am I too old-fashioned about how I schedule calls, feedback said my enthusiasm can seem too aggressive, and more

by Alison Green on October 17, 2024

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

1. Am I being too old-fashioned about how I schedule calls?

I work for a mid-sized media company. My job includes emailing people outside of the office to set up a time for me to interview them for content that I write. I keep an old-fashioned paper calendar, and I prefer phone calls over Zoom or Teams.

Increasingly, I’m asked to send a “calendar invite,” or if the interview will take place over Zoom or Teams. I don’t understand why Zoom or Teams is preferable to the phone; personally I don’t want the added stress of having to fiddle with technology. Also, my transcription program works best off a phone call. Is it okay for me to say that I won’t be sending a calendar invite, and that I prefer a phone call? So far, I’ve gotten my way, but I’m worried that I sound rude, stubborn and old-fashioned. Or should I give in?

Start sending calendar invites. You’re asking people to do something for you, and you should make it easy for them to do; since a lot of people have told you they want calendar invites, send the invites. They’re asking you to do it because it will save them time, and it’s in your interests to have it on their calendar. You can continue using your paper calendar to track your own stuff.

But it’s fine to keep using the phone. People are asking if it’s Zoom or Teams because so many work calls these days are, but that doesn’t mean they care if it’s not. They also might be asking so they can be prepared if you’re planning on video. It’s fine to say, “It won’t be Zoom or Teams; I’ll just give you a call on your regular number then.” Alternately, it would also be fine to say, “My transcription program works best off a phone call, so I’ll call you at (fill in number) then.”

2. Expecting presidential candidates to release medical records

I’m a (long-time) UK reader. It’s been in the news over here that Kamala Harris has released her medical records and that there’s a lot of criticism for Trump that he is refusing to release his.

Leaving aside the particulars of these two candidates, as a UK reader the expectation to release private medical records to prove you’re fit for a job seems … problematic at best? It’s not something that we would ever expect of our political leaders. I’ve been wondering how it impacts others in the workplace — say if one of them was diabetic or needed ADHD medication to be at their best, could that lead to the average person being judged for the same? Even though that wouldn’t be legal. Would the same be expected for a CEO of a massive multinational? And what about Supreme Court judges? The list goes on.

I’m really curious what you/your readers think about this practice in general (again, leaving aside the particulars of these two candidates as no one needs that in the comments!) and whether it has any impact on the average person.

It’s a practice specific to presidential candidates; it’s not something that’s expected outside of that one very specific situation.

Presidential candidates aren’t required by law to disclose their health information, but modern day candidates — until Trump — have done so anyway. The idea is to assure voters that they don’t have significant health problems that could interfere with their ability to carry out the responsibilities of the office or to serve a full term. The tradition started after questions were raised about whether Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s had begun affecting him while he was still in office. (Of course, earlier history is full of examples of candidates and presidents who didn’t disclose medical information, like John F. Kennedy and, famously, FDR.)

Given the uniquely consequential responsibilities of the job, I’m fine with the practice. That said, disclosure should be restricted to factors likely to affect a candidate’s judgment or longevity in the role. Dementia is relevant; a Valtrex prescription is not.

3. Anonymous feedback said my enthusiasm can seem too aggressive

I recently received feedback in a performance evaluation (from an anonymous source) that my enthusiasm is great but can be taken as aggressive by coworkers and I need to be mindful of how others perceive me.

This has been puzzling to me because I am not someone who speaks up very much at all and when I do, I make an effort to be kind and clear in my communication. I rarely speak up in meetings and, if I do, it’s through chat. My interaction with coworkers is strictly through Slack and Zoom chat. Those interactions consist of asking questions to management, providing feedback to management (which they have thanked me for and made changes), or notifying coworkers that a customer reached out for them. These communications are through direct messages, not in the meetings, and it is mostly when asked unless I see a problem that is not being addressed that I feel they should be aware of. Sometimes I participate in team-building activities with my camera on and speak up but barely.

I use a lot of exclamation marks? I’m very puzzled by this feedback. What are your thoughts? Is this something I need to work on?

Anonymous feedback without any contextualizing by your boss is pretty useless. Did your boss indicate whether she also sees this as a concern? Or is she just passing along something she hasn’t personally seen without knowing if there’s any merit to it? If the latter, this could be one weird outlier person who doesn’t represent anyone else, and it could be feedback that’s nonsensical, baseless, or simply not worth acting on.

So can you go back to your boss and ask for her perspective? Say you took the feedback seriously but can’t figure out what it’s stemming from, and if changes are needed you can’t make them without understanding what’s happening, and ask for a couple of examples of where you’re coming across as aggressive.

4. My company wants me to share its posts on my personal LinkedIn

I have been at my job for two years in a junior role. Our senior management team is a huge fan of using LinkedIn to connect with clients. In particular, one member of that team will often share links to LinkedIn posts in my department’s Slack channel asking us to like, comment, and reshare with our network. They have also encouraged us, in business strategy meetings, to leverage our personal LinkedIn accounts to build our own “personal brand,” as well as promote the company.

Although I have an account, I despise LinkedIn, and mostly keep my profile up in case I need it for any future job searches or networking. I also am not a big poster on social media in general — I probably post on my personal Instagram account four times a year, and that is the only social media account I actively post on.

I don’t mind liking or commenting on company posts if asked, but I really don’t want to reshare posts onto my personal account, especially since I very rarely post any of my own content. Perhaps complicating things further, this job is in an industry that I don’t see myself in long-term (although nobody there knows this), so I don’t particularly want to build a huge LinkedIn presence in this industry.

I’ve mostly managed to fly under the radar with this, but there have been a couple times recently where this manager has mentioned me by name when asking people to reshare the post. Is there a graceful way to opt out of using my personal LinkedIn account for my company’s business purposes?

There are some industries where LinkedIn is so inherently a part of the work that it would be unreasonable to refuse to do this (for example, recruiting, some forms of PR, or LinkedIn itself). But assuming you’re not in one of them, they’re welcome to ask people to share posts, but you should be able to decline. That’s your social media, not theirs.

The easiest way to deal with it is to just keep ignoring it. If you’re mentioned by name when the request is made, nod and make a note on your to-do list and then … just don’t. If you’re directly asked about it in a more serious way, feel free to say you never use LinkedIn or even that you haven’t been able to log in the account recently.

5. When a business contact dies mid-project

In my job, I’m often the only connecting point between organizations — a combination of my clients, colleagues, vendors, regional stakeholders, etc. Recently, a project missed its deadline because I couldn’t get ahold of my contact, John, at a regular vendor, Acme. He had known we would need to be in heavy communication in the runup to a Friday deadline, but he stopped responding to emails or answering phone calls on Thursday, and we couldn’t finish the project without his input.

Over the weekend, I happened to get dinner with a friend who used to work at Acme. I mentioned that we’d blown a deadline, and that it was really unlike Acme to leave us hanging. My friend asked who I had been working with, and when I told her, she told me John had died on Wednesday night! She’d only heard about it that morning, and it sounded like it had been very unexpected and, understandably, things were chaotic at Acme in the wake of things.

I spent Sunday stressing about how to reach out to Acme. I worked with John a few times a year, and we weren’t close, but I respected him and was sad to hear the news. I could imagine that this has been really hard on Acme’s team, and wanted to express my condolences. But I also had my client and other stakeholders breathing down my neck to get the project done, and I was unsure what to say to them in the meantime. John was a department head, so I wasn’t really sure who to reach out to, either. Luckily, my friend had sent some of her old Acme contacts a heads-up, so someone reached out to me first thing Monday morning with an explanation, an apology to send to my client, and a new point of contact. I was able to just respond with condolences and thank them for their help.

But if I’m ever in this situation again, what’s the etiquette around someone’s death? Is there a script for when and how to reach out after hearing the news? Who do the messages go to? And if I hear that someone has died, is it fair to discreetly share that with someone like my client, as an explanation for the delay?

It would be fine to reach out to any other contact you have there and say something like, “I was so very sorry to hear about John. He was (insert something personal here about what you valued about John/the relationship, if possible). He was working on X for me; when we missed the deadline Friday, I hadn’t known what had happened, but now of course I understand. I’m so sorry to bother you with this right now, but when you’re able, would you let me know who I should be in touch with about the project? I understand it may take some time to sort out.” Depending on the context, you could add that if they’d like you to look for non-Acme resources for completing the work so they have time to sort out what will happen from here, you can do that.

It’s fair to share the situation with your client; most people will be a lot more understanding of delays in a situation like this than if they’re left in the dark.

You may also like:
{ 616 comments }

{ 616 comments… read them below }

  1. Clementine*

    There’s a reason Zoom, Meet, etc. are more popular than phone calls. With a phone call, you have to hope to pick it up, and you sit there in anticipation for the phone to ring. With Zoom, you just click in and wait for the person to show up (or join the person that is there).

    There’s no merit in being old-fashioned. If you want to be off-video on a Zoom call, that’s definitely possible, but embrace this new technology that makes timing easier.

    1. Lurker*

      I’m not really seeing the difference between sitting in anticipation of someone joining a Zoom call and waiting for a pre-scheduled phone call. I schedule calls regularly and don’t have an issue with timing…it works the same was as if you schedule a Zoom meeting.

      1. Clementine*

        You can click in and go back to work while waiting for the other person to join. There’s no missed call.

        I find it psychologically very different to be awaiting a phone call. They’ll never call at exactly 2:30 PM, for example, so I don’t feel I can step away for even a moment starting at about 2:20 PM. If someone is a few minutes late to a Zoom call, no big deal as I am still working while waiting, but if they are a few minutes late calling, my nerves amp up.

        1. Ellis Bell*

          This is so interesting, I’ve never considered this! I don’t really have a preference, except I think the technology can involve slightly more set up, especially if you’re on camera, but if someone hasn’t called me by the time the meeting has started, I would just call them? Same deal with if I’m working, or away from my desk, or if I for some reason fail to pick up the phone call, I’d just call them back.

        2. Mangofan*

          Hm for me my nerves amp up the same waiting for someone to join a video call vs waiting for them to call me on the phone. Interesting that it works differently for you!

          1. Orv*

            Me too. I know that the instant they join they’ll see my face, so I have to police my facial expression the whole time.

            1. Glenn*

              I just don’t turn on video until they arrive, for the vast majority of calls where I’m having to wait for someone. Certainly for any call where I’m doing other work while I wait.

        3. Nina*

          I just connect my wireless headphones to my phone and carry on with what I’m doing – then when the call comes in I can answer off the headphones and not worry about where I am relative to my phone.

        4. Eldritch Office Worker*

          I’m the same. Phone calls cause me a lot more stress than zoom. Now I’m talking 15 minutes of stress tops, not something chronic, but if I had a lot of them it would be distracting.

        5. Nonanon*

          Seconding that the planning/timings are a major part; if I have a Zoom/Teams/WebEx/whatever, I can do what I need to make sure I’m ready when the other person is. Phone call? I’m running around “preparing” if you call a few minutes too early (and usually have the misfortune of being in the bathroom; it’s a weird superpower but I’ll take it?) I usually run an “if you’re early, you’re on time” philosophy, but tend to intentionally run a minute or two “late” if I have a client who requests a phone call because, well, I have terrible luck if you call me too early, so I give you a grace period.

          1. Preferences*

            We share the same superpower :)

            On Zoom I can share a BRB screen and step away for a second without worrying about missing someone. Conversely, I am on my work machine so I can join early and do stuff without worrying I’ll miss something. I am set up to take notes more easily and, if needed, I can put something in chat or share a screen.

            For personal things while I’m not working I prefer the phone, but that’s because my work laptop is set up for comfortable use; I can bring my phone to that spot but not my personal computer.

          2. Camy*

            I’m hard of hearing, and I vastly prefer video calls because 1) seeing someone’s face and mouth makes it easier to understand what they’re saying, and 2) most video apps offer closed captioning, which is of course never perfect, but coupled with seeing the speaker’s face, goes a long way. This is in addition to hearing aids, by the way, which are not as effective as, say, glasses are for helping one to see. And thirdly, face-to-face communication provides additional information that even someone with perfect hearing/comprehension will miss out on. Does the other person look interested in what you’re saying? Are they understanding/agreeing with/approving what you’re saying? Is their long pause awkward—or are they trying to hold back a sneeze?

        6. Lenora Rose*

          But Zoom takes more preparation, and you have to be visually put together, and set up your background (even if it’s just blur/default, you have to make that choice), and once you sign in to zoom, even if they’re 10 minutes late you can’t step away for even a moment. A phone call requires picking up one receiver that is presumably in reach even if you crossed the room to a filing cabinet, and if you have a wireless headset, you can take the call from all over the office. (A wired headset may be the worst of both worlds as you guaranteed cannot leave your desk as you may not hear the call – in my case, though, that’s relevant to zoom/teams not phone calls.)

          1. CeramicSun*

            I’m a student and I honestly prefer Zoom. I just join a few minutes early for a quick sound/camera check and wait for the other person to join. I don’t do anything with my background since the wall behind me is blank. Most of the time, I’m at my desk anyway so if i have to wait for a bit (and I’ve had meetings be up to 20 minutes late), I’ll just shrink the zoom window and check my email or something simple.

            With phone calls, there’s nothing I can do but wait for the other person to call me and hope that I don’t accidentally miss the call. If they’re running late, I have to figure out how long I should wait for them before contacting them for an update and it feels like there’s nothing I can do while waiting.

            1. Ellis Bell*

              I’m curious because so many people disliking phone calls are putting it down to having to wait for the call; does it help if the person who wants a phone call provides you with their number instead of offering to be the one to call?

              1. CeramicSun*

                For me it doesn’t make much of a difference because 99% of the time the calls are always with someone above me. If I was calling them, I’d be too worried that I’d be bothering them if I call a minute too early or they’d be silently annoyed if I called too late.

                Though I am aware this my anxiety talking and not actually the case. I’m good with phone calls when I need to. But if I was somehow able to choose (I never get to), I’d pick Zoom.

              2. CallingOutEasier*

                I do find that easier to manage, but part of that is that it’s physically difficult for me to get to my phone before it goes to voicemail while charging/I knock it over trying to reach it and miss a lot of calls when it’s not. Yay mobility disabilities :)

          2. Baunilha*

            Zoom also has the problem of needing a reliable internet connection. I don’t have a preference, I just think both Zoom/ Teams and phonecalls pose their specific issues.

            1. hello*

              I mean, by that same reasoning, phone calls may also have the problem of needing a reliable cell network, which in some places can be even harder to find than a reliable internet connection.

          3. Hannah*

            In my work world, you log on to Zoom, turn off video and audio and then do whatever until you hear the “ding” of somebody joining.

            I regularly see people log in, turn off video and audio and then go run to the bathroom / get a drink / whatever. It’s just understood that if you log in and the person has video off, you say hi. If they don’t respond, it’s their turn to come back, see that you logged on and say hi.

            It’s a little weird typed out but flows very easily in my experience.

          4. Worldwalker*

            I think you’re over-thinking this.

            I try to remember to brush my hair; that’s as put-t0gether as I get. (I’m a techie, totally not customer-facing) That’s not much preparation. My background is a bookcase full of programming books and RPG-related books. (I work for a tabletop game company) And if someone needs me in a hurry, they get what they get, just as if we wree in the same building and they dropped into my cubicle. Or, y’know, I can leave my video off.

            On a related note, it came to my attention the other day that of all the things a smartphone can do, the one it’s absolutely the worst at is … being a phone. I had an hour-long conversation on my iPhone the other day, and missed the old Western Electric Model 500 handset.

            1. Yorick*

              The point about cell phones is so true! Since going remote during the pandemic, I have the same phone number but no actual phone. If someone leaves a voicemail, I get an email with the message. But I don’t have a real phone ringing that I can answer. If someone wants to do a phone call it has to be to my personal number with my cell phone, and I usually need to put it on speaker to use my hands to look up whatever they’re asking me about. So the audio is terrible.

              1. LadyVet*

                My former employer did that, but there was an app for the phone service. A lot of my colleagues started giving people their personal number, but I downloaded the app so I could set work hours.

                Now I have a Google Voice number I put on resumes and give to interview subjects when I work on a freelance story.

            2. Spooky*

              There was an Atlantic article about that. Smartphones aren’t molded to your hand or ear, and don’t transmit nearly as much voice nuance or tone variety as old phones.

          5. Texan In Exile*

            “you have to be visually put together”

            Not if you don’t go on camera! I never use a camera on zoom calls.

          6. Tired*

            Why not just turn off your camera? Stuck with teams for work & we often have to turn off cameras to help reduce memory/processor problems….

          7. VideoOff*

            That assumes video on. I never turn my video on. Most people who were hybrid or remote before the pandemic don’t unless forced – having anyone on a call have their video on is a major bandwidth hog for all. Most companies I worked for (pre-pandemic) had strict video off policies and most other people I’ve talked to usually had it off even if there was no policy.

        7. Lurker*

          But can’t you just…keep working while waiting for a phone call? You just wrote that not everyone you Zoom with logs in exactly on time, so again, not seeing a difference. Also if people are calling you at 2:20pm for a 2:30pm call, that’s weird and defeats the purpose of scheduling a call.

          1. YetAnotherAnalyst*

            The thing is, for me at least, that I need transition time. So when my calendar reminds me at 5 minutes before the meeting, I jump into the meeting, mute my microphone, and finish whatever it was I was doing. If the other person joins before I’m done, they can see I’m there and I’m muted. They say hello, I unmute, etc; it’s much closer to walking up to someone’s desk while they’re busy but available.
            Phones, on the other hand, you must answer Now or you’ve missed the call, and a ringing phone means you’ve lost whatever thought you were working on anyway.

            1. YetAnotherAnalyst*

              Also, having the option to send a quick message (like “brb need a drink”) with Teams or similar conveys a lot. Yes, the meeting is still on; no, we don’t need to reschedule; I expect to be ready in less than 5 minutes.

          2. Perfectly Cromulent Name*

            I can’t keep working while waiting for any kind of meeting. I go into “waiting mode” and my brain cannot do anything really constructive other than wait. I could do something very small, like delete emails or small tasks, but nothing that involved deep work!

            I would MUCH prefer Zoom/Teams, but I would deal with a phone call. I would be SUPER annoyed to not get an invite with all the relevant information though. Yes, I could do that myself, but I’m more likely to add the wrong stuff, maybe fat finger the wrong time, etc. And it’s just ONE MORE THING. If you are going to insist on a phone call, at least send them the Outlook invite with the time/phone number they are expecting the call from, etc.

        8. Mgguy*

          A few years back-admittedly pre-COVID-I went through a couple of rounds of phone interview with a Fortune 500 company(actually got cut just before in-person interviews with an open invitation to apply again especially with a bit more experience).

          In any case, every single call came right on time, and also ended right on time. It was actually almost eerie how they timed it.

          I could give pluses and minuses to both, though. Given the timeframe(early 2019) Skype was still the thing for remote video interviews, and that’s a platform I dearly hate. All calls were while I was at work, and I was transparent with my supervisor about what was happening(variety of reasons why I felt comfortable doing so, including a great supervisor) and depending on the time I’d either take them during my lunch break or add in an extra off-the-clock break to get it.

          The big problem was that my(private) office was also a cave in the basement with spotty cell service, so I took every one of them from my car. Fortunately it wasn’t a big deal to do that, even if it was a less than ideal location.

          IN GENERAL, at work internet is usually more dependable than cell, and even at my current job I’m on the top floor with an outside wall and still get spotty cell service, but it’s good enough that I’d trust it if needed.

          On the whole, though, I’d still prefer an actual call. If I’m at home, video calls(any platform, but Facetime seems worse and Zoom best) can be spotty at times and prone to freezing, etc. Even if it’s an audio only call, I’d still rather have it come through my phone.

        9. Elizabeth West*

          Same. I was waiting for a medical specialist to get back to me with no idea when to expect the call. Of course, the TWO MINUTES I went down to check the mailbox was when he called. *eyeroll*

          Teams/Zoom is much easier for work. You can also call a Teams number from a phone — Exjob didn’t even have any desk phones. We all had Teams numbers. I had consultants do that all the time, and sometimes coworkers if their connection was acting up.

        10. I'm just here for the cats!!*

          I still don’t see how its any different? You can still work while waiting for a phone call, the same way you can wait for a zoom call. In fact I would say a phone call is better, if you gave a cell number, because if you need to step away to the printer or something you can bring your phone with you where you cant if you have a zoom call.

          1. Jessastory*

            The difference for me is with a Zoom call you know you’re connected once you’re logged in, so you know there’s no technology issues on your end at least. So if no one else joins the meeting, the failure to connect isn’t your fault. Whereas with an important phone call, I’m worried if something weird glitched on my end if I don’t get a call. Of course, I’ve had a number of issues with my cellphone connection before…

        11. Copyright Economist*

          That’s strange to me. I always call someone precisely at the appointed time. If someone misses a phone call by 2 minutes, I consider them late. I had an appointment phone call with someone who sent me an Outlook appointment for the call earlier this week.

      2. Worldwalker*

        It’s not about being old-fashioned, or “the added stress of having to fiddle with technology” — I’m getting Bartleby the Scrivener vibes here. I want to meet my co-workers and my outside contacts, and especially someone who’s doing me a favor, where they are, so I use whatever system they want to use. It’s not like any of this is complicated –they all compete by advertising their ease of use.

        1. WantonSeedStitch*

          And even if someone DOES find the technology challenging, making it easier for people to give you what you need from them is worth putting in the effort to learn.

        2. CommanderBanana*

          ^^ This. I too love my paper calendar. I would never presume to bristle at people who are giving me their time for requesting something like a calendar invite or having a preference for Zoom or Teams over a phone call. They don’t work for you.

        3. Margaret Cavendish*

          Yeah, it feels a little “Old man yells at cloud” to me. Sure it’s new technology, and it can be stressful to learn it in the moment on a live call, but there’s no reason OP couldn’t learn it by practicing with a colleague. And honestly, it’s not hard once you get used to it.

        4. Tippy*

          Yeah I think the stance about not sending a calendar invite is probably coloring my reaction about the Zoom/Teams (which sounds like their off-camera). Zoom/Teams vs phone doesn’t seem inherently that different but I do tend to find phone calls in general more stressful and annoying than the online format, but I tend to not do phone even in my personal life.

          1. GammaGirl1908*

            Agree. This is two separate issues. Preferring phone over video chat is less of a thing to me, just because lots of people hate watching themselves on video, plus LW has a legitimate excuse with the transcription issue, considering the nature of the appointment.

            But the balking at creating an electronic appointment is frankly some curmudgeonly nonsense. People are asking for that because it means we have the same information about the appointment and are on the same page, and won’t get confused by time zones or similar. We have each other’s contact information, an easy way to update one another, and a reminder of the appointment. It blocks the time on the calendar so the interviewee won’t double-book. LW can use a paper calendar if he wants, but there is an excellent practical reason to send the interviewee an electronic appointment, and LW balking at it is just spiting himself.

            This feels like 125 years ago when the telephone was a newfangled invention that was just a fad. LW sees no reason to involve these newfangled gadgets when he has it all right here on this trusty piece of paper. But your interviewee doesn’t, and you need to meet this person — whose time you are requesting — much closer to where they are.

          2. Orv*

            My office switched to a VoIP system, and now my desk phone *is* the Zoom app. So it’s really just a question of whether I have to be on camera or not.

        5. Lazy Cat's Mom*

          Worldwalker, I totally agree. They’re helping you, not the other way around.
          I’ve been a journalist for 30+ years and have gone from cold calling sources to emailing, to texting, to video chatting with Teams and Zoom. You need to keep up with technology.
          Many times sources actually prefer me to send a calendar invite. That way they know they have the time free when they want. And if they don’t have a meeting type preference, I set it up on Teams/Zoom and then, if they don’t have it, they can just call in on a phone line without video.
          I think OP is over-complicating this. You do what you have to do to get the information.
          And I hate to bring this up, but if my boss found out I was making meetings so difficult, they’d be furious. Management at my company at least is able to see what’s on your calendar, so it shows you’re doing the work.

          1. Kaitlyn*

            Yeah, I think there’s a reputational risk when folks are turning up their nose at commonly used technologies that make other people’s lives easier.

        6. B*

          Yeah, the bottom line is if someone is offering you their time, you owe them the courtesy of fulfilling their (trivially simple) requests about the process.

          Sending someone a calendar invite with a prepopulated link to a meeting takes a non-negligible amount of mental work off their plate. Otherwise, they have to create their own calendar entry and remember what the format of the call is going to be. And that creates the possibility you each wrote down a different time, there could be time zone confusions, they thought you would call them but you thought they’d call you, etc., etc.

          If I were offering someone my time and they didn’t do this basic stuff to make it simple for me, I would come into the conversation with a slight but measurable negative preconception about how it would go.

      3. Jack Straw from Wichita*

        For me, it’s a matter of the technology I have at mt fingertips. We use Teams for everything at my org, to the point many of us do not have desk or even web phones. If I’m getting a phone call, it means I have to dig my work cell phone out and hold it to my ear. I know that sounds silly, but I SUPER prefer the headset connected to my computer.

        repeating what Alison said: “[I]t’s in your interests to have it on their calendar” and to use a method they are accustomed to. You need to follow THEIR lead (assuming they are assisting you as stated) not the other way around.

        1. MCL*

          It’s not silly. If you need to take notes (and prefer typing) or you need to look stuff up on the computer while you’re talking, a headset is so much easier than trying to negotiate holding up a phone.

        2. JustaTech*

          Yeah, my company decided that we didn’t need phones at all, so for me it’s a Teams call or my personal cell phone (not paid for by the company), which means it’s a Teams call.
          It would have been nice for them to let us know this so we could reach out to all the service techs to tell them that we don’t get phone calls any more and they need to email, but hey, that would have required forethought.

      4. Michelle*

        Because on Zoom you don’t have to answer right when the other person calls. If you join a Zoom meeting and then have to step away for a second or get interrupted, you’re not going to miss the call.

        I have a doctor who insists on doing virtual appointments via Google Duo, which works like a phone call with video. Then he’s never on time, so I’m waiting for 30 minutes to an hour or longer that I can’t step away from my phone even for a minute.

      5. carrot cake*

        One difference is sometimes it’s necessary, or at least makes sense, to record a conversation, especially if the callers are discussing data, pricing, negotiations, training session, etc.

        I’d say a phone call works best for first-stage interviews, for instance. Where I work, we permit applicants to block their cameras for those if the interview is virtual; so conducting that type of initial interview over the phone is no different.

        In short, context-specific seems the logical approach. I prefer virtual if no other reason I have yet to figure out my phone. So many options, so many arrows and buttons that just aren’t intuitive for useful functionality, up is down, omg. Blah – gimme Zoom!

    2. Noodles*

      I prefer Zoom/Meet/etc because my phone (and many other people’s phones) will sometimes not ring on unknown numbers. There was a recent AAM post about this, with lots of commenters saying they had this issue—interview calls being marked as spam and not getting through. With Zoom etc I can click the link and know I’m in the right place.

      1. Miette*

        My home, where I work, seems to be in a mobile dead zone (or at least my kitchen table is lol – thanks, AT&T Wireless!) and I miss calls frequently. But since Zoom, Teams, and even FaceTime work off of wifi, I don’t miss those calls at all. So it may not just be a preference for some people but a necessity to use these systems.

            1. Captain Swan*

              My android phone has a wifi calling setting. it’s one you have to actively turn on but it’s there.

              I would check to see if your cell phone has such a setting.

            2. Orv*

              T-Mobile will do calling over WiFi if your phone supports it. I suspect there are other providers that offer that too.

          2. Miette*

            Actually, it’s on but for some reason calls don’t come through over it? I will have to figure out why

            1. MsSolo (UK)*

              Not all networks support wifi calling (in the UK, at least) so your phone can have the option but your network might not.

          3. Selina Luna*

            It’s not an option everywhere. For security reasons, personal devices aren’t allowed on my work wi-fi network.

      2. Anonomous scientist*

        I get interviewed a few times a year and most of those are phone, but the interviewer always says something like “I’ll be calling from [number]” when confirming the call, so I can add it to my contacts list and have it not get screened (by my phone or by me). OP, it might make sense to send calendar invites that include that information in it too.

      3. JFC*

        Yeah, we work regularly with a client who does a lot of phone calls, and it never shows up as their actual phone number. It’s always some odd five-digit international code that some phones pick up as spam, even though we’re in the same US city. They’ve tried working with their IT department but haven’t come up with a resolution yet. I’m in touch with them often enough to know that it’s them calling (and these are almost always scheduled calls) but someone unfamiliar with them would probably not answer.

      4. Spero*

        I agree with this. Also with a phone call, you have to scroll back through all the emails to see where they gave you their number, you have to be sure if you have service etc. In Teams/Zoom, the link to join is in the reminder itself so it’s a more seamless process vs get the reminder, go dig up where you saved the number, switch out of whatever you were using on your phone into the contacts app and make the call. It’s just a clunky process.

      5. LadyVet*

        My mom used to keep her number unlisted, and now my boyfriend does, so I’ve gotten used to answering “Unknown” calls, though sometimes they don’t come through.

        It’s really annoying.

        Though, back when my mom was the usual Unknown caller, I answered a call with “Hi, HerNickname!” only for it to be my gynecologists’s receptionist calling from her personal phone to reschedule an appointment due to storm damage in their office!

    3. amoeba*

      For me, it’s just so standard to use Teams or Zoom that my work phone exists, but is never on unless I’m on a business trip – and then I actually also have only ever used it for e-mail and Teams, I’ve literally never made a phone call with it. I’d have to look up the number, find the thing and charge it first! Or use my private phone, but meh, I mean, I don’t have a particular problem with that, but… why?

      1. Learn ALL the things*

        My work phone doesn’t actually even exist. My office is 100% on Teams and we don’t have separate phones at all. We have phone numbers assigned to our Teams accounts so people can still call us, but that call is going to come in through Teams on my work laptop.

        1. Millie*

          Same for our office. They removed all desk phones a few years and assigned those same phone numbers to our Teams accounts. All calls, internal and external, now go through Teams.

          1. JustaTech*

            Yeah, my company dumped work phones (we really don’t make many calls), but are too cheap to pay for everyone to get to keep their phone number and have it call through Teams. That’s only for the directors and up, who already have paid work phones.
            So there’s a work phone in the lab for emergencies, but no one to call. (If you call our old phone numbers they all go to a generic voicemail box that no one can access.)

      2. Margaret Cavendish*

        I really only use mine for MFA when I’m working from home, and to check my email on the way into the office. (And occasionally to message my spouse when I’m too lazy to find my personal phone, but that’s not exactly a high priority use!) I don’t even know the last time I used it for a phone call. And a lot of people in my office don’t have phones at all – we have standard phone numbers, but all calls take place over Teams.

    4. DeskApple*

      this! plus many transcription software programs work with or are integrated into zoom and teams like Otter

      1. Marion Ravenwood*

        I will say that when I used to regularly do interviews with musicians, Otter was a godsend. It cut how long it took me to transcribe interviews by at least half. I actually got to a point where I much preferred to do interviews over Zoom rather than in person because I could just put the file into Otter, listen along to correct any mistakes, and have a piece together within an hour.

        Also the other big advantage of Zoom (and presumably Teams) is there’s no extra cost for calling internationally.

    5. allathian*

      For internal calls, I’m all for Teams and scheduled calls whenever possible. Teams always show who’s calling, so that’s one source of anxiety eliminated right there. I have some auditory processing issues and won’t catch names at the start of a phone call. My job doesn’t involve talking to external customers or vendors, where the phone might be preferable.

    6. Clearance Issues*

      I also know that some of the time, companies can give you a Teams account linked to your email, but won’t pay for company phones.
      My IT department set it up so our “office phone numbers” are through teams, but they did also try to remove those numbers a few years ago. There was pushback because a lot of client contacts were linked to those numbers.

      1. Charlotte Lucas*

        I don’t have an actual work phone. I do have a phone number through Teams and a Zoom account, so someone could just use a phone to get a hold of me.

        But it’s also possible that the people being interviewed might be thinking that they could also share a screen (not sure if this would be relevant to the OP’s work).

        Sending an electronic calendar invitation just feels like common courtesy to me. The OP can keep a paper calendar, but it’s a lot to expect from everyone else.

        1. Smithy*

          Yeah – I use my personal phone number for work. Work does not pay for it, and I do not have even have a work phone number.

          Thus far I’ve been lucky, that I’ve never had issue with my personal phone number being abused this way via work or a work contact – but it does lead to a strong preference to Teams/Zoom.

          I will say, I also have one external contact that does spontaneously call my phone/leave messages has made them marked internally where I work as high maintenance. So we have a unique procedure around a certain task in hopes that we prevent those outreach calls to my phone. As I said up top, it’s not so frequent that it’s a problem – but rather it’s a flag for them being high maintenance.

          I think the OP sending out the calendar invite and putting down that the meeting will be over phone helps remove one of those “high maintenance” features. But doing both phone and not sending a calendar invite begins to lead to more of that label.

        2. Lauren19*

          Ditto on the ability to screen share. If you don’t want to be on camera IMO it’s fine to be camera off, but it’s quite normal to expect to be able to screen share which adds another level of clarity to the subject matter. Not every call has to be — or should be — Zoom or Teams, but understand when it’s the better choice for the meeting, not for LW’s preferences.

        3. Worldwalker*

          Good point about the paper calendars. The OP doesn’t want to change their calendar (or add a secondary one) but expects other people — dozens? scores? hundreds? — to change their calendars, and change them to a less-efficient system, at that.

      2. Elly*

        Yup. Where I work, we have to have a business case for a call licence, and get it signed off by our line manager. The whole (large!) org’s external calls come in to my team, and we can transfer them to the person’s Teams account, but we get so much attitude from external callers when we can’t provide a phone number for a person who’s currently unavailable.

      3. Catherine UK*

        I’ve noticed that my employer has stopped assigning phone numbers to new employees in the last few months, so some of us have phone numbers (through Teams) and some of us don’t! Before Covid, we used phone numbers via Skype and the company hasn’t used desk phones for at least the 7 years I’ve been there.

    7. Junior Assistant Peon*

      I especially hate dealing with Zoom, Teams, etc for job interviews. They often can be fiddly the first time you use them, and it’s one more bit of stress when you’re struggling to get the audio and camera to work right during a job interview.

      1. Keep it Simple*

        If I’m interviewing someone and they’re struggling with Zoom because they’ve “never used it before” that’s 10 points off immediately. You test the meeting technology before you need to use it. Enlist a friend. Review the billions of YouTube “how to” videos for Teams or Zoom so you know exactly how it works, how to set up your background and name, everything. Long ago I had an interview using Skype which I’d never used. I found three friends who knew how to use it, installed it, and tested it three times before the interview to make sure everything worked properly.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        I love zoom for meetings, you don’t have to juggle a phone or have the phone on speaker where you can’t be heard if you move away from it. Your hands are free. I especially love it for discovery meetings with clients. I can share screen and they can see me typing the answers right there so corrections can be made and names are spelled right without a lot of back and forth. Not that I would show interview notes, but it is easier to do.

        Also for some reason I do better with Zoom calls than phone calls. Even if the other person has their camera off. I just interact better for some reason.

        Basically, OP, its 2024 you need to consider how your interview subjects work best, not just you.

        1. Le Sigh*

          I prefer Zoom as well, though will say a pair of bluetooth earbuds paired with my phone allows me to be hands free with that as well. That way I can fold my laundry while my sister tells me a very long story for the seventh time, lol.

    9. Apex Mountain*

      I think the bigger issue rather than Zoom vs phone is not sending out a calendar invitation. Most people these days aren’t using handwritten calendars for scheduling so they need an emailed version. I would start doing that immediately if I were you

      1. Turquoisecow*

        Yeah you can make a calendar invite for a phone call. But it’s been pretty much standard at every job I’ve worked at that meetings go on the calendar. Even Husband and I put stuff on each other’s calendars we need to know about, like if one of us has a meeting and the other will need to pick up our kid.

      2. sofar*

        This right here. You can make a cal event and instead of a Zoom link, just have something like “I’ll call you at [your number] at this time from this number. Here’s my number just in case.”

        People are overcomplicating this. I used to be a company’s spokesperson. Reporters all had a mix of preference (Zoom, other video call services, audio dial-in services, phone). They all just sent me the cal invites and included the video link OR notes like: “I will call you by phone,” or “Here’s the producer’s cell if something goes wrong,” or “Here are the dial-in instructions for our radio show, I’m starting the event time at 8:55 to make sure we can check sound for the 9:15 segment.”

        So, I could just go about my day, hit the meeting invite and just … do the thing. On time. And! Get reminders from my calendar.

    10. Person from the Resume*

      Disagree.

      Presumably everyone has the technology to make/take a phone call. Not everyone has Zoom or Teams. Standardizing to Team or Zooms within a company is great, but not with external contacts who may or may not have easy access to that app or just a familiarity and comfort with it.

      1. Person from the Resume*

        But I agree the LW should send out calendar invites for people he is calling. That’s polite and could help avoid some timing/time zone issues.

        LW should be clear in the invite that “I will call you at ##:##”

      2. CR*

        But the external contacts are asking for a Zoom or Teams calendar invite. Because it’s pretty much standard now.

      3. hello*

        Can’t you log into a Zoom call using a specific link? In Teams, you can even join a call by dialing in by phone. They don’t need to have actual access to the software.

        1. amoeba*

          Yes, absolutely, as long as you have internet and a browser, you can join a Zoom or Teams call without installing anything!

          Also – there’s been multiple people in the comments already that said that they don’t, in fact, have a work-provided way of taking phone calls anymore! I mean, you can, of course, always use your private device, but that’s rather a lot to expect, when for the other option you basically just need an internet browser (either on a computer with headset or on a smartphone).

          1. WantonSeedStitch*

            My work-provided way of taking calls is…through Zoom! But I hate taking phone calls over Zoom and am more likely to give my personal cell phone number to someone who needs to call me for work purposes. No one has abused that yet.

          2. Tabihabibi*

            Yes, or their IT has selected the most fiddly soft phone software possible. Mine requires selecting the correct input settings in 3 places, selecting in setting in the desktop version, but then never using the desktop version for placing calls, and this needs to be adjusted every time I go from WFH to office and back, and still has occasional extra bugs. I will double check all the settings for an upcoming phone call, but assuming it’s less fiddly than Teams for everyone may not always check out.

      4. Elly*

        “Presumably everyone has the technology to make/take a phone call. ”

        Nope! Both my current and previous roles used Covid lockdowns as an excuse to remove phones from everyone’s desk, and then require a business case and management sign off to give you a call licence via Teams.

        You can’t use a mobile in my office because of the thickness of the walls, so that’s also sometimes out as an option.

        We have an arrangement where external calls come through the switchboard to my team, who can transfer calls to Teams where a phone number doesn’t exist, so there is a work around.

        1. Strive to Excel*

          Same.

          Except external calls got routed through to Cisco Jabber, which I hate with the fury of a thousand fiery suns. It frequently hung up on callers. It never used the correct sound inputs and outputs – I think it tended to route sound through the external camera. I don’t know why that was showing up in the system as a speaker, it really wasn’t. It didn’t keep any records of calls – as soon as the program was closed, all history was deleted. And it was a toss up as to whether or not you’d notice it ringing at all.

          I hated that system so much.

      5. Worldwalker*

        Everybody doesn’t need that — the OP’s contacts do, however, because they’re asking to use Zoom/Teams/Meet/etc. and the OP refuses to use that.

    11. Czhorat*

      I prefer Zoom or Teams, but OP doesn’t and has a reason; if that’s best for their workflow I understand that, but refusing to send a calendar invite can come across as obstinate for no good reason. Sending the invite confirms the scheduling, gives the invitee an easy way to put it on their calendar, and signals that you’re the “host”. If you’re asking for a meeting for your benefit then the polite thing to do in today’s world is to send a calendar invite; you can include the preffered phone number as “location”

      1. HonorBox*

        This right here. OP uses the phone because of the transcription process. That’s good enough reason to stick with the phone. If someone said that to me, I’d also be happy knowing that they’re employing a way to ensure I’m quoted correctly.

        As for the calendar invite… even if the other person doesn’t ask for it, I’d still offer to send it. It is such a quick and easy way to ensure that they have a reminder and don’t miss your call.

        1. Anon Y. Mouse*

          Well, the thing with the phone transcription IS valid, BUT you can also call into these online meeting systems like zoom, so if the person their interviewing insists on zoom they could still call in to get the better transcription from their phone.

          This kind of circumstance definitely requires adaptability from the LW. If someone throws enough annoyances in the way of something that is technically optional for me, then I’m just going to opt out.

          Now, for this kind of thing *personally*, phone or zoom, no big deal. No calendar invite? no worries, it’s not a big deal for me to just throw one on my own digital calendar. But if you can make it easier for others to opt in to something optional then do it

      2. Margaret Cavendish*

        Oh my gosh, this. Whatever you feel about online meetings, please, please, send calendar invites!

        1. Czhorat*

          If I don’t have something on my outlook calendar then I think I’m free at that time – and other people in the organization who can see my calendar will think the same. That makes it likely that I’ll get double-booked if I don’t get a meeting invite.

    12. Joyce to the World*

      My work phone is through Teams. The only other way to call me is calling my home phone. No thanks!

      1. SarahKay*

        My work phone is also through Teams, but external people can call my Teams number from a landline and speak to me. I think it maybe had to be enabled by IT?
        But over the years I was moved from a real phone with its own extension number, to a VOIP phone, to Teams, all the while retaining the original phone number I had when I started this job. I even retained it after a move halfway across the country which does sometimes confuse people as the dialling code implies I’m still in OldLocation.

    13. bleh*

      There’s no merit in being a slave to every new technology either. They are meant to be used by humans, not direct humans’ lives and choices.

      1. Anya Last Nerve*

        Lol you do realize that cell phones and transcription services were once the cutting edge technology too, right? Is Teams and Zoom where you draw the line on adopting new technology?

      2. Worldwalker*

        So what do you want to do? Go back to the stone age? I might point out that you’re using this “new technology” either. And the phone was, at one point, cutting edge.

        It’s worth using the things that make our lives easier. For example, I have a weekly scheduled meeting that reminds me via my watch that it’s coming up in 15 minutes, I get ready for it and settle down at my desk, and at the meeting time, I click the relevant link on my calendar. Done. It’s serving my needs.

        But in any event, it’s not the software that’s directing the OP’s life and choices — it’s the people they need to interview for content that they’re writing. People who are, in other words, doing the OP a favor. “I would like to discuss new trends in teapot decoration with you, but only on my terms” does not go over well with the other person. When you ask a favor of someone, you want to make it as easy as possible for them to give you what you’re asking for.

    14. learnedthehardway*

      It’s unreasonable to NOT send a calendar invitation, when you’re the one requesting the meeting. Alternatively, use calendaring software that allows the other person to select a time that’s open in your schedule. There are free ones online, and you can specify which hours/days you can be available. And they sync up with your regular calendar on whatever platform you use. People generally love this option, and it saves a ton of phone/message tag to set things up.

      (Do check with your IT people to make sure that your company policy allows you to do this.)

      In terms of whether to do a video or a phone call, that’s more of a decision you can make. Sure, some people expect or even prefer a video call, but others are relieved to have a phone call where they don’t have to check their appearance beforehand. If you strongly prefer phone calls, then tell people your tech works better with them.

      Personally, if I’m having an initial or casual conversation with someone, I prefer a phone call. If I’m doing a full interview or client meeting – then it’s invariably by video. It’s a higher-context medium and I can “read” reactions better. Also, since COVID, it’s pretty standard and it’s hard to justify NOT doing a video call when it’s a more formal meeting.

    15. AMS*

      Some people prefer zoom etc for other reasons. I have difficulty hearing over the phone, being able to see a face and/or lip read helps dramatically – until Covid and face masks I didnt realize how much I rely on lip reading to understand. I have a friend who has does regular interviews, from both sides (interviewer and interviewee) and she now wont schedule anything that is not on video; her hearing issues mean she winds up not understanding enough to answer/ask questions easily. So you dont have to ALWAYS do zoom over a phone call if the phone is your preference, just be aware that other people might prefer the other way for their own reasons that they may not even realize.

    16. a clockwork lemon*

      My company doesn’t even really allow phone calls. In theory we all have assigned numbers keyed to an approved VOIP service, but the general expectation is that business-related communications are conducted through Teams on our side. If an external party prefers to dial into the Teams meeting by calling the phone number attached to the invitation, they have the ability to do so.

    17. Serious Silly Putty*

      Additionally, many places allow people to work remotely on occasion but didn’t really create the infrastructure for it. So a phone call may require someone to sit at their physical office desk or give out their personal cell number, while online links work anywhere.

    18. Quinalla*

      There are a lot of advantages to using Teams, Zoom, etc.

      I don’t mind a phone call, but if you are scheduling it, you send a calendar invite and put in the notes I will call your office/cell/whatever at 2pm. Otherwise, just call them immediately and don’t schedule. It’s fine to prefer to call on a normal phone, but it’s not cool to not send a calendar invite when you are scheduling a call.

      You should give Teams, etc. a shot though. Teams at least does transcription if you turn it on and a lot of folks will prefer to use something like that as it is much easier on their end and as others have said so much easier to connect if someone is running late. It’s also way better for anything beyond a 2 person meeting. Also, Teams can be setup to allow someone to call in from their phone (I do this sometimes if somewhere with bad network but fine cell phone), that may be the best of both for ease for the other person and you can still call in from your phone.

    19. Texan In Exile*

      Plus on Zoom, etc, I can wear a headset. With the phone (which I didn’t even have a phone line in my most recent job, so I would have had to use my personal phone), I have to hold it with one hand. If I want to take notes, it’s awkward.

      If you want people to do you the favor of sitting for an interview, you need to make it easy for them.

    20. My oh my*

      We have such different perceptions. Zoom is so annoying – you have to remember where the meeting invite is, open it up, pray there isn’t an update (there is usually an update), wait for the stupid update to finish (now you’re late), look in the mirror to make sure you’re presentable (you’re not, scramble to make yourself look human), find a spot to sit so you don’t look terrible, adjust the light, etc etc etc. A phone call? Absolutely none of this. You keep working, it rings, you talk.

      1. Orv*

        I use Zoom a lot, and it usually works fine, but about one time out of every five something goes wrong. Like I’ll click on the invite and it’ll prompt me for a meeting password that no one gave me, or the invite will have expired, or whatever.

      2. Worldwalker*

        The meeting invite is in your calendar. My company uses Google Meet so I can’t speak to Zoom updates — I only use it occasionally for outside contacts — but if it updates on a regular basis and you can’t just postpone the update (many programs have an “update now? yes/no” option) then leave it open and minimized so it can take care of its updates. I sit at my desk, and my light is my desk light. I’m not applying for a modeling job; I’m discussing current projects with my team. And you know when the meeting is, so you can check how you look in plenty of time.

      3. Louvella*

        For a phone call I have to remember where my work phone physically is (I never do). A zoom invite is right on my calendar with a button to join.

      4. I left my heart on Lotho Minor*

        I mean…a lot of that can be ameliorated by just a touch of like, foresight?
        Open the zoom app before your next zoom meeting (not 5 minutes before but maybe the morning of) to check there are no updates. Do a mirror check earlier than right before the meeting (and/or build in extra time earlier in the day for that even if it’s just an extra 5 minutes in the AM to brush your hair), set yourself up in the good lighting and good seating, etc well before 30 seconds before the meeting start time, etc.

        If someone is worried about remembering all of that (aka me, I’m someone) well that is why I have a dozen alarms and timers on my phone. I hate that but it’s the price I pay for outsmarting a deeply neurodivergent brain so I can stay employed, medicated with blood pressure meds, not leave my car somewhere, etc (dear internet: this is the NOT so “quirky” side of ADHD and autism, thank you next).

        I’m not saying that you’re ND or anything but like, learned helplessness is not a good look on anyone.

      5. Storm in a teacup*

        I mean, this is a touch melodramatic!
        The dial in link is in your calendar.
        Zoom does update fairly regularly, maybe once a month so if you’re not using it very often, fair. You just have a little foresight and check a few mins beforehand.
        You can choose to stay off camera and not worry about appearance or lighting.

    21. Modernhypatia*

      Two other tech reasons for me:

      1) I get a lot of spam calls on my phone, and mostly have it locked down to my contact list (which means calls from other numbers, I won’t pick up unless I know they’re coming and I turn off the auto-blocking).

      2) I’ve been working hybrid since March 2020, and it wasn’t until about four months ago that they finally got things set up so we could take (and make) calls via our desk phones remotely.

      That meant if I wasn’t in the office and someone called and only left a phone number, I either needed to wait until I was in the office or call back from my personal cell phone (really not my idea of a good time). I could, however, set up a Google Meet call and do it from wherever I was working.

      3) And then the ‘I’m not always near my desk, so planning a call means I can be ready to talk, not in the stacks with three heavy books in my hands when the phone rings.’

      1. Worldwalker*

        In my case, it usually involves 3D printing resin (hopefully not on my hands), which is even more inconvenient — and at least books aren’t toxic! If the landline phone rings while I’m washing a build plate full of prints in a tub of alcohol, I’m not going to answer it. It’s probably a phone spammer anyway, trying to sell me a car extended warranty. Everyone else will email me, text me, send me a meeting invite in advance, or ask me on Slack or Google Chat.

        The only legitimate incoming phone calls I can think of in the past month are my BIL calling my husband about a car show, three relatives calling on my birthday, and Costco announcing a recall on a particular food item — part of the whole listeria thing (I’d already eaten it, and yeah, had gastrointestinal effects).

        Technology changes. Never forget that information used to move at the speed of a running man, and you had to burn something to get light. I don’t want to go back there — nor to post horses, semaphore lines, or the telegraph, either. The telephone is just one more step along the way. (I also prefer electric lights to kerosene lamps, etc.)

    24. iglwif*

      I don’t know that I understand the distinction you’re making … but I do like video calls better, because they allow me to pick up all the nonverbal cues that people use when they speak, read the mood of the room better, etc. (Of course, people can also see how I talk, which includes a fair bit of arm-waving and imperfect control of my facial expression, but it is what it is.)

      That said, I think preferring the phone to Zoom/Teams/etc. is enormously less of an issue than refusing to send calendar invites. I, too, have a paper calendar! I love my Leuchtturm1917 planner very much. But it doesn’t stop me from also having an Outlook/Teams calendar with reminders and links like every single other person I interact with for work. If someone doesn’t send me a calendar invite, I have to put the calendar thingy in myself, and if that happens, the odds I’ll forget entirely, misremember the time, lose the link / phone number, or whatever go up exponentially.

  2. Clementine*

    I think, if your job is important to you, follow what the senior management suggests and repost those posts. If you drag your feet, you are likely to be seen as not a team player.

    On the other hand, if this reposting is too onerous a burden, I would suggest to look for another job where senior management does not ask for this.

    1. Worldwalker*

      It’s not that reposting is “too onerous a burden” — it’s a matter of not wanting to use a private resource for the company’s benefit. It’s rather like if the company insisted that employees have to cover their own private cars with signs advertising the company, for no payment, and probably leaving sticky residue behind.

      1. KateM*

        Yeah, I have been in that situation where it was a requirement by grandboss, and I hated it a lot. In my case, it also meant I had to get that personal car to start with.

          1. Crooked Bird*

            I think it’s probably an extension of the metaphor. I think they made her get a social media account. Which is at least less expensive!

      2. Clementine*

        You can have that opinion, the senior management can have their opinion, and it might be that you’re a mutual mismatch for each other. But if I wanted to keep the job, I would do what the senior management asked.

        1. Worldwalker*

          So if senior management said they wanted you to spend Sunday afternoon dressed like a duck and quacking around downtown, you’d do that?

          If not, then you wouldn’t do whatever senior management asked.

          There’s a story about a man who asked a society lady if she would sleep with him for a million dollars. She said she would. He then asked if she’d do it for ten dollars. She replied with shock “What kind of woman do you think I am???” He answered “We’ve already determined what kind of woman you are; now we’re just haggling over the price.”

          There is something you wouldn’t do for “senior management.” It might not be spending your Sunday afternoon dressed as a duck … it might be skipping your son’s (or your own) college graduation to do something that isn’t time-critical, or driving an intern to work and back every day, or not visiting a close relative on their deathbed, or something else — whatever is “too far” for you. But whatever it is, there is something that you wouldn’t do.

          So there’s no difference between you and the OP — it’s just haggling about the details.

          1. Friday Person*

            This feels like a point that would have been fully possible to make without the third paragraph!

            1. Seeking Second Childhood*

              I once heard a followup I’ll butcher– At a million dollars I thought you were making an offensive joke. At ten I know you’re offensive.

            2. Worldwalker*

              The third paragraph is there because it’s a very specific (and well-known) analogy. The whole point is that everyone has a cutoff at some degree. $1 mil is okay, $100 is not okay. It’s an analogy for the idea that someone might consider that posting on LI is okay, dressing up like a duck is not okay. You can’t say that you will (let alone other people should always do what “upper management” demands.

              My rule of thumb for posting is not to post anything you wouldn’t want to be read by your boss, your spouse, or your mother, and that you wouldn’t want to see attributed to you on the front page of the New York Times. That paragraph passes.

          2. Apex Mountain*

            Dressing like a duck and quacking downtown

            Sleeping with someone for a million dollars

            Skipping your kid’s graduation.

            Posting something on LinkedIn.

            One of these things is not like the other

            1. Czhorat*

              Yes, and I think it’s easy to give outrageous examples and say “See! You won’t do ANYTHING senior management asks! You won’t sacrifice your firstborn for them! Refusing to make a LinkedIn post is EXACTLY THE SAME as that.”

              The old insult/joke about offering a woman excessive payment for sex is gratuitously offensive and not really germane to this discussion. What IS is that when one says “you need to follow what senior management prioritizes” it’s taken for granted that this is “within reason and the general scope of your job”. LinkedIn is a mostly professional-oriented platform in which most people wouldn’t see boosting the company as unreasonable; if you were asked to post on your private Facebook or TikTok you might reasonably feel differently.

              1. carrot cake*

                A professional context being the intention and purpose of LI doesn’t mean anyone has to use it that way. For various reasons, I use my account to keep in touch with people who I don’t work with (as same as Insta and FB; I refuse to use twittler). For that one reason alone, I wouldn’t bother to promote my workplace, as it’s really none of their concern and it’s not my obligation to market their good and services on my LI account, especially if I’m paying for premium features.

                I’d go with the advice above, i.e. “Oh, I don’t check my account often at all” or what have you. Workplace might make hay out of that, but I’d cross that bridge when I got to it. \0/

                1. Apex Mountain*

                  You just made a very rational and reasonable comment. The other poster said posting on LinkedIn is akin to prostitution.

              2. Worldwalker*

                I never said they were exactly the same. Of course I used examples that were way over the line (some of which, notably missing your own college graduation, have come up here on AAM) — I was refuting the post that said you should always do what “upper management” wants if you value your job.

              3. Worldwalker*

                I wouldn’t consider using my personal social media account to advertise for the company within reason and the general scope of my job, any more than I’d consider using my private car to advertise for the company. Work and personal things are different.

                And the very old story about the million/ten dollar offer was to point out that people have lines for what they consider reasonable and what they don’t. The person I was replying to said one should that if someone values their job, they should always do anything “upper management” wants. Someone might find a million dollars acceptable — would you be happier if I said that it was to pay them to paint a portrait? — but a hundred dollars unacceptable. Just because you, say, agree to work overtime in a crunch, doesn’t mean you have to agree to use your personal resources and reputation to advertise for your employer — even on your own time, and even after you’re no longer working for them.

                1. Czhorat*

                  I may have phrased it unkindly, but “never do anything management wants” is not a valid point if you want to have any measure of success in any workplace. If you want to push back and say “there are lines all of us wouldn’t cross” then that’s reasonable. If you say “we’re all the same because you’d say no to donating a literal kidney to upper management” then you’re being pedantic at best.

                  It’s a very reasonable statement that in a functional workplace you should for the most part align your activities with the goals set by upper management.

                  I’d also agree that if this is very important to management and very important to you in the other direction you might be working for the wrong company. That doesn’t mean that anyone is wrong – sometimes we have different priorities and different comfort levels with things like this.

                2. Worldwalker*

                  Czhorat, I never said nor implied “never do anything management wants.” My point was exactly “there are lines all of us wouldn’t cross” — and those lines are different for different people. Just because they’re “upper management” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have such a line.

                  Among the things we’ve seen here on AAM, there was someone whose boss was in fact demanding a literal organ donation. Now there’s a line for you.

                  And of course the one who wouldn’t let a person she admitted was her best employee go to her own college graduation.

                  And the one whose idea of accommodation for an employee with OCD was requiring everyone else to line up M-F-M-F at the bus stop outside (along with an over-the-top office dress code).

                  Go back through AAM letters and you can find some pretty bananapants thing that “upper management” has demanded of employees. Maybe if you value your job you should donate an organ, skip your own college graduation , and line up in the specified order. Or maybe, if “upper management” values their employees, they shouldn’t be demanding such things in the first place.

            2. Worldwalker*

              Okay, I’ll rephrase it:

              A guy asked a famous painter if he would paint their portrait for $1 million dollars. The painter said “of course!” The guy then asked “Would you do it for $100?” The painter replied, scandalized, “$100? What kind of artist do you think I am?” The guy said “We’ve already determined what kind of artist you are; now we’re just haggling over the price.”

              Is that better?

              And my point was that just because you agree to do one thing for a company doesn’t mean you have to agree to do everything for them.

          4. Cookie Monster*

            Clementine didn’t say they’d do “whatever” senior management asked. They said they’d do “what the senior management asked,” which in this case means just resharing something on LI.

        2. Still*

          Eh, I imagine in many jobs this is a preference of the management, not a deal-breaker. It might burn some capital but it’s unlikely that the LW is going to need to job-hunt over this. It might be something worth clarifying with their direct manager, but I think it would be jumping to conclusions to say that the job is a bad match based on just this one factor.

          1. Czhorat*

            This, then, frames the real question: How much capital is it worth spending on this?

            There might be a time when you want more flexible hours. Or to push back against some kind of unpleasant work assignment. Or to move to a different team with a different manager. Asking for this might not burn your chances at those, but you only can ask so many favors before they stop being granted. It’s a *very* individual choice here: is a handful of LinkedIn posts worth whatever goodwill it costs with the management team? For me the answer is no, but your mileage may vary.

        3. Satsuma*

          Your comments today sound like you are a very “by the book”, people-pleasing, conformist type of personality. It’s fine if that works for you, but that’s not necessarily the best or only way to be professional and I think you’d do well to recognise that your approach is just one way instead of prescribing it as the best way for everyone. You’re coming across rather didactic and lacking in nuance.

          There is absolutely nothing to suggest the OP will lose their job if they don’t share these posts on LI. That’s a (rather extreme) interpretation you have chosen to place on this situation, and then you’ve offered advice as if that was a given, but it’s not.

          2. Daphne*

            Wow.
            I think Clementine sounds like they know both which side their bread is buttered on and which hills are worth dying on.

        4. Colette*

          It would be pretty rare to fire someone for not sharing something on their personal accounts – and that’s a pretty common and reasonable line to draw.

          I’m not opposed to sharing my employer’s posts – if I believe it makes sense for my network. But that doesn’t mean I’d share any post becuase I was asked to; it means I would share posts if it made sense for me.

        5. Irish Teacher.*

          I don’t see any reason to assume her job would be at risk if she didn’t do this. It’s possible, of course, but it would be fairly extreme. I don’t think that not doing one thing your boss asks, that isn’t part of your job, means you’d have to quit.

          Yeah, it’s good to show willing and accommodate reasonable requests, but it’s also good to have boundaries and say no sometimes. Assuming the LW’s boss is reasonable, I would say it depends on whether the LW does other things senior management asks. Yeah, if you say no to everything, you risk getting a reputation for not being a team player. But if the LW has put themself out on other occasions, then it would be pretty unreasonable for the senior management to make a big deal of these.

          Honestly, I think there’s a high chance they aren’t even monitoring who does it and are just asking everybody in the hopes that maybe 10% or 20% of people will.

        6. dackquiri*

          I don’t think this is on the highway to a pink slip if LW doesn’t comply. There are way too many terrible policies that stay on the books because one manager had one ill-advised whim that got Emperor’s New Clothesed into the standard operating procedure.

      3. Miette*

        Yes, this. LinkedIn’s algorithm doesn’t work like other social sites–all it cares about for performance metrics is on-platform engagement. This is why it’s been asked of OP to like and comment on corporate posts, and why sharing them across a personal network is being asked-for.

        As a marketer, I think it’s a sh*tty model honestly, but if you’re in certain industries–especially those that sell b2b–it can be an important channel. And as a manager, I never think it’s smart or a good business practice to mandate social activity for employees who aren’t already in fields like sales and marketing where this kind of outreach is standard. It’s a recipe for resentment and bad feelings.

        1. Nicosloanica*

          I’m definitely asked to re-post, like, and share my work’s posts across all social media platforms. I do hate it and find it annoying. Much of it is fundraisers which I feel bad blasting to my contacts. It also messes with the algorithm of my personal social media, showing me more boring work-related posts, and every time I log in on my off hours there’s now a bunch of work content (comments on work posts I shared etc) to scroll through. I do it judiciously; I’ll often “like” posts but rarely share them, but not never. I don’t work in marketing. If our whole marketing strategy is dependent on our employee’s social media we’re kind of doomed anyway.

          1. LinkedIn OP*

            I definitely don’t feel at risk of losing my job over this. My immediate manager doesn’t have a huge online presence either. It’s more about dealing with the awkwardness of trying to opt out because of my preference differing from the leadership’s.

            1. Presently DeMo*

              I’m in the camp of my LinkedIn being my personal social media account (my manager wants us all to have headers related to our industry, but I used some capital to refuse it). But if you can’t convince them of that, what about just doing the reposts and leaving them up for a week, then archiving them? That way you’re satisfying their request, but you can keep your activity cleaned up. They’re probably too busy to go back in a month and check that it’s there.

          2. I Have RBF*

            I do not use my personal social media for my job. My company has its own accounts.

            If they want me to repost, like and share my company’s social media, there’s a fee for that. Yes, extra, because those are my personal resources, just like my personal phone and personal car. My personal network is not for advertising for my employer, not even on LinkedIn.

            1. Hendry*

              How much do you charge per like, and how much per post? I might ask my boss if I can get paid for this stuff too

        2. DJ Abbott*

          Thank you for this. I don’t work anywhere near marketing and I would be very uncomfortable with such requests. I *might* go along with LinkedIn requests depending on how intrusive and time consuming, but I would get a different job before imposing such things on my friends on other platforms.

      4. L-squared*

        I guess I see it more as a company giving you swag and you wearing it out.

        It’s not THAT big of a deal to hit repost.

        2. Texan In Exile*

          “company giving you swag and you wearing it out.”

          Except the only times I ever wore company swag was when I was forced to in a trade show booth. Once that event was over, I donated it to Goodwill. I am not my employer’s free billboard.

          1. Random Bystander*

            Company t-shirts are really nice to have if you’re going to be re-painting some room in your house.

    2. ChattyDelle*

      I feel VERY strongly that my personal social media is mine. not my company’s. Every company I’ve worked for has a strong stance on “not speaking for the company” to media inquire, etc – in the same vein, I’m not going to appear to have my company speak for me on my social media. Also, having been in customer service in a small town, Ive had customers reach out to me the messenger with questions/issues about their service. I don’t work outside my working hours & ice had to shut that down quickly. I hbave never played my employer on my social media & I. not going to change that practice.

      2. Ellis Bell*

        When I’ve worked in jobs where it’s expected, I’ve just made secondary accounts; it’s easy to make it clear that you’re talking in a professional capacity, so Xena the Warrior Princess Account is different to her account full of her baking and gardening and catching up with family, but it depends on the type of account sometimes. Linkd In is a bit different.

        1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

          I agree that LI is different. Indeed, I opened an account at my then-employer’s request, though I use it now for general networking, professional development, work-related awareness/activism things as well. I think the boundaries of professional and private content are much more complex there than say Instagram.

          I think most people who are reposting their employers’ or colleagues’ posts are understood to be doing so as representatives of their employer.

          I can’t think why I personally would feel resistant to making this kind of post, *unless I had issues with its content*. When I’m embarrassed or concerned about the work my employer is doing, that’s when I’m already looking for another job.

          1. Jackalope*

            A different perspective: I’m not embarrassed or concerned by my employer and love my work. But I’m currently in a position – let’s say I’m a librarian (although I’m not, alas) – where certain members of the public have decided that it’s acceptable to hate and despise my line of work for no reason other than we’re doing things they dislike, such as offering a wide variety of books. I know that people scan social media to look for librarians to harass them online. So my social media includes nothing at all about my line of work even though I’m proud of what I do, because for me it’s as safety issue.

            1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

              You have LinkedIn without professional information? I’m specifically talking about sharing on LinkedIn, not personal socials.

        2. amoeba*

          Yeah, LinkedIn is, by definition, never really “private”, is it? It’s literally for work stuff.

          I still don’t want to be forced to re-post things from my employer and would probably sit this one out (liking is fine, but only if I’m on LinkedIn anyway, I certainly wouldn’t log in just for that). But seeing people share stuff from their employers is pretty normal there for me, certainly more to the actual point than the weird personal stories you also get a lot. On Instagram or whatever I’d find that much, much more weird, that’s for private stuff!

      3. Dasein9 (he/him)*

        I agree about not being willing to have my company turn my social media presence into its own advertising medium. If it were part of my job, I’d create an account that made it clear that I’m speaking on the company’s behalf, but my own account is for promoting myself and my own career. Sure, sometimes that’s aligned with my company’s promotions and aims, but it’s never from the same perspective.

        I also never use company devices to sign into social media.

    3. Professional Lurker*

      Our marketing manager has recently started sending “please like and share” emails, too (I believe she’s being pressured by the CEO to do this). I just quietly shelve and ignore them. I *think* I have a LinkedIn account? I vaguely remember setting one up when I was finishing college. But it has been more than a decade since then, I have no idea what my login details are, and even if I put in time to recall them and dig up that account, there’s probably 2-3 people I’m connected to there, so what’s the point of me sharing anything?

      If they start pushing this, I’m going to push back on pure principle. My job has absolutely nothing to do with marketing and I should not be required to do this.

      1. SarahKay*

        Yes, my company has a dedicated Teams thing on stuff we can (and are encouraged) to share through our own LinkedIn and I just ignore it all.
        I barely use any social media and in fact I’ve forgotten my LinkedIn password and I’m not currently prepared to jump through the ‘prove you are who you say you are’ hoops to retrieve it.
        If my company started being more pressing about sharing this stuff then I’d just point out the above and decline.

      2. ferrina*

        Most companies I’ve worked at have done this- they send a blanket statement to everyone saying “we posted this on LinkedIn! Please repost it on your personal LinkedIn!”

        Then they don’t follow up on it at all. I don’t think I’ve ever reposted a single thing, and I never got in trouble about it. I was asked about it once, replied that I’m not really on LinkedIn and don’t even know my password, and it was never mentioned again.

    4. Mad Scientist*

      This is pretty extreme. At most jobs, this would be a request, not a requirement, and fine to ignore. That being said, the LW did mention that they don’t see themselves in this job or industry long-term, so they may already be looking for a new job. But you never really know from the outside whether or not management will ask for something like this, and it doesn’t make sense to prioritize this in a job search imo. Unless your job is marketing or something similar, it should be fine to ignore these requests.

      1. Michelle Smith*

        This raises an important point too that I want to emphasize in that the LW is likely changing fields soon. The last thing they need is for prospective employers in the new field(s) to see a bunch of recent posts from LW from their current industry. It’s going to immediately raise a question of whether they’re actually committed to making a switch.

    5. learnedthehardway*

      Agreeing. If it’s something you’re being requested to do by the company to support marketing/pr, I would make the effort.

      That said, these posts are very ephemeral – unless someone goes looking to see whether you have posted something recently, it’s unlikely to make much of a difference. For example, my feed changes ALL the time. I actively avoid it, as it’s just a time suck and plays right into my ADHD tendencies.

      Another thing – love it or hate it, LinkedIn IS a very valuable network building tool, and having a network that you can access is a very good thing for job-hunting, knowledge-seeking, staying informed about industry/functional area news and best practices. It’s not something you can build overnight, either. I see people doing this when they have lost jobs, and it’s really kind of too late, at that point. You want to proactively build your network – it’s a good insurance policy as well, to ensure that you don’t totally lose touch with people you used to work with (eg. say you need a reference from 3 jobs ago – if the company has shut down and your then-manager relocated, would you have their contact info? At least you would be able to message them via LinkedIn.)

      I’m not saying LinkedIn is perfect, but it’s definitely an important tool for recruiters, too.

      1. Texan In Exile*

        I wrote an external campaign and shared only one post to my facebook account because I managed to convince the VPs to talk about A Wrinkle in Time and tesseracts and I thought it was cool.

    7. AnonInCanada*

      Or, if the company insists on you using a personal social media account to repost the company’s achievements, there’s nothing stopping you from making a separate account for just this purpose. Thus, your real personal account does not get the kind of interaction you don’t want, and your company still gets what it wants. At least you’re not being asked to post a sign on your front lawn saying “(COMPANY) IS GREAT!!” Or turning your personal vehicle into a moving billboard.

    8. Another LinkedIn Hater*

      I think this advice is germane to much higher-stakes questions than resharing company posts on LinkedIn and is not really helpful to this specific situation.

  3. annsy*

    For OP1, just to share what it’s like on the polar opposite side of calendars & calls: I haven’t had a physical phone at work in years, and literally all of my meetings are on Teams or similar – I haven’t called into a meeting (versus clicking a link to join) in forever! I’m not even certain how to receive a phone call at work – I think it would come through Teams, too, but it… never happens.

    All that to say: this may be the situation for some people you’re trying to schedule with, too, and that could be why they’re expecting invites and Teams calls. It’s so very thoroughly the norm in my world that I would be a little thrown off by (though slightly jealous of) your low-tech approach!

    1. CL*

      The only people that call my work number are people trying to sell me stuff that I have no budget for. I’ve heard rumors that we’re actually getting rid of work phone numbers next year because no one uses them.

      1. ferrina*

        My phone line was taken away because I never used it. It was only ever used by vendors trying to sell me something- now the vendors just reach out via email.

        1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

          We’re about to get rid of them as well for non-direct-service folks. We do use personal cells some, but the org pays part of our bill. Otherwise it’s all Teams or Zoom. The only people who ever call my desk phone are folks with garbagey sales pitches and irate clients hitting every extension until someone picks up so they can yell. To me, it would just be more frustrating to yell at someone who has no idea what you’re talking about and can’t do anything except transfer you to the extension you just tried to call, but I guess they like to vent. I won’t miss it, for sure!

        2. DJ Abbott*

          My organization used to list manager’s emails on our web site. Shortly after one of them told me we were getting 100+ email solicitations/month, they were taken off the site.

    2. Clementine*

      Same – my work phone is not even hooked up at my desk, which would mean they’d have to call my personal cell phone.

      1. Seeking Second Childhood*

        Office staff work phones were long-ago rolled into VoIP so we take our phones around with our laptops. (Before the pandemic, which we were all grateful for.)

        When people call us from a phone, the call is received on Teams.

        OP might try asking the interviewee if they have a number she can call that is received on their Teams/Zoom of choice.

        1. Seeking Second Childhood*

          There’s also a “call in” number attached to our Teams conference calls–there’s another possible compromise. Just set up the call one way, but join from your phone.

          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            Zoom has the same option. You can call in. So honestly that’s the perfect compromise, OP gets her phone call and the interviewee gets the Zoom/Teams meeting.

            1. No Tribble At All*

              Yes, this! OP, you can use your phone to call into a meeting. Other people can use their zoom or teams or whatever, and you can keep using your phone transcription service. And everything will be logged in a calendar with reminders to call in.

      2. Lenora Rose*

        Whereas in virtually every job I have ever had, even the ones where I took one phone call every month at most, if I didn’t have my work phone plugged in, this would be considered a violation of the workplace norms, and if I said I’d prefer not, I’d be seen as a poor fit for the job.

    3. ptrish*

      yes, if someone wanted to do a traditional phone call with me, I would need to give them my *personal* cell number.

    4. Emmy Noether*

      My company has it set up so that phone calls come in through teams (got rid of our desk phones about a year or two ago, kept the phone numbers). It works quite well – it will behave exactly like an unscheduled voice-only teams call, but show a phone number instead of a name (if the person is a contact, it will also show the name).

      1. A rich tapestry*

        Yeah, this. Hardohone vs Teams/Skype for Business (don’t know about zoom) is not necessarily an or situation, it can be an and situation.

        Barring the back up phone systems all of our telephone calls are routed over the internet to either Teams or phones connected to teams if the users prefer a physical phone (usually reception desks have this because, but there are some individual users who also just prefer a phone).

        1. A rich tapestry*

          *Hardphone.

          Anyway, my point with this is that there may be a solution that works for both LW and their interviewee – it might be worth checking with your company (presumably the IT department plus whoever handles telephony for you) what the possibilities are in regards to this

        2. Storm in a teacup*

          We also get phone calls through our zoom app.
          Actually everyone in my company gets a mobile phone but it’s rarely used to make or take calls. Occasionally if I’m travelling and need to dial in to a zoom meeting.
          Mainly I use my phone to
          A) emails and Teams chat and files working on the go (like in my kitchen when making tea).
          B) WhatsApp chat with colleagues
          C) constantly having to use the app for verifying my identity and finishing the ‘simple’ sign in for our laptops to connect to work software.

    5. amoeba*

      Yeah, I have a company smartphone but only ever use it when travelling, so I’d need to find and charge it first – and also look up the number, because actually, when I use it, it’s also just for Teams and e-mail!

    6. Gamer Girl*

      Same! Only the CEO and other C-Suite have physical phones. Everyone else uses video calls (standard in our industry, but the software varies per company). I have top notch headphones with a mic, so the sound quality is great on both ends.

      It would be very challenging to take an actual phone call at work, as I don’t *have* a work phone. If it was critical for transcription software, I could find a workaround, but it would be an endeavor to set up. I don’t use my personal phone for calls, as it often doesn’t receive them or drops them (bad reception in the office itself) and going outside is extremely noisy–busy 6 lane road and constant construction work besides.

      I’d invite the OP to do a training or some research on updated transcription software. Sounds like something that was optimized for landlines, but isn’t realistic to only stick to that with so many people not owning or having access to a landline or phone at work!

    7. Yaya*

      This is the same for us – people who had a business critical need for a phone at work have a system set up via Teams, but the rest of us have gone from having both a desk phone and a work phone to just using Teams and Zoom. And it works fine! I don’t miss having a phone at all, nor do I need one. I have had on occasion had requests for phone calls (usually with an external person who can only take a meeting during train travel), but it has to go through my personal number.

    8. londonedit*

      We pretty much went completely over to Teams for calls when Covid hit, and we haven’t gone back. I don’t have a work mobile phone and I’m not keen on giving the authors I work with my personal mobile number, so Teams is the way to go when I’m WFH, and even when I’m in the office I hardly ever use the landline on my desk. It’s just easier to use Teams for everything, and when you set up a Teams meeting everyone gets the calendar invitation so it’s more straightforward for people to remember when the call is happening. It’s also much easier to add in extra people if you need to – often authors will want to speak to me and to my boss at the same time, and of course that’s much easier via Teams. I don’t mind taking actual phone calls if I’m in the office, but I’m only in two days a week so the vast majority of the time people can’t call me on a work number.

    9. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      Yeah. I have a work cell phone, but literally nobody calls it, and I don’t usually keep it charged – I’ll use it on travel, or to check Slack and email when I’m off. I maybe have a VOIP number but no idea how it would show up. That part isn’t a huge deal but to me would definitely seem odd (voice-only Zoom would be very normal), but the no calendar invite is over the top. Just send a calendar invite!

    10. Arrietty*

      We don’t have a phone in the office – I do use my personal phone for work calls occasionally, but it’s my company. I don’t expect staff to do the same (other than to let me know if they’re running late etc).

    11. Blue Pen*

      Yeah, same. Or, rather, I do have a phone at work, but I honestly can’t remember the last time I ever used it other than to clear our spam VMs. I couldn’t even tell you what my phone number is off the top of my head. I know I’m hardly alone in that, either.

    12. Sutemi*

      I haven’t had a physical desk phone and would have to give out my personal cell for this call. I don’t give that number out to just anyone.
      Depending on our other interactions, I could have suspicions if this was truly a professional call or someone trying to get my number for dating purposes.

    13. Jamjari*

      I’d add onto this – I have no phone at work and no phone number so any calls would be to my personal phone. I hate using my personal phone for work and avoid it at all costs.

      If OP is calling people at their workplace during work hours, they might be in a similar situation. I’d suggest asking what they’d prefer, especially if it’s a favour for them to speak with you – you can say you plan on calling them but can use [zoom, teams, etc.] if they prefer.

    14. Guacamole Bob*

      I have a desk phone, but I use it so little that I moved it to the side table in my office where I have to get up from my desk to answer it because it was in the way. I get occasional junk calls, calls from the building front desk if there are visitors, and one (1) substantive call with a vendor from the last two years that I can recall.

      And on days I work from home, I’d have to dig out my work phone that I only ever use for Teams and such and figure out what the number is for it.

    15. LCH*

      ha, this is true. i think i’d have to take a work call on my personal cell phone. i don’t have a work phone? we were using WebEx but they have gotten rid of all the numbers that weren’t in use which includes mine. can someone use a phone to call Teams?

      as for the calendar invite, it assures that you both will have the same information about the event and removes typos on their end or having to do time zone calculations.

    16. Anonymous Cat*

      I think I’m supposed to have a physical work phone but I’m not sure where it went!

      During the general Covid shutdown, we all switched to zoom. When we came back to the office, they’d rearranged the desks and my old setup was gone.

      I occasionally call my old work number just to see if it works. So far it still does and still has my outgoing message but no one calls it.

      I wonder if there’s a storeroom somewhere filled with all the physical phones….

    17. GovernerdsUnited*

      OP1: Note sure if this has been discussed yet, but some people don’t want to use a personal device for work. As a remote worker, I don’t have an office phone. And I do not take work calls on my personal device because my company does not pay for it. Teams or Zoom is the only way I can be contacted. I understand that change is hard, but I encourage you to starting trying the new programs. They have transcription tools built right in, which might work out great for you!

      1. Blue Pen*

        Yeah, and if it’s a thing where you don’t want to be on camera, you don’t have to be. I used to interview people for content at my former job, and when they were done on Zoom, I wasn’t always on camera, and no one cared. In fact, I got the impression most people were glad to not be on camera during the discussion.

    18. Estrella the Starfish*

      And I just don’t understand the calendar thing. Sending an invite blocks off the time for the person you are meeting. And how does OP work at a mid-sized organisation without an electronic calendar? Their colleagues don’t know what OP’s schedule is and when OP is free, and can’t send invites for internal meetings?

    19. iglwif*

      I’m not even certain how to receive a phone call at work – I think it would come through Teams, too, but it… never happens.

      I was issued a phone number when I started at this job! I got my kid to test it, and it does indeed ring through as an audio call on Teams. So it’s in my email signature, but nobody has called it and I suspect nobody ever will XD

      The specific phone number they issued me amuses me enormously because the area code is extremely not where I live.

  4. Worldwalker*

    Regarding presidential candidates and medical records:

    The US government hinges much more on a single person than a parliamentary system like the UK government does. If a Congresscritter drops dead over the weekend, or a Supreme Court justice, or basically anyone else, it is just a matter of course: these things happen. A president suddenly dying or becoming unable to do their job, on the other hand, really disrupts things. And as Congress has increasingly abnegated their duties, and the whole “Imperial Presidency” thing spins up, this is becoming worse. It doesn’t matter if the president has a bad back or uses a wheelchair, but dropping dead, having a stroke, being an alcoholic, developing dementia (we really have to stop electing elderly presidents), etc., can all disrupt the functioning of the government. Remember, we vote for a person, not a party. Y’all can replace a prime minister at the drop of a hat; it’s all about party, not person. But with a person, we want to know that the candidate we’re voting for isn’t likely to suffer a severe medical issue and be unable to function.

    I suspect people like corporate CEOs have to disclose their medical details to the people who select them — the board of directors for their company, most likely. In the case of presidential candidates, it’s us.

    1. Dhaskoi*

      Yup.

      One other factor here is that it’s become a thing specifically because trump has made it a thing, but having demanded others do it he refuses to do it himself.

      Regardless of whether you think it’s a good practice in general and regardless of your personal political leanings, it’s an example of trump not meeting a standard he demanded of others. Which is where a lot of the criticism is actually rooted, IMHO.

      1. bamcheeks*

        I think this is is for me — it’s a symptom of a politics rooted in bad faith and fascist ideas about health and disability. I don’t think responding to that kind of politics is ever easy, so I have some sympathy with the Democratic party here, but effectively they have validated some very awful ideas about medical privacy, health and power, and I think that’s a very bad thing. A genuinely democratic approach would be to refuse to play, because anyone can become ill or impaired at any point and the checks, balances and back-ups you have in place are more important than what the individual discusses with their doctor.

        1. Emmy Noether*

          Looking from here, it also seems to me that US elections tend to be intensely personal in a way that feels uncomfortable for me. The health information is one of the worst, but there’s also a focus on the family life, on the faith, etc. of the candidates. It’s all part of the same attitude that candidates have no right to private lives. It makes debates slip into ad hominem very easily.

          Maybe it’s due to the very individual-person-bound understanding of the role of president? Maybe it’s also due to the poisoned athmosphere in politics of recent years.

          1. Worldwalker*

            Again, it’s because presidential elections are a vote for a person, not a party. The Constitution was written with the assumption that political parties would not exist. They very quickly did anyway.

            1. Emmy Noether*

              I understand how it came about, but I still don’t like it. Even if there were no parties, it should still be about the candidate’s political views, not their personal life. And I think we can all agree that ad hominems attacking a candidate personally are not good for political debate.

              1. doreen*

                To be honest, I think that depends a lot on what is considered personal life and there are a lot of things that are not so clear. If a candidate didn’t pay taxes for years, it’s not a political view but not voting for a candidate for that reason isn’t the same as refusing to vote for someone because they are unmarried.

                1. Two-Faced Big-Haired Food Critic*

                  It also depends a lot on what people think is an issue. There was a time when a President who was divorced and remarried would have gotten a lot of side-eye. Reagan was on his second marriage when he was first elected, but by 1980, that was becoming the norm in America.

                  Conversely, raunchy talk, or racial/ethnic slurs, or anything that’s now called politically incorrect, has gradually shifted from the “Isn’t he a character?” slot, through, “Uh, better not print that; some people won’t get it*,” and on into “That one comment (could) cost him the election!” Well, theoretically cost someone an election, anyway.

                  *I’m thinking of a comment made by Earl Butz, a member of Ford’s cabinet, that led to his forced resignation. I’m not going to post it here, because it is racist, sexist and lewd all at the same time. Point is, from what I’ve read and been told, public reaction was mixed. Some people were appalled at what he had said. Others were appalled that he’d been so harshly punished for a joke. W/e.

                2. Goldfeesh*

                  Re: Butz and other politically incorrect things. Is it appalled by what he said only or more that some were appalled when he showed his character?

              2. Beany*

                IMO, the line between personal and public for a political candidate (at any level) partly depends on the kind of platform they’re running on — especially if that platform includes restricting the personal lives of others.

                E.g. if that candidate campaigns on removing reproductive choices from the electorate, I think their own historical use of those choices — for themselves, or for a partner — is highly relevant information for the electorate.

              3. Dasein9 (he/him)*

                You’ve gotten some good replies here. I’d add, too, that what’s called a “debate” in the US system is anything but. These performances don’t really function as debates: discovery of truth isn’t their aim and while policy comes up, it’s not like rival platforms are measured against each other. These are shows that provide opportunities to drop sound bytes. Fallacy is rewarded if it’s delivered as a “zinger” that embarrasses the opposition.

              4. Na$ty Larry*

                There are so many instances in which your personal life and your political views are intertwined, though. Thinking back to yesterday’s letter about the harassment the letter writer experienced from a potential coworker, sexually harassing women is something that the coworker does in his personal life but that most likely reflects what he thinks about women (i.e. not highly). Because it’s not just a job where only the job is at stake, but rather the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of people, I do think it matters *to an extent* what a political candidate is like outside of the job. Obviously the candidate’s golf handicap isn’t important (at all) but it’d be really important for me to know whether the candidate attended a church that’s currently oppressing queer people because that gives me a massive clue on how they might treat queer people in office.

              5. KC*

                I feel like we should know what kind of person we’re handling over the nuke codes to. It would be incredibly negligent to not do a moral background check when this much power is involved.

              6. zillah*

                when many politicians insert themselves into some of the most intimate aspects of everyone else’s personal life, i honestly think their personal lives are kind of fair game. i wish that it wasn’t a part of our politics, but i don’t think the toxicity within our political climate is centered around politicians’ personal lives, and i’d argue that the days in which the media would virtually assist elected officials in covering up their affairs was also deeply problematic.

            2. SnackAttack*

              I agree to a point and believe that this would be the case in an ideal world, but to me, a candidate’s personal life can tell me a lot about what they practice vs. what they preach. Oftentimes, the public persona and beliefs they present are very different, and it’s important to examine their personal actions to suss out the extent to which they’re exaggerating. Trump is obviously the most extreme example and has actual policies that confirm how much of what he says is BS, but even looking back at his first election when he had no political history, he would spout all these claims that his personal life didn’t back up (for example, saying he loves and supports women but privately saying you can grab them by the p*ssy when you’re famous).

              Again, in a perfect world this wouldn’t be the case, but unfortunately, the state of US politics makes public and private lives way more intertwined than in other places.

              1. Emmy Noether*

                I don’t think I quite agree. The best predictor of a politician’s voting/policy is their past voting/policy, and their political affiliations. A lot of politicians also have private lives that don’t align with their politics. See, for example, every female ultra conservative politician ever, by definition. Heck, we have a lesbian fascist politician here (the absurdity!!), who looks ok from her private life, but is really, really not.

                I agree that criminal activity, such as sexual assault, should really be disqualifying, but I don’t think of that as private. I also don’t think of public statements on a TV show as private.

          2. Caramel & Cheddar*

            Yeah, watching from outside the US, I’m continually baffled how much the candidates’ families seem to be required to participate. There’s no reason on earth as a non-American that I should know anything about Tim Walz’s kids, and yet here we are.

            1. londonedit*

              Yep. And the *one time* Andrea Leadsom made *one* comment about Theresa May not having children, that was it, Leadsom was out of the Tory leadership race almost immediately. It completely tanked her chances because people thought it was so inappropriate. We’re also deeply uncomfortable whenever a PM or senior politician starts talking about their religious beliefs – Tony Blair did it at one point and people didn’t really know what to do with themselves. Politicians here do sometimes appear with their spouses, but only for important occasions like when they take office or when there’s a state event or whatever. Of course they mention their families when it’s relevant somehow, but it’s not part of the whole ‘package’, as it were.

            2. Nomic*

              It wasn’t *that* long ago that Candidate’s children were “safe” from media. W’s children had a couple reports on them while teenagers, but were mostly left alone (as it should be). Obama’s children were also mostly left alone, except for a few racists.
              Trump was different in that his children (except Barron) were full-grown and part of his administration.
              Only now with the current election have a candidate’s underage children really played a part. In particular, the attention paid to Walz’s (disabled) son was gross.

            3. Amy*

              Maybe it’s more intense but I’m American and am certainly familiar with Brigitte Macron, Cherie Blair, that Rishi Sunak has 2 kids and married into a fabulously wealthy family + of course, more than I need to know about the British royal family, the Middleton family etc.

              1. londonedit*

                That’s just tabloid gossip, though – they don’t have anything to do with the actual politics (apart from occasionally standing next to their spouse, like Rishi’s poor wife standing there looking glum when he left Number 10). It’s not the same as in the US where a Presidential candidate’s spouse is expected to accompany them everywhere and be actively involved with what they’re doing. Keir Starmer’s wife has her own career and rarely appears in public with him.

                1. Student*

                  But the President is also our ceremonial head of state. You have the King to play that role, and the Prime Minister as the political leader. Here it’s rolled into one office.

                2. Amy*

                  The British royal family serves a function beyond just tabloid gossip. They are present and visible, releasing family portraits, speaking at events around the country and to some extent sharing their lives, cute back-to-school pictures of the kids and more serious things like Kate’s cancer.

                  Americans don’t have that. Sure, we have celebrities but they come and go quickly.

                  I personally have enjoyed some of the glimpses into certain political figures’ lives. Especially the Obama family. But I like getting to know the Harris and Walz families too. It’s far more interesting than someone like the Kardashians

                3. Anna Held*

                  First and Second Ladies play an important ceremonial and (in a minor way) policy role. They have an office, staff, and budget. They make public appearances on their own. So some scrutiny is warranted.

                  We’re also stuck with these people for 4 years no matter what.

        2. Worldwalker*

          Anybody can become ill or impaired, yes, but a person with chronic heart problems, for instance, is more likely to do so than someone without them.

          Also, in a sense, the UL prime minister is the representative of the policies of the party; the US president is the initiator of the policies of the party. It’s not that simple, of course ; nothing ever is.

          1. Blarg*

            More importantly, the UK PM can be replaced much more simply than the US president. We have zero ways to get rid of a “bad” president midway through a term — there’s no mechanism like resigning as happens in parliamentary systems when you lose the support of your party and/or the electorate. A president who has become incapacitated requires the use of the 25th Amendment, which gets a lot of play in every TV show or movie about the US government, but in practice has never been used except for when a president chooses to invoke it for a couple hours when getting a colonoscopy or something.

            1. EvilQueenRegina*

              Even with Liz Truss it wasn’t quite that simple – I’m not sure whether this rule is specific to the Conservative party, but there was a rule in place at the time where she couldn’t be subject to a no confidence vote because it was less than a year after she’d been elected (May and Johnson were both quite a way past that when they had their no confidence votes, but once they survived them they were technically meant to be safe for another year, had events such as lots of ministers resigning at once not forced the issue).

          2. bamcheeks*

            But the president has played that role for literally two centuries: the demands for Obama’s birth certificate to be published and now for medical records are a much more recent phenomenon. I think they’re both part of the same trend, which is a bureaucratic state and all these ideas of personal records as a site of Truth are being weaponised by fascists.

            I also don’t think that this is a uniquely American phenomenon, FWIW– the particular manifestation of it may be more evident in the US because of the way it coincides with a constitution that centres so much power in one person, but part of the reason I find it so disturbing is because the rise of fascist ideas and politics is just as evident in Europe.

    2. The Prettiest Curse*

      We have been replacing our PMs a lot more frequently of late, though historically they have served for relatively long periods of time – Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher are two examples from the 20th century. We don’t have term limits for PMs, so you’re in the role till you lose an election and/or your party gets fed up of you.

      We also traditionally haven’t had the role of deputy PM and PMs can still choose whether or not to have one – however, PMs will designate a successor in case of their death in office if they don’t have a deputy. The PM doesn’t decide whether to have a deputy and (if applicable) appoint their deputy till they take office, so you don’t know who it will be until it’s officially announced.

      We have been moving towards giving increasing amounts of power to the PM’s role recently, so we may eventually go in the same direction regarding medical records. Though I think the US is a different case – you invest a lot of your self-image as a country in whoever is president because they have so much power (and because you vote for directly for president), whereas the UK doesn’t go in for that concept as much, though I’m not really sure why.

      2. Seeking Second Childhood*

        Tangent for Saturday if you want: US doesn’t technically vote directly for a president. We vote for local “electoral college” members who are committed to a candidate but trusted to make a similar decision if a wrench is thrown into the works.

        IIRC, it was an 18th c system working around communication and transportation issues we don’t now have–but has the current day benefit of resolving “what happens if a presidential candidate dies after votes are cast?”

        1. PepperVL*

          The whole “working around communication issues” thing is how it’s sold and taught to is in schools.

          The reality is that it’s deeply rooted in the institution of chattel slavery and the 3/5 Compromise. It gave more votes to Southern states that had large populations of enslaved people who had absolutely no say in politics (or literally anything else).

          The current day “benefit” isn’t resolving the issue of what happens if a president dies between election & taking office. That’s an easy issue to solve. Today, the benefit is to (primarily conservative) candidates who get votes in middle America where each electoral college vote represents fewer people. In Wyoming, an electoral college vote represents about 195,000 people. I’m Texas, California, and Florida, one electoral college vote represents over 700,000 people.

          1. CommanderBanana*

            ^ Thiiiiiiiiiis the electoral college was completely designed to give Southern slave-holding states more power and now it gives conservative states more power. They win because it’s rigged.

            1. Spooky*

              Yeah so many questions about voting patterns can be solved by googling those maps called “land doesn’t vote; people do”.

        2. Michelle Smith*

          Interesting! I suppose given the recent, multiple attempts on the life of one of the candidates it does make sense to have some way to deal with that possible outcome.

          1. zillah*

            allowing randos people don’t know to decide that absolutely doesn’t make sense – the time it comes from didn’t allow democratic things like the direct election of senators. the state just chose them. districts didn’t have to be equal in population, either. the list goes on. it’s an actively undemocratic vestige of slavery and a time when most states restricted voting to white men who owned property.

    3. flutter by*

      The age thing seems very relevant to me – over the last 20 years, the average new PM was aged 51, while the average new president was 65. That’s a pretty significant difference!

      1. ScruffyInternHerder*

        I feel like Trump skewed this number.

        GWB was 58 years old when he was elected for a second term in 2004.
        Barack Obama was 47 years old when he was elected in 2008, 51 in 2012.
        Trump was 70 years old when he was elected in 2016, 74 when he lost in 2020.

        If you go back further GWB was 54 when first elected, and Bill Clinton would have been 46 and 50 years old, respectively when elected for his first and second terms.

        (Obviously ages here only account for the “age at the end of the year” as I didn’t do the nitty gritty of “well his birthday was AFTER election day” or vice versa…Election year – Year born = age referenced above)

        1. bamcheeks*

          From the UK perspective, it wasn’t just Trump. In 2015, the US president was a Gen Xer, so was the UK prime minister (Cameron), so was the leader of the opposition (Milliband). Go forward to 2016, and it was The Revenge of The Boomer on both sides of the Atlantic: Clinton vs Trump in the US, Theresa May and Corbyn in the UK.

          I was born in 1978 and Obama, Cameron and Milliband were all like, 10-15 years older than me. I was all ready for politicians to be my age, and then suddenly they were all the same age as my dad. Wild times.

          2. Orv*

            Trump is a Boomer, but only barely; he was born in 1946. Biden is actually part of the Silent Generation.

          3. Broadway Duchess*

            I was born in 1978 and Obama, Cameron and Milliband were all like, 10-15 years older than me. I was all ready for politicians to be my age, and then suddenly they were all the same age as my dad. Wild times.

            bamcheeks, my husband said just about the same thing yesterday and we figured that the people born from ’77-’81 (the Xennial microgeneration) just want to be left alone at this point, especially free from the Boomer/Millennial/ Gen Z wars.

    4. Irish Teacher.*

      Yeah, looking from Ireland, that’s pretty much what I was thinking. If our taoiseach was incapable, the parliamentary party can vote him out as leader (Heck, that actually got fairly ridiculous when Brian Cowen was leader and messing up to the extent that a US talk show basically commented on it and ministers were standing around planning how to make him resign in full view of the media). Ireland’s governments are also usually coalitions, so if a taoiseach was incompetent and for whatever reason, his own party failed to act, their coalition partners would probably pull out and trigger and General Election, but even in countries like the UK where overall majorities are common, the party can still intervene.

      It seems to be a lot harder to “fire” a sitting US president, so I can see why people would want a higher level of transparency. Because you are pretty much committing to four years of that person in a position of power.

      1. londonedit*

        Yeah, I mean one of our Prime Ministers was basically forced to resign for being less use than a head of lettuce, so there’s that. As we’ve seen over the last few years, the role of Prime Minister can be a perilous one and if Parliament loses confidence in you then that’s pretty much it, you’ve got to go. Which is different from how a US President operates.

      2. Worldwalker*

        It’s never been done, even when it should have been. The closest we’ve come has been pushing Nixon to resign.

    5. Thinking*

      We have a Vice President. When the president has died, resigned, or just had surgery, the VP has always stepped in and life goes on.
      Perhaps you are too young to remember 1963, or 1974, but the admin transitioned very quickly. Emotionally, the electorate took longer.
      Nonetheless, yes, younger leaders in Congress too, please.

      1. Worldwalker*

        I was a baby in 1963.

        Fortunately for scholars of ancient Rome, one does not have to personally experience events to study them.

      2. Hapax Legomenon*

        Perhaps we are all too young to remember 1919, when the President had a stroke and his wife had to run the country under the pretense of “I asked my husband and this is what his orders are.” There is an amendment that should solve that problem now, but honestly, if a sitting president refuses to give up their position voluntarily despite being definitely incapacitated, I don’t know how much I trust Congress to step in.

        1. MsM*

          I’m also not old enough to remember Reagan personally, but I’m given to understand the amendment didn’t actually prevent there from being some brief confusion or at least some miscommunication over who was in charge.

        2. Irish Teacher.*

          There was actually a case where an Irish president died in office and…there didn’t seem to be any plan for the situation (there really should have been since the previous president served until he was over 90 – and still managed to outlive his successor – and well, it would have been reasonable to assume there was a risk he might die in office) and there was apparently a serious suggestion at the time that they just appoint his wife as president.

          It wasn’t taken up and there was an election instead. We don’t have a vice president. Of course, our president is basically a figurehead with…I think less power than the British monarch, so…not the same situation.

        3. goddessoftransitory*

          Yup, Wilson, wasn’t it? And everyone was too unsure of what to do so they just let it continue.

      3. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        Yes we have a VP but its still a jarring transition. We need to know if that transition is likely to happen. And whether or not we can live with the VP choice if it does happen. Which is very relevant this election cycle.

      4. Blarg*

        It hasn’t always worked like that. The President has to choose to invoke the 25th, or the Cabinet has to vote on it. So, for instance, when Reagan was shot and being rushed into emergency surgery, he did not sign a letter putting Bush Sr in charge. Without the action, Bush Sr was NOT in charge while Reagan was in surgery and recovering. Had a crisis happened, the VP could not just step in. They’d have to formally invoke the 25th, which requires a vote of the Cabinet. It isn’t simple, and it is not great. If the president dies, it is automatic. In any other setting, it is absolutely not. If your goal is to disrupt government, a gravely injured president would be much more effective than a deceased president.

    6. Audrey Puffins*

      Y’all can replace a prime minister at the drop of a hat

      And, indeed, we went through quite a spate recently of repeatedly doing so

      1. Happily Retired*

        For those of us completely lost by the lettuce thing, please google liz truss lettuce wiki

        I’m still dyin’ at The Economist and The Daily Star combining to produce this.

    7. supply closet badger*

      Thanks for sharing these insights. It makes me wonder, though, about the role of the vice president? Aren’t you also voting for them as the person who would take over if the president could no longer do their job?

      1. CityMouse*

        In theory, yes, in reality, it’s rare. For instance, when Teddy Roosevelt was made VP it was intended to sideline him politically and remive him from the New York governorship. Then McKinley was assassinated. In practice its not really what the office ends up being.

      2. Lifelong student*

        Yes- and that factor should be taken into account when assessing the potential of it happening.

      3. doreen*

        I think that’s also part of the issue – it’s not a system where if president dies , then another body will choose a replacement. We are voting for the possible replacement along with the president and the chances of that person ending up as president might affect who I vote for. It’s extremely unlikely in the current election, but it’s possible that I might not vote for the presidential candidate I prefer because I both don’t like the running mate and I think there is a good chance the running mate will have to take over .

        1. Bee*

          I remember this being a discussion point with McCain, in fact! He was a perfectly normal Republican candidate, but he was 72, and his running mate was…..not someone many people wanted taking over if he died in office.

          1. goddessoftransitory*

            It’s pretty much agreed that his selection of Palin sunk his campaign (or was a major factor.)

      4. Great Frogs of Literature*

        In practice, the VP is mostly chosen to complement the president — appeal to different geographic area, demographics, etc, and evaluated less on their merits as a possible president.

      5. Blarg*

        Really we are only choosing a VP for if the president dies in office. Otherwise, the president gets to decide if they are or are not competent — and with the exception of brief medical procedures, no president has ever decided that except for Nixon, under great duress and years later than he would have been forced out in a parliamentary system.

        If the president dies, resigns, or is removed, and the VP becomes the president, the VP slot becomes vacant. The new president has to appoint a successor VP, who has to be approved by a majority of both the house and the senate.

        Until there is a new VP, the next person in line is the Speaker of the House. If the House is controlled by the opposite party of the president, why would today’s House ever vote to approve a VP when their guy would be next?

        If Biden resigned office and Harris became president today, you think there is any chance that the House approves her choice for VP? Of course not! They want Mike Johnson to be next in line to be president!

    8. Seashell*

      I think you might be exaggerating the results of a President dying in office. Assuming the Vice President is alive and well, it’s going to be resolved quickly. This scenario hasn’t happened in my lifetime, but I have seen the pictures of LBJ being sworn in before Mrs. Kennedy even got to change her clothes following her husband’s assassination.

      That said, I am fine with people expecting information about this (and the candidate’s tax records, which wouldn’t be required for most jobs either.) I would also be fine with both candidates being examined by a nonpartisan doctor, so we don’t get wild claims about someone being the most healthy candidate ever or that mild problems are a big deal.

      1. MsM*

        Yeah, but we’re not just talking about situations where it’s obvious the President is incapacitated or past the point of recovery. With terminal illness, or cognitive decline, it might not necessarily be clear when the President needs to relinquish responsibility, or they might not be willing to go voluntarily. And if you can’t get everyone who needs to agree to agree to remove them without their consent, that’s a problem.

      2. steliafidelis*

        minor point: Jackie Kennedy was given the opportunity to change but refused to, saying she wanted people to see what had happened to her husband.

    9. Clisby*

      I had the same thought about CEOs – surely their boards would require this. There even *might*, in the case of publicly traded companies, be circumstances where the SEC would require public disclosure – but that likely would be for something really out of the ordinary, not just a routine medical information.

      1. Clisby*

        Adding – I remember this coming up years ago when Steve Jobs was dying of pancreatic cancer. Apple came under criticism for not being more transparent about his health, and it triggered an SEC investigation. (I don’t recall that the SEC took any action against Apple, but this is the kind of really extraordinary case where a company *might* have an obligation to disclose.)

        1. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

          There’s always a risks section in the annual report. It used to be mostly just stuff about lawsuits, but more and more it’s also about things like dependence on a single contract/customer, dependence on a single hotshot employee, impending regulatory changes.

          1. Clisby*

            Out of curiosity, I looked up Berkshire Hathaway’s 2023 report. This is one of a few US companies inextricably tied to an individual.

            (Of course, Warren Buffett is 93, so any investors who don’t realize he could shuffle off this mortal coil sooner rather than later are morons, and I have no sympathy for them.)

            “We are dependent on a few key people for our major investment and capital allocation decisions. Major investment decisions and all major capital allocation decisions are made by Warren E. Buffett, Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, age 93. In 2018, Berkshire’s Board of Directors appointed Mr. Gregory Abel as Vice Chairman of Berkshire’s non-insurance operations and Mr. Ajit Jain as Vice Chairman of Berkshire’s insurance operations. Mr. Abel and Mr. Jain each report directly to Mr. Buffett. Mr. Buffett continues to be responsible for major capital allocation and investment decisions. If for any reason the services of our key personnel, particularly Mr. Buffett, were to become unavailable, there could be a material adverse effect on our operations. Should a replacement for Mr. Buffett be needed currently, Berkshire’s Board of Directors has agreed that Mr. Abel should replace Mr. Buffett. The Board continually monitors this risk and could alter its current view regarding a replacement for Mr. Buffett in the future. We believe that the Board’s succession plan, together with the outstanding managers running our numerous and highly diversified operating units, helps to mitigate this risk.”

    10. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

      Also, for an example from OP’s side of the pond, Francois Mitterand caught a lot of flack late in his second term when it came out that he had known of significant medical problems (cancer) while running for re-election but did not disclose them – and in fact told a doctor to lie about it. That was when French presidents still served 7-year terms, so it was more consequential.

    11. RagingADHD*

      It’s not so much that it’s disruptive. It’s that very often, the electorate doesn’t particularly want the vice president in office. Before 1804, the vice president was the runner-up in the presidential election, so it’s safe to assume a significant portion of voters actually wanted them in office. Since the change to a selected running mate, the VP candidate has often been the runner up or a very strong contender in the primaries, so at least a significant portion of their own party would be happy to see them in office.

      But increasingly in the last several election cycles, running mates have been chosen for their perceived ability to campaign, rather than their qualifications for office. At least, that’s true on one side of the aisle. The last GOP vice president who was subsequently elected in their own right was in 1989.

    12. Debby*

      I just wanted to point out that Harris did NOT release her medical records. She released a statement from her doctor who described her health.
      Not defending Trump, of course. Just wanted to point out that it’s not the same thing. I wouldn’t recommend anyone releasing their medical records-you just never know what someone could do with them.
      But I do think a statement from a doctor that communicates your overall health and ability to do the job at hand is appropriate.

      1. CV*

        True, but it has a LOT of detail; you can read it at whitehouse.gov

        It covers: seasonal allergies, myopia, family history of colon cancer, lack of history of several major issues such as diabetes, blood pressure, high cholesterol, cardiac disease, pulmonary disease, neurological issues, osteoporosis, or cancer. It says she’s up to date on standard preventative treatments, “routine vigorous aerobic exercise” and general diet.
        Long paragraph on most recent physical exam and bloodwork.

        So it isn’t like opening her medical file, but there’s a lot of solid information there.

    13. Cohort1*

      A president suddenly dying or becoming unable to do their job, on the other hand, really disrupts things.

      This is true, but we also have a go-to process for taking care of it – the VP steps up, or if both of them die at the same time the Speaker of the House steps up. The trick here is if we have an unhealthy/elderly presidential candidate who might die of a known condition/be incapacitated while in office, we need to know ahead of time how we feel about the VP. Biden was elderly-ish when he was elected in 2020, but Harris as #2 was an OK replacement. Trump was also getting on when he was elected in 2016 and while Pence isn’t my cup of tea, he fell in the (hold my nose) OK category. If definitely elderly Trump is elected this time, his #2 is Vance who is widely recognized as a Christian Nationalist and/or a christofascist which is another story altogether. The word “dementia” gets thrown around a lot and it may be true. If Trump actually has emerging dementia (I think it’s likely-he’s been showing symptoms for a while now), then we really need to know how we feel Vance. Even the most ardent Trump followers may not want Vance to take the reins.

  5. KateM*

    For OP#3, I’d like to know what does “a lot of exclamation marks” look like (especially as OP has used non in their post). Every sentence ending with one – or maybe several? I can see how that may feel as “aggressive enthusiasm”.

    1. Lara's*

      I think this is what the anonymous feedback was referring to. I have a coworker who uses multiple question marks after benign questions and it comes across as urgent and stressful.

        1. KateM*

          Just trying it out:

          For OP#3, I’d like to know what does “a lot of exclamation marks” look like! Especially as OP has used none in their post! Every sentence ending with one – or maybe several?? I can see how that may feel as “aggressive enthusiasm”!

          I think this is what the anonymous feedback was referring to! I have a coworker who uses multiple question marks after benign questions and it comes across as urgent and stressful!

          Yes! Exclamation points in a work setting should be very rare!

          2. amoeba*

            Hah. I mean, I absolutely agree with you that this example is way over the top and is indeed “aggressively enthusiastic”, but I’d push back against the statement that exclamation marks should be *very rare* – I typically use one or two in most e-mails, and I do feel like it makes the tone much more friendly (and, yes, enthusiastic, hopefully without crossing the line into aggressive!)

            So, something like “Hi XY, thanks a lot for the quick reply! We should have the shipping ready next week – let me know if there are any questions. Are you coming to the meeting on Thursday? Looking forward to seeing everybody in person! Best, amoeba”

              1. amoeba*

                Of course not needed – but I read it in a different way with and without the exclamation mark (more of an enthusiastic upward inflection with the exclamation mark, more flat/formal without it). Which is what I’m trying to convey, which is why I write it that way.

                If anybody has a problem with being thanked to enthusiastically… well, I’d say that’s a them problem, not a me problem.

                I generally only use it for friendly/positive statements though, I can see that “please send me the report by Thursday!” might come across badly!

              2. Hohumdrum*

                I dunno, I agree with the above poster it depends a lot on context. In formal emails I keep it toned down and would agree with your advice that exclamation points should be rare. But when sending messages internally, I use a lot of exclamation points because to be honest that is how I talk naturally- I tend to be very energetic and enthusiastic when speaking with colleagues in person as well. It’s a key part of my roll here, so it would be strange in my case if someone complained about it. Amongst internal colleagues I email like I speak with them, and I think that’s fine. Though, unlike LW, I’ve never received any complaints. So it does seem like a situation dependent thing, and LW should ask boss for context rather than just eliminating all !! from their chats.

            2. Emmy Noether*

              I think this depends a lot on communication culture in the company. If you’re using three times as many exclamation points as anyone else, maybe dial it back. If it’s within the norm, it’s fine.

              Personally, I’d use it similarly to amoeba. I want to be expressing enthousiasm for quick replies from people, and an exclamation point is an efficient way to do that.

              Nearly never multiple exclamation marks or question marks, though. Those read aggressive to me, not enthousisatic. Sometimes I will use them to express shock.

              1. amoeba*

                To quote the late, great Terry Pratchett – “Multiple exclamation marks,’ he went on, shaking his head, ‘are a sure sign of a diseased mind.” (Which is always the first thing my mind goes to when I see those now, so I definitely avoid them!)

                1. Emmy Noether*

                  I think of that every time I see them, too. I have fortunately managed never to quote it out loud (except in front of my bio family, who are as snarky and into Pratchett as I, and will take it the right way).

                2. Silver Robin*

                  I love Pratchett, but I absolutely use multiples in personal communications (not professional). Since his quote is more general about the usage, I would push back on my mind being diseased, thank you. They are tonal indicators and helpful in that way.

                3. amoeba*

                  @Silver Robin – he is referring to multiple exclamation marks as in “!!!”, not as in “more than one exclamation mark within a given text. Which I’d argue is definitely not something that should be used in a work context, like, ever!

                4. amoeba*

                  And for private communications – yes, I also use them, and I also smile to myself and think of Terry every time I do it.

                5. Silver Robin*

                  Yes, I use multiple in a row. “!!!!” is a common response to surprising or exciting news. Or “thank you!!!” when somebody does a much appreciated favor. “????” to shift from “confused” to “bewildered”. It is emphasis for tone.

                  I just really dislike when folks get snarky about evolving communication norms. It always reads “kids these days” and elitist about language. Different cultural interpretations of tonal indicators as mentioned elsewhere in this thread is one thing, but “diseased mind” is mean.

                6. L.H. Puttgrass*

                  He used that one twice. The one you quote is from Eric. He brought it back in Reaper Man: “Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.”

                  Eric was an early book, when Terry said he was still figuring things out. It’s interesting to see how he revised some of things in those early books when he re-used them later.

                  (I tried to add lots of exclamation points to the above, just for ironic or illustrative effect, but I couldn’t bring myself to do it.)

            3. Seashell*

              I write similarly to you in emails and, to a lesser extent, IMs. Writing in that context lacks a tone of voice, so nothing but periods can come across as overly serious or unfriendly. My coworkers are usually the same way.

              1. Saturday*

                Because my coworkers write like this, I’ve had to increase my use of exclamation points as well – otherwise those periods would seem even more serious/unfriendly. It’s just about picking up on the culture of your workplace.

            4. iglwif*

              That’s how I write work emails, too. (I sometimes go through and take out some !s if I’m concerned there are too many.)

              Nobody has ever called my email style “aggressive,” but that may be because people who have met me are unable to fit me and the word “aggressive” into the same conceptual space no matter how many !s I use ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          3. londonedit*

            We had an editorial assistant a couple of years ago who was Very! Keen! On exclamation marks! to the point where my boss had to have a word and ask her to tone it down a bit. I think it was just because she was fresh out of uni and not fully used to workplace communication, and also she wanted to convey her enthusiasm. But it was a bit much, and it was undermining her message – in her case it was literally emails that went ‘Hi Author, I hope all’s well with you! I’m emailing because we are expecting stock of your book to arrive this week! Can you send me your address so I can send your gratis copies to you? Thank you so much!’ which just looks a bit immature, and like you’re not confident about what you’re saying.

            I occasionally use exclamation marks, especially if I’m having a less formal email conversation with a colleague or a freelancer I work with a lot, but if I was sending that email it’d be ‘Hi Author, I hope all’s well with you. I’m emailing because we’re expecting stock of your book to arrive this week – can you send me your address so I can send your gratis copies to you? Thank you so much’ – I *might* put an exclamation mark at the end of ‘Thank you so much!’ but definitely not elsewhere, and I definitely wouldn’t use them at the end of the majority of my sentences.

            1. Worldwalker*

              Your second version is much better.

              I “hear” the first version in the voice of an over-excited toddler. IMO, it’s better to keep exclamation points for exclamations, lest you come across a bit like a golden retriever puppy.

            2. Turquoisecow*

              I will often reread things to make sure I don’t have excessive exclamations before I send it. For work communication, definitely no more than one, unless it’s a longer email, then maybe two, but I don’t write many emails longer than a paragraph or so like your example.

        2. Spooky*

          Not over teams, or other instant messaging, they shouldn’t! In casual online or text conversation, exclamation points indicate a friendly and lighthearted tone. Ending every sentence with a period comes across as terse and unfriendly. This has been the norm for decades now, so pretending otherwise edges toward curmudgeonly.

      2. WeirdChemist*

        I had a former coworker who ended most sentences with ellipses… It was admittedly a bit stressful to read his emails… I knew he wasn’t trying to be passive-aggressive, but it could definitely come off that way…

        1. Turquoisecow*

          The former COO of my current company seemed incapable of using any punctuation except (very long) ellipses. He signed his emails Thanks ……… (name). I felt like asking him if he’d ever heard of commas.

        2. SuprisinglyADHD*

          The ellipses thing is something I’ve only seen in texts from older people I know (not emails though). I suspect it’s a combination of “a single period is hard to see” and a difference in how they read the “tone” of punctuation. Like, an ellipse implies that they’re continuing their thought or leaving a space for you to contribute, but a period feels Final.
          I mentally file it under “tone-switching”, same as how long a text can be, or whether to use emoticons, emojis, or neither. For certain people I interpret different tones/punctuation in different ways than usual, but until I figure it out for each person it can be stressful.

          1. metadata minion*

            The amazing book Because Internet has some really interesting evidence that this may actually have started out as a writing convention on postcards. (Why people used ellipses when writing postcards is still unclear to me.)

            1. iglwif*

              I love that book!

              I text a lot with my Gen Z child and a moderate amount with my slightly-older-than-Boomer mother, which means I sometimes end up having to interpret each one’s texts to the other. (My kiddo will say, “I know Bubbie doesn’t mean to sound menacing but look what she texted me lol” and send me a screenshot beginning with “Dear [Name],” like an email, followed by a huge wall o’ text full of …s.)

              I have concluded that my mom uses … the way my kid uses (and I use) a paragraph: to end a thought and begin a new thought without the aggressive finality of a full stop.

              Except that the …s do, in fact, seem very menacing XD

    2. Ellis Bell*

      This is it, if OP is right about contributing mostly in writing. I can’t think of anything else that could convey both enthusiasm and aggression so well, or so unintentionally. I am kind of fascinated by how differently an exclamation mark is possibly being perceived here, and if OP knows anyone who likes to nerd out over punctuation and written communication, it might be worth getting some feedback on any examples from someone you trust. Or, it’s simply the case that the person read way too much into it.

    3. Artemesia*

      Just as all caps feels like shouting, I think a bunch of exclamation points feels similarly loud and aggressive. Why would you use a ‘lot’ of exclamation points in your normal professional discourse. Why not punctuate normally and see if that is it.

    4. mreasy*

      “I’m so excited we got X project done! This is going to be such a huge help to Y client!” does not seem at all aggressive.

      1. Clisby*

        I don’t think it’s necessarily the *number* of exclamation points – it’s whether even one of them is warranted. An exclamation point is supposed to signal excitement, or astonishment, or joy, etc. “Looking forward to seeing you tomorrow!” to my grad school daughter I haven’t seen in months is fine; saying it to the boss I plan to have a regular 1:1 with is kind of odd (to me, at least),

      2. Paint N Drip*

        Your example seems excited but doesn’t strike me as ‘off’. I’m thinking “thanks for all of your hard work!!!!!” comes off very differently
        Although Clisby makes a good point about the use case where it feels incongruous with workplace norms

      3. KateM*

        Your example may feel pushy to someone who doesn’t feel any special kind of excited about having the project done – something along the lines of recent repost (September 26, 2024) of “my coworker is obsessed with us being happy all the time”.

    5. duinath*

      I… actually don’t agree with this. Mainly because I *know* someone who always uses exclamation marks, almost never uses periods, and even uses exclamation marks when he’s using question marks.

      Fake example in a different language than he uses: Hi! I’m in town! Want to get dinner!?

      So. The reason I don’t think this means he is aggressively enthusiastic, is uh. We’ve met. Many times. He is not. He just types weird. Besides, if his way of writing were accurate to him it would bleed into other parts of his behaviour.

      So if this is you as well, LW, I do think it would be useful for you to cut down on the exclamation marks, but most likely the people around you also just think you type weird.

    6. So Tired*

      I do feel like it should be noted that a lot of women use more exclamation marks in their written work/communication because it comes across more friendly and less pointed/harsh/bossy. I always end up having to reread my work emails because in an effort to sound friendly over text communication, I add a lot of exclamation points. So when I saw LW say most of their communication is written, my first thought was that it was an abundance of exclamation marks, and then immediately that there might be some kind of gender aspect at play.

      Yes, multiple !!! in a row can come across as aggressive, but putting one in every so often, to me, reads as more friendly rather than aggressive.

      1. CommanderBanana*

        ^^ This. Honestly, after being told to use more exclamation marks, soften language, be less direct, oh wait now you’re using too many exclamation points, be more to the point, blah blah – it seems more and more to me that most of this is just critiquing how women communicate because no matter what we do, it’s wrong.

        I simply don’t believe that men get this amount of criticism for how they communicate in the workplace, and this is also a good reminder that if you’re a manager, you do not have to pass along every single little bit of feedback to your direct reports, especially if you do not agree with it or don’t think it has merit.

      2. KateM*

        It’s so weird for me because I feel the opposite – an exclamation mark makes a normal request sentence into a demand and is therefore much less friendly than a period! (Here I am just exclaiming in surprise, though.)

    7. RagingADHD*

      I have found that when I ask a sequence of questions, it comes across as badgering even if it was intended more as brainstorming. Particularly in a text medium. Not having that organic back-and-forth completely changes the tone.

    8. Not on board*

      I came here to say the same thing. If most of the communication is actually written (either by email/slack/whatever) and they use a lot of exclamation marks, that can come across as aggressive. In which case, the feedback should have been “OP’s use of exclamation marks sometimes comes across as aggressive”. This still would have been anonymous but more specific.
      Definitely go back to the manager and ask for a couple of examples of “aggressiveness” and maybe stop using exclamation marks !!!!!!! (/s)

      1. londonedit*

        I can definitely see how something like ‘I checked the database!! We don’t have numbers for this morning!!!’ could come across as aggressive. It just reads as a bit shouty somehow – a bit ‘Come on, people!!! Get your act together!!!’. Might be worth the OP thinking about whether they’re doing something like that. It’s a bit like how ‘the youth’ don’t use full stops at the end of their messages, because to them it reads as if you’re angry or you’re being stern.

        Otherwise it could be a case of ‘aggressive enthusiasm’ if every sentence ends with an exclamation mark, which again could irritate people. Or it could just be completely bizarre feedback that isn’t really rooted in anything concrete. But those are a couple of ways I can think of where excessive exclamation marks could come across as somehow ‘aggressive’.

    9. Annie*

      I’ve also gotten “anonymous feedback,” and I always ask for examples. If my boss can’t provide one, I dismiss it.

  6. bamcheeks*

    LW1, the only thing I’d add about Teams/Zoom vs phones is that my internet connection is reliable, and my data coverage is patchy. Sometimes I have to go and wander around the house to find the right window to stand in front of for a phone call. So I do think being able to flex to a VOIP system of some sort might be helpful for some of your contacts.

    1. Edwina*

      We have phone software on our laptops to make or receive phone calls using our work numbers. I would really, really not want to give out my personal phone number, and I’m glad I don’t have to. We have an added complication that Teams only works for people inside the company, and for those calls, I think Teams somehow feels easier than the softphone, probably because I can see who’s calling. With the softphone, I can only see the number, not usually the name.

      Also, we are not permitted to be recorded, so it’s good to know ahead of time if someone is planning to use an AI notetaker or to record the meeting, so I can ask them not to.

    2. abca*

      I expect that for a lot of people it is the other way around though, with internet being spotty at times. It is not uncommon at all to have Teams meetings with my US colleagues (working from home) that go like “let me disable my camera and see if that improves things” “can you all also disable your camera?” “I’m sorry, I’ll call in from my phone”.

      1. bamcheeks*

        That’s why I said being able to flex to that system for some of your contacts is good. People have different preferences!

      2. amoeba*

        In our office building, we have zero phone reception, so any calls go out via WiFi calling, anyway…

      1. bamcheeks*

        You maybe use different terminology in the US? We’d use data to mean mobile data like 4G/5G, as opposed to wifi which is usually hardwired.

        2. RagingADHD*

          Cellphone calls here are not the same as mobile data. You’d use mobile data for email or apps, video calls, etc – but you wouldn’t need to do that if you had reliable internet service at home, because you could use wifi for that.

          A voice call on cell would not use your data plan in the US.

          1. amoeba*

            That’s the same here (everywhere, I think?)

            But you can generally also activate WiFi calling (or I could never make a phone call in our bunker of a building!), so not sure that’s actually a problem, unless there’s some sort of bug/problem with that. If you have WiFi, you can use it to make regular calls! Unless you can’t use the WiFi on your phone (private device?), of course.

      2. Dahlia*

        Yeah this is different terminology. My phone plan has calling minutes, texting, and a bit of data, which is internet/sending pictures through texts. I have separate wifi, which is why I keep my data off, because I only get a tiny bit of it.

  7. ptrish*

    For OP1 – one REALLY helpful thing electronic calendars do is handle time zones automatically. I recently missed an interview when someone converted times in their head and got Mountain and Pacific mixed up.

    FWIW, everywhere I’ve worked in the last ~10 years expects employees to keep their electronic calendars up to date. People just put “Block – personal” or whatever when needed. It’s just not efficient to have to call or email back and forth to set up a meeting time. I definitely agree with Alison that you should start sending invites, but I would go a step further and say you should probably work towards migrating to an electronic calendar.

    1. Edwina*

      The only tricky part that I’ve run into is when we’re trying to schedule meetings with people at another company (usually a vendor). They can’t see our availability, so we have to give them ranges of times/dates to choose from. I really like it when someone can send me their Calendly link because it shows when they are available, and they can give out different links depending on whether it’s a 30 or 60 minute call.

      1. NotAnotherManager!*

        Newer versions of Outlook have a scheduling poll feature where you can ask recipients to pick the times that work best for them (will show you times that are not available for your internal folks), and it can also automatically schedule the time that most people select as open. We’ve gotten pretty good feedback on it for project meetings that include folks outside our O365 environment.

    2. Borealis*

      The other nice thing about electronic calendars is that they’re very, very helpful for anxiety. If I’m given a time verbally I’m worried that I wrote it down wrong, which ramps up if the other person doesn’t call right on time! With an electronic calendar I have confirmation, right there, agreed on by both parties, that the time is right. It’s very helpful to me as an anxious mess.

    3. 'nother prof*

      Electronic calendars are absolute hell for some of us. My work requires a lot of deep thinking time (and, frankly, a lot of data usage now that all the major browsers are data hogs), and being logged into things like email and calendar drastically lowers my ability to focus (& my computer’s ability to process). Plus, my schedule is less 9-5 and more like “most hours between 9-5, but also a three-hour meeting/talk/dinner outside of those hours.” That tends to encourage working constantly if you aren’t careful, and careful means *not* logging into an electronic work calendar outside of work hours just to check when/where you’re meeting your friend. Similarly, electronic calendars might relieve Borealis’ anxiety, but their inaccessibility and the way people change meetings without bothering to let you know makes me incredibly anxious (and lost/late, on a few occasions).

      I don’t want to start ranting, so I’ll leave the problems with electronic calendars at that for now. Re: LW1, the fact that they are essentially asking for favors changes the equation, but in general, people need to grow up and manage their own calendars. If you want to use an electronic calendar, go ahead. If it’s a requirement for everyone in your organization, that’s fine, but otherwise, whoever is meeting you is not your secretary.

      1. What.*

        Sorry – that’s insane. Being logged into Outlook does not distract from “deep thinking.” That makes absolutely no sense. Your feelings & expectations are unrealistic.

        1. 'nother prof*

          Why on Earth would you respond to someone explaining that a specific type of program affects them differently from how you, personally, by accusing them of insanity?

          When you have a ton of tabs open, it gets difficult to see which one is which. When you accidentally click on the email and see a new message – especially a dramatically-titled one written by someone who perhaps tends to think that minor problems are Very Serious Problems due to their lack of real-world experience – it can pull a person out of their thoughts extremely easily.

      2. Cicily*

        A digital calendar is interfering with your computer’s ability to function? Are you running on Windows 3.0?

        1. 'nother prof*

          No, but I often have quite a few tabs open + some data-hungry add-ons (that weren’t quite so hungry 2 years or so back & haven’t any reason to eat more now). I’ve run through every major browser in the last few years

      3. Guacamole Bob*

        I get that electronic calendars aren’t for everyone, but plenty of people find a way to manage work and personal calendars that doesn’t require logging in to work at weird hours to figure out where to meet a friend.

        If using email and a calendar disrupts your focus, or if your particular schedule means an electronic calendar doesn’t work for you, that’s fine. But many, many people have busy calendars where the electronic meeting invitation is a real convenience, and if you want someone to do you a favor and show up at the time you agree then sending one out is not that much to ask.

        1. NotAnotherManager!*

          I pretty religiously keep my work and personal calendars separate, but they all synch up on my phone (and are color-coded by calendar so I know which one it’s from). It works great, and it’s prevented me from double-booking myself in both directions.

          It is our family practice, actually, to send an invite to the family calendar to make sure everyone’s aware of your schedule. All of my children’s activities are in there, and, as teenagers now, they are responsible for adding/updating changes. It cuts down on the “hey, I need to be at practice/Jane’s house/the local ice cream shop in five minutes!” and double-booking – my younger one recently saved the group Halloween party the host was trying to schedule over a school-related thing they were all required to attend.

        2. 'nother prof*

          Yup. Glad to see folks on here agreeing with me. Similar past letters have generated way more comments pushing electronic calendars on other people than is common among my friends and colleagues.

      4. Apex Mountain*

        If email and calendar are slowing down your computer, you should take it in for service or get a new one. Or are you on dial up?

        1. 'nother prof*

          My computer is one year old, and my office has perfectly fine internet. It’s entirely a software issue related to something the browsers shifted one by one over the past few years. Short of programming my own browser, I’m stuck for the foreseeable future.

      5. Llama Mama*

        I have the opposite experience. I’ve kept a calendar/planner since sometime in high school. I, too, spend a lot of focused time at work, including using the computer, and the electronic calendar helps with that. I can block off large chunks of time for myself, and even set up a focus mode that blocks other things during that period. To my mind asking for a calendar invite is me ‘managing my own calendar.’ I agree to a meeting time with someone and then use the invite to make sure it gets added correctly (I have trouble with transposing dates and numbers). I guess my etiquette is whoever requested the meeting sends the invite (so sometimes it’s me).

        I don’t use my cell phone for much in the way of distractions, but having a shared calendar for family events that is easily accessible, easy to add appointments to, and easy to scroll when trying to add future events has been a life-saver for my family sanity. You can show multiple calendars on a single app, so I can toggle off my work calendar or the ‘Manager” calendar when I don’t use it.

        1. 'nother prof*

          My sibling has a similar shared calendar to manage their kid’s sports, and it’s been a life saver as the kid got serious about training.

          There are two problems with not managing your own calendar (by which, btw, I only meant for when the people involved in a meeting use different types of calendars; if everyone uses the e-calendar, it’s irrelevant). First, the paper user has to do double the work – creating your e-note and their paper note. Secondly, the e-calendar user is *forcing* the other person to put it on their calendar. I can’t create a meeting on another person’s calendar without also creating on the e-calendar that Google automatically made to go along with my business gmail account. The paper user then has to deal with the effects of the e-note – those annoying pop-ups “reminding” them that a meeting starts in X minutes (unless they’ve already figured out how to nix the things), plus the confusion other colleagues may feel when the paper user says that they don’t use the e-calendar but have clearly visible appointments.

          Personally, I don’t care what kind of calendar anyone else uses. What I don’t like is when people thoughtlessly try to force an ineffective, unnecessary, actively distracting & irritating program down my throat just because it works for them. We all use the tech toys we do because they suit our personal lifestyles, right? (Good luck with the kids. I hope they don’t try to be pro-sportspeople:) )

      6. Pi314*

        I was about to ask if you were in academia, then I noticed your username!

        I made the switch from academia to corporate life a few years ago and while I expected a lot of things to be different, calendar etiquette and norms were not one I was expecting. When I first realized everyone else in my division could view my calendar it felt really bizarre and invasive. And the idea of sending meeting invites, especially to my superiors, just TELLING them to show up at a particular place and time, rather than emailing to ask, felt very presumptuous. But I’ve gotten used to it since, and learned that it’s actually very convenient and respectful of other’s time when used well. It’s so much more convenient to open up a meeting invite and have the link to the virtual meeting right there, along with whatever message the scheduler wants to include, compared to searching through my email to find the zoom link or whatever. If someone needs to change the meeting time, it gets automatically moved on my calendar, AND I get an automatic email notifying me of the change. If someone invites me to a meeting at a time that’s inconvenient, even if it shows as free on my calendar, I respond by rejecting the invitation and proposing a different time.

        I still remember trying to schedule my dissertation defense and how horribly difficult it was to find a time when all four committee members could meet for a few hours. I had to email them doodle/when is good polls, cajole them to check their emails and respond to the polls, start over again when none of the original options worked. Then email them again to confirm the final time and look for them in person to make sure they knew because none of them responded to my email. If I had to do something like that now, I could simply look at all their calendars, pick a time that worked, and send the invite, which will automatically appear their calendars unless they reject the invitation.

        1. 'nother prof*

          I’m sure academia has something to do with it, but it’s also not as widespread as some assume. I have four friends employed by various levels of government, and their e-calendar use ranges from none at all to what you describe, with only one friend falling in your category. Two more friends work in the medical field, and neither uses calendars like you describe. (Actually, I’m not sure either of them uses them at work at all.)

          It’s like with all tech stuff – people tend to assume that if something works for them and is even somewhat common, it must be a standard against which all people can be judged.

      7. Spooky*

        If it’s really that distracting to you to be even logged into Outlook, that seems like some thing that it’s in coming upon you to work on, since that’s pretty extreme.

        1. Spooky*

          *incumbent upon you. The ads were making my screen jump around too much to proofread properly (oof)

          1. 'nother prof*

            (Technically, it’s gmail and not outlook, but) Why? The reason it has that effect is largely because it’s my job to work through incredibly complicated stuff. Think about trying to do a complicated math problem in your head that involves grabbing numbers off several different browser tabs… but midway through you click on gmail’s tab accidentally and see that an application for reimbursement of several thousand dollars was just denied, or someone wrote “urgent – please help!!!!” in all-caps in the subject line of an email about a very minor matter. I’ve had that happen many, many times, and I’m actually pretty good about exiting my email before I start anything that involves deep thinking.

            1. hello*

              Honestly, this really really sounds less like a problem with calendars and more like you have ADHD or something similar.

    4. Nicosloanica*

      I think it’s totally fine for OP to use a paper calendar themselves, although it is admittedly old-fashioned, but you get to choose to make old-fashioned decisions for yourself. It’s not great if OP’s requesting meetings but refusing to send a calendar invite when requested though. What they perhaps don’t realize is that’s a bit of a “power play” – see the linked letter where a man never sets the meeting invite and asks the woman to do it for him. A higher-ranked employee usually requests the lower ranked one to send the invite because it takes a bit of time and is fiddly. I worry OP is coming across a bit haughty if they request a meeting but make the other person do the invite. This could be possibly mediated by saying something about not using outlook themselves or something in a somewhat apologetic or appreciative tone.

      1. gyrfalcon17*

        OP isn’t asking the other person to do an *invite*. They’re asking the other person to manage their own calendar by making an *entry* on it — a single person entry; OP is not invited.

        1. gyrfalcon17*

          Hmm, just seeing a previous reply from Llama Mama, saying that asking for an invite *is* “managing their own calendar”. And also now reading the other replies also saying that the host sending the invite reduces or eliminates all-too-common instances of people setting up the appointment wrong on their own calendar.

          So I’m rethinking. Thanks all for expanding my horizons today!

      2. doreen*

        OP should send the invites because it appears that the OP is asking for a favor from these people – but they could put the event on their calendar in the same way they might put a doctor’s appointment on their calendar. It’s not necessary for anyone to send an invite at all. Although this isn’t one, there are situations where it can be a bit of a power play – I know someone who had to request approval for vacation from their manager ( I don’t recall if it was an email or a form but coverage was involved) and when the manager emailed his approval my friend was supposed to then send an invite even to put the vacation on the manager’s calendar (even though there was no meeting) because the manager didn’t want to manage his own calendar.

    5. Guacamole Bob*

      Yes, timezones, typos, different expectations about how long a call or meeting will last, etc. all make electronic calendars standard for many people.

      I used to have a role where I scheduled a bajillion external meetings for my boss, the CEO of a nonprofit who worked with a ton of different people in the community. It was before calendar invitations were a default expectation, and I learned to send confirmations a day or two in advance. The number of people who would say “oh, I had that down for next Tuesday, not tomorrow!” or “hmm… I thought we said 2 p.m., not 2:30” was not trivial. Or even “oops, totally forgot to put it on my calendar and now I have a conflict!” With a calendar invitation those things are much less likely to happen.

      1. 'nother prof*

        That’s interesting. I’ve haven’t noticed a difference… but people in my line of work do have a reputation for being a bit absent-minded :)

  8. jinni*

    LW#2 it’s easier for me to interview over the phone as well. BUT what one found works as a great compromise is to start on video for a greeting and pre interview, then switch off. I’ve switched to software that allows this flexibility as well as recording/transcription. It makes for warmer interactions.

    1. amoeba*

      I mean, you can also use Teams without any camera at all, we do that all the time at work! It’s really not just for video calls…

  9. Workaholic*

    LW4: My company seems out “hey, share us on…” emails now and then. I thought about it for 30 seconds and noped out. 1: I don’t want to irritate friends and family 2: they’re not paying me to do so/paying for my personal phone 3: I really HAD locked myself out of linked in, forgot the password, and didn’t care enough to fix it for 6 years.

    1. Testing*

      I don’t really get irritating friends and family on LinkedIn, which is per definition a professional social media. I also don’t understand what one’s personal phone has to do with it, you can do it in the browser version.

      My employer is also pushing this hard (but does realise they can only request it, not order it), and I occasionally repost stuff. The only problem is that I’m of course connected to a lot of my colleagues, so my LinkedIn gets flooded by us all doing it.

      I do understand the OP not being that interested considering she is wanting to change sectors. But what you can do is post some stuff now and then quietly delete it a bit before you start looking for a job outside this sector.

      1. ASD always*

        Friends and family can still be valuable network contacts, especially if they’re in the same industry as you.

        1. Testing*

          Sure, but I don’t get why posting or reposting about work stuff on a professional site would annoy them. That’s exactly what it’s there for. Why would they be annoyed?

          1. Great Frogs of Literature*

            I don’t see “Here’s a case study about our client” or “We’re so excited that we knocked our Q3 sales goals out of the park!” as ‘real’ content, is the thing. I’m happy to know that my former coworker Jane got a promotion, or a new job, and a well-written “I just adopted a child and I’m so glad my company has great parental leave policies” can be really sweet, even though it’s obviously a marketing document. But to the extent that I care about LinkedIn updates at all (which is admittedly minimal), it’s about the people, not about free advertising for their employers. I turned off the LinkedIn post roundup email because it was 90% company updates and inspirational mini-blog-posts, when I actually DGAF about most of my contacts employers.

            1. Nicosloanica*

              Ha, I sometimes share our content without comment, and I think it’s pretty clear in that case that this is something of a “sponsored post” from my employer. If I was actually genuinely excited about something and wanted to share it with my contacts, I’d include commentary in my own voice. At least on FB, “sharing” something doesn’t even always look like it’s coming from you, sometimes it just says “shared by whoever” underneath rather than appearing as a “real” new post.

            2. SuprisinglyADHD*

              I agree, such a large portion of the online experience is advertising and sponsored “posts” that are really more ads; I definitely don’t want the few items that are genuinely posted by my family/friends to be *another* ad! I would be pretty annoyed if a person I follow started adding more advertising to my feed. (Note, it’s different if I followed a brand’s account, I pretty much expect only ads then).

          2. Eldritch Office Worker*

            I use LinkedIn to curate my personal brand, not so much to promote my employer. Some work stuff I’d be okay with reposting but I wouldn’t want it to be a large portion of my content.

  10. Lisa*

    Im cynical, but $5 says “aggressive” LW3 is female and the feedback provider is male. Too often women are dinged for being assertive and direct when the same from a man would be considered normal or positive.

    1. Oddmeister...makin' copies*

      In that vein, I’ve personally been accused of sounding aggressive, *especially* when I was careful to make sure my tone was positive and polite.

      I’m not sure why this happens. The best I can come up with is maybe some people’s unfortunate experiences with others have led them to assume all politeness is passive-aggressiveness?

      1. Anonymous Cat*

        I suspect that it’s also that they didn’t like your answer.

        “Oddmeister told me about procedure I hate doing? She shouldn’t be telling me that so she’s being (insert criticism) !”

        If you told them exactly what they want to hear, they’d probably say you’re so professional. (Sigh)

      2. Saturday*

        I have a family member who makes an effort to sound very positive and polite when they are frustrated and annoyed. So it me, their positive and polite sounds a bit aggressive – like they’re fighting back their frustration.

        Not suggesting that’s what’s going on with you – just mentioning a reason that sometimes an especially polite tone might read as aggressive to people.

        1. Oddmeister...makin' copies*

          That makes sense. I am not *aware* of doing that, most of the time. I just have bitchy resting voice, which I sometimes try to control. :D

      3. JustaTech*

        I’ve had the same issue with a friend on FB: I’ll try really, really hard to make sure my comment is positive, polite and respectful (and substantive) and she’ll absolutely bite my head off about my tone (to the point that I’ve asked other people to read my comment just to be sure I’m not coming across as a jerk).
        She just doesn’t like it when I disagree with her. Thankfully she’s just someone I knew in elementary school, not a coworker I actually need to work with.

    2. But Of Course*

      That was my thought. As a woman who gets a lot of negative feedback on how I communicate from my boss (it is, in fact, Just Her; she’s corrected me that “we” (the organizational we) did something when I had the temerity to state that a project I led and executed 90% of was something I did) I’ve been overusing exclamation marks and emojis to warm my written tone in order to sound friendlier but realized last week I’ve hit deranged squirrel by accident. No one besides my current boss has an issue with my communication like this, spanning back at least fifteen years in a variety of communications-related jobs. So I would also bet money it’s gendered feedback by someone who has a problem with women speaking knowledgeably.

      1. KateM*

        What you wrote is actually why I would take that $5 bet – I think a woman using lots of exclamation marks would more probably be considered a deranged squirrel than aggressive.

        1. duinath*

          Not if they’re black. …Which sounds aggressive, actually, sorry, but I think there have been a lot of reports that black women are perceived as aggressive when doing things that do not read that way at all when white women do the exact same thing.

          POC and WOC get hit with bias in a lot of intersecting ways.

    3. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      Agreed – it would also be interesting to learn whether LW’s race or nationality is a factor. If you are the only woman/Spaniard/neurodivergent in a group, inferences may be drawn from what you say that you did not intend.

    5. Madame Desmortes*

      Also my immediate suspicion, having been on the receiving end of this.

      It doesn’t change Alison’s advice, OP. Go ask your boss for specifics… and if your boss can’t come up with any, ask for that feedback to be removed from your file.

    6. Peanut Hamper*

      I really, really, really, really want to disagree with you on this.

      But speaking as POC, when I was young and simply did what my white friends did in the same way they did it, I was automatically labelled as “aggressive”—often by their moms.

      If LW3 is female and POC (regardless of the gender of the manager), this could very well be the issue.

      Anonymous feedback has to go, at any rate.

    7. Katydid*

      I had the same suspicion, particularly in regards to this statement:

      These communications are through direct messages, not in the meetings, and it is mostly when asked unless I see a problem that is not being addressed that I feel they should be aware of.

      Some people would get defensive over the latter, particularly if they hold unconscious gendered (etc.) behavioral expectations.

  11. Decidedly Me*

    LW1 – definitely send a calendar invite! It’s great that using a paper calendar still works for you, but most people don’t use them anymore. Sending an invite ensures it’s on your recipient’s calendar and doesn’t stop you from continuing to use a paper calendar for your own needs. In the invite, you can even put the location as something like “I’ll call you directly at 555-555-5555”, which will solve the other issue if a phone call is needed over a Zoom.

    1. WellRed*

      This is what I do now. It took a bit to get used to sending invites (great! Another tedious task) but I like knowing they are going to get a reminder etc. but I do reach out via email to get the ball rolling.

  12. Emmy Noether*

    #5

    We had something like this happen. A project manager just dropped dead one evening.

    In our case, it was kind of eerie how quickly we closed ranks. It helped that he worked mostly with internal contacts, that were all informed within a few hours the next morning. I was given access to his email account, also that morning, to catch anything external that may come in, but I think I only had to inform two or three contacts of what happened (I decided that they probably wouldn’t want to receive a reply from a dead man’s account, so I would forward emails to my account, then respond from there). I also had to go digging through his old emails once to find some information. Then after about a week, it was strangely like he’d never been there.

    In your case, I agree with Alison’s advice. Just reach out to anybody you had previous contact with with condoleances and your work question – they’ll forward you to the right person.

    1. Ellie*

      We have had it happen multiple times… engineers seem to die at their post more often than other occupations.

      The standard procedure at our company, is that an email goes out to all his external contacts, as well as the entire company, noting the sad news of his passing, and a few circumstances around it, his major accomplishments, and that they’ll shortly be in contact regarding a new point of contact to wrap up his projects, etc. Then there’s a note about a funeral and a link to the therapy services hotline. Then a few days or weeks later, whoever will be taking over his work will email people directly with a very similar text to what Alison suggests.

      I’ve only had it happen to someone that we worked with at another company once though, and boy was that hard. He wasn’t just the point of contact, he was the inventor of the technology. We just had to get by as the company (very understandably) was reeling. Eventually they contacted us with a couple of new professionals, and we kept going, with lots of problems and understanding on both sides. It added months, possibly years, to our schedule, but there was literally nothing else to be done. Everyone was very understanding, many knew him personally, and many who didn’t felt they owed a debt to him.

      So long as you act with compassion there shouldn’t be any issues. But people need to know about it.

    2. AnonyMoose*

      On the client side, in a run-up to a big deadline, one of the leaders at the company we were working for passed away suddenly. Their president reached out to ours right away, which let our president give us a heads up so we could tailor our interactions accordingly. Just a tough situation all around.

    3. Anon-y-mouse*

      I had something similar happen. It was a guy who worked incredibly hard (and I would not be surprised if work related stress contributed to his early death). I would have predicted complete chaos but within weeks everything was pretty much back to normal. It really shook me in terms of how replaceable we all are on how we shouldn’t take on undue stress for our companies.

    4. Strive to Excel*

      Less fraught situation, but I was doing a job for a tiny bank and they were telling me about their Covid situation. When Covid hit, they needed a person of appropriate authority to shut down their lobby and implement the other appropriate safety procedures. Because bank, they needed actual proof of this (since it would have meant bypassing a number of otherwise important security protocols). Person of authority = CEO. Who was on a cruise somewhere in the Caribbean. In the middle of Covid lockdowns.

      Luckily, he had a phone on him, so they got verbal/email authorization to do all the things until he could get back.

    5. LW5*

      “Acme” has been great about getting us caught back up, but yeah, it’s almost chilling how quickly even a small company like theirs has managed to compensate for one of their key employees being suddenly, completely gone.

      In this case, they didn’t alert us because they didn’t know at first – he worked from home, so I think it took a while on Thursday for them to realize that he had effectively no call/no showed, which would have been really out of character for him. Even I just assumed he was busy and would get back to me when he could, until the deadline passed.

      1. Spooky*

        The fact of how quickly companies are able to deal with it and improvise solutions once someone passes away is a very strong argument against burning oneself out and underutilizing vacation time because you think you’re too essential. We see those letters on here all the time, but it’s just not true. If they could handle it if you pass on, they can handle it if you take a week off.

        1. Keep it Simple*

          “If they could handle it if you pass on, they can handle it if you take a week off.” This should be printed out and hung over cubes everywhere.

  13. Linda D*

    Those of us with hearing impairments may prefer zoom over a form of communication that is limited to ones hearing capabilities

    1. Thinking*

      Yes, people do have different strengths, flexible communication is so helpful in every situation.

    2. geek5508*

      BINGO! I had to submit an ADA request for accommodation for my firm’s IT to turn on (by default) Closed Captioning in Zoom and Teams.

      1. NeedsToBeOptional*

        hopefully there’s a way to turn it off. I’m visually impaired and closed captioning makes me dizzy and gives me a horrible headache. My limited visual processing can’t handle the moving text even when I’m not trying to read it.

        Just an alternate accessibility view.

    3. DinoZebra*

      This so much. I have auditory processing disorder and adding in the ability to lipread makes communication so much easier/more

      It’s fine for LW1 to have a preference for phones and to ask to use audio-only communication if that also works for the person they are taking to. But access needs are always more important than preferences so they need to make it clear that they are prepared to use video options when the other party needs that.

      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        This is me as well. I get maybe 40% of information over a phone call as opposed to 80-100% over zoom.

    4. Silvercat*

      I’m not sure if it’s being limited to just sound or if it’s how phone systems compress things, but it’s so much easier for me to hear what’s being said over Zoom or equivalent than on the phone. On the phone, I end up spending so much energy on deciphering what’s being said that I can’t communicate as well.

      (I have an auditory processing disorder)

      1. Flor*

        Have you tried using speakerphone? I have an auditory processing disorder too (specifically ASD in my case) and it took me about 4 years of Zoom calls to figure out that, even when people aren’t on camera, I don’t have the same problems I’ve always had with phone calls. Started using speakerphone when I make phone calls and now I can magically understand more than 1 word in 3.

        I can’t speak for all auditory processing disorders, but thought I’d throw that out there because it has made things SO much easier for me.

      2. Hroethvitnir*

        Woah. I strongly prefer the phone to online video platforms, and that’s significantly because I find it harder to hear and follow on video calls.

        I don’t know if a lot of the US just has way better internet on average, but ime if you try and talk with someone the same way you would irl it cuts them off, so I end up not being able to be as active a listener as I normally would be and I haaate it. It feels incredibly stilted. The more people, the worse.

    5. Keep it Simple*

      And: Those of us who revile speaker-phone conversations because of the horrible echoing may also prefer Zoom using a headset!

  14. Sunny*

    OP1, since you’re in media, I would ask around among your coworkers about transcription software that works with Zoom. It’s a common enough need that you’re bound to get plenty of suggestions.

    Depending what you’re interviewing on, phone calls can be preferable. I actually find phone calls can be more intimate than video and people often fill silences on the phone in ways they don’t on video.

    1. Agent Diane*

      I’d add that if you are doing media work, you may want to send invites with a suitably generic title. For example, “catch-up with OP1”.

      Then if your interviewee could get into trouble for interviewing with you, the meeting doesn’t give the game away when one of their colleagues is looking at their calendar.

      I’d also echo what someone said up-thread: “meet” your interviewees where they are. That could be physical, or on Teams, Zoom, the phone or ICQ. Zoom/Teams both have transcription options that spit out plain text.

      I’m from the generation that was delighted when SMS and the internet arrived as I stopped having to have phone calls. I do not dread unexpected Teams calls nearly as much as my phone ringing.

    2. So I says to Mabel I says*

      Is filling in silences always good though? That’s interesting because to me, one of the benefits of video is that you can have a pause to think, and people don’t always leap in to fill the silence. I find it often gets better answers from people if they can do that. People talking to fill silence aren’t necessarily saying things that are useful, or that they want to be saying.

      1. Audrey Puffins*

        For the OP’s purposes, absolutely. Any time you’re interviewing someone, you will get the basic answer right away, and if you’re always pushing on to the next question, you might not get anything more substantive than that. If you as the interviewer left the pause hang, then your interviewee will feel it’s their role to fill the silence, and that’s when you get the good stuff

        1. Reindeer Hut Hostess*

          Yes yes yes! I conduct a ton of interviews, almost always using video. Often, the interviewees easily pick up on my facial expressions, which I’m using to say “tell me more” without having to say “tell me more.” And yes…they tell me more!

          (Sorry if that was too many exclamation points.)

    4. NotAnotherManager!*

      I am pretty sure most video meeting solutions include transcription baked in now. In Zoom, you basically turn on the equivalent of closed captioning and save it. We use a different videoconferencing tool, and it also offer the ability to transcribe, record and/or summarize meetings.

  15. Varthema*

    I used to use a lot of exclamation marks because I, like many of my generation, read them as adding a light tone. Then I taught Business English (as a foreign language) to professionals from all over the world but mostly Europe, and was a little taken aback when, to a one, they read exclamation marks as Very Urgent at best, aggressive and angry and shouty at worst. And then, to my horror, when I relayed this to my local Irish colleagues they didn’t disagree!

    So suddenly when I reread something like “Let me know!” with a new lens, it became clear how it could look shouty, not cheerful. And that helped cure me of most exclamation marks.

    1. Varthema*

      I will say, I tend to mirror the style and tone of whom I’m writing to, so if I’m writing to a known US American and they’re using chirpy exclamation marks, I’ll use them too. But if I don’t know the nationality of the recipient or if they’re not from the US, I typically try to express the lightness in explicit words and not let a cultural punctuation convention do the work for me.

    2. amoeba*

      Huh, interesting. I’m German and I also use exclamation marks the same way you did – for me, without them, an e-mail often reads incredibly brusque and formal (and actually more aggressive, if anything). But maybe I’m just om AAM/US media too much, haha?

    3. Paint N Drip*

      I know in my heart that emojis are not work appropriate 95% of circumstances (I know there are some chill companies where they are) but I just WISH it was kosher, because I think a lot of this kind of miscommunication would be avoided! :)

      1. Eldritch Office Worker*

        Agreed! I just started at a company where emojis in emails are much more standard and it is REFRESHING.

      2. HannahS*

        I’m not sure that they do! We occasionally get them at work and they can come off as awfully passive-aggressive.

      3. Beany*

        I loathe emoji, partly because they *add* confusion, not remove it.

        Recently I was reading — perhaps on this site — a thread about how different generations and sub-generations interpreted variants of the “laughing” emoji — regular, sideways, tears, etc. What stood out to me was there was no standard. Some versions were interpreted as being sarcastic.

        (They also seem childish and cutesy to me, but perhaps I’m just bitter and want everyone off my lawn.)

      4. amoeba*

        I don’t think I’ve ever worked anywhere where emojis were not OK! I mean, obviously not when emailing a VP I’ve never talked to or whatever, but in conversations with my team, my direct colleagues or my boss? Basically everybody uses them. (And we’re definitely not that young, most of my colleagues are solidly Gen X!)

        I mean, in e-mail I limit myself to the occasional smiley face and don’t use more than one per mail, but on Teams chat… even GIFs are fine (if much rarer).

    4. SuprisinglyADHD*

      Written tone can be extremely difficult to convey accurately, and conventions can vary not just culturally, but also from one type of communication to another!
      Example: In emails or long-form writing, I read periods as standard speaking tone, exclamation points as a cheerful tone, italics as emphasis, and caps lock as a serious/angry tone. For texts and other messages, where style formatting isn’t possible, I use periods between sentences, but not for the final one. I might break up a paragraph into multiple texts to better separate a list of options, or a series of questions. For people I know personally, I skip periods almost entirely and use emoticons (sometimes emojis) as tone markers. For a few people, I use an entirely different punctuation style to match whatever unusual method they use.
      It can be stressful to wonder how to convey the intended tone to any given person!

    5. Maisonneuve*

      I think a part of this stems from how people view email. Is it written communication or is it spoken communication written down? I naturally lean towards the first in personal messages and for sure in work situations. Anything I write could potentially become public given my job, so it has to be clear and professional. Meanwhile, extra, sometimes misused punctuation frequently doesn’t help my understanding. Actually, many exclamations (i.e., happiness, excitement, shock) and ellipses (i.e., um, like, pausing to think) for no grammatical reason are like nails on a chalkboard for me.

  16. So I says to Mabel I says*

    In our workplace, I do have a work mobile because of my role but I seem to be the only one. Most people would need to give their personal mobile, which as you’re effectively a journalist (as they may see it), some people prefer not to do.

    I find Zoom or Teams way, way easier because you can see the other person’s face. It’s easier to know when to speak, read social cues, and just generally understand and communicate better. Yes, we all managed with phones for decades but honestly, I now find it quite difficult (I think I always did but there was no alternative and I was used to it).

    I understand your technology works better that way, and I’d never refuse a call or insist it be virtual, but it’s definitely possible that people prefer a video if it’s an option.

    You would know best how important it is that you accommodate people, that you leave them wanting to work with you again, that they feel confident they made themselves clear etc.

    But not sending a calendar invite combined with “it’s a call because that works best for me” could definitely be coming off as inflexible, all taken together.

  17. So I says to Mabel I says*

    On leaders and medical privacy, perhaps the biggest difference is that here in the UK, the Prime Minister wouldn’t appoint a successor. Parliament is always sovereign (specifically, the House of Commons), so if the PM became so unwell that they were unable to fulfil their duties, they would lose the confidence of the House, and another leader would be chosen. That leader would need to have the confidence of the House. So the party with a majority can choose their leader and they’d generally have the confidence of the House… (although as we have seen in recent years, they can lose that confidence, and party members can choose someone who doesn’t quite have the confidence of the MPs who actually work with that person…).

    Back when Gordon Brown was PM, a journalist asked him if he was on antidepressants. There was quite a bit of media speculation around that question. But overwhelmingly people seemed to think it was out of bounds and none of our business. (Brown was very unpopular at the time and depression was still very stigmatised, but the principle on privacy seemed to hold for a lot of people, IIRC.)

    1. WS*

      Yeah, in Australia where we have a very similar system to the UK, we do have a deputy prime minister, but the PM can still lose a confidence vote in the same way, and can also be deposed by their own party at any time, AND by the governor-general in one notorious case. But health details of politicians aren’t generally released except by the politician themselves.

    2. Irish Teacher.*

      In Ireland, there was a time when the media broke the news that the Minister for Finance had pancreatic cancer on the day after Christmas. One could argue it was relevant information as this was at the time of the economic crash and our Minister for Finance had a really tough job, but the general feeling in the country was that it was very insensitive and inappropriate and it was the media that ended up being damaged by it more than the minister.

    3. DinoZebra*

      I think that Theresa May – even though I disagree with her on almost everything politically – did a good job at being open about having Type 1 Diabetes and talking in general terms about how she managed it with the often unpredictable workload of a Prime Minister without going into more personal details. I’m not sure how much it was ever a talking point outside of the chronic illness community? There was certainly no public demand for intrusive details to be shared.

    4. EvilQueenRegina*

      The time that came to my mind was when Boris Johnson was in intensive care with Covid, Dominic Raab was acting PM in the interim but it didn’t seem that clear as to what would happen in the long term if Boris died.

  18. So I says to Mabel I says*

    Once a colleague was making smirk faces while I was talking in a meeting. I asked him if he wanted to share a comment or if he had any thoughts on the topic. I said this in a fairly warm tone. He said no.

    I was later told by my boss at the time (another man) that I’m too aggressive. This was the only example.

    Yes, I’m a woman.

    Just throwing that out there.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      Your example, and OP’s example is really highlighting for me that the term “aggressive” is a really loaded word, and super inappropriate for these situations. I do think you have a really good point about it being possibly gendered feedback; even if someone wanted a man to use less exclamation marks, or if they wanted him to become more oblivious to someone’s obvious body language, I feel like they’d just name the issues without that word: “I know Mark is a pain, but let it go entirely, when he is smirking” or “The exclamation marks make things seem too urgent”. But, what is more likely is that these things wouldn’t seem like they need to be addressed at all.

    2. Boof*

      Yea boss shouldn’t have said aggressive. If there was some reason they didn’t want you getting distracted/derailed that’d be different feedback “hey, ___ was being a bit rude but in the future I’d try to avoid interrupting your talk for that since I think everyone was paying attention to you, not them, until you said something”

  19. Part time lab tech*

    I noticed you work for a media company. I would think this is a more app happy industry and perhaps adapting to teams etc might be good idea. I personally distrust all tech companies with my privacy, use a physical diary for personal use and am old enough that it doesn’t bother me to use a phone as a phone so I sympathise.

  20. J. random person*

    #3: It’s “mostly when asked unless I see a problem that is not being addressed that I feel they should be aware of.” Maybe it’s just one person and not a real problem as Alison suggested, but if there is a problem I wonder if it’s this. There are contexts where this would be fine, but it also reminds me of my new coworker T, who showed up in my department asking who was in charge, so that they could complain that X wasn’t getting done. T was not wrong about X, but X is not T’s job and doesn’t affect T’s ability to do their job (at most, customers might complain to them). Furthermore we were aware X was a problem and were addressing it as fast as we could. Really the only way T bringing it up could have been helpful is if they were offering their staff to assist with X, but they weren’t (and shouldn’t, usually). It came off as obnoxious. We’re all thinking, T, why don’t you mind your own department and stay out of ours? I could see someone using the word “aggressive enthusiasm” here.

    So – are these problems you’re bringing up something critical, like safety issues? Are they things your co-workers actually didn’t know and need you to tell them? Or are they not actually your business, and your enthusiasm for helping customers is coming off as unwanted interference? I can’t know from here – just something to consider.

    1. Moths*

      I think you’re on to something here. OP3, not saying that you’re being out of line with what you’re bringing up, but it’s worth reflecting on if this is part of it.

      Relatedly, OP3 notes, ” Those interactions consist of asking questions to management, providing feedback to management (which they have thanked me for and made changes)…” This would be my other thought on where the feedback might have been coming from. It sounds like this is your role and management is happy with it, but there may be a person or two who bristles at your questions. I say this having worked for folks who say that they love feedback and dialogue, but the minute you ask even the slightest question of what they’ve said, they get personally offended. I can see someone not wanting to say that they don’t want the questions or feedback, but then feeling like you’re doing too much of it because you do it at all. Again, I want to emphasize that I’m not saying you’re doing anything wrong or are approaching things poorly. My guess is that it’s a them problem, not a you problem. But I would put my money on someone in management getting offended at you doing your role more than I would about exclamation points.

  21. ASD always*

    Since LinkedIn is a topic of the day, it may be worth a reminder for any non-European users that they’ve started using user data for AI training, and if you’re not on board with your data being used like that you’ll need to find the opt-out setting.

      2. ASD always*

        Thank you for finding the link, I knew I’d read about it on here but clearly didn’t look back far enough!

  22. Gamer Girl*

    Same same. Some men just don’t like women talking, only smiling.

    I use a lot of emojis to convey tone, personally and in work communications over Slack and Teams.

    Story time:
    Not long after I started working at a new company, the company jerk told my boss out of the blue that I “was definitely not good at my job.”

    My boss–a very reasonable man–asked CJ why so? CJ replied with a long winded, troll like explanation of how “someone else” could do my job better because I was clearly unqualified for the project I was leaving and CJ was responsible for taking my direction on.

    Boss pressed him for specifics. CJ gave examples of how I “smile too much to know anything” and that “anyone who uses smiley faces isn’t very bright.”

    My boss, a man in his mid fifties who uses more emojis than me in Slack messages with our team, relentlessly filled emails to CJ and CJ’s boss with emojis for YEARS after this conversation, with me in cc.

    I only found out why after CJ was finally fired after being put on a PIP by new upper management. After CJ was fired, I noticed boss’ emoji use suddenly went down in regular emails. I was a bit worried and ended up asking him about it. He almost fell off his chair laughing at my tentative question of whether he was “doing alright because his emails weren’t as cheerful as usual” and was there anything I could do to help?” And then told me why!

    One of many reasons I loved working for him!

  23. Yaya*

    LW1: I commented above around whether people even have phones or not (I don’t have a work phone), but I wanted to chime in and note that no matter how your meeting takes place (phone, Teams, etc.), you should send a diary invite. I’m a senior manager and my diary is extremely busy. If someone requests a meeting with me, I expect that they will send a diary invite. If I request a meeting with someone, they should expect that I will send an invite. If that doesn’t happen, something will get booked over. Internally, we do not have a culture of deciding meetings before putting them – we check one another’s diaries, find an open space, and put something in. Our Outlook diaries (linked to Teams calendars) are crucial to keeping our days organised. I totally understand that a paper system works for you, but you may be communicating with people who have a reliance on an accurate digital calendar. If you are the one requesting meetings, you should absolutely be using diary invites – this does not mean you need to meet through video call!

    2. Silver Robin*

      yeah, I am surprised at the number of comments making this about phone vs teams/zoom when the question was more about sending an invite. LW was conflating digital calendars with having to be teams/zoom, but Alison disentangled that. LW should absolutely be sending invitations. Ideally with the phone number they will be calling from and a short line to remind the person what the meeting is about.

  24. J. random person*

    LW3: If there is a real issue, maybe it’s this: “it is mostly when asked unless I see a problem that is not being addressed that I feel they should be aware of.” There are contexts where that’s fine, but it reminded me of a new co-worker who came around to ask who was in charge of my department and then complained to multiple people that X needed to be done – which was not their business, didn’t affect their work, and we already knew. The only way this would have been in any way helpful is if they’d said “I’ve got staff not busy who could help with X” – but they didn’t. I could imagine this being described as aggressive enthusiasm for helping the customer.

    I can’t know your situation, but ask yourself: am I giving information other people needed and it’s reasonable to think they didn’t have it already? Or, perhaps out of an excess of enthusiasm for customer service, am I sticking my nose in other people’s business in a way that comes off as aggressive?

    1. J. random person*

      Sorry for this kind of duplicate – my Internet was being bad this morning and it looked like it had eaten the first post.

  25. CityMouse*

    FWIW my phone at work is also just Teams and that’s apparently increasingly common. I have a number, but if you call me, it pops up the exact same interface.

    I do like a Teams meeting because I get an automatic reminder on my computer so I can’t get into writing and forget the time and it allows a bigger mutual connection time than a ringing phone allows. You don’t have to turn on your camera, I rarely do.

  26. Lost academic*

    I would have a problem finding out you were using a transcription program on the call, for what it’s worth. It would not be legal in my state to do so without informing me prior to starting it, no matter where you were. It’s also just common courtesy and you didn’t suggest one way or another if you did that.

    OP1, you also said “so far I’ve gotten my way” and then ask if you’re being stubborn…. well, that’s pretty much your answer. Yes. The method of the call, not an issue, but refusing to send a calendar invite is. You’re asking to interview someone and then when they request a simple courtesy of a standard method of confirmation follow up, you directly refuse because…. you don’t like electronic calendars? It’s not about your preferences. So to me that’s the point it gets rude.

    1. Charley*

      It’s fairly standard to record journalistic interviews, and I don’t think there’s any evidence in their post to suggest that OP isn’t following journalistic ethics around recording disclosures.

      1. lost academic*

        It is, but I notice the OP doesn’t refer to themselves as a journalist and in fact says something different (in a lengthy enough fashion) enough to suggest it was intentional. I’ve noticed that there are a lot of “media companies” that actively do not feel bound by anything resembling the standard code of journalistic ethics, so I thought it was worth mentioning.

    2. Bookworm*

      LW 2 is in media and interviewing people. I’m guessing recording interviews is industry standard for on the record interviews and that the interviewee is notified of the recording.

  27. 2cents*

    Companies need to do away with anonymous feedback like, yesterday. Feedback with no context will never be helpful; and if it is detailed enough to be helpful, you probably can tell where it came from anyway.

    1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      Hard disagree. Anonymously is often the only way honest feedback of managers can be gathered – look at any discussion here if “anonymous” surveys and whether they really are.

      In a case like this I agree it’s useless, but just because a tool can be misused doesn’t mean it has no use.

  28. ChurchOfDietCoke*

    If you don’t send me a calendar invite the meeting isn’t happening. In my head, unless it’s in the (online) diary, it does not exist. I have too much going on to just remember that you’ll be phoning me at 3pm.

    1. Kivrin*

      I assume she thinks you will put it in the calendar yourself, but since that’s not how my schedule works I somehow struggle to remember to do that, even when it’s something like a haircut that I know I need to do that for!

    2. Arrietty*

      You can add things to your own calendar, though. If you’ve agreed to a phone call, put it in the calendar there and then.

      1. judyjudyjudy*

        I think the onus is on the LW to send the invite. The interviews are of more value to the LW than the people being interviewed, why wouldn’t the LW want greater assurance that the appointment will be remembered? Also, in literally every business scenario I’ve ever been in, the person organizing the meeting sends the invite.

        1. Peanut Hamper*

          I agree. This is why the “my calendar is up-to-date” message is a thing for internal meetings. The onus is definitely on the one requesting it.

      2. Boof*

        There’s a few issues here
        1) extra work on the part of the person you’re kind of asking a favor of. Yes it’s a tiny amount of work but that’s in some ways the same reason it’s even more grating (ie, if it’s so trivial why don’t you do it)
        2) EASY COORDINATION. Honestly this is the huge factor for me but then if someone has to cancel, or move the meeting, or change the info it’s RIGHT THERE and everyone sees it, as opposed to maybe buried in an email somewhere I didn’t notice etc. And if you have the same sort of calendar software (I acknowledge OP doesn’t) it can avoid a lot of fidlly back and forth as to exactly what times line up too (ie, “ok for thursday X date whenever we both are free” instead of “oh, not 11? can you do 1?” etc).

  29. Hyaline*

    Going to be pedantic here, but Ronald Reagan was not diagnosed with Alzheimer’s until six years after he left office. So there couldn’t have been any speculation about “his Alzheimer’s.“ There was discussion/speculation about potential cognitive decline, but you could not have pinpointed the diagnosis at that point.

    1. doreen*

      There was speculation after his diagnosis became public about whether it had affected him while he was in office in addition to any speculation about cognitive decline while he was still in office.

    2. Seashell*

      I think the point was, when the diagnosis was publicly announced later, there was speculation that it had started while he was in office.

      1. Peanut Hamper*

        Yes, it was very much this. There was a lot of speculation about his cognitive decline and whether or not it was Alzheimers while he was in office.

        Source: I was alive during this time.

        1. Anon for this one*

          Same. I was in elementary school and kids would joke about jelly beans (Reagan famously liked them) causing Alzheimer’s. The pedantry about whether his cognitive decline had been formally diagnosed as Alzheimer’s is misplaced.

        2. Beany*

          Agreed. If you watched Spitting Image (satirical puppet show on UK television in the 1980s and early 1990s), you’d have seen Reagan frequently depicted as being in mental decline (though not necessarily Alzheimer’s).

          It even made it into the video for Genesis’s Land of Confusion, which used the Spitting Image puppets for the band as well as Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

    3. Blarg*

      OTOH, they did keep it a secret how gravely injured he was after the assassination attempt and the 25th was not invoked and absolutely should have been.

  30. Bookworm*

    Letter 1 – I don’t think it does the LW any favors to APPEAR to be behind the times with tech. I have a new customer who hates email and still wants to fax things. My company doesn’t have fax numbers. He has to use email.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      Ironically, he probably thinks he is with the times because he is using a fax. He doesn’t realize that technology moves on whether you do or not.

      At my last job, we finally got rid of the fax line, because the only faxes we got were Caribbean vacation offers that seemed like the kind where you wake up without a kidney. I don’t know of any businesses that have fax machine any more. I wonder who he’s exchanging faxes with. My curiosity is seriously piqued now!

      1. doreen*

        I know medical and legal still use faxes and so do some government offices . However, my government office was getting away from fax machines and moving to electronic faxing when I retired a couple of years ago.

        1. Bookworm*

          I’m in the US. For your average business, faxes have gone the way of the doodoo. I was surprised to read recently that Germany is still rather big on faxes for general business use.

        2. CeramicSun*

          Yeah I’m in my early 20s and the only reason I know how to use a fax machine is because I’ve worked in medical offices. And even then, I think there are fax mobile apps now (never had to use one). I really look forward to the day there’s a HIPAA approved, more modern, and universally accepted way to send medical records.

    2. Who knows*

      That’s not really a fair comparison. People still carry phones, even if they hardly ever use them for making calls.

  31. Bookworm*

    1. It’s fine if you prefer phone calls, but calendar invites can help the other person plan things out, especially if say they’re someone with an assistant who does their scheduling and so everyone knows if there’s a conflict. The video call part of it is probably partially because when you schedule the meeting, the program automatically (I believe) produces an invite.

  32. Dr. Rebecca*

    LW3: I’m going to posit something I haven’t seen in the comments so far–I think that feedback may not have even been meant for you. It could have been a “Jane WarbleWITH? I thought you said Jane WarbleWORTH.” situation. Your behavior sounds, to quote a meme, very mindful, very demure. I can’t imagine anything lands as aggressive.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      This was my thought as well—this could have been directed at someone else and it somehow ended up going to OP.

  33. Insert Pun Here*

    If people are doing you a favor — and unless they’re the Spokesperson for Whatever, speaking to a reporter is usually a favor, not part of their job — you should make it easy for them. Send the calendar invite.

  34. doreen*

    I don’t think you can really compare running for office ( any office ) to applying for a job, for many reasons. But the main reason is that there are no restrictions on what information I can use to make my choice and even if there were such restrictions, there would be no way to enforce them. There is no requirement that a candidate for any office release their medical records or school records or tax returns or financial statements – candidates release those sorts of records because in their judgment , not releasing them will lose them more votes than having the information known would. Because I can not only choose not to vote for Candidate because of what’s in their medical/financial/school records, I can also choose not to vote for them simply because those records weren’t released.

  35. L-squared*

    Phone, I don’t care much about either way. In fact, having just done a lot of interviewing, I like phone calls, at least for early meetings. I don’t have to get dressed up, can do it from wherever. It’s much easier.

    But if a company I was applying with refused to send me a calendar invite, it would be a MAJOR red flag. It’s just a thing that is done now. And yes, I can easily put things on my calendar myself. But its so easy to do it, that it comes across almost like some stupid test to not do it. So yes, not sending a calendar invite is too old fashioned.

  36. CR*

    LW #1, I’m kind of surprised you see using Teams or Zoom as having to “fiddle with technology”; they are standard in workplaces now and I would expect anyone I’m working with to be able to use them competently – if you can’t do something as basic as send a calendar invite for a Teams call, I would wonder what else you can’t handle…

    1. Blue Pen*

      For the most part I agree, but I would also add that some Zoom meeting formats can be a little tricky—I’m thinking mainly of the larger group meetings with screen-share handoffs, navigating tech like the Owl, and whatnot. I haven’t had to do it in a while, but I know there was some finagling for my last group around recording a Zoom interview with the interviewee but making sure the interviewer’s face or voice wasn’t captured in that conversation. I imagine it’s improved since then, though.

      But yeah, for your basic 1:1 conversation, Zoom or Teams should be pretty straightforward now.

      1. abca*

        I work at a large tech company, working together with other large tech companies and it is basically a running joke on how we’re changing the world with technology and yet we still run into so many issues with Teams.

  37. Karl Havoc*

    LW1: just send a Zoom invite and use the join by phone option. Every Zoom meeting has a dial-in number by default. You get to use your phone; the interviewee gets to join however’s easiest for them; everyone’s happy.

    1. Pretty as a Princess*

      YES – I came here to say that. OP can send Teams or Zoom meetings and just call in to it using a phone because they ALL have a dial-in number available. The thing is you tell people that the call will be audio only; they can join however makes sense to them. And then your distant end has the flexibility to NOT have to use their phone – they can take the call wherever they happen to be, on a multitude of devices, and it just doesn’t matter to the OP which device they are on.

      It doesn’t make sense to me why transcription software would work better for talking on a “phone” vs the OP being on audio for a Zoom call, however. Speech recognition is speech recognition and *as long as the audio signal quality is sufficient*, it makes absolutely no difference to quality whether you are on a POTS line or doing everything over soft phones (which is basically what you are getting with Zoom or Teams audio). Most of OP’s distant ends are likely ALREADY using VOIP calling regardless of whether OP is using a landline. I take the OP at their word that this is their understanding, but I would encourage them to push back and ask questions of whomever is telling them this. There’s no technical reason for this to be true.

  38. Blue Pen*

    #1 — I wouldn’t care in which format the discussion takes place, but I would be annoyed if your request didn’t come with a calendar invite. A calendar invite also sets the frame for how long you anticipate the conversation to go for, allowing me to plan other engagements around then.

  39. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

    OP3 – a thought.

    Have you considered what your overall office culture is around communications, especially chat programs, and whether you are conforming to that culture?

    Because some people might interpret a 1-1 chat as more aggressive than a group discussion. You aren’t willing to say what you are thinking to the entire group, but you’re trying to convince people individually, and your interlocutors don’t know if you’re playing them off against each other or doing something else machiavellian. You think you’re being demure, they think you’re being sneaky or manipulative.

    I’m not trying to impute right or wrong to this, just bringing up the possibility that you haven’t read the room, and your communication style conflicts with what your coworkers do.

    1. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      I think this is a stretch. Why would you need to write in a group channel that a client called for one coworker? Or giving feedback to a manager? The only thing I could see as doing in a group slack channel is asking a question, because it might be something everyone needs to know. But again, depending on what the question is it might make more sense to ask one on one.

    2. Literally a Cat*

      This is a thing I never thought about, considering I love one on one conversations but can’t stand group conversations. This is like learning some cultures expect eye contact as form of politeness rather than aggression level of revelation.

  40. Another Kristin*

    OP 1 – My workplace is bilingual, and while I am functionally fluent in my secondary language, the lower audio quality on phone calls makes understanding the person I’m talking to much more difficult. Honestly, I’m finding phone calls harder and harder to understand in my native language as well, not sure if I’m starting to experience hearing loss in my middle age or just not as used to them.

    “I don’t get what’s different about a phone call versus a Zoom call”, well, I sure do, because on Zoom or Teams I have a much, much better chance of understanding you and responding appropriately. I don’t care much about on or off video, I just want to be able to hear you!

    1. Beany*

      This is interesting. Do you think the audio quality is just better on Teams/Zoom than on a dedicated phone? If so, is the phone you’re using a landline with a traditional handheld receiver, or do you have a cellphone? And do you use headphones/dedicated headset for the Teams/Zoom call? Perhaps your office cheaped out on the phones, so the call quality is generally poorer than it should be?

      1. Ellis Bell*

        I had the same thought; as well, it’s important to note that most of our communication is non verbal (studies show it’s always a much higher percentage than we think) and that would definitely support someone who is hard of hearing or using a second language. Not to mention being able to see people’s lips when they speak.

      2. Katara's side braids*

        I’m in almost exactly the same situation as Another Kristin (majority of my work in second language, more trouble on the phone than in-person/Teams/Zoom) and there absolutely is a huge difference in audio quality between a traditional phone call and Zoom/Teams/Facetime – even the audio-only versions, although seeing nonverbal communication and mouth movements certainly helps as well. This has been true across the board across every phone I’ve tried: traditional landline, cordless landline, cell, etc. I’m actually surprised that it’s even a question!

    2. BatManDan*

      Zoom, at least (I don’t know about Teams) allows you to pick the language of the other speaker, and then it will transcribe it into the language you prefer. (Funny note: I was agreeing with the other person with gentle “umms” and “ahhs” so frequently, that the software suggested I may be speaking Swedish! LOL)

  41. cmdrspacebabe*

    LW3: I also don’t talk much except when I have a point to make. I’ve noticed that at those times, my coworkers tend to read it as ‘forceful’ when I’m just stating something in what I consider my normal tone. I think it has to do with the contrast – they think of me as Quiet and assume it’ll be consistent, so when I do speak up and turn out to have a louder voice than they expected, they experience it as a 0-100 kind of situation. I wonder if this came down to someone misreading you – thinking that because you’re Quiet, your use of exclamation points must have meant you were SOOOOOOO HYPED.

    That would be silly of them, but… people are pretty silly? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    1. BatManDan*

      Yes, people are silly. The degree to which it seems to be expected that professional communications be delivered in way that actively manages the recipients emotions seems wild and unreasonable to me. Probably why I’ve been self-employed my entire life; I refuse to accommodate other people’s desire to have facts presented in a certain way.

    2. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      This is a good point. I’ve had something similar where I was active talking about things in meetings and people felt like I was a brown noser or sucking up or something. In reality I was relatively new and just needed clarification or had an idea.

    3. Spooky*

      Yes, people are in fact silly and we shouldn’t feel pressure to take every stray piece of feedback on board as though it’s valuable. Sometimes that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

  42. Nathan*

    LW1: Something you might start finding is that people do not have a work phone. I don’t. If someone wanted a phone call with me for business purposes, I would tell them I’m just not set up to do that.

    LW3: Bosses who pass through useless, anonymous feedback without substantiating it are the worst. Alison’s advice is spot-on; make your boss back up her decision to give you that feedback.

  43. Boof*

    LW5 – very sad! I think this is a great illustration of why, if someone who you are working with suddenly can’t be reached, it’s best to lead with “Is everything ok?” and not “how could you!”. Meaning, if you hadn’t managed to know the news through your network over the weekend I think it would have been best to reach out to other contacts at the company/manager/whatever other contact info you had and ask “We were working with ___ on an urgent deadline, and they stopped responding on [date]. Are they ok? Are we able to proceed with [project] and what should we tell [client] about the deadline?”

    1. LW5*

      This is a really good approach, too! I honestly ruminated over this all weekend, wondering if I should even reveal that I knew he’d passed away, since no one there had told me. The “Is everything okay?” approach would have given me a good out if I’d needed one.

  44. FashionablyEvil*

    LW5–it’s okay to say something like, “I have some sad news to share. Sadly, John, our key contact at Acme, died suddenly on Wednesday. We are working to get everything sorted out as quickly as we can, but there will, understandably, be some delays. I will keep you informed as I have more information and appreciate your patience and understanding.”

  45. Raw Cookie Dough*

    Sharing or commenting on a LinkedIn post is one of those things you can do to build up social/professional capital. No, it’s probbably not in your job description, but it’s not like they’re asking you to work free overtime. Log in, click like/share, and log out. To me, this is a weird flex.

    1. Another LinkedIn Hater*

      To me, it’s not. I’ve been asked to do it a lot in my industry at multiple companies, and given the toxicity of social media (and LinkedIn in particular), the unavoidable boundary-blurring between me and whatever company I happen to be with at the time, and the not-insignificant time sink, from my perspective it’s an unreasonable ask and a fully legitimate firm boundary.

    2. I Have RBF*

      No.

      My personal network is not for providing free advertising for my employer. They have their own social media accounts. Yes, even my LI is my network, my contacts, and my efforts going back over a decade.

      My employer’s thinly veiled advertising contributes nothing to my social or professional capital. In fact, slavishly posting ads for my employers (which is all that blog posts and press releases are) would decrease my social capital. It would be saying I wasn’t much of an engineer if most of what I posted was marketing glurge for my employer. I am not a social media sock puppet for my employer.

      1. LinkedIn OP*

        I might be coming at it from a perspective that’s slightly out-of-sync with many people’s professional norms, but to me I find it a bit cringey to share a random company post that is unrelated to my personal interests to my LinkedIn network, who mostly consists of college acquaintances and the like. I think it’s a combo of disliking social media in general, and also finding LinkedIn to be a rather draining version of it.

  46. WorkInnit*

    LinkedIn is very flexible and forgetful. If you post on topics related to one industry but then later switch to another industry, people won’t find that odd at all. If they’ll even remember.

    If and when you switch, you can always happily announce your chance of field in a post and then consider everyone informed. I wouldn’t worry about it too much.

  47. HonorBox*

    OP1 – Send the calendar invite. First, they’re asking for it, so why not accommodate that request when they’re setting aside time for you. And it helps on your end because you’re giving them a reminder and you’re less likely to have people miss the appointment.

  48. samwise*

    OP#4
    Don’t say you can’t login. Someone will “help” you get logged in/ change your password/ whatever — and then you will have to say, I don’t use LinkedIn or I don’t want this post on my LinkedIn, which you could have done first anyway. But it’s going to look more stubborn or grumpy if you start with the lie about logging in.

  49. Khatul Madame*

    LW1, I assume you tell your interview subjects up front that the calls (no matter what media) will be recorded and transcribed?
    While transcription/captioning is great, it seriously impacts privacy and, in some contexts, security, so it needs to be disclosed and consented to.

    1. BatManDan*

      Great point! She describes them as “interviewees,” so I’m guessing their is a high likelihood that they ARE aware, but no point in assuming.

  50. an infinite number of monkeys*

    LW 3’s feedback lands so far from the mark, with fully remote coworkers, I almost wonder if the respondent could have been thinking of someone else entirely. It’s an easy mistake to make!

    Many years ago, my grandboss was hiring a new manager for our group, and met with us to discuss the candidates. When she named one of them (Bill something or other), one of my coworkers – the only one who was participating remotely – was extremely enthusiastic. “Oh, he’s a great guy! I’ve worked with him on several projects and he’s very organized and really good to work with! He’d be a great choice!” None of the rest of us really knew Bill, but we trusted our coworker’s judgement, and the candidate was hired.

    Much later, my coworker sheepishly confessed to me that he had been thinking of a different Bill.

    1. BatManDan*

      That’s what I was thinking, too. The descriptions of the behavior were SO disparate, that I questioned if it was the same person.

    2. SarahKay*

      Many years ago here in the UK one of our political parties elected a new leader who I took an instant dislike to. Discussing the change with my Mum, I described him as a slimeball. Mum was surprised and said she rather like him, at which point I was surprised.
      Later that week she called me back and said “I got him mixed up with [other candidate]. You’re right, [winning candidate] is slimy.”
      (Spoiler alert: Decades later I still think he’s a slimeball.)

  51. CommanderBanana*

    LW#1, I also love my paper calendar. However, you are asking other people for interviews, and it’s on you to make that process as easy as possible for them, regardless of your personal opinions about Zoom, phone calls, and paper calendars.

    I would also venture to say that it’s not great to bristle at things like calendar invites if a big chunk of your job is asking other people to make time on their calendars for you.

  52. Sylvia*

    What does aggressive enthusiasm look like? I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone doing this and I’m having a hard time picturing it.

    1. Alton Brown's Evil Twin*

      Think used car salesman or Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon’s character in Election).

    2. Sunflower*

      I’m imagining Patty Simcox from the movie Grease. Not saying that’s how the OP speaks, but that’s what I imagine when I saw that phrase.

    3. Hlao-roo*

      Look for the “our disruptively cheerful new coworker treats us like toddlers” letter (originally posted October 9, 2018 and re-posted on October 9, 2023). From that letter:

      In her first week, she brought in a mountain of snacks and greeting cards, and tried to get everyone to spend their lunch hour writing cards to people we’re grateful for. Most people thanked her but declined. She buys treats for the office most days and then walks around and tells everyone to go have a snack. She makes sure she says good morning to every single person, disrupting workflow in the open concept office. She is trying to organize an “office photo” so we all have a picture of ourselves as a group, despite no one agreeing with her that we should do this. She sends emails to the entire group to remind us to talk like a pirate, eat pancakes, etc. on various “national days of.” She leaves dollar store items like mini clipboards and stickers on our desks as “treats” for hard work. Yesterday she emailed me to ask me what my favourite color was.

      I came in this morning to discover she’d left smiley face stress balls on everyone’s desks along with a sheet explaining it’s World Smile Day, telling us to smile, and trying to organize an “emoji war” between different areas of the office, where we all try to come up with the most creative smiley emojis.

      That’s some aggressive enthusiasm (with a happy ending–the new coworker dialed her “cheer” way back to a cheerful-but-appropriate-for-that-office level). I think it’s unlikely that LW3 is at this level of “aggressive enthusiasm.”

      1. Sylvia*

        Thank you everyone! I realize now that I have encountered someone who is aggressively enthusiastic. My in-laws had a family reunion–they’re pretty low key people, but someone’s girlfriend had put in hours planning activities for the adults and children. The adults just wanted to drink beer and play cornhole and the kids just wanted to chase their cousins around. She tried to enlist me to go about and force people to have sack races, but I declined.

  53. Sunflower*

    #1 No advice, but my opinion is that I prefer Zoom, Teams, etc. to phones for meetings. Unless it’s a short call and you’re calling from a landline, sometimes there’s issues with hearing clearly from cell phones, and putting it on speaker to free your hands makes the clarity even worse. Also, with Zoom and those programs, you can show/see visual aids if needed for the meeting.

  54. People want stuff from me*

    I love a phone call. Yet my University in its wisdom decided we no longer need phones in offices and signed up for a wonky web-based platform that DOES NOT WORK. And my cell phone does not get service in my office. Yes. I am cursed.
    So- its zoom or nothing.

  55. Margaret Cavendish*

    OP1, I think your question is more about optics, rather than the benefits of online meetings. I’m worried that I sound rude, stubborn and old-fashioned. I’m going to assume that you’re being gracious, and not coming off as rude! But old-fashioned, definitely.

    So, what’s the actual impact of people perceiving you this way? How annoying is it for the people you want to interview? What about your colleagues, and your boss? Is it likely to hold you back from promotions, recognition, career change? Do you even want any of those things? It’s worth putting some thought into this, and figure out if the risks outweigh the benefits. You might be totally fine with it – it’s certainly a valid choice if it works for you! The important thing is to make it a deliberate choice, rather than defaulting to “I’ve always done it this way.”

  56. BatManDan*

    LW1 – there is a phenomenon in relationships that I call “friction.” It’s the little efforts AROUND your stated objective that make it harder or more complicated than it needs to be. If you want something from someone else or other people, you will find that you get more of it, and sooner, if you take on the burden of reducing the “friction” on the other end. The most reliable way for most people to get things onto their calendar (and avoid no-shows or double-booking) is through some form of electronic meeting invitation. If you are consistently being asked for it, then it’s a sign that many of your contacts would prefer that. Some folks may prefer Zoom / Teams, even with video off, because their computer doesn’t require itself to be charged the way a phone might. Some people may prefer phone, so they can more easily use headsets and/or multi-task. In the interest of reducing “friction,” you may find it helpful to offer them a choice. But, it’s your call – if you find these tools and choices create too much “friction” for you, and you can still get what you want / enough of what you want to keep up your projects and deliverables, then it’s possible that you may choose to continue to shift the “friction” to your contacts / interviewees, and carry on as you have. Just be aware of the trade-offs. (In my experience, a vast majority of my professional contacts prefer scheduling links, where they can pick their own day and time from within whatever constraints / time windows you’ve set up, but that may be a step further than you want to tackle, considering the other bridges that you may want to cross first.)

    1. judyjudyjudy*

      An excellent perspective — understand the trade-offs of each choice, and decide how you want to proceed.

  57. What_the_What*

    LW1: How are you expecting people to block off time for your interview calls if you aren’t sending a calendar invite? Do you think that EVERYONE should keep a paper calendar at their desk and keep their schedule on like you do?? If someone says to me, I’ll call you at 10am Thursday and I don’t get an invitation to block that time off on my calendar, there’s a good chance something else will be scheduled in that slot or, frankly, I’ll plain forget. It’s a courtesy to send an invitation. It doesn’t obligate you to use Zoom or Teams, although they’re both very easy to use, but if you preference is that they sit by a phone waiting for a call from you, it is the least you can do to send a courtesy invite so they get a reminder.

    1. amoeba*

      I mean, I guess they’re expecting people to put it into their own agenda, be it paper or Outlook or whatever. Which is certainly possible and what I’d do (I mean, it’s what I do when I have private appointments as well, I block off the time myself), but would also annoy me very much if the only reason for it is “because I don’t like using a digital calendar”.

      1. abca*

        Yeah, it is kind of strange to expect everyone to send you a digital invite because you just don’t know or can’t be bothered to put something on a calendar yourself. The assumption in the answer to this question is that the interviewees are doing the LW a favor, and if so, it’s definitely kind of the LW to indeed send a calendar invite. But it might just as well the other way around, that the LW is doing a favor to the people that are interviewed. If I’m asking someone who is not a colleague for feedback on something, or a mentor question, saying I’m free all day tomorrow, and they reply “sure, let’s have a coffee tomorrow at 10 AM” wouldn’t most people find it kind of rude or at least out of touch if I would reply “can you please send me a calendar invite because otherwise I will forget??” It is not the responsibility of other people to keep your calendar up to date.

        1. What_the_What*

          It is if they are the ones initiating the invitation and asking me to do a meeting as a favor. Sure I can type it into my own Outlook, but that’s time I’m taking to create a reminder for something someone ELSE wants me to do. She’s being out of touch and kinda rude, TBH. Even Alison in her response told her to start sending invitations.

          People on this site will argue the silliest “but what about” things sometimes.

          1. abca*

            I don’t disagree that sending an invite is the right thing to do, but your comment really made it sound like you had not considered that you could add things to your own calendar. You used caps and double question marks to make your point. And again, there is no indication in the letter that LW asked them to do the meeting as a favor. It is very common for people to be interviewed for their benefit. If someone wants to write something about the product I’m developing and interview me for that, they’re doing me a favor not the other way around. It is so strange to be doubling down on something that wasn’t even in the letter.

      2. Roland*

        Yeah… I think OP should send invites but it’s a little baffling to hear people talk like they can’t possibly just block off time without an invite from someone else.

      3. EA Calendar Wizard*

        One potential problem with “can’t they just put it on their digital calendar themselves” is not everyone manages their own digital calendar.

        I manage my executive’s calendar. When he starts making time commitments without cc’ing me, that’s when scheduling conflicts and problems can arise. Sometimes he forgets to cc me or else he’s interrupted before he can. Sometimes I’m already holding that time for another meeting while waiting for a confirmation from someone else.

        Having the calendar invitation from (or to) the meeting requestor also enables me to reschedule on my executive’s behalf, if need be. Sometimes last minute things come up and meetings need to be rescheduled.

    2. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      Another thought on this is that the OP should be sending calendar invites so there is no confusion about time, date or how long something will be for. You could say when first talking with them that you need about 30 minutes. To them that means 20-30 minutes max, but the other person thinks 30- 45 minutes. Then the other person gets annoyed when the interviewer need more time that they didn’t expect.

    3. Spooky*

      To be fair, I think, in this case, I would expect that person to put an appointment in their own calendar at the time agreed upon, blocking off that time. It takes like five seconds and you can write whatever you want in there.

  58. Mmm.*

    You have to keep up with the times. Video calls are standard. Calendar invites are both standard and harder to miss. There are good transcription programs for them, and there’s a chance the people you’re calling are using them while they literally CANNOT do so on a phone call.

    Plus, a quick Google search will show you that Millennials and Gen Z are far less comfortable on the phone than previous generations. I’d wager it’s because Gen Z grew up with video chat, but most Millennials (including me) can’t really explain why this is the case. Facts don’t care about opinions, so whether or not other people are judgemental of that is irrelevant.

    1. Mmm.*

      And I just thought of this: Three of my workplaces haven’t even had phone numbers for people other than higher-ups. Expecting someone to use their personal phone is unprofessional.

      I also used to work with impoverished people whose phones were often shut off because of unpaid bills, but they could access wifi at libraries and take video calls in study rooms. You never know what someone is going through.

      1. Jack Straw from Wichita*

        I don’t have a desk phone, and I had the web-based phone app disabled on my computer. I’m internal 90% of the time, so there is zero need for me to have a desk phone. As someone with a phone phobia, it’s glorious, honestly.

      2. abca*

        On the other hand, many workplaces do not let someone install software like Zoom. I am surprised to see all the comments that act like Zoom is just standard software on everyone’s phone/computer. I think it’s not great to expect that people can and will just install video conferencing software because you want to use that for a call. It’s not the end of the world, sometimes there are no great options, but it’s a bit strange to me that people act like this is obviously the very best choice.

        1. Dahlia*

          You don’t need to install it. You can use Zoom from a web browser. You can also call into a Zoom meeting with your phone.

    2. abca*

      I work in a super large American company working with customers from other very large companies and video calls are not standard here. I would not be able to do my job if all my meetings were video calls. There will probably be more people who have good reasons not to be able to do a video call than there are people who can’t hear well and don’t have access to accessibility tools that work with phones.

  59. Delta Delta*

    #3 – Dial back the exclamation points, unless it’s something really worthy. “Congratulations on winning the Nobel Prize!” feels worthy. “Make sure to put a cover sheet on the TPS report!” feels unnecessarily aggressive.

    Also, know your audience. I am an attorney and I do a lot of work with child protection. I sometimes have cases with a state protection worker who overdoes it with exclamation points. I’m sure she was coached that it softens the message, but it comes across as entirely tone deaf. I got an email from her once informing me they were going to remove a child from the parents, and it was full of exclamation points to the point that it looked cutesey and not at all serious about separating a family.

    1. Lady Lessa*

      Sounds like the emails are hard enough without extras.

      PS Thank you for doing and caring about the work you do.

  60. Hendry*

    I don’t quite get the reluctance to share company posts on LinkedIn. It shouldn’t be forced but I don’t really see the downside – that’s kind of what LinkedIn is for.

    Also, I keep seeing referneces to a “personal” LinkedIn. As opposed to what? I don’t know anyone with multiple LI accounts

  61. Bad Wolf*

    #2 – “It’s a practice specific to presidential candidates; it’s not something that’s expected outside of that one very specific situation.”

    This is not entirely true. I know at least one instance – film production – where actors, director, and certain key crew are required to take a medical exam for production bond insurance purposes (this is not medical insurance). The reason being is they are not easily replaceable if they get ill. So if they are unable to continue filming, their absence will cost the production a ton of money. And possibly jeopardize completing the film.

      1. Bad Wolf*

        That is true. But they are released to the employer. Who, in the case of our president, is The Nation.

    2. Bad Wolf*

      Now that I think about it, there are plenty of jobs where individuals need to be medically cleared as a condition of employment.

      1. I Have RBF*

        Yep. I had a job where we had to take an annual physical, with hearing test, every year. The return to our employer was just a pass/fail with notes on any restriction, not the full details, but that was because the occupational medicine clinic handled the criteria.

    3. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

      No, see, Alison (and the LW) were talking about making the medical exam results public. That’s not at all the same as just having the medical exam. Because you’re right – there are LOTS of jobs that will require some level of medical exam, or at least just drug testing.

  62. Speak*

    For LW#5, we didn’t have a death, but an unexpected medical leave happen to a project manager just this week at my work. The person on leave does have access to email, teams, and their work laptop, however they will be out of communication most of the next 2-3 months. We are trying to get other project managers up to speed to take over the projects and have been communicating this with customers as needed. Also those of us working on the projects have been taking up the slack with responding to customer needs where we can and when the customer uses Reply All or as the PM forwards us messages (days or hours later). So those of you who feel the Reply All isn’t a good choice, it is when an unexpected event, like the death of the main contact occurs and you need to get ahold of anyone on the team.

  63. Tom R*

    Even if you have valid reasons for using. traditional phone call, there is zero reason not to send a calendar invite that says “Dave to call Jane at x phone number”. As others have mentioned, if there is no calendar invite, the chances of me remembering that you are going to call at a certain time are slim to none and slim will leave town as soon as something else pops up at a similar time.

    1. Jack Straw from Wichita*

      Honestly, I wonder if once this starts happening the LW will get better information from the people being called.

      If I have a calendar invite, I’ve likely prepared a little before the meeting. If I don’t, it’s likely I’ll forget about it and be ill prepared when called.

  64. PieAdmin*

    I though McCain was the first candidate to refuse to release his medical records? I remember it being a big thing at the time, especially since he was running against the much younger Obama.

  65. Sea Obee*

    LW5: Recently one of my direct reports unexpectedly became very ill and died only a few months after joining my team (though we had worked together longer). One of the things that made it so incredibly difficult, on top of managing the sadness and shock, was that she hadn’t been on my team long enough for me to get full visibility into her work and all of her regular contacts. She had been with the company for nearly 20 years, and was one of those people who mostly kept stuff in her head and didn’t document a lot. (Something we had just started to work on together before her sudden illness.) That meant that not only was I responsible for absorbing her work and relaying the news of her death to our coworkers, receiving their grief, and coordinating condolences to her family, I was also having to break it to her external contacts in waves as I discovered new ones I hadn’t been previously aware of, then having to be part of their shock and grief over and over, for months. It made it very difficult to process my own grief, because it felt like every day I was starting it over with somebody new. It is maybe the hardest thing I’ve had to deal with in my nearly 20 years as a manager, and those years had otherwise been pretty cuckoo bananas.

    I totally agree with Alison’s script. I can say that, in situations like this, the things that made it easiest for me were 1) a brief response expressing shock and condolences, 2) asking for the info you need (that’s expected and okay!), and 3) offering to share that info with your networks.

    And, like Alison’s parenthetical, I agree this is totally optional, but when people who had worked especially closely or for a long time with her shared nice words or a fond memory of her (and likewise when I could share that with them) that seemed like a bit of a balm for both of us. Something like, “She was always so kind to me” or “She gave me this tchotchke for my desk and I always think of her when I see it” really did help. If you ever find yourself in that situation and feel moved to share something like that, please do.

    1. nonprofit director*

      I am the wife of someone who passed away under similar circumstances. My husband’s employer passed on the nice words and fond memories to me and I treasure them. I met my husband at work decades ago, but my career went in a different direction and I loved to read how much my husband impacted his professional network.

    2. LW5*

      I’m so sorry to hear that you and your team dealt with this! It sounds exhausting and heartbreaking, I hope time is helping. This is really great advice, too – I’ve felt a bit awkward with my new Acme contact, as I want to keep things moving forward but also don’t want to be insensitive to the fact that something terrible has happened in their office. I hope I’m not in this situation again, but having a little insight into what it’s like on the other side will be helpful if I ever am – thank you!

  66. Jack Straw from Wichita*

    LW1 – You are able to call by phone into both Zoom and Teams meetings. If you prefer the phone, you can still use it with the meeting apps.

    But for the love of everything, please start sending calendar invites–even if they just say “Will call you at [phone number],” and has details of the ask/meeting. It is a standard business practice. It is SO much easier to look at a calendar invite to recall information than it is to search through the 100+ emails I get on any given day.

  67. Whale whale whale*

    A note on Zoom or Teams – it might be an accessibility issue. I’m hard of hearing and phone calls are the bane of my existence. Having video associated with the call helps me read lips and understand things better. The closed captions also do wonders.

  68. PP*

    On the LinkedIn, do people have good ideas of how to just say “no” – assuming that you are in a job that is not one of the type mentioned as actually involving LinkedIn?

    Especially if you are just in an individual contributor role why not just say “no”, nicely?

    You have an interest in your network focusing on what you prioritize not what your [in this day and age temporary] employer wants you to.

    [Personally, I think saying you have problems logging in, is not in you favor as it is easily solved and looks like you are tech inept.]

    1. I'm just here for the cats!!*

      I would say something like “thanks for the suggestion but I do not use LinkedIn in that way. I only use it to keep up with industry news, old coworkers, and other networking. If you notice I do not have any recent posts.”

      I agree that you shouldn’t say you have problems login in, because you will most likely get someone who tries to help. The only way you could say that if it’s in a joking manner like “LinkedIn? Oh gosh I forgot I even had that, it’s been so long I wouldn’t even know my password!”

  69. Mrs Kung Pao*

    LW5 – thank you for putting thought into this.

    I was in a situation where my boss was diagnosed with a terminal illness and was very private about it, and as his second in command, I became the point person on everything after he passed (he was in denial and unwilling to pass on a lot of things prior to his passing, which was an entirely different problem, but one I had a lot of empathy for). Many people were not aware that he was sick, and the amount of rage-y voicemails I fielded was surprising. Some people were concerned because it wasn’t like him to not respond. It admittedly did feel gratifying to call the rude people and say, “well, he has not responded because he died.” He was very well known in the community and beloved by many people, so fortunately the word did spread quickly once it was out.

    This also very much highlighted the need to cross train people and ensure more than one person has some type of visibility on high projects. Fortunately, my boss remained cognizant long enough to do some of that. It was a really sad situation, I had worked with him for 5 years but known him personally for much longer, and also professionally one of the hardest times I had as a manager. I contacted who I was able to inform them of his passing and add in some kind words, and it did help when people responded with their own stories of knowing him, because he was a great human.

    1. LW5*

      Oh, that had to have been tough – especially with someone you knew so well! It’s also good to know that the news spreading was a relief, for you. I was worried about disclosing it to my client out of respect for his family/co-workers’ privacy, but a few people have chimed in and said that it was helpful for someone else to spread the news, so that’s knowledge I’ll have now, though I hope I don’t need to use it again!

  70. Midwest-y*

    I assumed the health disclosure related to the transition of power – how likely it is that a vice president or House speaker would need take over the executive branch. I never thought of it as a question of their decision-making capacity – that is until Biden.

  72. Goldenrod*

    I want to specifically highlight this part of Alison’s response to LW #4 because this strategy has been sooooo helpful to me in so many different work situations:

    “If you’re mentioned by name when the request is made, nod and make a note on your to-do list and then … just don’t.”

    This works really well with incompetent bosses who have bad follow-through. In particular, I once had a manager who insisted on really illogical approaches to work and refused to even discuss her bad ideas. I would just say, “Okay, will do!” and then just….not do it. She also had a shockingly bad memory (conveniently).

    Obviously, this is only for use in dysfunctional situations but…highly recommend! It’s surprisingly effective. A lot of times bad managers are focused on employees’ performative “respect for their authority” and don’t really notice or care how the work is actually getting done.

  73. Destra N.*

    LW1 —

    As someone who struggles to understand phone conversations (this may be a mild auditory processing disorder), I vastly prefer video calls because I need the context of seeing the person I’m speaking with to fully process it, and the sound quality is usually much better, too. Plus, options like Google Meet include closed captioning, which I use heavily when I’m conversing with colleagues who have thick accents that I have trouble understanding. There are good transcription options available for all the major video call platforms, too.

    I know that learning new tech can be scary when you’ve had a system that works for so long, but it’s time, if for no other reason than to be as proactively accommodating as possible for people who struggle in audio-only environments. You never know when the person you’re interviewing may appreciate the accommodations available on video call platforms that aren’t available for phone calls.

    1. abca*

      I mentioned it above, but there are really good reasons for people to have issues with video calls, so this is just difficult. It makes sense that a person with a very specific disorder would ask for an accommodation to use video, and if the other person has no issues with video, then sure, they should offer that option. But since there are so many reasons why video calls can be terrible for other people, it really should not be the default option. This is not one of these cases where accessibility improvements for one group makes things better for everyone.

      I’m wondering if you would consider doing what you recommend to LW, and learn how to use transcription software that works with a phone number.

      I am also a bit taken aback by this and other comments that are frankly condescending to LW. Saying “I don’t like to fiddle with tech” is not at all the same as finding it scary. Many people who work in tech hate all this fiddling with technology. We already do enough of it. There’s a trend of using paper calendars and notebooks. That’s not because people who use them are just so scared of technology, that’s because they recognize the limitations and issues.

  74. Dawn*

    LW4: I know you said you’re ok with liking or commenting on a post if asked, but, don’t. Your best move here is to cease all interaction with your company on LinkedIn (or other social media) and, if braced, explain that you’re just not using that site/account anymore – and on most of them you can actually restrict what they can see.

    This isn’t just to keep them from bothering you; asking employees to boost your posts on social media is actually astroturfing, and it can harm the business if it comes out that they’re doing it. My previous employer had a strict social media policy that we weren’t ever allowed to like or comment on either one of our company’s posts, unless we specified that we were a team member, or on our parent company’s posts, or any posts about our parent company or their other brands, specifically to avoid the appearance that employees were being directed to do so.

    So seriously, it’s time to cut your employer off from your social media accounts.

  75. Toothpaste*

    I do not think that the questions about the health of presidential candidates dates to Ronald Reagan. It goes back earlier to the removal of Thomas Eagleton from the Dem’s ticket in 1972, after it was revealed that he had undergone electroshock therapy to treat depression. This article has a deeper history: search for George Annas, “The Health of the President and Presidential Candidates: The Public’s Right to Know.”

  76. Katherine*

    Love Zoom, hate Teams, but always prefer that kind of platform over a phone call. Over the phone, I cannot share a link, share my screen to demonstrate anything, etc. If someone has to call on the phone, they always end up emailing me links or I end up emailing them links or gahhh it’s a mess. Also, I don’t care if I’m not “camera ready” or if other people have their cameras on. I know this was a Big Deal a couple of years ago but I simply won’t turn mine on if I really don’t want to, At any rate…people ALWAYS need calendar invites for lots of different things. PLEASE don’t torture the ADHD among us by not putting stuff on our calendars :D

    1. Katherine*

      *also…both zoom and teams have robust transcription facility; I don’t think the “transcription program” reasoning is going to work for people who know how those other platforms work.

  77. Jl*

    OP 1, Zoom and Teams can be phone calls too.

    Also, don’t complain about technology and please meet everyone where they are. it can really bring a company down when people are difficult for the sake of being difficult. It’s one thing if it’s an accessibility issue but in these modern times, calendar invites are an expectation for meetings.

  78. HappyEveryDayNow*

    At the company I work at, the only option for calls is Zoom or Teams! We moved to a new location a few years back and to save money, no phones were installed at people desks or offices. VoIP, Zoom or Teams. If you need to call someone who doesn’t have access to a PC/is traveling, they use the phone number in the meeting request to call in by phone.

    Alternatively, you need to use your personal cell phone for business.

  79. Literally a Cat*

    #3

    I’m kinda in the same boat. If I were to guess, you are likely to be young appearing, femme coded, and a person of colour. I’m frequently told I’m too enthusiastic or too aggressive, and the same behaviour from white masc are encouraged. What’s even odder is while I found almost exclusively it’s white folks who take issue with me that they’d have no issues with a whitefella, the gender distribution turned out to vary a lot more. I think I’m at the point of just accepting that professionally I will always struggle in ways that people not in mu demographics would, and adopt a persona akin to 10 year old English public school boys as in “too cool to give a **** about anything”. If this is about not using any punctuations other than commas and full stops, let it be.

    I’m sorry you have to deal with this too.

  80. Rosacolleti*

    #4 our employees have a KPI around building a network and personal identity in our industry, which includes a minimum requirement for attending events and posting on LinkedIn. BD’s are expected to be more active, say 1 post a week and 1 event each quarter whereas a designer maybe once a month and once a year. It’s critical in our industry and traditionally they’ve been really poor at this.

    I’d be disappointed if if they didn’t at least occasionally share one of our business posts but it feels icky to make this a requirement.

  81. Filofaxes*

    Hi LW1:
    Fellow (ex) newspaper writer here. I know you don’t specify and I’m not asking you to dox yourself but I greatly suspect that’s your industry. I also prefer my paper planner, journal, fancy pens, etc. But I also treat my personal Google calendar and my work outlook calendar (synced with each other) as the primary way to manage my time. If an event isn’t on that electronic calendar, it doesn’t exist for my ADHD brain :-(
    And people sending calendar invites is one of the reasons why that system works so well for me after YEARS of trial and error.

    You’re asking people to give up their time AND divulge possibly sensitive information to you. The very least you can do is make it as easy as possible for them. And your post is giving “I don’t want to learn how to use basic tech tools because I’m Better Than Everyone Else” vibes. Maybe you didn’t mean it that way but that’s how it’s coming across. That whole vibe is a large factor in the newspaper industry’s continual death (there are a lot of other factors). And journalists I know who brought into that vibe could not pivot to any other writing job out there. Partly because of their lack of contemporary skills but also because of their “I’m better than you and I can’t be bothered to learn basic tools” attitude. No one wants that for a coworker. Don’t be that writer, LW1. If you have to get pushed out of the field, let it be because some VC hack bought the paper and turned it into a money laundering front—not because of your own stubbornness and pride.

  82. Remote Work Emily Post*

    I don’t have a company phone number, just my cell phone. In addition to the worst-of-both-worlds that is a live conversation with no video, I do not give my cell number out to external work contacts. So insisting on phone is just a quick route to never talking to me.

    It is the year of our Chappell Roan two thousand twenty four; it’s time to get comfortable with Zoom.

Comments are closed.