS.

      1. Jennifer Strange*

        But we don’t actually know that the other supervisor was immediately hostile, and the LW doesn’t know either, they just know that’s what their husband said. It could be the truth, it could be a lie to save face, or it could be somewhere in between.

      2. hbc*

        It could be exactly as you described, but it can also feel like hostility when, say, the supervisor is annoyed because this was obviously not the most qualified candidate and most people hit the ground running without a lot of training.

        Most of the time, it’s something in between a supervisor actually “setting him up to fail” and the employee being a complete failure on their own. It’s not getting the benefit of the doubt from that supervisor, it’s having a longer learning curve that might be overlooked if he wasn’t already annoyed with you, etc.. I don’t think the mustache-twirling sabotage of an excellent employee is particularly common.

        1. Denny Anonymous*

          I’m afraid that it is actually quite common, especially when you have a manager who is threatened by competence. LW1 actually provides us with a fine example of it.

    6. Snow Globe*

      In this case, it’s not even “I was fired for no reason” but “my husband says he was fired for no reason”, which is even less likely to be taken seriously.

    7. Garblesnark*

      This is honestly so hard. Like, first, yes, people who are given many chances and explanations say they were fired for no reason.

      Also, when a person actually is fired for no good reason, or for a discriminatory reason, recourse is extremely difficult if possible, people write them off like they must be in the first group, and oftentimes the jerks get away with it.

      1. Lenora Rose*

        Yes, it may well be that in this case the husband correctly identified what was going on an that he was being intentionally sabotaged… but there’s absolutely no way that the spouse will know for sure what was happening on the inside of another business, and it absolutely does not change the advice.

    8. Irish Teacher.*

      Yeah, whether that is the case or not, anybody the LW complained to would probably assume “oh, he told his wife a biased version of events and therefore she thinks his boss was terrible but that’s just because she believes his version”. It’s highly unlikely they will believe a complete stranger who is relating events second-hand and wasn’t even there for them before a person they clearly trust enough to place in a management position.

      Don’t get me wrong; it’s quite possible the LW’s version of events is the accurate one and the boss really is terrible but she has no way of proving it and “I wasn’t there myself but my husband says the manager who fired him is terrible and set him up to fail” isn’t likely to be a convincing argument, especially to people who have a vested interest in not believing they messed up by promoting this guy to department head.

      Even a complaint from a fired employee that “my boss set me up to fail and is terrible at his job” wouldn’t be very convincing and it is less so from somebody who is reporting second hand.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Yes, unfortunately it’s like the grievance of an ex, who was broken up with. It’s not at all that they’re always wrong about everything they feel and maybe the person really is a giant jerk, but most people know to immediately discount the perspective of someone who was broken up with in a nasty split as being biased. And “fired with no warning” is like “he broke up with me via text/phone call/sticky note/on my birthday/a week before Valentine’s Day – it’s not quite the point to fixate on honestly.

      2. I Have RBF*

        Even a complaint from a fired employee that “my boss set me up to fail and is terrible at his job” wouldn’t be very convincing…

        This.

        Having been managed by a horrible, abusive micromanager that upper management loved, I can tell you that bad bosses do, in fact, get away with setting you up to fail. The classic thing of
        1) tell you that you must do A in a certain way and with a short deadline,
        2) you bust your buns doing the thing exactly as they demanded, then
        3) you pass it on, then get completely reamed for doing it “wrong” when you did it exactly how they demanded it be done
        is all too common. The bad manager will say to their boss and HR “I told them how to do it, and they didn’t obey”, when in reality they deliberately told you the wrong way to do it. There is no way to prove this, unless you taped every conversation with them.

        In short, if a manager wants an excuse to fire you, it is very easy to create a no-win situation for you so that they can throw you away. This is why I say that getting a PIP means “start job hunting hard, now”. IMO, this is the only kind of PIP I have ever been on, because middling to good managers clue me to problems before a PIP is needed, and I fix it.

    9. Guacamole Bob*

      Yes, this. Maybe OP’s spouse was a model employee and was treated abominably. Maybe they were a disaster as an employee and everything they’re telling OP is incredibly biased and out of context. Most likely is probably somewhere in between those extremes, where the communications between this supervisor and OP’s husband weren’t going well, the department was in transition, expectations were misaligned, the supervisor wasn’t very good at coaching, maybe the training they did provide was insufficient for OP’s husband’s skill set but would have been enough for others, and so on. But OP is in no position to do anything here.

      I’ve seen a situation where an employee feels that there’s not enough training and expectations are unclear, but it’s because there was a fundamental skill mismatch and the missing skills include higher-level abilities in figuring out the best way to approach a given task. The combo of “this role needs the ability to work independently” and “there wasn’t enough training and expectations were unclear” in this letter makes me wonder if a similar issue happened here. If you hire someone to handle marketing for your llama grooming business and they ask for step-by-step training in placing Facebook ads and can’t execute on “vague” requests like “come up with a plan to get more customers for our side business in taking llamas to children’s birthday parties” then it’s not going to work out.

      Or maybe the supervisor was an incompetent jerk. But OP is not necessarily in a position to know for sure.

      1. Kay*

        One thing that stood out to me in the husband’s narrative was when the OP said he came home some days and said “I’m a loser”. I want to be gentle, but to me that isn’t something I would expect to hear from a good employee who just got stuck in a political situation.

        1. JustaTech*

          See to me that feels exactly like someone who’s stuck with a boss who is incredibly inconsistent about what they want/ not timely with feedback.

          I had a coworker who was genuinely good at her job and always looking for ways to improve. She got a new boss and the new boss hated her (for reasons that were never really clear except that new boss was new and coworker was confident). So new boss took every single opportunity to tell coworker she was doing it wrong (her reports would come back solid red with edits, all of which the new boss would then reverse the next day, again saying coworker was terrible). That is incredibly hard on your self esteem.

        2. MigraineMonth*

          Huh, that’s exactly what I would expect to hear from anyone who was suddenly getting incredibly harsh feedback from the person evaluating their work, particularly if they were new to the job/specialty. What would be the alternative, ignoring all the feedback?

          1. Dido*

            well, if I were in that situation, I’d be venting about how horrible MY BOSS is, not about how horrible I am

        3. Irish Teacher.*

          As others have said, that struck me as exactly the sort of thing a good worker, perhaps something of a perfectionist who is really invested in doing well at their job would say if they suddenly started being criticised for everything.

          In my experience, the really bad employees tend to put the blame on everybody else whereas the good ones are more likely to judge themselves harshly even for minor mistakes because they care about doing well.

          1. Jellybeans*

            Perfectionist hard workers don’t just ignore the fact they’re on a PIP, and claim everyone is out to get them and that nothing is their responsibility.

    10. Quinalla*

      Yes, I have seen this too where employee tells the story that firing came completely out of nowhere, but actually they had been told that they would be let go at the end of X months and to look for a new job – even given permission to use some time at work to do so. And it isn’t even that the employee is always lying, just that their perspective is so skewed as they heard what they wanted to hear in a meeting where folks were crystal clear on the situation. It sucks on all sides when this happens!

      Either way for OP2, do not reach out to the employer! The only time you ever thing about contacting a employer of a family member if they are incapacitated (hospital, super sick, etc.) or deceased or if you can’t get a hold of the person and are reaching out to anyone to find them. Otherwise the employee should handle everything with their own employer, huge overstep otherwise!! Support your spouse by listening, giving advice, etc. And I know how hard it is, I’ve wanted to call up my husband’s employer and give them hell for certain things he’s gone through and I know my husband has felt the same about mine on occasion, but neither of us actually would do it. It at best is going to be seen a really weird and concerning and at worst is going to make the situation so much worse.

    11. Boof*

      I think we can trust the LW at their word here that their spouse clearly suffered through an awful work environment/manager. If LW was asking “why does my keep having awful managers and how can I help them find something better” THEN the answer might be “maybe your spouse is the problem, not their managers”, but from what’s described here, the boom and bust, and what LW presumably knows about how their spouse did in other work environments, sounds like pretty classic mismanagement.
      Unfortunately all LW can do is console their spouse and tell them it’s good they’re out of there, nothing they can do about the company except maybe encourage their spouse to write a glassdoor review or something.

    12. Denny Anonymous*

      I’m not saying that’s the case here, just that the boss’s version of events would likely be very different.

      Yes, but that doesn’t mean what the manager says is true. I don’t understand why so many people think that managers are somehow incapable of dishonesty, bias, unfairness, or being petty or vindictive.

      Unwarranted or unnecessary PIPs and firings are, unfortunately, really common.

  13. Chairman of the Bored*

    If your rubric leads you to decline to hire a candidate who has been successful in the job for a year because somebody else interviewed better, then I think you need a new rubric.

    1. bamcheeks*

      It’s not the rubric so much as the process. In a formal public sector recruitment process, you aren’t supposed to take into account what you know about the candidates outside what you see in the process itself. Your rubric can be perfect, but if the candidate doesn’t give you the evidence you need in the application and interview, you can’t give them the marks. It’s the same as marking an exam script where you know perfectly well that the candidate knows how to do differential equations but they haven’t done it in the exam.

      It definitely has pluses and minuses, and a lot of people hate it! And you certainly get some individual hiring processes where it feels like it leads to the wrong decision. But there is strong evidence that across the board it does more to eliminate bias than any other method.

      1. londonedit*

        Yeah, if your starting point is that everyone who’s being interviewed is starting off on exactly the same footing, then it’s entirely possible you might find an external candidate who completely smashes the interview and sounds like they’d be even better than the incumbent. Yes, that sucks for the person who’s been doing the job for a year, but if you’re opening the position up to applications from everyone, there’s every chance you might find someone with an even better skillset than the person who’s been covering.

      2. Hiring Mgr*

        I’m no expert but I don’t see how it eliminates biases in this letter. It’s not just having a scorecard or rubric but having one that makes logical sense for the position.

        If you know someone’s been doing a stellar job for a year, not taking that into account because of something a candidate did or didn’t say seems counterproductive

        1. doreen*

          Depends on the situation, of course – but the fact that I know Candidate A did a stellar job for a year doesn’t mean Candidate B didn’t do even better at a different school where there was not a permanent opening. Which really in a way means I’m biased toward Candidate A just because I’m more familiar with them.

        2. bamcheeks*

          From a systems point of view, it is much more straight forward to say, “don’t take into account anything from outside the interview” than it is to say, “you can take this into account, but not that.”

          And it’s not that it eliminates bias in every specific interview: it’s that it reduces bias across the whole hiring process and ultimately you should end up with a less homogenous and more effective workforce. Some individual decisions within that can still suck! That’s true under any other type of hiring process too.

          1. Hiring Mgr*

            Doesn’t that just create a different bias though, all based around a short window into someone?

            1. bamcheeks*

              “Bad at interviews” isn’t a bias the process is trying to reduce. “Personally known by the hiring manager” and “an insider” are, because those things are most likely to correlate with privilege and disadvantage marginalised people. They won’t necessarily in any individual recruitment process, but it’s about having an impact on the workforce across the whole.

              1. Hiring Mgr*

                That’s a worthy goal but how does not allowing evaluation of the resume post interview help achieve that? We may be having two different conversations as I’m talking micro and i think you’re talking macro :)

          2. Boof*

            No, there should be a certain number of points for prior work experience, if available. Any scorecard that doesn’t take that into account is not a good scorecard. Direct experience is way more relevant than any interview, if the goal is to hire someone who will do the job well anyway.

        3. Lenora Rose*

          It’s not whether you know the internal candidate was stellar. It’s that you can’t know whether the outside candidate wasn’t doing a stellar job for a year. It’s more than possible for two people to be excelling.

        4. MigraineMonth*

          The thing about implicit bias is that it isn’t actually logical, so some of the ways to counter it aren’t logical either. One of those methods is to keep scoring methods specific and not open to lots of interpretation. “Did the candidate put the needs of the child first in the examples they gave of resolving conflict?” will get much less biased scores than “Considering everything you know about the teacher, does she embody the values of the school?”

          In fact, just phrasing the question and requiring the answer be in gender-neutral terms (“the candidate/they”) reduces gender bias in hiring, even when the interviewers consciously know the candidate’s gender.

      3. Jennie*

        Thanks for your insight! You are right, I didn’t give enough evidence and I was so prepared! My nerves and anxiety took over.
        They hired someone they worked with before.
        Thanks again!

    2. Michigander*

      I think it’s probably also in place to try to prevent (or at least reduce) people from hiring personal acquaintances who aren’t actually qualified. If you’re allowed to make hiring decisions based mostly on what you know of someone from experience, it’s easier for people to say “well, his interview wasn’t that good and his CV doesn’t have much relevant job history, but I’ve been friends with him for years and I know he’ll be a great fit so let’s hire him anyway”.

      1. Harper the Other One*

        Yep, this is exactly what it’s for. Not education but I was hired in a public sector role last year and one of the things they were very careful to specify in the interview was that if I didn’t mention it in the interview, it effectively didn’t exist, even if they knew it from my resume or the phone screen. (They were allowed to prompt me; I didn’t go as deeply into one role they felt was relevant so they asked me to elaborate.) In the case of my org, they actually have some pretty solid data on how that’s improved diversity and quality of new hires because it’s no longer “oh I knew Bob at college, we’ll hire him.”

        1. Hiring Mgr*

          Agree that hiring Bob because he’s a college buddy is wrong, particularly if he doesn’t have the right experience.

          This sounds like it’s perpetuating that though if a candidate who does have the right background is penalized because they didn’t mention it a certain way in an interview.

        2. Lady Danbury*

          It seems like a huge leap from “we can’t take information that’s irrelevant to the interview process into account” to “we can’t use information that’s specifically included in interview materials.” If they’re worried about people mentioning personal connections in cover letters, that’s as simple as having an admin review and redact them or just using cover letters. Interviews are only a limited time, which is one of the reasons that employers use multiple methods to gain information about candidates (candidate submissions, multiple interviews, references, etc).

        3. Claire*

          Why is the resume discounted? It’s an application material. That doesn’t make much sense to me.

          1. honeygrim*

            I work in a public sector, and our hiring process is like this. Basically, the resume or application is what we use to narrow the applicant pool to those we want to interview. So the resume has already been taken into account. But we have to score the interview responses and use that as the primary data for making a decision. We also of course use references, especially if two applicants score very closely.

            1. Lady Danbury*

              Can you explain why you can’t use resumes in making a decision? It’s impossible to cover everything relevant in your resume in an interview (and may also be a waste of time if something is self-evident from the resume). that doesn’t mean that the information isn’t relevant to the final decision, but an interview is limited in time. For example, a candidate may have a long list of relevant qualifications/certifications that would be beneficial to the role, but they’re probably not going to list every single one because it’s already in their resume. That goes counter to standard interview wisdom, which is that you shouldn’t just be reiterating everything that’s in your resume. It also biases people who are better oral communicators (able to share more information in a concise manner), which may be completely irrelevant to the role that you’re hiring for.

              1. workswitholdstuff*

                Because you used the resume to shortlist. You’ve already used it in the screening process – it was good enough to get them to an interview panel.

                The main criteria for decisionmaking is interviews (I know in our sector there’s lots of discussions about how to make the process more equitable, like questions in advance etc).

                If you had two interviewees that, on the basis of the *interview* you couldn’t choose between, then you’d perhaps consult the applications/resumes (ours are application forms) to be the tiebreaker.

                It might be flawed, but I prefer assessment by interview for everyone, and a level playing field, that it always going to internal candidates…..

    3. Also-ADHD*

      In this case, we don’t have enough information. If the interviews are 25 minutes (very short for my experience with teaching interviews for roles that were expected to be competitive—so I do think it could be a poor process), and they told LW she was 90%, then I’m guessing they didn’t think they would get a lot of applicants (teaching jobs are getting very few these days, as so many teachers leave altogether, at least in the US), or anticipate an experienced, certified reading teacher would be in the applicant pool. But what if one was? What if someone who had over a decade of successful work in a similar school, multiple extra certifications, great documented teaching evaluations (which are pretty common from public school to public school) and could interview well was hired? LW seems to focus in this particular job, but most teachers who have been successful in a similar role for 5+ years can do it better than a 2nd year teacher, even a great one. And having worked at the school site and built a reputation in the community matters for some teaching jobs, but that’s hard to do in a year plus doesn’t particularly matter for the role described (reading teacher) in many cases. I think the interview likely wasn’t the real distinguishing factor, though the bad interview probably didn’t help. If they hired someone with zero years teaching experience (not this role, but teaching), that is more confusing and it would have to be a really bad interview.

      1. SheLooksFamiliar*

        ‘If the interviews are 25 minutes (very short for my experience with teaching interviews for roles that were expected to be competitive—so I do think it could be a poor process)’

        My take wasn’t that the interview was scheduled to be 25 minutes long, but that it didn’t go well and was cut short.

        1. Irish Teacher.*

          The normal length of teaching interviews seems to vary greatly from place to place. Here in Ireland, that would be on the longer side of average and would generally indicate this is a serious interview. The interviews I’ve experienced have varied in length from 10-30 minutes, more or less, are usually single interviews. The shorter ones (under 15 or 20 minutes) often indicate there is a preferred candidate and you probably aren’t it. Those approaching 30 minutes are generally indicative of interest.

          1. Dido*

            Just because the temp is good doesn’t mean the school should miss out on hiring someone great

      2. Hiring Mgr*

        “I think the interview likely wasn’t the real distinguishing factor”

        FWIW according to OP they were told it was the only factor

        1. Sloanicota*

          I don’t want to make OP feel crazy, but I would take anything hiring managers say with a grain of salt, as they’re not going to tell you the whole truth about anything. We had the letter to the intern who found out she was the #2 pick last week, and most people said it’s actually quite arbitrary who gets the top spot sometimes, which is hard to accept when you’re the candidate. OP’s knowledge of the field will tell her if it’s likely that she’s simply in an extremely rigid hiring bureaucracy, like government, in which case there’s not much to be done, or if there might have been some leeway. But there’s not much to be done other than practice interviewing more and look for new opportunities.

          1. Hiring Mgr*

            The point though was that having the interview be the only thing measured is supposed to (according to some of the comments) provide a less biased process somehow.

            If instead of the full picture of the candidates you can only factor in what they say in the interview, I don’t see how that reduces bias

            1. workswitholdstuff*

              Because you can’t have someone on the panel going ‘oh, well they didn’t tell us ‘x’ in the interview but I know they can do it’, for the internal candidate, when the external candidates don’t get the benefit of ‘well, we do know they can do X’….

              I’ve gone for internal and external roles – and feedback I’ve always got is that for internal roles, they liked that I answered questions as if I didn’t know all the panel and assumed that’d fill in the blanks’

    4. Ms. Elaneous*

      Yes, Chair, a new rubric.
      Perhaps one where an interview counts 10% rather then 30%.
      And, isn’t scoring an interview inherently subjective? How could it not be?
      As it is in theatre: some people audition well, and perform OK, and some people don’t audition well and are brilliant on stage.
      Which is why directors like to have seen people perform in a real show.

      1. samwise*

        It can’t be completely objective, but it can get close with a well-constructed rubric. Not just a 1-2-3-4 points per question, 1=poor answer, 4=outstanding answer, but a detailed description of what topics or issues the candidate discusses; are examples given and are they detailed, specific, pertinent; candidate acknowledges X or Y problems or difficulties, etc.

        It’s rather like grading essays!

    5. Jennie*

      Aw, thank you! I needed to hear that! Yes they did use a rubric and eliminated the human element.
      Admin sees me in meetings where I am very confident and knowledgeable but I panicked and did not do well. Shame on them is how I feel.
      I went over and above for them, the least they could have done was giving me a second chance. In the end I believe they hired someone they worked with before…heard it through the grapevine.
      Thank you again!

      1. Starbuck*

        Hi, I urge you to reframe this for yourself as it’s starting to sound like bitterness and people will find that very off-putting. How would you feel if this other candidate had flubbed their first interview, but then asked for a re-do and beat you out for the position after a second chance? I expect you wouldn’t think that was fair either.

        To have any chance of a second interview…. did you ask for that, or did you expect them to just offer it to you? As someone who does hiring, it’s hard to fathom how I’d approach someone with the message of “hey you interviewed really badly, do you want to try again?” If anything, I’d expect to hear from them – ‘Hey that was a really off day for me, I was feeling ill/stressed/whatever extenuating reason” and request a re-do if at all possible. But unless I was already planning 2nd round interviews with the other candidates, to keep things fair I’d probably have to decline!

    6. Nodramalama*

      In the public service in Australia a rubric is specifically used to try deal with incumbency bias. You assume that someone in the role is better for the role because they’ve been there. But that is not necessarily true and not seen as fair or transparent for other candidates.

      1. workswitholdstuff*

        Exactly!

        Is it a perfect system? No.

        Is it better than always skewing to internal candidates because the gaps were filled in by others, and assessed differently to external candidates? Yes.

        You know what’s really depressing – when interviewing externally and there’s obviously skewed interview questions that are *so* specific you know there’s an internal candidate lined up. Feels like a complete waste of time.

        (and if said candidate can’t manage to use that advantage and someone else still interviews better? Well, that other person deserves it then!)

  14. Jack Welynn*

    #2, That could have a positive outcome if the company cares about its stated values. There is nothing that gives me confidence that they do, so it would be a waste of time at best.

    1. Naomi*

      It doesn’t matter how much they care about their stated values; OP just doesn’t have the credibility to make a difference here. The company is not going to listen to someone who a) did not witness the boss’s behavior firsthand and b) is an obvious partisan of the fired employee. Which doesn’t mean OP is wrong about the boss, but the company will be understandably skeptical of OP’s objectivity.

      1. I am Emily's failing memory*

        Yeah, a spouse criticizing the former employer of a recently-fired partner is going to be received with as much credibility as someone complaining about the ex-boyfriend/girlfriend of their best friend who just went through a not-amicable breakup.

  15. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

    “Should I contact my loved one’s employer?”
    Only if they’re dead or dying. How many times have we covered this.

    2. Ginger Baker*

      Accurate. I did call my mom’s boss…when she was literally dying and never before. “[Person] literally unable to communicate” is the bar, period (my mom called herself multiple other hospitalizations because she was three still perfectly able to communicate on her own).

    4. Isben Takes Tea*

      A lot of people write in to ask questions who are not regular readers. It’s evidently a fairly common question. Alison thought it was worth answering. No need to be short with the question-asker.

    5. 34avemovieguy*

      to be fair to OP, AAM didn’t have to publish the letter. Clearly she saw some value in posting the question and answering it.

    6. Kyrielle*

      Dead, dying, or badly injured/unable to communicate, yes. I spent ten days in the hospital intubated and unconscious (not covid), and you betcha, my husband called my boss. …eventually. He was a little more focused on me and our kids at first, so my boss was in the dark for a work-week, but no one really felt that was unjustified.

      If, however, my boss fires me, puts me on a PIP, or makes me give a presentation I don’t want to, I should be the only one communicating about it – and only if I want to.

      But yeah, “She’s unconscious and hospitalized” works pretty well as a bar for that too.

  16. Lavender chamomile*

    “A smoother boss might have taken you to lunch or bought you flowers.”

    Cue the commenters completely melting down

    1. Garblesnark*

      A smooth and grateful (same gender as me) boss has given me things like a gift card to a very nice restaurant, a relaxation themed gift box, and pottery themed around cats (I never shut up about my cats).

  17. Yup*

    #1: Bosses who need to micromanage and prioritize getting the glory over the work are bad bosses. They both trust no one and want no one to do better than them, which means you are forever frustrated. This is a them problem that becomes a you problem. I hope you can find that better job you’re looking for soon.

  18. Tracy*

    #1: I am a veterinarian and used to work for a guy who would be FURIOUS when a client would compliment me over him. You would think he would want his newish grad to be hitting it out of the park, but his fragile ego couldn’t handle it. I also learned over time he had a major problem with women so that didn’t help. He refused to expand his knowledge base and get better (actually he falsified his continuing education credits) and tried to tear me down instead with abuse by breaking my stuff, banning me from taking off Mondays or Fridays and just generally being a jerk. Like your boss he didn’t think we could do anything without him so when the fridge died while he was on a rare vacation we got it fixed, got our vendors to replace all the vaccines (only lost $300 in supplies out of thousands) and basically saved the day only for him to come back with an adult tantrum about “wasting money.” It would have been actively harmful to use any of that product so I knew I needed to find an ally and get out.

    The approach I used was getting really close to the office manager who was his right hand. She was integral to my survival until I found a new job and could work around his lunatic behavior. I just stood there and pretended to absorb his verbal abuse (he usually wouldn’t even speak to me directly and would direct everything through the OM while I stood there) and let her fix it later.

    Best of luck working with this petulant child! They really don’t change. I know because I have worked under a few of them. I hope you find a new job soon.

    1. Elsewise*

      I had a boss like that too! It got to the point where he was withholding information I needed to do my job so he could swoop in and save the day. This guy was the executive director, the board was fully staffed with his friends, there was absolutely no one he needed to impress. But he cared more about his ego than the organization he was leading. I got out of there pretty quickly, as did most of the women who worked with him. (Last I heard, they had one female intern and the rest of the staff was all male. Such a weird coincidence!)

      1. Tracy*

        This guy LOVED our straight male tech even though we were pretty sure he was abusing his own pets and ones that were staying. He would go and shake hands with the staff and thank them for their service then pick a random woman to just skip over. He called it “motivation to do better.” Unfortunately my next boss was only a little less psycho and smarter about his manipulation and gaslighting. I don’t work in that sector anymore.

  19. A teacher too*

    4

    It’s also possible that seniority factored into the decision. If another reading teacher in the district on a permanent contact wanted to transfer schools, they may have been given preference due to their seniority.

    I’m sorry your didn’t get the position. I’ve been in your same boat and it hurts, especially after a year of solid performance.

    1. Double A*

      The LW commented in another reply that they think the new hire has less experience; it also could have been a choice to hire the cheaper person, since teaching salaries are often rigidly fixed to a salary schedule (LW mentioned they have 20 years experience).

  20. Keymaster of Gozer*

    2. All my sympathies for you during this stressful time. Absolutely do not contact your husband’s former employer but I can see your rationale behind it. When your loved ones are in deep mental pain you want to do something, anything to help it go away.

    I lost my job unexpectedly in 2011 and my husband pretty much went through what you are – I was seriously depressed in that job, had a very bad boss and fell apart the day I was fired – he wanted to call them and give them a bollocking! But I grasped enough of my waning sanity to tell him that that wouldn’t make *anything* better.

    What did help me get back on my feet was him just being there and being supportive of me needing some time to process it all. Then helping me get into applying for new jobs. He was the steady footing I needed.

  21. Anonandanon*

    LW2 – The situation you wrote about sounds similar to my coworker’s, the difference is that it was my coworker, not the current or previous bosses they had, that caused their termination. I was a witness to their lack of caring, attention, or direction how to perform their job, the same job others were doing, with the same or even less training. The job expectations were not being met, but yet all my coworker could do was complain about our boss(es) or have a pity party. Even when the team was in the same room, doing the same task, while we were all head down working, they were sighing, or complaining. You have no idea how your husband really was as a coworker or employee; you are only hearing his side of it, and you have absolutely no recourse to call his manager to complain. I only wish my company had terminated them sooner. Fake or not, thank you for letting me vent, we’re still finding issues caused by this coworker that will take a while to clean up.

    1. Synaptically Unique*

      I’ve seen this, too. Where the employee is just completely delusional about their own behavior and competence. A family member coming to complain would just get an eye roll, at best.

  22. AthenaC*

    #1 – You mention you’re a single mom, so you don’t need me to tell you that your primary responsibility is to take care of yourself and your children. YOU did nothing wrong, an unless you suspect that the money is stolen, obtained from a drug deal / other illegal means, or counterfeit, I would argue that you are not responsible for other people’s moral choices. Keep the money.

  23. AthenaC*

    #2 – It’s so frustrating to watch this play out because it really grates on our sense of justice and fairness, but realistically there is nothing to be done. Some workplaces choose to be toxic and your only recourse is to remove yourself when you realize it’s happening. Nothing will change no matter who says anything about it.

    1. RVA Cat*

      This, plus it sounds like this job wasn’t a good fit for OP2’s husband. A better boss would have acknowledged that and managed him out in a kinder way.

  24. Burton Guster*

    LW 4 — After 20 years of working in schools, I’d say the hiring process is usually opaque at best, and depends on a lot of factors outside your control. My favorite (ha!) example is when I had a new principal, and we were hiring for a position that would involve going into people’s classrooms and doing instructional coaching. Our internal candidate interviewed very well, and principal wanted to hire her. Those of us on the hiring committee tried to explain that before he arrived, she had pretty much rubbed everyone in the building the wrong way, was very difficult to work with, and it was unlikely that people would accept any kind of coaching from her. He cited the interview performance and put her in the role anyway. Shockingly, it did not go well.

  25. Trout 'Waver*

    HR: What would make you feel appreciated?
    Workers everywhere: Cash money
    OP#3’s boss: takes notes.

    I wouldn’t look any deeper than OP#3’s boss knowing that people like money.

    1. Lady Danbury*

      This, lol. Smoother to me would have been putting it in a nice card, not just sticking it in her hand. Nothing says thank you like cold hard cash!

      1. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

        Or if you want the mafia feel, put it inside a sandwich wrapper or a pastry box.

    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yup. Sod appreciation lunches or handmade crap crafts. Gimme the cash!

    3. Stopped Using My Name*

      I agree with your lighthearted take. I would only add that people aren’t always comfortable admitting “how” they would like things done.

      It can be viewed as precious, naïve, arrogant, morally questionable and/or lots of other things to have a desired preference on how you receive things.

      1. Trout 'Waver*

        Anyone who views having a preference for cash for working as “precious, naive, arrogant, or morally questionable” is an a-hole. Full stop.

    4. A Significant Tree*

      I wonder if it would have had the same perception of hush money to the LW if it had been presented as a bonus check rather than a stack of $20s (or whatever)? Cash to me would seem odd, but I’ve had a number of bonus checks over the years (some for “thanks for doing this thankless task”) and never thought anything weird about those.

  26. A Pinch of Salt*

    LW1: my boss is similar…his entire personality is “everyone needs me!” but I quickly found that to be so untrue and most things function better without him.

    I’ve been doing what Allison suggested—throw him some low risk, not urgent stuff to approve and make sure to give him credit where it’s due (I don’t diminish myself or make stuff up, just play up what is true or strategically mention it in Executive meetings).

    should we have to do these things at work? Nah. but if everything else makes sense (I like my job, money is great)…its a price I’m willing to pay.

  27. Cary*

    #2: Something similar happened to my husband (HR insisted he be put on a PIP to the shock of his actual manager, the issues listed hadn’t been brought up before, it was his manager and coworkers who were judging him on the PIP tasks and he passed with flying colors, then was fired a month or so later).

    We hired the reference checker AllisonTaylor dot com. They call your former company to check your references as if they were a new prospective employer. We mainly wanted to see if they would say anything that would harm his chances of getting a new job. But they all made hints that the issue was HR / “he was forced out because some higher-up took a dislike to him,” not my husband or his work.

    We had slowly come to that conclusion ourselves, but it was very helpful to see it confirmed in the quotes from the references. (I must say, I understand why people do that instead of just openly laying you off or saying “You’re fired because I don’t like you,” but it’s honestly crazy-making to go through and I wish they wouldn’t. People like to give the advice that “In the USA employers are allowed to fire you for any reason or no reason,” so like OK then DO that! Don’t cook up some nonsense! :sigh:)

    You can’t actually call the company to set them straight, of course, but I recommend imagining it. :D

  28. Jam Today*

    LW3 – take the money. You did the right thing, someone other than your boss derailed the good work you did, your boss knew it caused you problems but couldn’t fix it through “official” channels so threw you a little off-the-books bonus in acknowledgement of what you tried to get done. I don’t think you need to dig too deep on this, just take the bonus and keep doing what you do.

    1. HonorBox*

      Exactly this. It sounds like the boss recognized the “wrong” that was created by someone other than them. And also recognized that money might be better (and less obvious) than flowers. No one is going to be asking where the flowers came from and why OP got them. I think the thing that makes it read as potentially icky is that it was a fistful of cash. Had it been packaged and presented differently, maybe that is less odd feeling. But the boss telling OP not to say anything is probably just boss covering his ass so there’s no expectation of future compensation for others. And probably to get around any sort of payroll implications. OP, I’d take the money, do with it what you want, and not think twice about it again.

      1. Jam Today*

        The boss is also probably dealing with politics, given the description of what happened. His staff made a change, someone else unilaterally un-changed it, the boss is now fighting some battle as a result. An envelope would have been nice but without wanting to write *too* much fanfic a) he might have still been agitated about whatever swirl is going on and not thinking about packaging, b) if there had been an envelope, and someone saw it change hands, that would add to the swirl.

        Related: I continue to be astounded, even at my big age, at how grown adults in the workplace revert to high school clique behavior. Some places are worse than others, and the ones that are bad are *really* bad (its the root cause of why I left my last job which paid very well and had great benefits, the objectively great salary didn’t cover the amount of political sh*t I was expected to eat in exchange.)

    2. Householder*

      Yes, take the money. If the boss didn’t actually ask you for some sort of consideration in exchange, then you have to accept that anything else is just going on in your own head.

  29. Michelle Smith*

    LW2: It would be way more helpful for people who are still at the company who are potentially also being bullied and pushed out by this manager to speak up. It is too late at this point for your husband to do anything about this terrible manager. The advice might have been different had you written in while he still worked there (not the part about you contacting the company – that would always be inappropriate, but it may have been appropriate for your husband to speak to HR or an executive for help).

    Other things you could do now to help him regain his self-esteem? Encourage him to get into therapy or counseling once he has the means (insurance, etc.) to do so. I cannot even begin to tell you how healing it is to have someone who is a third party without obligation to sugar coat things or tell white lies out of love to validate that what you experienced was not okay and that you deserve better. If he’s looking for a job, make space for him to talk about how that’s going and ask him if you can do anything to help. If there is something, follow through. But don’t pressure him or try to take over – just let the offer be there to vent, to review materials, whatever it is. You obviously care very much about your spouse. You two will get through this.

  30. ijustworkhere*

    Too many companies place too much weight on the interview–mostly because it’s the only thing they know about both external and internal candidates. That’s why a good hiring process for mid/higher level positions is to add an assessment center. For example, for an instructional job, the person would be asked to teach a simple concept to a group. If facilitating meetings is a core responsibility, then have the candidates facilitate a meeting. See the candidate demonstrate the skill set you want.

    A well designed assessment process can do an interview and assessment center in less than 3 hours. It’s worth it because too many people are very practiced at interviews and less so in actual job performance.

  31. Exme*

    #3 The biggest stress I would experience in keeping the money is that there might be a scenario that it serves me to return the money to him. If he later starts to hold it over your head, or he brings it up and people criticize the situation, he later acts like it is meant to keep you from talking… I would want to be able to say ‘Oh, that’s not how I interpreted this – absolutely not – take the money back then’.

    I would put it in a savings account with 5% interest and just hang on to it. If you ever need to return it to him to escape one of the above, then it’s not a hardship. If you or he leave this job, now you have a savings account with money + interest that you can do what you like with.

    1. Exme*

      To clarify, even if you decide to give the money back in a few months you keep the few dollars of interest that accumulated.

    2. Householder*

      I still wouldn’t give the money back. Uncommunicated expectations are the boss’s issue, not the employee’s. Assuming the boss was actually the sort to try some sort of future blackmail with it, I don’t think “No, take the money back” is going to land any better than “No, I didn’t agree to anything like that.”

  32. JLC*

    LW1 — another alternative, can you make ideas he’s dismissing seem like their influenced from his “expert tutelage?” They’re still your ideas but he totally inspired them. The same with the backhanded comments; make him away that whatever he’s commenting on was taken from his “sage-like wisdom.”

    As icky as it may feel to do, it could buy you enough time for your job search. While I wouldn’t count on it, it or the increased rewards for hitting 20% over targets could flip a switch in his mind and make it more bearable for a while.

    1. MissDisplaced*

      I was going to say something along these lines. Whenever the executives compliment your department say something like “Well, Bob hired some great people over the years, and I’m happy to say that this team has all really come together, and is working so well together.” Perhaps he’ll take the hint.

  33. Phony Genius*

    On #3, I remember a similar letter long ago where Alison was more on-the-fence with her response:
    https://www.askamanager.org/2013/06/my-boss-gave-me-a-bonus-from-her-own-personal-money-should-i-accept-it.html

    Of course there are differences with these scenarios and times have changed, but there were some good points in that response regarding what could happen if somebody did find out about it. (Also some important comments about the possible tax implications of such a payment.)

  34. Safely Retired*

    #1: Besides the two alternatives offered, there is the very perilous one of actually talking with him about it. Not exactly recommended.

  35. Alan*

    #2 — Have you even talked to your husband about this? I would be completely humiliated if my wife went to my boss about something like I’m an incompetent child. If your husband has self-esteem issues as you say, that would be a complete undermining of him. I honestly don’t see how you could even do that to him.

    #5 — My wife worked for a school district that used a rubric, all in the name of fairness, and it seemed completely insane to me. You’re only allowed to score on particular things and then highest score wins. They’re trying to bring that into my company too. An example question: “Tell us about a time when you were unable to get along with another employee and how you solved it.” You’ve always gotten along with everyone? Well, I guess you don’t score well there. I hate hate hate it.

    1. workswitholdstuff*

      No-one gets on with everyone.

      And even if you do – then what you’re doing is giving examples of *how* you are making sure you do – is it making sure people are kept informed, is it making sure Sue in the office has her favourite stationery to hand, is it organising regular catch ups?

      *How* are you managing to keep everyone friendly with you. what tools are you using,

    2. Dorothea Vincy*

      I was part of a hiring committee recently where someone answered a question about conflict by saying she got on with everyone and had never had a conflict, so we asked her what she did that enabled her to do that. She just kept saying she’d never had a conflict, never had a conflict, never had a conflict- the same answer over and over, with no depth or detail. She gave similar answers to other questions (for example, saying she was great at balancing budgets, but when we asked her what kind of experience she had at it, all she would say was “I’m great, I can think of anything specifically, I’m just great”). If an interviewee really feels they have great relationships with everyone at work, or a great skill, or whatever, then it’s on them to be able to explain why, instead of the question being stupid or unfair.

  36. Tradd*

    Letter 2 –

    If the LW’s husband really did have a bad boss, then why doesn’t he say something to HR to let them know about the problem? Yes, the LW’s husband could have told his wife a different version of events, but sometimes HR is unaware of just how bad a manager can be. An email to HR by LW’s husband, just for the record is the only possibility in this situation.

    1. unashamed schadenfraud*

      Yeah, I was once in LW’s husband’s shoes – everything was fine during regular checkins, my customers and coworkers had nothing but great things to say, and then suddenly reviews would be all about the one tiny thing that I did two review periods ago, or something that had never been mentioned to me at all, or something that wasn’t actually a problem that was taken wildly out of context, or even something that was entirely fabricated. I also successfully worked my way off a PIP and then was let go a few months later. I never said anything while I worked there.

      Part of the reason was that a core element of the company culture was that they aggressively sorted people into gold stars and scapegoats. These categories were immutable – no amount of hard work or good feedback or excellent results would redeem a scapegoat, and gold stars could do no wrong. I knew without trying that absolutely no complaint would be entertained against my gold star manager, especially coming from a scapegoat. (Even in a place that wasn’t so extreme, there’s likely to be

      The other reason I never said anything is because that sort of toxicity works by making you question whether it’s really happening – most of the time things are mostly fine, why would you complain when things are fine? You don’t want to risk making things bad again or look like you’re overreacting. And then when things are mask-off-awful, a large component of the awfulness is making you believe that it’s all your fault and you’re intrinsically a failure, so you don’t say anything because you don’t want to look like that asshole who complains because you got bad feedback. You buckle down and try harder to do everything right to finally earn their approval (and part of that is looking as agreeable as possible, because a great way to set up a lose-lose for a scapegoat is to give them unfair or untrue feedback – when they try to correct the error you get to add defensiveness to the list of their sins, and eventually they learn to be meek and not do things like complain about their manger).

      When I eventually left I took everything that I should have said over the years and put it in my exit survey because it was finally safe to do so. I took a long time and a lot of care to be objective and detailed about what I had experienced with specific examples of what my manager had said and done and why I hadn’t felt comfortable saying anything before. I knew it still wouldn’t be taken seriously. But I felt better knowing I had tried, even if it was too late for me.

      A few years later I heard from a friend who still works there that my manager had been removed from management and then eventually fired. Obviously in order to fall from grace in a place like that there would have had to be a lot more issues, but I like to think that what I wrote was at least one straw that weighed on that particular camel.

      So anyway, now that I’ve done some processing and some rambling… to sum up, I agree with you. If LW really wants to do something tangible, it’s obviously not appropriate for her to reach out. But she could work with her husband to document what he experienced and why it reflected poor or unfair management and *he* could submit it to HR or a higher manager. It probably won’t make a difference (I had two managers at this job cut from the same cloth – the one was fired but the other has been promoted several times. Can’t win em all) but it might help someone someday put more evidence behind a pattern so they can actually do something about it.

  37. Dawn*

    LW#5: Yes, you were 90% of the way to the job being yours at that point. That doesn’t make the other 10% nothing but a formality, however, and controlling your nerves in interviews is demonstrably a skill you’re going to need to progress in you career.

    I’m very sorry that things didn’t turn out the way you wanted them to, but hopefully you will take this as a sign of what you need to work on moving forward.

    And just for the record, are you actually certain that the new hire hasn’t done this job before? Or have they just not done it in your particular location?

  38. Delta Delta*

    #1 – It’s hard to work for an “I alone” manager. Perhaps the way to cope until finding a different job is to always frame all successes positively when discussing them with the manager. He’s still going to be mad, but it’s hard to argue when profits are up and orders are fulfilled and clients are satisfied.

  39. Just Thinkin' Here*

    OP #4 – I’m not sure where you are located, but in the US, most government positions have strict hiring guidelines to prevent/reduce nepotism and favoritism. From the outside the process can appear arbitrary. One way to prevent favoritism based on prior relationships is to heavily weight the results of the interview, which is often done by a panel. The panel judging the hire will all have the same information and answers to determine the final candidate. Unfortunately, that does mean a poor interview can block someone from being hired. The other individual will still need to be at least minimally qualified and passed the interview, otherwise they would have relisted the job. In my agency they spend alot of resources training existing government employees how to navigate the process, how interviews are graded, how resumes are reviewed – otherwise good folks can lose out on promotional opportunities.

  40. Brian S.*

    OP#1 – I worked for a boss exactly like this. I learned really quick to pander to them at every opportunity. Whenever I had a good idea, I would always preface it with “I have been kicking around some ideas to help execute your awesome vision – based on what you have instructed me to do, I think what you are hoping to achieve is X. If we implement Y and Z, I think that will bring us one step closer to the plan you have laid out. Does this match up with your goals for us?

    Or the classic “When you say your vision is X, I see it translating in Y context to Z. Is that right? If so, wow, that’s such a good idea and I am so grateful to have such an inspiring leader to help guide this work”.

    Irritating? Totally. Stomach-churning? Sometimes. But it did the trick, and I could pretty much implement whatever we needed without any issues.

  41. Anne of Green Gables*

    #4: Our HR department is extremely clear that when we have internal candidates, we are basing our decision on what happens during the interview process, and not what we know of the candidate. Those candidates can of course use examples from their work with us, but the decision is based on answers and actions during the interview process. (I am in higher education.)

    I had a situation recently with an internal candidate who did not use very good examples in the interview, despite stellar work with us. The hiring committee clearly wanted to move the candidate forward, as we knew what they are capable of, but our framework is pretty clear. It was hard for us, be we did agree that if we didn’t already work with the candidate, we would not be moving forward based on the interview.

    A second chance interview is unheard of and I’m quite sure our HR department would be irate if they learned we had offered someone a “do-over.” Consistent process for all is a big thing here.

    1. Victim of Experience*

      I’ll never understand this mindset. Interviews are for the purpose of gathering information, and interviewing itself is a skill. When how “well” someone does at an interview negates actual performance, what is being rewarded is their interviewing ability. Performance over time should weigh far more heavily than a one and done interview, which can be used as a pretext not to select someone, it happened to me.

      1. Allonge*

        But everyone else interviewing has (or should have) performance over time, just not at the same employer.

        Of course it’s annoying not to get hired by people who know you. Still, public employers especially owe it to everyone to allow external candidates real chances.

        1. workswitholdstuff*

          Exactly -no one else is getting a ‘fill in the gaps’ chance!

          Is it frustrating? Yes.

          Is it flawed? Yes.

          Is it better than continually being a closed club, where you have to be in the know to stand a chance? Yes.

    2. NotARealManager*

      I get trying to make the process fair, but it feels like the interview is a trick question then. “You didn’t cite the example we were thinking of even though we know you’re already successful at the job. Sorry!”

      1. judyjudyjudy*

        Disagree. If anything, internal candidates have a (potential) greater advantage, since they know the company culture better and should have examples in their work experience that align really well with the position they are applying for (unless they are seeking to change fields completely). I don’t think there are any tricks here, and I don’t think interviewers would have a specific example or answer they were hoping to hear, for a given question.

  42. Bog Witch*

    LW2, I have to say that I’m a bit surprised that you don’t understand how inappropriate that would be, since you say you’re a manager yourself. If the spouse of one of your direct reports called to tell you/your company’s HR how bad of a boss you were, how would you react? If it were me, my first thought would be “well, clearly they don’t have the full story”.

    You only have your husband’s side of the story. Again, as a manager yourself, I’m sure you’ve dealt with your fair share of direct reports who had to be managed closely, or even managed out entirely. You need to account for the possibility that the boss/company has a very different perspective on how this all went down.

    Regardless, even if everything your husband has told you is 100% what happened, Alison is right. You still have zero standing to contact them about this — or for any reason at all short of a serious emergency if he were still employed there.

    I’m sympathetic to you both, but the best path forward is to move on.

  43. Anon in Canada*

    #4 – as Anne of Green Gables says above, some companies/organizations have rigid hiring rules that forbid taking “the whole candidate” into consideration, and only allow for considering the interview in hiring decisions.

    I think that’s total short-sighted BS and hurts both applicants and hirers, but it’s not rare.

    1. judyjudyjudy*

      I don’t think I’ve ever heard of this happening, except for very entry level positions. Resumes and cover letters are used to narrow down the pool to a handful of candidates, who are interviewed. The final selection of their “top choice” may be based on the interview or the interview and references.

      Are you saying that some companies interview every candidate and don’t use resumes or references at all?

      1. Anon in Canada*

        No, I never suggested this at all. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion based on my post…

        One company I used to work for did not promote me, despite me being fantastic at my job (they admitted so), because I did not score high enough on an interview rubric. Their own internal hiring rules required them to hire whoever scored better on the rubric, even if this person was external and they had great internal candidates. Experience was not allowed to be considered once you had made it to the interview stage.

  44. Throwaway Account*

    #2 – if it helps, my spouse once intervened on my behalf (without telling me!) and it made me ineligible for rehire!

    We both worked at a university, I was a student worker and had a bad boss. Before I started, one hi-level employee quit bc he said the boss caused his mental health issues. Another new employee and I laughed at that; we thought, you cannot cause mental illness in someone. Well, a year later, I was not laughing!

    There were issues, the boss really was toxic and aggressive and a problem. I was actually a wreck, I was not myself for months.

    My spouse went to the head of my department, I had to talk to HR (I think as a courtesy to my spouse) but the HR interview only made it worse. 2 degrees and years later I could not get hired at that university in any role. I am sure I was marked ineligible for rehire.

    Oh, in the end though, the toxic boss did retire years earlier than she wanted to.

  45. Joe*

    3rd interview person.. Hello to the real and jacked up world.. To us it makes no sense.. But for large rcompanies I guess hiring managers get some class that says NEVER PROMOTE FROM WITHIN.. I dont understand it either.. but many places do it.. If person A works there, and person B is off the street and is basically qualified, they will hire B off the street every time…
    See they already have you and all your skills in house for a lower pay.. If they promote you they have to find someone to do your old job, who may or may not be as good as you…
    Even better ,,, is when they ask you to train the person they hired in stead of you.. A previous employer tried that with me.. I laughed in their face.

    1. judyjudyjudy*

      I have had the opposite experience in large companies, where an internal candidate was much more likely to be promoted than hiring an outside candidate, especially into middle management. Maybe it’s industry dependent?

  46. Jenzee*

    My company’s policies prohibit cash gifts from supervisors. I don’t know how common that is.

  47. Check cash*

    The specifics of the “should I contact my spouses/child’s employer” never matter. I didn’t even read the whole story. As soon as I read the title I knew Alison’s answer.
    The answer is always “you should not contact your spouses/child’s employer.” (or former)

  48. JPalmer*

    LW1: I think there is a third path here, which is about soft confronting the boss and asking how they are feeling.

    “You’ve done such a great job getting a team together and equipping us with the skills to succeed, but you’ve seen to be in a funk recently. I would think this is exactly what you want. If this isn’t ideal, how do you want things to go?”

    That sort of puts him into looking at his behavior and recognizing he’s being a controlling pain in the ass and disrespectful to all the workers who are laboring on his behalf. If he’s not a shit person he should take a cue and get his act together a bit. You can also soft ‘accredit him’ for preparing y’all, so he can feel better taking credit. It’s basically redirecting his ‘I am not contributing’ to ‘I have done plenty of contributing’

    That said, I think it depends on how he handles feedback.

  49. Karma is My Boyfriend and so is Travis Kelce*

    “Should I contact my *insert relative here*’s company about a situation?”

    The answer is ALWAYS no! (with exceptions to notify them if the relative cannot make it into work due to sickness/injury/etc.)

  50. anon_sighing*

    > 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.

    Absolutely the way to go here, LW#1. Just pat him, lightly, on the back about some guidance he’s given you that you all were able to act on to get these results and that you can keep follow it or something.

  51. PeachyBean*

    OP #1:
    Alison said, “Or you can choose to cater to him a bit: find things to let him… regain some confidence and feel important again”

    Agree 100% but…I’d frame his hands-off-ness of late (however unintentional) as the thing he can feel responsible for, and isn’t he smart for doing that??

    Like, “I just wanted to say how much I’ve respected your leadership while things have been so hectic over the past XX months. Your decision to be more hands off, trusting the team you put together, was kinda genuis. We trust you to have our backs…and you trust us to execute the work you’re telling us needs to get done. Much respect. It’s working great.”

    Or whatever. Obviously that’s pretty rough, & a little smarmy, but something like that.

  52. Edward Williams*

    #4 reminds me of the agony of the SAT (taken in high school to get into college). More than 60 years later, I still remember the agony — one bad day (severe headache, inadvertently skipping one row of little bubble circles….) could ruin years of A grades and glowing teacher recommendations.

    1. judyjudyjudy*

      So in your consideration, the interview is a pointless exercise that offers no information about the candidate, like the SAT?

      Also, you can retake the SAT, as genuinely pointless as that test is.

      1. judyjudyjudy*

        Sorry, I should rephrase. In your consideration, do you think that the interview is given too much weight, over other factors such as a candidate’s resume or references?

        I think that the SAT should be eliminated completely, since it has been shown very definitively that it doesn’t predict academic performance, which is what it was designed to do.

        What weight should be given to interviews? Should they be eliminated completely?

  53. judyjudyjudy*

    LW#4, sorry that you didn’t get the position. It’s hard to know why the other person was selected over you.

    I think an error was made when someone told you that you were 90% of the way there. I know you still took interview preparation very seriously and tried your best despite the nerves, but that statement set some expectations in your mind, I think.

  54. grump grump*

    RE #4
    Working in the public sector and being beholden to a rubric to score interviews has caused a lot of problems in the agency I work for.

    I’ve seen several cases where very reliable and competent employees were passed up for promotion because while they interviewed strongly, someone on the interview panel ended up awarding more points to an external candidate who specializes in lying their ass off for the duration of the interview.

    The solution would be to simply hold that new employee accountable when they don’t meet expectations, but discipline is so unpleasant, and then we’d need to go through the whole hiring process again, which is a huge hassle…

    Maybe it’s just my state, but now I wonder if the public sector is where lazy workers accumulate?

    1. judyjudyjudy*

      The public sector encompasses a lot of different kinds of work. Maybe your agency or field attracts these problematic employees, I don’t know.

      But my mom was a public school teacher, and as far as I could tell, she and her colleagues were extremely hard workers who cared a lot about their students.

  55. Humble Schoolmarm*

    OP 4, reading your comments, I think you might be overestimating the impact of your bad interview. You say that there was someone who they worked with before that got the position. This is more for the non-teachers, because I’m sure you know this already, but there’s always some movement in and out of a school in June. Sure, some of it is the ordinary job changes (people move, find better opportunities, leave teaching) but there’s always at least a few people leaving because their program got cut, or the temp job didn’t turn permanent, or the student numbers are down so a few positions are cut. This means there are always at least a few teachers floating around who are ‘known quantities’ ie. they want to come back and the principal wants them back if they have the opportunity.
    If this is the case, it left the hiring folks with two known quantities. You had positivity and a willingness to roll with challenging circumstances, a clear plus in teaching! You don’t say how you did with the kids and whether you were able to make gains with them in reading and I hope that’s just for privacy concerns. I think for most teacher hiring, your ability to be student focused is going to be key, with hard work and good attitude secondary (not to knock you at all, but in my experience, hard work and rolling with tough situations is a pretty common skill set in the profession). The person who got the job is also a known quantity to admin, though and you probably don’t know what they brought to the table. They may have specialized training, excellent rapport with the community and students or any one of a lot of very legitimate skills that make them a good fit.
    What I’m guessing happened was that since this position sounds like it had been hard to staff and they anticipated it was going to be yours by acclamation, (and it sounds like they were happy with that) and then former co-worker threw their hat in the ring. They may have come in ahead already or, you may have been neck and neck and they interviewed better. Unfortunately, unless you have good access to your district’s hot gossip, you may never know.
    I know it doesn’t feel like this now, because as posted above, I’ve been there (“I co-directed the frikken’ musical!” was my version of “I taught in a power supply room”), but you have.a good reference and people who wanted to hire you but couldn’t (or the department heads etc who think you got a dirty deal) are usually very eager to help you find a new position. Take advantage of the offers and remember that you now have the choice of being the known quantity who gets a boost in the next opening, or to never darken the doors again.

  56. Mmm.*

    LW2: I recently heard from an employee’s spouse and was fine with it. Why? They were letting me know about an actual emergency that prohibited my employer from contacting me or coming to work.

    The only other time I can think of when hearing from an employee’s spouse would be acceptable is if the employee literally died and they needed help sorting out life insurance and whatnot.

    You don’t contact when your spouse is perfectly capable of doing so themselves.

Comments are closed.