new boss has a different work style, hanging a photo of the president in your office, and more

by Alison Green on October 11, 2024

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

1. My new boss has a different work style than my old boss

I’ve been in my job for three years under James. I’ve liked working with him and have learned a lot. The work is fairly strategic in nature, and James often asked for multiple approaches to be tested and a lot of workshopping before making decisions. He prioritized creativity and thoroughness over speed. Mostly this worked out fine and he was never unhappy with my work, but sometimes it took a month to do something that I felt could have been done in a week. I would have preferred a little more independence and decisiveness, but overall it was fine. He would also sometimes assign projects and then forget about them when I was finished, which wasted time or resources.

James has recently been promoted and is no longer my supervisor. I am now supervised by his former boss, Michael. Michael approaches the role very differently. He is much more focused on getting results and while it’s been a bit more hectic, overall it’s a positive and I’ve been getting a lot more done and feel better that projects aren’t dragging out any longer.

Michael has not said anything negative to me but has occasionally queried why something from a while ago was never finished or why an earlier version of something took much longer. I’ve just said the priorities at the time were different but haven’t elaborated. I’m not sure if I should ask for a meeting to explain that I worked at a particular pace because that was what James wanted and I wasn’t slacking off or struggling before. Michael would not previously have known a lot about what I do but I don’t want him to have a negative impression so I’d like to clear the air, while also not blaming James for the previous slower turnarounds.

I’d love some advice on how to approach this or if I should even say anything. James still works here, and he and Michael are good friends.

I don’t think you’ll necessarily need a specific meeting to address it; it’ll probably be enough if you just add a bit more information each time Michael asks about one of these things. For example, rather than just explaining that X didn’t happen or took a long time because the priorities were different, you could say, “James wanted me to test X, Y, and Z before making a final decision about it, so that added a few weeks to the timeline.” Or, “I did X and Y on project Z but James ultimately decided not to pursue it.” This isn’t throwing James under the bus; it’s giving your current boss factual, relevant context about why things were done. At some point if it comes up organically you could also say, “James preferred to test a lot of angles and his style was to prioritize that over finishing more quickly. I actually really like finishing things quickly and find it more satisfying, so I think my style meshes more with yours in that regard.”

2. Can I have a picture of the president on my office wall?

I have a picture of the sitting president and vice president on the wall of my private corporate office. It is not in a common area like the break room, conference area, or hallway. Is this a violation?

That’s up to your company! But it’s definitely reasonable for them to say that people can’t put up partisan political messages at work, and they can have a legitimate interest in doing that. It might be more intuitive if you think about how you’d feel about a colleague who had a portrait of the previous sitting president in their office and how that could potentially affect your working relationship or simply be a distraction.

(This assumes you’re at a private employer. In the federal government, office buildings frequently hang portraits of the sitting president, although they’re typically in common areas. This is a weird tradition.)

3. “Have a great day!” in email signatures

A few people who report to me use an email signature that includes the words “have a good day” or “thank you and have a great day!” before their signature. Emails may include external or internal customer support, as well as day-to-day internal emails.

I find this off-putting. Emails could be anything from a neutral customer question, to a very serious problem with a customer account, to responding to a coworker who emailed about their mom being sick. Sometimes it just doesn’t fit with the rest of the email. I think I am also personally annoyed by being told to have a good day.

So far, I have not said anything. I assume they have added this to their email template out of kindness. In at least one case, I don’t have the best relationship with the person, and I don’t want to unnecessarily increase tension. Is this just a personal annoyance that I should get over? Is there a legitimate business case in asking them to remove it?

It’s mostly a personal annoyance that you should get over. There’s one exception: if they’re not editing that out of emails where it would be inappropriate (like a response to someone saying they’ll be out for bereavement, for example), you have standing to tell them to be vigilant about doing that. Otherwise, though, let it go — after all, if they were manually writing that out every time, it would be too micromanagery to tell them to stop. (This assumes that you’re working in a fairly typical environment where people have some autonomy over the way they write emails beyond this.)

4. Coworker keeps sending timecard reminders to our team’s social group text

My team recently doubled in size, and many of the new hires are in their early 20’s, either in their first or second job post-school. We also hired two leads, a brand new position for the expanded team. Both of the leads were outside hires, neither of whom had direct experience in our field, and it seems like one of them, “Taylor,” is struggling a bit to figure out what being a lead means. In their defense, one of the team managers is a huge micromanager and power hoarder who I suspect has not been sharing power well and who I know has pushed back on both leads when they’ve come to management with suggestions for what they might contribute. Neither management nor coworkers with more seniority know what the lead roles are either. (That’s part of the reason none of the existing staff applied for them.)

One way this has displayed for Taylor, though, seems to be trying to assert their authority as much as possible in ways that I and other coworkers I’ve chatted with find annoying and counterproductive. The most recent manifestation of this involves a coworker group chat of about 20 people started by one of the other new hires. Now, I don’t want to be in a 20-person group text in any context, but especially not for work. It’s mostly social with people sharing fun photos (followed by a dozen notifications of “Elliott liked this photo”), but recently Taylor has started using it to remind everyone to submit our timecards. They’re doing this by making memes about it, so not only do I get the text from them (before I’ve even clocked in that morning) but also the requisite 5-10 follow-ups that someone slapped an emoji response on the meme.

Taylor is not my (or anyone else’s) supervisor, and I do not need or want timecard reminders from them. I’ve muted my own notifications from that group but apparently my phone will neither allow me to leave the group entirely nor prevent notifications from showing in the status bar. Can I just respond in the group chat after the next timecard meme just saying, “Hey, can I request we keep this chat social and leave work messages for email or Teams?” I do like my colleagues and don’t want to seem crotchety, and I think for Gen Z a huge group chat is a pretty innocuous thing, but I am genuinely annoyed. Should I say something to Taylor in person so I’m not calling them out in front of everyone else? Should I just keep dismissing notifications and relax?

It’s reasonable to say, ““Hey, can I request we keep this chat social and leave work messages for email or Teams?” And actually it makes it less of a big deal if you just say it casually in the chat rather than having a whole one-on-one conversation with Taylor about it. If you want, you could add, “I don’t always check here and I don’t want to miss anything work-related that I need to see.”

But also, this would be A Lot for a lot of people. Could you suggest moving the whole thing to a Slack channel or something else that’s easier to mute/ignore and where you can turn off push notifications altogether (or only have it on work devices)?

However, all that only gets at the constant notifications problem, when it sounds like your real issue is with Taylor asserting authority that they don’t have. If that’s the piece you really want to address, that’s a one-on-one conversation with either Taylor or your manager — although if you go that route, focus on examples other than the timecard thing since, while that’s annoying, it’s likely to seem a little nitpicky. If you have more substantive examples, those will be more effective to use.

You may also like:
{ 439 comments }

{ 439 comments… read them below }

  1. Daria grace*

    #2 now perhaps even more than usual people are grappling with the impacts of political decisions for their lives and there’s plenty of people for whom the implications are legitimately terrifying. I think it would be a kindness to not create unnecessary prompts for them to have to think about the politicians making those decisions while they’re trying to work.

        1. Hlao-roo*

          I’m not having any issue scrolling down. Two things to try first:
          – clear your cookies on your current browser to see if that solves the issue, or
          – try using a different browser and see if you still have the same issue

          If neither of those works, there’s a link to report “an ad, tech, or typo issue here” above the comment box. Tech issues can get addressed much faster when reported through the link than when posted in the comments section.

    2. Annie*

      Yeah. Lots of people, regardless of political leaning, have Very Strong Feelings about certain politicians. Absent further context, the portrait could be read (or mis-read) as signifying one’s opinions about that politician or general leaning.

      IF the company bans certain political imagery at work, that would be a great reason why!

      1. Jill Swinburne*

        Why on earth would anyone have a photo of the president on their wall, in a non-government environment, if they weren’t trying to make a statement about their political leanings?!

        (I do not live in the US, so this may be completely normal and a gap in my cultural understanding for all I know.)

        1. Daria grace*

          There’s plenty of countries where having a photo of the king/queen in public places is common or even required. Maybe some people used to that norm figure portraits of the president is the equivalent in America?

          1. KateM*

            I’m pretty sure that having a poster with the sitting president is required in our schools (and other similar posters with country flag, coat of arms, anthem, and whatnot). That’s obviously for educational purposes, of course – for students to know some basic facts about their country.

            1. CL*

              Unclear if you are in the U.S. but I have never seen that in any school I have attended or visited…public, private, and across multiple states. It may appear in certain classrooms for education purposes or be a requirement in certain states.

              1. duinath*

                I am not in the US, and this letter reminded me of the Kate Beaton “my nemesis” comic. …Pretty sure that says more about me than it does about the LW, though.

                From popular media, I don’t think this picture is a very weird thing to do in the states? But I think Alison and Daria Grace have it right here, and it’s best to leave it at home.

                (And if the idea of having it in your home feels off, that is all the more reason not to have it at work.)

                1. JSPA*

                  I remember it being a thing in the principal’s office with Nixon, Ford, maaaaybe Carter, and probably Reagan, but I’m guessing less and less as politics entered the modern demonization era (not to imply that it wasn’t equally or more vitriolic at some other points in history).

              2. Clisby*

                I can’t recall seeing that, either (I’m from the US), although I think it’s pretty common for a classroom to display an American flag, and maybe a state flag.

                1. PurpleShark*

                  I have worked in a High School (for the past 11 years) and elementary and middle public schools for the past 27 years. In addition, I attended public school in my state, a state that has produced more than a few presidents, and this is not a requirement. The government teachers usually have some pictures but they are not required to do so. Those pictures were usually of the historic variety – think George Washington.

                2. MigraineMonth*

                  I went to high school at a time our state legislature was feeling particularly patriotic, and we were required to have an American flag hung in every classroom and say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, but there still weren’t any pictures of the president displayed.

                  Saying the Pledge turned into an interesting experiment in free speech (and/or the right to remain silent) and the amount of protest allowed in public school. It was very educational, though I suspect not at all in the way the legislature intended.

            2. Mgguy*

              I don’t remember ever seeing this in my K-12 education in a common area of the school, although I don’t doubt that it happens. I remember one school always kept a portrait of the current Governor, but it actually did and still does seem perfectly normal to me for the town where I grew up(state capital, probably 3/4 of the students at that school had parents who were state employees, and the city always has a bit of a weird relationship with the governor regardless of their party).

              I do remember a lot of history/civics/social studies teachers having pictures of the president, VP, or other people cursorily related to that, but those were also often curriculum related. I can remember during the 2000 election, when I was in middle school, my civics teacher had a large poster of all of the candidates for both parties and would note primary wins for each candidate then draw a big X as each one would drop out. I was fascinated with it at the time, loved that teacher doing that, and it gave me a lot of real-time insight into the process. A high school history teacher had a poster of every former president, with the then-current one in the center of it. There again, though,

          2. Emmy Noether*

            Yes, I was thinking of that. It seems to be more common in monarchies (and dictatorships…) to have a picture of the head of state up even in private spaces. A bit like hanging a flag.

            I guess the test for that is if LW had a photo of the president up in the previous administration, and/or if they would switch it out if the next president is from a different party.

            No matter the intent, though, it’s unusual enough in the US that it will probably not read “picture of head of state here” to most people, but rather be interpreted as being partisan. They’d have to make a gallery wall of past presidents to change that perception.

            1. KateM*

              I think this is a good test! Better than “how you’d feel about a colleague who had a portrait of the previous sitting president in their office” because while having the current one may be “picture of head of state”, a previous one (who is not the founder of country or something) is without doubt a political statement.

              1. Cei*

                I understood it as “how you’d feel about a colleague who had a portrait of the previous sitting president in their office WHILE he was in office”.

                1. Jackalope*

                  I was understanding it as having the previous president’s portrait up currently. The reason for that (for those outside of the US who may not follow our politics) is that currently the former president is running against the current vice president, and a large percentage of the country has a strong feeling about one or both of them. If you feel positive about the current president, enough so that you’d want a portrait hanging up in your office/cubicle, it’s likely that you have a strongly negative response to the last president. (You may know all of this but not everyone will.)

              2. Tio*

                Also, if the person of the party opposite you were to win, would you put their picture up instead?

                If no, take it down. And that’s if it were even allowed – my company bans partisan political statements, and I doubt they’d allow this.

                1. Annie*

                  I think that’s the key. If you are doing it to support the President, regardless of which President, then fine. If it’s only to support the President you like, then it is a political statement.

          3. EvilQueenRegina*

            We’ve got King Charles in our reception (local government UK) but that’s a recent thing and we never had the Queen. I don’t think it’s required here.

            (Given the number of prime ministers we’ve had here recently, it’s probably a good thing we don’t have a requirement to display a picture of the prime minister. I think I’d put up one of Larry the Cat, the real PM!)

            1. londonedit*

              I vaguely remember some sort of thing around the coronation where schools and public buildings could apply for a free portrait of the King to hang up…agree that it’s not necessarily something you’d generally see unless it was a public building. We certainly never had portraits of the late Queen up when I was at school.

              1. PDP*

                Presumably portraits were sent round after her coronation, in 1953, but simply fell out of use in the almost seventy years that followed.

              2. Lenora Rose*

                I’m at an administration building, not a school, but we had two portraits of the Queen up; one just in a hallway, and one where the Board meets.

                I think we still have the portraits of the last Queen, in fact, just now with appropriate black memorial ribbons. Nobody has made shift to replace with pictures of the King.

              1. Bob*

                Yes but it was in his office or at least in 10 Downing Street, where one would expect to find Priministerial portraiture.

              1. Kara*

                I personally would find it funny, but that would definitely cross over the line into being partisan. Better to not.

          4. LL*

            A private sector office isn’t a public place though. And someone’s personal office in a private office building certainly isn’t. It has to be a political statement, there’s no other way to read it.

        2. So they all cheap ass-rolled over and out fell out*

          I am reminded of the letter writer who wanted to avoid political conversations by displaying their support for a (somewhat obscure, at least insofar as I and some others had to look him up) political figure.

        3. LL*

          They wouldn’t, imo. I think it’s kind of weird to have pics of the President and Vice President up in federal government buildings because it makes it feel like they’re a monarch or a dictator that we’re subservient to and that’s weird to me as an American, but at least that kind of makes sense since he’s ultimately their boss. (Although, frankly, it would be super weird to me to work somewhere that has a picture of the CEO on the walls of the office.)

          But hanging a picture of the president in a non-federal government workplace is absolutely a political statement. There’s no way it’s not.

        4. Midwest-y*

          My mom used to work for a USDA county office in rural Midwest. It was required to have photos of the current president and secretary of ag on the wall.

      2. Person from the Resume*

        If an employee chose to put a picture of current President AND VP in their office, they are making a very strong political statement.

        I’m going to vote the same way as the LW and I think photos make a political statement that’s inappropriate for the office.

        In federal buildings a photo of the President is just a photo of their uber-boss, and it’s not political statement because it is always the sitting President and not making a statement of support to either party.

    3. The Grinchess*

      I still find myself randomly thinking, at weird times, out of the blue, for no apparent reason, about the Trump / Vance flag my manager now has hanging in their office behind their desk.

      1. I Have RBF*

        Ewwww. That says a lot about your manager, their thought processes, and their politics, and none of it is good WRT their discretion and objectivity.

      3. glad not to be working with him any longer*

        I used to have a co-worker who put a big “Hillary For Prison” sticker on his work-issued laptop. It did not create a favourable impression.

        (We weren’t even in the USA.)

    4. Hyaline*

      I agree–and I even read this question as quite literally “I have a portrait of WHOEVER is the sitting president” (as in LW changes the portrait based on who is in office). It’s not a choice I would make, personally, but I can appreciate that the LW may not be trying to be partisan or divisive with their decor. However, in contemporary US culture, this is not a standard thing to do, particularly in private buildings, and could be jarring, distracting, or upsetting, especially in the workplace with power dynamics and other complications in play.

      1. Antilles*

        Even if that is the question though, the problem is that people entering your office aren’t going to know that it’s “whoever is sitting President” and that you change it every 4/8 years; they’re just going to assume that it IS a political statement.

        1. a clockwork lemon*

          I think it is reasonable to assume that adults working in offices in the United States, regardless of their personal levels of political engagement or partisan affiliations, know who the current president and vice president are and can recognize them in their official government portraits.

          It’s largely out of step with our political culture to have the portraits on display, and it wouldn’t be acceptable under many corporate policies for a variety of boring non-political reasons, but even election fraud hard-liners recognize that the official position of the U.S. government is that the guy in office is, in fact, the president.

          1. Antilles*

            ???
            Of course they would know who the President is and recognize him.
            My point is that when someone walks into your office and sees that you voluntarily chose to hang a photo of the current Democratic President in your office; that is going to automatically be taken as a political statement of support for him, his policies, etc.

            1. Crooked Bird*

              Oh, I see what happened! I think they took “aren’t going to know it’s “whoever is the sitting President”” quite literally.

          2. Nightengale*

            I mean I might not but then I am that faceblind. In fact I often explain my extent of faceblindness as “I do not reliably recognize pictures of presidents I’ve voted for” because the standard faceblindness tests online use a lot of celebrities I’ve never heard of. Yes I know who our president is. I recognize his voice. I would not rely on my ability to recognize his photo.

      2. MigraineMonth*

        Even displaying a picture of the sitting president (regardless of political party) in your office in a private company is unusual enough that I think it’s a political statement. Non-partisan, perhaps, but it does indicate a a deference to the head of state that’s unusual outside of country founders, monarchs or dictators.

    5. Anne Elliot*

      For #2 and whether the practice is weird: I work for a state agency and in our public offices we have a picture of the current agency head and a picture of the governor. While maybe not necessary, the pictures are traditional and do serve the purpose of reminding staff who they work for. We are an executive-branch agency, so while we all do obviously work for “the State” writ large, we also ultimately work for the governor, not the legislature. This can be an important distinction. At the agency level, in a large agency line staff may not have much (if any) interaction with the agency head, so a picture reminds them of who that person is as well, and what they look like.

      1. Phony Genius*

        Someone told me a story of one time they visited a California state office. It was while Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor. They had his portrait hanging in the lobby. But it appeared that somebody replaced the official portrait with one showing him as the Terminator. Unless, maybe, he requested it?

      2. Smithy*

        I do think that in federal and state government, this is a good example around how something ceremonial can also serve a semi-functional purpose.

        Essentially, if you think of the DMV – just even that visual marker that it’s a state run agency (I think so?) as opposed to city or federal. And so instead of leadership ultimately coming from the federal department of transportation or the mayor’s office that it’s from state/governor’s administration. For members of the public (if maybe even the staff), it can provide that connection to where a given office/department sits in the bigger picture.

      3. Chalky Duplicate*

        Remembering faces can matter, indeed.

        My spouse used to work for FHWA, and a particularly useless coworker only got fired after the transportation secretary came by for a visit — aforementioned coworker didn’t recognize who they were and think to hide that they were shopping online at work.

    6. In the middle*

      I work in a public school with a JROTC program (non americans-this is “U.S. Army Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) is one of the largest character development and citizenship programs”) Since this is part of the army…. there are pictures of the Army “chain of command” culminating in the sitting president. It’s weird.

      1. yvve*

        its honestly a surprise to me to hear that you find this strange, as i grew up military kid and ALL of our schools had photos of the local chain of command, up through the president, in multiple locations, as did the library and several other buildings. I suppose it never occured to me how strange that would look if you weren’t used to it

    7. Spooky*

      OP2 having a portrait of whatever president up in a non-federal office is extremely weirdo-coded (unless it’s an Irish grandma having a picture of JFK since that’s an established thing). You’re going to look like a tone-deaf weirdo no matter which portrait it is or what you think you’re conveying. This isn’t North Korea, no one thinks it’s cool or normal to act like you’re a fan of politicians.

      1. HB*

        I think the one *maybe* exception would be when the person is also in the picture AND the situation that led to the picture was related to some sort of public service work or personal recognition (as opposed to a fundraiser or random photo op). In that case it’s more humblebrag/conversation starter rather than fannish behavior.

    8. ThatOtherClare*

      Many countries will hang pictures of their monarch, but not the current prime minister.

      Monarchs don’t change often, and are a symbol of the country.

      Prime ministers change regularly, and are a political symbol (much like presidents).

      Perhaps if you in the US have a similar symbol of your country (your constitution maybe?), a picture of that might be more appropriate and convey the intended sentiment.

      1. democracy*

        The President of the US is head of state as well as head of government. In the UK, the monarch is head of state, and the PM is head of government.

  2. Martin Blackwood*

    Lol, I have considered adding “Have a good day” to my email signature since 90% of emails i send are ‘Attached is the daily XYZ report. Have a good day!’ In fact, i sent an email following that template moments before opening askamanager. You’re allowed to be bothered by it for sad personal messages, but the rest is just them Being Nice

      1. Mad Scientist*

        “Warm regards” feels icky to me. Why are they warm? Idk why but it grosses me out! I’d rather just have your regards, you can keep warmth out of it.

        1. Dasein9 (he/him)*

          I mentally hear them in Loe Whaley’s “Brenda” voice, with the response being “Toodaloo!”

        2. Delta Delta*

          Find Demetri Martin’s bit about “Warm Regards.” It will make you giggle if this is your reaction to warm regards.

        3. ferrina*

          I’m the opposite! I love warm regards- it makes me think “my name is Olaf and I like warm hugs.” But when I just see “regards, I think of a posh Brit sitting at a large desk sniffing and thinking “ugh, I am done with the riff-raff”
          (no idea where I just picked up that visual, but that’s what comes to mind”

          1. Sweet Fancy Pancakes*

            I used to have the same feelings about a former colleague who signed all of hers “best”. Just “best”. I still think it’s a little weird, although I have seen others do the same thing.

            1. Long time reader*

              I sign off a lot of emails with “Best.” It feels like it works. I’m also a big fan of “thank you” but sometimes it really doesn’t make sense in context & I’m also trying to avoid being an overly friendly woman.

        4. Dawn*

          I have “kind regards,” it’s a habit I picked up at a previous job, ironically. We signed off on every email like that and eventually I took to just putting it in my signature.

          1. Clisby*

            Before I retired, I worked for years at a US company that coordinated a lot of things with our partner company in Germany.

            Our counterparts in Germany usually signed off “Kind regards” or “Regards”, and a number of us got into the habit as well.

    2. Roche*

      Also, the LW said they don’t appreciate being told to have a good day – but I’ve always thought that “have a good day” isn’t an imperative but short for “I wish you have a good day.”

      2. Sneaky Squirrel*

        I’ve always interpreted “Have a good day” to be “I hope you have a good day” myself. I personally think “Have a good day” comes out almost more sincere than “thank you” or “warm regards”. I don’t truly believe that someone is sending me a thanks or warm regards after a particularly heated email exchange.

      3. JB (not in Houston)*

        Yes, exactly. It’s not a command, it’s expressing a wish that the recipient will have a good day.

        1. Olivia*

          I have a coworker whose email signature is “Create a great day” and I find it extremely obnoxious.

          1. No Tribble At All*

            We did it folks, we found the more annoying version of “have a great day!”

            If, eg, my therapist’s receptionist had “Create a great day” in their email signature, I’d complain to the practice (:

          2. Mad Scientist*

            Yes, that version is obnoxious. Similar to my HR lady who has “make it a great day” in her signature. It’s just over the top and turns a normal phrase into something condescending.

            1. Over It*

              I had a coworker who ended all emails with “Have a great day ON PURPOSE!” (emphasis hers) and would often say it in meetings too. I found it really grating, but it didn’t rise to the level of doing anything about. LW needs to let this go. Although definitely a case for workplaces having standardized email signatures; I saw some eyebrow raising fonts/quotes/GIFS/Blingees in email signatures at that job…

            2. a clockwork lemon*

              My husband and I say that to each other in the mornings before we start working every day–it’s cute when it’s an inside joke with your spouse and no other time.

          3. Olive*

            Ohhhh, I was about to complain about how exhausting it is for people to complain about “have a good day” (seriously, just let it go), but I HATE “create a great day”.

            1. The Rise and Fall of Sanctuary Moon*

              I am soooo tempted to start saying “create a great day” to everyone, complete with gently laying my hand on top of theirs and staring meaningfully into their eyes. I would be quickly murdered, but it would be worth it.

          5. Goldenrod*

            “Create a great day” is too much responsibility!

            I want to randomly *have* a good day, I want the luck to be in my favor.

      4. Learn ALL the things*

        Right. It’s kind of a modernized version of “best wishes.” When I say “have a nice day” at the end of an email, I am saying that I wish the recipient well. It wasn’t until today that I learned that some people don’t want me to want good things for them.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          I think some people hear it as a command to pretend the day is or could be good (similar to “Smile!” or “Be cheery!”) when they’re just trying to make it from one day to the next.

          I try to treat common social exchanges as semantically meaningless: “How are you?” “Fine!” “Have a great day!” “Thanks!”

          It doesn’t necessarily mean I’m fine, or that I am going to (or even could have) a great day. It just means I had a successful social interaction.

          1. Yadah*

            Honestly I think people who read it as a command need to dome some internal reflection. I can’t imagine how exhausting it would be to go through life taking every benign pleasantry as toxic and overbearing.

            I think you nailed it with treating common social exchanges as semantically meaningless – it makes sense. As a stranger or casual colleague I don’t usually want to hear in depth your honest answer to “how are you?” The question is meant to be more of a “I’m acknowledging you in a pleasant way” type of interaction.

        2. Random Bystander*

          I think the thing is that if it’s included in the email signature–it doesn’t come across as genuine, it’s something so rote that it’s auto-added by the machine.

      5. ferrina*

        I’d like to hear Gandalf’s thoughts on “have a good day”.

        “Do you mean that I am obligated to create goodness on this day, or that the day is obligated to be good to me? Or perhaps that you wish me to shape the day so that it is good to me?”

      6. Spooky*

        Yeah interpreting the missing words in “have a good day” as “I order you to-” instead of “I hope you-” is just willfully obtuse jerkishness. C’mon. It’s not that serious.

    3. Elan Morin Tedronai*

      “Have a good day” may not be apropos for certain occasions like Alison said and sometimes if you have a moment of absentmindedness you’ll end up stepping on a few toes.

      IMO something like “Thanks”, “(___) Regards” or even something archaic like “yours sincerely” would convey some positivity yet also be neutral under most if not all circumstances.

      My email signature is kind of like this…

      New Emails:

      “Best Regards,
      Elan Morin Tedronai [Moridin]
      Nae’blis, The Chosen
      Shayol Ghul, The Borderlands
      Malkier 00666”

      For replies and forwards, I just stick to :

      “Best Regards,
      Moridin”

      2. Insufficient Sausage Explainer*

        I (under 50) feel positively ancient in hearing “Yours sincerely” described as archaic!

        Mind you, I’m extremely fond of the old-fashioned French sign off that translates as “I assure you, Sir/Madam, of my most distinguished sentiments.”

        I’ve accepted the death of “Yours sincerely”, though, and mostly use “Kind regards”, unless someone’s really annoyed me, in which case they get a terse “Regards”.

    4. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      I think it’s fine to add it to your signature if you use it frequently, but just be ready to delete that line where it isn’t appropriate (eg laying people off).

    5. Mongrel*

      Personally I’d be fine with having a template e-mail for those situations while leaving it out of my signature for ‘normal’ communications.
      While the times where such a jaunty sign off would be inappropriate are rare the reason stuff gets put in a signature is so I don’t have to think about it. I guarantee I would forget to take it out when necessary

    6. Glomarization, Esq.*

      My default e-mail signature is very formal for lawyer reasons, but when I’m corresponding with a legal assistant or court clerk, I very, very often add “hope you have a great afternoon” or something similar. Lord knows, people get all kinds of cranky letters and e-mails from lawyers all the time, so I might as well try to add a little sunshine whenever I can.

      1. Bast*

        I call it “formal nice.” “I hope this email finds you well” “Thank you, and have a nice weekend” etc. This isn’t how I’d talk to friends and family, but what does it really cost me to type out a quick, “formal nice” sentence in an email? Also, I have found that people tend to respond more positively to those they deem as friendly. There are certain attorneys no one wants to communicate with because they are more often than not, combative and/or just straight up rude for absolutely no reason, especially if they deem you as “less than” aka anyone that is not a partner or judge.

        1. I am Emily's failing memory*

          I love a meme I saw a while back that’s said: “Your email did indeed find me well, but it left me a shattered husk of who I once was.”

          1. Lexi Vipond*

            ‘finds you well’ is one of my mild very personal irritants because I tend to read it as the same structure as ‘find X easily’ – that the email was good at finding me.

            But I don’t rant at the senders about it. And I’m not really ranting now, just mildly amused at the state of my brain!

            1. Annie Says She's Okay*

              Oh my god, now I’m picturing an email chasing you as you desperately try to hide, set to the theme of Inspector Gadget

              So hey, the state of my brain is apparently “slightly cracked”

        2. ferrina*

          Yes! I agree with all of this- I’m more bubbly in my emails than I am in real life, because I find that gets the best results for me. The “formal nice” has served me very well.

          1. Martin Blackwood*

            Bingo! Thats why I say “Have a good day” in my two sentence attached-is-this-report-FYI emails. Id rather their impression of me is friendly person!

    7. Mad Scientist*

      Yeah I’m really confused about being annoyed by being told to have a great day. Sure, it’s not appropriate for sad messages, but in any other situation, I don’t see the issue at all. I personally don’t include built-in sign-offs in my signature… It just has my name and contact info, and I add the sign-off each time depending on the context. But I do often add some variation of “have a great day / weekend” especially when emailing someone from the south (I always try to be extra polite when communicating with people from the south lol)

      Caveat: there is one HR lady at my job who has “Make it a great day” in her email signature, and that DOES annoy me because it feels condescending, as if it’s someone’s fault if they’re having a bad day. Whereas “have a good day” is simply wishing someone well.

      1. amoeba*

        Yup, same here (except the HR lady, that would annoy me as well!) I like adding “have a great day”, and I’m German, so not exactly from a culture known for their warmth and politeness, lol.

          1. amoeba*

            Hah, at least not according to our direct neighbours – I live in Switzerland, and the loud, annoying, way too direct German is definitely a stereotype here!

          2. Having a Scrummy Week*

            The stereotype is that they are very direct and blunt, definitely aloof.

            My reality in living in Germany as an American is they are direct, but very warm and kind as long as you’re not being obnoxious in public.

      2. Successful Birthday Rememberer*

        I just sign mine ‘Best’ or ‘Thanks’ but…
        I would be really surprised by someone who would take issue with ‘Have a good day’ in an email signature and ask that it be removed – especially as their manager! If you want to risk sounding like a miserable grump that people talk about behind your back, I think it’s a great idea. Better to just let it go so people don’t get the wrong impression about you.

      3. carrot cake*

        Agreed! The “Yeah I hate that so don’t do it” is so accusatory (of what? Who knows), and doesn’t at all consider whether anyone else actually finds it amiable.

        Learn to get over it, folks, and be on your merry way. Sheesh…

      4. The OG Sleepless*

        I kind of like being told to have a good/great/nice day! I probably could have done without the chipper “have a great day!” from the cashier at the pharmacy when I was buying infant Tylenol at 3 AM; all signs indicated that I was NOT going to have a good day, but I guess I appreciated the optimism.

        1. Le Sigh*

          It’s possible the cashier was on autopilot. I always did my best to tailor my words to the situation as a cashier, but sometimes it would just come out reflexively.

          1. Hroethvitnir*

            Heh, yes: I’ve definitely done things like the above, where it just comes out and when I realise I might follow up with “as best as possible” or similar in a self-deprecating tone.

            Sometimes I failed and I just awkwardly flailed, but at least they knew I knew that was a weird thing to say, haha.

      5. Le Sigh*

        Phrases like, “Make it a great day!” hit too close to inspirational poster/live laugh love for me. I wouldn’t be a jerk about it, but I would roll my eyes.

    8. honeygrim*

      I always struggle with how to end an email. Sometimes I’ll add “have a good day” if I’m emailing a group of people outside of my workplace, but all of the more common complimentary closes just don’t feel authentic to my personality. To me, “sincerely” is too much like a letter, “regards” or “best regards” just doesn’t feel like something I’d say, “best” by itself sounds far more peppy than I am on my best days.

      I end a lot of emails with “Thanks!” which usually works because I’m often either asking for something or at least asking someone to read an email, but sometimes feels a little weird. But just closing with “honeygrim” seems really abrupt.

      “Have a good day” can indeed come across wrongly if the email topic is serious, or if you are sending it to someone who is having a terrible day or a difficult time in general. But I can see how it would be a go-to close if you can’t come up with anything that you feel comfortable with. I mean, that’s what I usually say to retail staff as I’m leaving a store, and that’s what they usually say to me.

      Email closings are apparently a hot topic in my brain.

      1. Nodramalama*

        For people I dont know in a work context, I end with Kind regards. For people I do know, I end with thanks! And for people I know well I end with cheers

        1. Silver Robin*

          I also have these three! Though I am not sure I can explain when I choose to use them as succinctly. Still, I do feel they dona good job covering all the options I need. Sometimes if I am particularly annoyed or trying to be a bit colder, I use just, “regards”, but that is quite rare.

          1. Nodramalama*

            Hahaha yeah if I send just regards I’m reeeeal annoyed. They won’t know I’d normally say kind first. But I do.

            1. Insert Clever Name Here*

              I always end emails with “thanks” but the punctuation is key.

              Normal:

              Thanks,
              Insert Clever Name Here

              Irritated, probably cursing you in my head, absolutely wondering about how you manage to move through the world given your ineptitude:

              Thanks.
              Insert Clever Name Here

              I don’t read the same thing into other people’s emails and the recipient probably has no idea I think they’re infuriating, but I know!

              1. Persephone Mulberry*

                This is me, except Normal is with an exclamation point and Irritated is with a comma.

                It’s probably the Midwesterner in me, but I can’t fathom a level of rage that could provoke me to sign off with a period, LOL.

                1. Successful Birthday Rememberer*

                  haha I love this. Midwestern nice is a thing but we find ways to work in our true feelings.

              3. Successful Birthday Rememberer*

                I have started doing this with a coworker. She used to get ‘Thanks!’ sarcastically from me but she didn’t pick up on it. So now she gets ‘Thanks.’ over chat when she’s being difficult. She understands it now and doesn’t talk to me so it has worked out well.

            2. Annie*

              I just use Regards normally, with everything. Kindest regards seems excessive, like your normal regards isn’t good enough. Best regards or warmest regards seems excessive to me as well.

              Sometimes I’ll just simply say thanks, though.

        2. honeygrim*

          Oh maybe I should try “cheers.” Though it makes me feel a bit like Patsy from Absolutely Fabulous.

      2. Sneaky Squirrel*

        I use “cheers” a lot when the messaging is more positive and switch to a more formal “Thank you” or “Regards” when the message is likely going to feel more negative.

      3. I am Emily's failing memory*

        I often want to use “cheers,” which I see many of the British folks I email with using, but I’m not British so 9 times out of 10 that I’ve almost used it, I ended up going with something else because I worried it wouldn’t sound right coming from a non-British sender. They seem to use it as just a cheery “end of email!” signoff, but somehow it only feels right for me to use it for “end of celebratory email!”

        1. londonedit*

          ‘Cheers’ means ‘thanks’ as well as being the thing you say when you clink glasses together, so that’s how they’re using it. They don’t mean ‘Cheers! Clink glasses! Hoorah!’ – in the context of an email sign-off it’s just an informal way of saying ‘thanks!’.

          Personally I don’t use ‘cheers’ unless it’s a very informal email to a colleague, and probably one where I’m asking for a favour – something like ‘Hi Rob, can you send over those latest cover designs for the llama book when you get a chance? Cheers!’

          My usual email sign-offs are ‘Best wishes’ or ‘Many thanks’ (if I’m asking someone to do something), or often just ‘Thanks’. I do quite often do a two-part sign-off where I’ll say something like ‘Hope you have a lovely weekend’ and then on the next line ‘Best wishes’.

        2. Silver Robin*

          I absolutely picked up “cheers” from British coworkers a decade ago and it has been received well (in the sense that nobody has told me it is a problem) by my majority American coworkers since.

    9. Kari from Up North*

      I stole mine from the podcast, Pantsuit Politics:

      Have the best day available to you,

      Kari

    10. Person from the Resume*

      I have “Thanks” in my signature block by default now.

      Quite some time ago now when I was in the military it was common to end with “Respectfully” “Very Respectfully” or “V/r” which meant the same thing. More formal for a more formal environment.

    11. Mgguy*

      I don’t have it as part of a formal email signature but often say have a great evening/weekend/whatever to colleagues if I’m having a conversation right before I or they leave for the day. I’ve been known to add it as a sign-off after an email exchange-i.e. I’ve had a couple of(friendly) back and forth emails with someone and once whatever issue is taken care of will often sign off with “Thank you for your help, have a great rest of your day” or something along those lines.

      My standard email signature just gives my name/title(I have an “external” and “internal” one as I figure there’s no point on an internal email saying who I work for) and usually manually add whatever sign-off I think would be appropriate.

    12. Tempest*

      I add “have a great day” to emails that otherwise may seem terse. I may have to explain something, or correct their assumptions in the previous email, so I do it to indicate that I am not frustrated in any way. I do not have a standard sign off in my signature, so I change it depending on context. (Asking someone to do something? Thank you, or Thanks if it is an internal email. Formal email of some sort? Regards, etc.)

    13. Khai of the Fortress of the Winds*

      “Have a great day!” has become so much a part of our normal conversations that I don’t think most people realize they are saying (or typing) that. I was recently home with COVID and every single health care professional I communicated with used that phrase as a sign off. No matter how good the day was at that point it never got to the level of “great.”

    14. Have a great day!*

      Yeah, that one hit me hard because for about a decade, I started every email with “Good morning/ afternoon” and ended every email with “Have a great day!” The reason I did this was because in my first job after leaving the military, I was told by my boss that I needed to be more friendly in emails*. I wasn’t rude in email, but was to-the-point. So I added the greeting and the well wish and then it became a habit. I later decided to drop both, but it was HARD because I felt like I was being rude. It would have totally messed with my tiny brain if someone said using the phrase was rude (kind of like the letter a few years ago complaining about “thank you in advance” which I used, up until that letter, A LOT”). Sigh. Humans are HARD to interact with.

      *In retrospect, I think there was some sexism at play, both by my male boss and by the women I was emailing with.

    15. LW3*

      LW3 here. I think the reason it annoys me is that so many times it doesn’t match the tone of the rest of the message. Like an email to a client where you say some formal version of “Because of a mistake made by your staff, your federal compliance reports are incorrect and funding may be compromised. Have a great day!”

      It happens far more often than it should, and it really doesn’t feel like good customer service.

      “I’m so sorry your mom is in the hospital again. Praying for her recovery. Have a great day!”

    16. Freya*

      My default signature says ‘thank you’ because 90% of the time that’s appropriate. I also have an alternative set up that says ‘kind regards’ because that’s the one I use when I’m thinking “no thanks to you!” or similarly cranky things about the recipient, and it’s easier to have it set up than to try and think of a polite thing to say in the moment.

      (I switch to the EOY one (updated before I switch) as my default when it gets to the point in time when people need to know when to get stuff to me so I get it before I go on holiday. The office has a standardised wording that I tweak to my own word choice preference)

  3. Ann Jansi*

    No. 4. I assume you have a digital calendar. Ask Taylor to send out a recurring calendar reminder the group/team. Less invasive but does the work of reminding. We have this at my work for sending in expenses, updating our leads documents and similar.

    1. Van Wilder*

      I actually think, if Taylor can’t find anywhere to flex her authority, timesheet reminders are a helpful and innocuous project to take on. And I personally appreciate getting timesheet reminders in whatever forum, since missing a timesheet impacts my bonus.

      But OP doesn’t appreciate it, and from that perspective it sounds annoying. I’m surprised that the banners still come up when a conversation is muted? I feel like there must be a better technological way to ignore all the messages unless you want to check it in a moment of boredom.

    2. fhqwhgads*

      It sounds like the issue is not just the Where of the reminding but also that Taylor is overstepping by doing the reminding at all. So asking Taylor to do this specific task in that way is not really helping. Getting them to not do it in the group chat is a win.

      1. Yadah*

        This is the thing though, IS Taylor overstepping?

        OP explains that the role is pretty undefined and people aren’t super sure what their purview is – there’s a chance that this is something Taylor was told to take on. It would make sense, timesheets are something people are often bad at doing in a timely manner and it would give some authority/reason for a team lead without giving them any sort of significant leadership that would ruffle the manager’s feathers.

        I worked for a company once that created “senior” roles to placate people without actually deciding what that meant and it resulted in all sorts of awkwardness like this where folks weren’t technically overstepping but because their job was so poorly defined it created friction.

        1. OP #4*

          You make a fair point that because I don’t know some of their actual responsibilities, some of the things I find irritating may be Taylor doing what they’re supposed to. In this specific case though I don’t think so, because my actual manager regularly emails timesheet reminders to the whole team.

          1. Molly Millions*

            OP#4 – since you said Taylor’s timecard reminders are in the form of memes, is it possible they’re intending them as jokey/camaraderie messages, rather than orders?

            I went to university with a girl who used to post “Don’t forget to pay your rent!” every first of the month – not in a patronizing way, but as a “friendly reminder from a fellow stressed-out student.”

            It’s worth considering if the messages might read differently to Taylor’s colleagues who are similarly recent hires.

    3. Always Tired*

      As the timecard collector and reviewer form my company of 40ish, let me assure you that for many, a calendar reminder is not enough. I will start with an email at 11:30am to catch people right around lunch, and a follow up at 3:00pm via teams. Monday morning at 9:00am will be a pointed email to the 10ish people who still haven’t finished, and at 11:00am will be the first round of phone calls. Some additional phone calls will be made at 1:00pm to the stragglers, and if all goes well timecards will be collated, reviewed, approved, and sent for payroll by 2pm. I will have spent around 6 hours total on the project, 4 of which are finding out who to nag and sending reminders. We do payroll and thus timecards weekly.

      I wish a calendar reminder was enough. But if Taylor has taken on making sure timecards are done, or was assigned it, they may be constantly chasing down a good chunk of the employees. While OP dislikes the reminders, my guess is many others need them.

      1. Freya*

        I admit to having dealt with this by getting the necessity for timesheets codified in the standard employment contract. That is, if you’re not providing the paperwork necessary to paying you, on time, you don’t get paid.

        It was very satisfying being able to say to people “did you send me your timesheet? No? Get it to me today and you’ll be in the next run” the morning after pays were run. And now, all the timesheets come in on time or they’re very apologetic, and if they’re not following the rules then I don’t have to either. Because my time is much better spent invoicing clients using the information provided by our people than chasing those people for that information.

    4. Potsie*

      Someone I work with did that and it was extremely annoying. Being reminded to submit my timesheet when I was not yet done working made me actually forget to do it when I did finish.

  4. KateM*

    I don’t think that having the portrait of sitting president in a public space is that weird a tradition for federal government offices – isn’t that like having the photo of the Big Boss / owner of your company?

    1. Myrin*

      FWIW I also think it’s supremely weird to have a photo of the big boss/owner/founder up in any given company but I’ve always figured that’s because I’m not from the US and I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that anywhere here – I reckon this seems much less strange if you’re used to it.

        1. Hush42*

          Yep, my company has the owners/founders family history on the walls in one hallway (he’s very into geneology) and I think that’s weird enough, having pictured of him would be a little weird.

          Also, we had a potential vendor send a box of snacks with a card stock cut out of their CEO in it with a stock marketing letter on the back of it. It’s one of the strangest marketing strategies I’ve seen. we still have it 2 years later though, cause we hide it in each other’s desks, so I guess it kind of worked? we all know who that vendor is even though we don’t use them.

      2. Tio*

        No, most private companies don’t have pictures of their founder/CEO up, even in the US. But it is more normal for federal offices to have pictures of the president, that are in common spaces and, importantly, rotated when the president changes.

      3. RagingADHD*

        I think the older an organization is, the less weird it is to have a portrait of the retired or deceased founder or a series of portraits of successive Chairs displayed in some public or semi-public space. Having a portrait of the sitting leader is more odd.

        1. Kelly L.*

          Yes, my institution has the wall of past heads, and my elementary school had all the presidents, up to and including the one who was in office at the time. These were along the wall where we waited in line for lunch, and I figure it was so we’d learn something while standing there bored lol. (The school closed some years back, and I had the chance to go inside when the building was repurposed for something else; the last one there is Obama, because of when it closed.)

          1. Fanny Price*

            Can I just say that I did a quick double-take at the phrase “wall of past heads” before the correct meaning (I assume) slotted into my brain?

      4. Clisby*

        In general, I’d find it odd to have a photo of the big boss up in a private company, but in some cases I wouldn’t find it odd to have a founder’s photo up. Like, it wouldn’t surprise me to see a photo of Sam Walton in WalMart headquarters, or Walt Disney at Disney headquarters.

        1. LL*

          Same. I think it’s less weird to see a picture of Walt Disney in Disney’s offices than it would be to see a picture of Mark Zuckerburg in Meta’s offices. Having a current leader up, even if they’re the founder, feels cultish to me.

    2. pennyforum*

      Depends on cultural traditions. I’m not in the US and have never worked anywhere with a photo of Big Boss or the President (or Prime Minister a more powerful role) on the wall. My Catholic ethos-run schools did have crucifixes on the wall, but never political figures.

      If I saw a photo of a political/management figure on the wall in a job interview, I’d certainly ask about it. Not a deal breaker, but certainly a quirk, e.g. five photos of different cats in costume.

    3. Juniper*

      Yeah, I worked in an embassy for several years, and there was Bush staring at me every day for the first few, followed by Obama. Even though my political leanings are in alignment with only one of those men, I think it’s an important reminder that here, we are the federal government serving the American people under our president.

      1. Nonsense*

        I would think the flag would work just as well for a reminder. But then, I’ve never been someone who needs to be reminded who I’m working for.

        1. Elephant*

          I think the flag works! But I think there’s something to the idea that the American people have chosen X Person to represent them, so X person’s picture hangs as a reminder of that choice in self-governance. I say that as someone who was teaching in an overseas government school in 2016-2017. One day, there was Obama, and then it was Trump.

        2. Juniper*

          That came across as unnecessarily snarky. Perhaps I misread you. But to your point, a photo of a president serves as a different kind of reminder, since yes, we all know who won the last election. Working for the federal government in our fractured political environment can be challenging on the best day. And at an embassy it can be especially fraught when two of the more extreme ends of the political spectrum are brought together in a pressure cooker of an environment: idealistic diplomats who are often quite progressive in their views, and very conservative military.

          People will inevitably have quite strong feelings about who the president is. But those feelings come second to the pursuit of a higher purpose: getting on with the business of running the government under the executive office. A photo of the president is symbol of that unifying purpose and to put aside our political beliefs to focus on our duties.

      2. Sar*

        Heh, I worked in a federal building starting in December 2016, and there was a looooooong gap before Facilities found the picture hangers to do the changeover. (I suspect my then boss, who was the chief of the primary function of the building, was behind it but never confirmed.) Several months. It definitely gave me a bit of cheer, a la the Badlands Natl Park twitter account.

        3. Coverage Associate*

          The flip is that the United States Attorney’s Office here in San Francisco took until like 2018 to change their website to reflect that Kamala Harris was no longer the attorney general of California. (Harris became a senator the same month Trump became president.)

      3. Nodramalama*

        I don’t know, I work in government and do not think seeing pollies faces helps me remember what I work for. In fact it reminds me that I mainly find politicians annoying.

        1. It's Me*

          #2

          While I would find a random portrait of any president odd and possibly polarizing, I realized I wouldn’t care if it was a photo of you with said politician. While, yes, it may symbolize your support of that person, it could just also have been a neat opportunity. I know I have taken a picture with a congress person I met “in the wild” and even though I didn’t necessarily agree with them, it was still neat and had I had an office/desk at the time, I would have displayed it. To me, it’d be like meeting a celebrity.

          However, even then, if you would be upset at a coworker displaying a “Met the Pres/Former Pres” photo, then leave it home.

          2. Mgguy*

            I used to spend a lot of time hanging out at a small camera shop in my home state. There was a picture there behind the register of the owner with Mitch McConnell, someone who’s always been a polarizing figure and one who, well it’s no surprise that the owner of a camera store nor a lot of the typical patrons would be a fan of.

            None the less, the photo was there because McConnell had come in the store one day with his daughter to buy a camera for a photography class she was taking. That store was where everyone went to buy a camera for their photography class(store offered a 1-school year guarantee, free replacement batteries for the school year, and a guaranteed buy-back for 70% of the selling price if in usable condition) and of course McConnell came there for that reason. That photo hung on the same wall as photos of other locally famous people, many of whom were actual regular customers there. It didn’t seem out of place given the context, and the owner seemed to jump between bragging about McConnell coming in there and being somewhat ashamed about the picture.

    4. Anonymous Reader today*

      Former federal worker and currently a federal contractor here. My experience has been that all higher ups are pictured. So if you are in the Federal Teapot Agency, the President might have a Pic, but ALSO the Secretary of Teapots. I always assumed it was to ensure people knew who they were if they showed up… especially since these practices prr-date the wide availability of photographs, even for newspapers. Could you imagine if you are working the front desk on floor 7 and the Secretary or President walks in and you harass them for not having made an appointment or something?

    5. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      isn’t that like having the photo of the Big Boss / owner of your company?

      That’s actually the scenario I thought the headline was pondering.

    7. Mockingjay*

      It is essentially a photo of the Big Boss – the president is the head of the Executive Branch and is the boss of all the federal agencies and departments within it.

    8. Fed Analyst*

      Yeah, I work for the federal government and didn’t think it was that odd when I read the question at first. (I’m working on figuring out how to align what’s normal vs. what’s common in government.) I recently got promoted to a senior leadership position and keep hoping for an opportunity to play two truths and a lie so I can say “My photo appears on the wall of a federal building below President Biden’s.” I also think I’d be thrown off if I went into a private office, even in my place of work, and his face was on the wall, though.

    9. I Have RBF*

      In a public space, like the lobby, in a federal office building seeing portraits of the current pres and VP would be normal in the US. The key, though, is public and federal.

      Having portraits of the pres and VP in a private company office would seem partisan, even if they were changed with each administration. The key here is private office and private company. If they were not changed with each administration, it definitely would cross the line into a partisan display.

      Election signs and banners in any workplace not specifically affiliated with the candidate would be very much bringing politics into the workplace, and would annoy me, even if it was a candidate I supported.

      There is a tendency in some workplaces to assume that all your coworkers have the same political leanings. They don’t, and not bringing partisan politics into the workplace avoids bad blood. I really don’t want to know if a person that I have to work closely with is a fan of certain bigoted politicians.

    10. Emily of New Moon*

      I can’t help but wonder if the LW actually has a photo of the president and vice president of the company; and we all just assumed they meant the president and vice president of the United States!

  5. AnonForThisOne*

    #2

    Being as politically neutral as I possibly can here…but politics and the ways in which the country changes under different leaders can have vast and long reaching consequences, especially for any group who are marginalized in any way.

    Leave politics out of the office. There are definitely presidents that I would find it distracting to have displayed and some that I would consider that display to be off putting enough that I would at least consider finding a way to make a formal complaint about it were it something I was faced with often.

    1. Agent Diane*

      UK-based here. Government (national and local) may have paintings/photos of the head of state or leaders of the council. If the latter, it’ll all of them not just the current one.

      I imagine the staircase at Number 10, where they traditionally hang portraits of the various Prime Ministers, has had to be rearranged a lot over the last six years as we burnt through PMs quite fast.

      And there’s a serious point there: if you only have the one President, you’re making a political statement. What do you do after the next inauguration? Take it down? Leave it up regardless of the outcome in November? Whatever happens, you’re Making A Political Point with your office decor. Don’t do that.

      1. UKDancer*

        Yes a lot of Government offices in the UK have the monarch up in the entrance. It’s fairly common and I’d not be surprised. Never seen anywhere with the Prime Minister up and that would be considered unusual. I guess because the PM is elected and changes a lot but the monarch doesnt.

        I’m trying to unpick why having the PM up would be weird but having the monarch is not and I don’t know.

        1. Arrietty*

          The monarch tends to stick around long enough to get round to hanging the picture. I doubt there was even time to frame a picture of the lettuce before the British prime minister changed again.

          1. londonedit*

            Yes I was going to mention that if someone had wanted to have a photo of the current Prime Minister on their desk over the last few years, they’d have been changing it every five minutes.

            Also trying to imagine people in the UK with photos of Keir Starmer on their desks…regardless of anyone’s political leanings, that would come across as incredibly weird. Unless you’re literally in 10 Downing Street, it’s really not the sort of thing people do here. Politics isn’t really discussed unless there’s an election campaign going on, and even then people are uncomfortable talking about it.

        2. UKDancer*

          I guess also in Government offices the monarch’s picture is in the entrance (at least in the ones ive been to when meeting civil servant friends) rather than in individual offices so its a corporate rather than an individual statement.

        3. Emmy Noether*

          Two reasons:
          – a picture of the monarch is tradition, and tradition often isn’t perceived as weird even if it’s objectively weird.
          – the monarch is a symbol of the country itself (like a flag), the prime minister is not

          1. MassMatt*

            Was going to say the latter. The PM, like the president, is a politician, everyone is free to disagree, argue with, or boo them. The monarch is not a politician nor head of the executive branch of the government, it is a symbolic role. While the British may poke plenty of fun at their royal family as well, it’s not at all the same as with a politician.

        4. Irish Teacher.*

          I guess a monarch is a bit different both because the person doesn’t change very often and because they don’t represent any political party.

          It does feel a bit different…even than having a picture of our president, who has a seven year term and often serves two terms, so can be in position for 14 years and who may technically be from a political party (they don’t have to be, but all have; we nearly had an independent once but it ended up not happening) but often isn’t all that associated with them (our current president got votes from way more than just Labour supporters). I wouldn’t think it particularly problematic if somebody had a picture of Michael D. I honestly probably think more that they liked his poetry or had had him as a lecturer or that they’d been involved with or benefited from one of his social justice typed campaigns rather than assuming they were a Labour voter, but…it would still seem a bit odder than having a picture of a monarch. I’m not quite sure why.

          Maybe partly because electing somebody makes them seem less “above” the rest of us.

          Having a portrait of a taoiseach (prime minister) would just seem really odd. I wouldn’t really think it so much partisan as just…strange. It’s partly because Ireland is small and Irish politics are pretty close to the people (my brother mentioned last Saturday having seen our tánaiste – deputy taoiseach – sheltering from the rain a couple of hours previously) and I worked with our Minister for Education when she was a teacher, so like…they just seem like ordinary people and the idea of people putting up portraits of them would seem weird.

          A historical taoiseach like Jack Lynch or de Valera (though that could be controversial for it’s own reasons; he’s just a guy people feel pretty strongly about for different reasons) or W.T. Cosgrave or Seán Lemass would seem more normal.

        5. Glomarization, Esq.*

          It’s a distinction between head of state (monarch) and head of government (prime minister). In the U.S., though, the President is both.

          1. londonedit*

            It’d come across as weird if someone had a portrait of the King on their desk, though. We don’t do that sort of thing unless it’s a public place (and even then, not all that often – it’s not like we have paintings of the King hanging all over the place).

            1. EvilQueenRegina*

              Well, apart from maybe the woman in a previous letter who took offence at someone’s joke about King Charles finally getting a job at 73?

              1. londonedit*

                Oh, good point. She’d definitely have a portrait of the King on her desk. (I hope she’s not reading; she might think we’re joking about the King again…)

            2. UKDancer*

              Yeah I know one person who has a picture of himself with a minor royal when he got a gong in the honours list and it was more because it was something he was really proud of and recognition for his hard work for a charity than because he has any great liking for royalty.

              1. fhqwhgads*

                There’s also a difference between “photo of you and so-and-so at Event that honored you” and “photo of so-and-so” in general.

          2. Lime green Pacer*

            Exactly! And the head of state in the Commonwealth–whether the monarch or a vice-regal like our Governor-General–is as politically neutral as is humanly possible.

        6. LL*

          In the US, the president is the head of the Executive branch and all offices that fall under that branch have pictures of the current president and vice president hanging in a common area somewhere. Since we don’t have a monarch, the president is the one ultimately in charge of that branch, so having his picture up in those buildings is more similar to having a picture of King Charles hanging in a government office in the UK than having a picture of whoever happens to be prime minister.

          I think it’s weird to do this in the US because it feels more like something a monarch or dictator (or some other leader that’s not elected and serves for life), but other people disagree with me lol

        7. Curious*

          on curiosity, did UK government offices change the picture of the Queen over her 70 year reign, or did they keep the 1950’s version?

      2. londonedit*

        Also there was the whole thing about Sir Keir taking down the portrait of Thatcher that was hanging in his office…which you can understand! So even actual Prime Ministers sometimes don’t want portraits of former Prime Ministers in their offices.

      3. Jackalope*

        As Alison pointed out, in federal offices that is exactly what they do. Sometime on or around the inauguration the former president’s headshot is taken down and the official headshot for the new president is put up. It obviously that’s different than a person’s private office.

  6. Elsa*

    LW4, you need to figure out a way to leave the group chat. In general the way social group chats work is that if someone doesn’t like it, they leave. They don’t try to tell others what they can or can’t post.

    1. Anna*

      If it’s text based then it goes to everyone in the text message chain and there really isn’t a way to leave the group text message chain. They can mute it but they will still receive the texts, just because of how cell phones work.

      1. Peanut Hamper*

        Yes, very much this. This is how group texts on a cell phone work.

        I once got pulled into a group chat with people I didn’t even know, because someone apparently typed in a phone number wrong and it ended up with my phone number. I was constantly getting messages about the products/services they were hawking, and it took months and a lot of not-so nice texts from me to finally get them to look at the phone numbers in the list before they just responded. It was an absolute nightmare. I have a lot of sympathy for anyone caught in this scenario.

      2. Mockingjay*

        It might depend on the phone and/or carrier. I can leave group chats on my iPhone. I don’t know how it works for other carriers; maybe others can help or discuss it in the Open Thread this afternoon.

        Advice: OP4, I don’t think timesheet reminders or a social chat are the real issues here. There are new team leads with ill-defined roles trying to manage a quickly expanded team. That’s not your problem to solve; Taylor needs to go to her boss and get clarification and direction. I’d let stuff like the reminders go – it’s a symptom of bigger issues. Look carefully at your workplace. Are these growth pains or symptoms of larger disfunction?

        1. JR17*

          Historically, you could leave a group chat that was all iPhones but not one that was mixed iPhones and androids. Something to do with text vs. MMS. But with apple’s recent update, apparently some of the more annoying features of cross-platform texting have gone away, so not sure where this stands.

            1. Brooklyn*

              If this is US based, it’s 100% definitely a text thread. You can tell because iPhones for years had this “feature” where emoji reactions get sent as a group text. It’s honestly one of my biggest pet peeves – Apple’s insistence on silently making talking to anyone without an iPhone suck in order to try to convince people that the problem is everyone else and not them. I’ve avoided group texts for years because of it, and I will frequently ask friends to please stop liking things if they insist on having group chats, or move to a platform like Signal.

              The answer is, as mentioned, to have a Slack or Discord or other tool designed for large community conversations and separate channels. That way Taylor can make a timesheet-memes channel and all y’all can join or not join it. Not just because technology is easier to change than people, but also because LW4 clearly doesn’t want to be in this group chat!

              1. OP #4*

                Y’all have correctly assessed it, it’s a text thread of mixed iphones and Androids. My coworker with an iphone successfully left the group, but my Android doesn’t seem to allow it. I’ve never considered switching to iphone so strongly!

          2. Meep*

            Apple got on board recently and now allows for SMS for Androids after years of updating their system to avoid it every time Android fixed it. You can now leave.

    2. Antilles*

      Really?

      Most of the group chats I’ve been in, it’d be perfectly fine to ask someone to stop posting about a certain topic – whether that’s work, politics, or even just a totally benign topic that suddenly turned into a fight. Doesn’t need to be a big deal, but a simple request to “hey can we not talk about work, I get enough of that 9 to 5!” would be totally acceptable and probably get a bunch of hearts/likes from others.

      Of course, that doesn’t always mean the other person will comply 100%, but it’ll usually at least cut down on how often that topic gets posted about.

    3. Eldritch Office Worker*

      I’ve been in social group chats for 20 years and that’s never been my experience.

      1. Bossy*

        You can’t leave a group chat?? I mean I feel like I have….or maybe I’ve demanded to be removed. That’s seems weird tho. I e most definitely removed myself from WhatsApp group chats.

        1. Moosescomewalking*

          Whatsapp works differently than text chats, and mixing iPhone and android creates more problems. I got added to a group text of random high school kids once (I guess they typed my number in wrong?). the only way to get out was for them to create a whole new group text without me in it. fortunately they were as uninterested in having a 40 year old in their text as I was.

        2. duinath*

          Yeah, my first instinct was “get out of the group chat get out Get Out GET OUT” but I think that only works when it’s from a service, like Alison said, like Slack, Discord, or WhatsApp etc.

          I am now left with the impression this may just be regular normal texts that are sent to 20 people several times a day.

          Which is hell.

          1. OP #4*

            It is indeed regular texts that are sent to literally 20 people. Once it was someone’s birthday, and they liked or thanked every individual happy birthday message in the chat. Help.

    4. New Jack Karyn*

      No, it’s legitimate to ask that folks not cross the streams. Social vs. Work is a reasonable distinction to make.

  7. Earlk*

    Can the text chat not be archived so you don’t receive any notifications and just check at your convenience?

    1. Silver Robin*

      When I archive stuff, it hides the chat and then immediately brings it back when the next text comes through. With the example here, even without a notification, that means the chat would be always hovering at the top of my texting app. Now, if I never really text people, then I would have no reason to open the app and none of that matters. If I do regularly text people, then the chain is constantly brought to my attention and it is constantly annoying, even if only slightly. I am also one of the people who dislikes having unred messages so I would need to open and clear it or archive it again or whatever. Irritating like a small grain of sand.

      1. Silver Robin*

        Does that get problematic for any texts those group chat members might send individually afterwards? Maybe it does not matter to LW, but if I could imagine not wanting to be in a particular text group while also still wanting to get individual messages from people.

        1. OP #4*

          Agreed, I am happy to receive texts from all these coworkers individually, and some of them I do regularly text! This group is just… too much. I will google what marking a group as spam does for individual members of a group chat though.

  8. Em*

    OP 4- I strongly encourage you to google your phone settings or get someone to help you, because I think it’s very likely you can either leave the chat or remove banner notifications. You can google: “how to leave group chat Whatsapp” (or whatever messaging platform it is) or google your phone model + disable banner notifications.

    1. JayNay*

      Yes, or disable notifications at the minimum, so you’re still technically in the chat but can check it whenever you feel like (or not).

    2. Insert Clever Name Here*

      Yeah, I’m in a few text threads with large groups of people and the key is muting the notifications. Access to the info without “Carrie liked ‘fyi, the pool is closed this morning’” three days after the pool was closed.

      1. amoeba*

        Yeah, I’m confused by why notifications are still showing up even though the LW says they muted the chat – that does not appear to be muted, if it’s actually muted, nothing should be shown unless you open WhatsApp (or whatever) itself? Is there something that still needs to be changed on a technical level?

        (Also, I’ve never seen a group that you weren’t able to leave, that also sounds off!)

        1. Emmy Noether*

          Maybe it’s not an app, but “traditional” texts? (unthinkable, I know!) I’m not sure one can leave group texts or decline to receive texts without blocking the sender completely.

          1. OP #4*

            It is indeed “traditional” texts. I was also really surprised that there doesn’t seem to be a way to leave the group or dismiss any notification of new texts – my coworker with an iphone successfully left, and it didn’t even tell the other group members they were gone. And I need to have these numbers unblocked for last minute coverage requests, which are a normal part of my workplace. This is somewhat a me issue I’ll admit, but I hate having notifications just sitting there so I do typically read texts/emails/whatever as soon as I see them or as soon as I’m free. This group makes that excessive.

        2. doreen*

          That depends on whether it’s a “chat” using Messenger, WhatsApp or something similar or whether “chat” is referring to text messages – and apparently it might depend on which type of text message and how many people. I just tried to find out how to leave a group message on an iPhone and apparently you can only leave a group if the everyone is using an iPhone and there are at least four participants.

          1. Charley*

            If it is a traditional text though, I doubt it would make waves if OP just sent a message like, “I’m trying to break my phone habit and it helps me to have fewer notifications trying to get my attention” or “my phone storage is too low to keep getting so many pics” or some other equally innocuous excuse and ask politely that they stop texting you on the group thread. If you think your coworkers would be upset by a polite ask like that, that seems like a bigger problem.

            1. Silver Robin*

              that is entirely reasonable to ask, but I would also point out that doing so requires setting up an entirely new chat. So all the history of the original group is lost. Whether that is a big deal or not is entirely group dependent. I have also had experiences where new group chats kept getting formed and reformed based on adding/subtracting people and it was its own kind of annoying. So LW might (might!) get some resistance.

              1. Jenesis*

                I have an Android phone. A while back, I was added to a group text message chat I did not want to be in (landlord + other tenants of an apartment building I had already moved out of). As far as I could tell, there was no way to manually delete myself from the existing chat, and I repeatedly requested that the landlord create a new chat with my phone number removed and tell people to only use that one. They did not.

                Eventually I had to resort to blocking the phone numbers of everyone who sent a group text that included my number in it. I have only sympathies for LW4.

          2. LL*

            Yeah, it’s pretty ridiculous. Apple insists on having their own special text messaging system on their phones instead of just using what everybody else does.

            You can still mute those chats, though, and notifications won’t pop up (I do that with my family group chat occasionally).

        3. Spooky*

          WhatsApp is much more heavily used outside the US; it’s likely the OP is just actually text messaging.

    3. DivergentStitches*

      Yes there should be a setting where the OP can turn off notifications for reacts/emoji’s. Once I figured out how to do that in Teams, I was super happy.

    4. CB212*

      Yep, on Android you can turn off notifications for a group chat in the regular message app. (Which I’m guessing is the source of all the ‘X liked a message’ notifications, I think I didn’t get that on iMessage.) And on Signal and WhatsApp you can do the same. So you’re not leaving the chat, but you can privately set a reminder to glance at it once or twice a week if you think there might be something you need to see.

      1. Brooklyn*

        You didn’t get them on iMessage because iMessage is what’s sending all those notifications. On an SMS text thread, iMessage will still let you emoji react to things, which sends a “CB212 liked ‘You guys are the best’ ” text to everyone in the thread.

        About a year ago, Android flipped this, so now Google Messages will translate those iOS texts to emojis, but then send out its own frustrating texts to iMessage users. It’s awful, and it’s just these companies trying to manipulate them into seeing their competitors as less advanced. We’ll all get a reprieve once Apple supports RCS, which should be this fall, hopefully it’ll be a bit before them make everything bad again :P

    2. Mermaid of the Lunacy*

      Awesome comment from an awesome username. My husband and I were Zaphod and Trillian for Halloween one year. :)

  10. musical chairs*

    LW3, I realize your letter may be an isolated thing that doesn’t have a deeper meaning to it, just a mild annoyance you were looking for concurrence on.

    But in the chance that it’s not, if being vaguely wished that your day is good from a report is in the “personal annoyance” category, it’s worth considering how much your stated strained relationship with them may be affecting your perspective. This is an atypical response to what is likely a marginally pleasant, albeit sometimes tone-deaf, automatic signature line they set up.

    Instead of looking for a business justification to add more weight to your feedback, can you consider if there is other feedback you’re wanting to give them that you don’t feel empowered to give or you feel won’t be received well? What do you think is at the root of that hesitation? Are you focusing on small things because there are bigger, more global issues with their performance? Also if you’re being honest with yourself, is there a lower bar in your eyes for unsatisfactory or unacceptable performance for them?

    I have had people who report to me with whom our working relationship was strained at times, especially if they had more hostile reactions to feedback. As a result of my own annoyance with them, I was hyper critical of my own analysis of their work and how I give feedback to make sure they’re not getting a worse version of my support due to those issues. Just adding extra checks/balances for myself to ensure I was being fair, clear, establishing trust and maintaining it as well. Just my thoughts, reading your letter.

  11. Probablyonfire*

    I’m a little puzzled as to why L.W. 4 doesn’t think Tyler has the authority to remind people about time cards, as to me this seems a pretty normal thing for a manager to delegate to a team lead. Sure, it may be unnecessary in this case and perhaps the wrong forum to do it in, but to be adamant that a team lead “doesn’t have the authority” to do this seems strange to me, and makes me wonder if the LW is annoyed about the whole concept of team leads, as well as the notification-heavy group chat.

    1. Trout 'Waver*

      Time cards usually need to be signed or approved by a manager, not a lead. IANAL but managers are actual officers of the company and that probably matters when it comes to time cards.

      Also, LW is correct to be annoyed by the concept of team leads. One common trend I’ve noticed is that the first instinct of terrible managers is to put a layer between them and the people they manage. But then they don’t give that layer any actual authority. Hence a team lead position is created. It’s infantilizing to the people being managed and largely ineffective.

      Either make people managers and give them the tools (and responsibilities) of a manager or don’t. Half-assing it by creating team lead positions is lose/lose.

      1. doreen*

        I think that depends a lot on what you are used to. “Lead” is not a word that was used anywhere I ever worked – but “supervisor” was. And they did indeed approve time cards and vacation requests , approve work and evaluate employees. Managers did all that for the supervisors who reported directly to them but mostly managers focused on a bigger picture -a manager might decide that a particular report is due at a particular time while the supervisors make sure it happens.

        1. ecnaseener*

          Right, a team lead is not the same as a supervisor. Everything you just said about supervisors is untrue of your typical team lead position.

          1. a clockwork lemon*

            This is really workplace dependent. I work in a regulated industry so “supervisor” is a registration/licensing category. Your supervisor can be different from the direct line manager who does your performance review and manages your timecards.

            In my particular company, we use “Team Lead” or “Coverage Lead” to identify who is in the manager in charge of one of the many small teams that make up our department. My team lead is my manager, he supervises my work, but he is not a licensed supervisor–that would be his boss, who is the registered supervisor for everyone in our department.

        2. Trout 'Waver*

          Again, IANAL, but from the legal definition I think your supervisors would be considered managers.

          1. Tio*

            This isn’t a legal thing – a company can make any title they want mean anything they want. It’ll look weird if it’s out of step with the industry norms, where supervisors and leads are often different, and it generally goes manager >supervisor > lead, but plenty of companies call what would be managers as supervisors, supervisors as leads, etc. especially if they only have one of those titles. Once you get past C-suite it’s not really regulated unless you’re in government.

            1. Trout 'Waver*

              When you say this isn’t a legal thing, what are you basing that on?

              Time cards are a legal thing. Signing time cards is a legal thing. Paying workers is a legal thing. Doing those actions on behalf of the company is a legal thing. Determining who can bind the company to contracts is a legal thing.

              Everything about who is and isn’t a manager is a legal thing.

              1. Riley*

                It isn’t a legal thing in the sense that there is no law saying what job title a person who performs all the functions that you list holds. They can be a manager, a supervisor, or a grand high poobah.

                1. Trout 'Waver*

                  “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet”

                  Things exist as the things they are regardless of what they’re called.

              2. ecnaseener*

                Not really. Yes, there are legal requirements about paying your employees. But no, there are few or no federal legal requirements about how you structure the process or who you delegate tasks to. Time cards for example – an employer is required to keep records of hours worked each day (if not on a fixed schedule), but it doesn’t have to be in a format you would recognize as a time card. The DOL’s website emphasizes that you can use whatever timekeeping method you want as long as it’s accurate.

                In the same vein, an admin assistant can sign off on time cards. HR can cut payroll checks. A smart company will be careful about who they delegate things to, but there’s no legal requirement that it be a manager.

                1. Trout 'Waver*

                  I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. Yes companies are free to create whatever custom labels they want. But at some level there exists authority in a company where an individual employee’s actions are binding to the company.

                  My understanding from the training I’ve received from various legal departments over the years is that is a distinction between manager and non-manager. Calling a position something else doesn’t change what it is.

                1. Trout 'Waver*

                  I’m not arguing about the job title. I’m saying the exact opposite: There is a legal definition of what a manager is, and it goes by their job responsibilities. Not what their title is. There’s no law that you must call managers managers. There’s no law saying people with the title manager must be managers by the legal definition. But there does exist a legal definition of manager that does arise in various contexts.

                2. Martin Blackwood*

                  If i understand american law correctly via what alison has said, managers dont have the same rights to unionize as other workers do. Or they can be restricted in other ways that could harm union creating activities. Something like that.

          2. doreen*

            There really isn’t a legal definition of a “manager” in the US . I think the closest any Federal law gets is the FLSA executive exemption which the people I am talking abut absolutely did not meet – they were not salaried, did not have the authority to hire, fire or discipline employees and their recommendation to hire/fire/discipline were not given any particular weight.

            At any rate, all I’m saying is that it’s not crazy for someone to believe a “team lead” might be responsible for ensuring that timecards are submitted on time. Different entities use different words for similar functions – maybe Taylor is not supposed to be reminding people to submit their timecards , but it’s not as though Taylor is the security guard reminding people to submit their timecard. And to be honest I’m a little confused about why LW 4 is certain that “Taylor is not my (or anyone else’s) supervisor” at the same time as “Neither management nor coworkers with more seniority know what the lead roles are either”. It seems to me that the problem is less that Taylor is asserting authority that they don’t have and more that it seems nobody knows what Taylor’s actual function is.

            1. Riley*

              Your supervisor is the person above you on the org chart. They conduct your reviews (usually), approve timecards, determine raises, has hiring and firing authority. It is generally easy to tell who is and is not a supervisor.

              Leads are people who have authority to direct work but none of the other authority of a supervisor. It is a non-supervisory senior role. In the org chart, leads appear at the same level as the people whose work they direct, which some people get pissy about.

              Sounds like LW4’s company hasn’t fully defined what leads do yet, and sounds like LW4 is pissy about being directed by someone who is not their supervisor.

              1. Clisby*

                That was my experience. I can’t remember a team lead ever doing something like sending out a timecard reminder. They weren’t the ones who reviewed my timecards – that was my manager’s job.

              2. Emmy Noether*

                In my experience those functions are sometimes split, though. At my workplace, the team lead approves time cards and does the annual reviews, but has no power over raises or firing.

      2. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

        Having been a team lead who was later promoted to manager: I LOVED being a team lead, haha. As far as interacting with the team members, I got to do all the answering questions and supporting and helping out stuff, and a lot of the “great job” stuff, but didn’t have to muck with any of the HR stuff, which as it turns out is my least favorite part of being a manager.

        1. MassMatt*

          Interesting way to look at it. I found (as many letters here also mention) that while there were good parts, it was annoying to be responsible for team member performance yet have no power to make any serious attempts to correct it. If the team generally performs well, it’s less of an issue.

          1. Hush42*

            So what Red Reader described is essentially how Team Leads function on my team- they’re responsible for answering questions and being an escalation point for more complicated questions from outside sources. Also for training new employees on how to actually do the day to day tasks. But they aren’t responsible for management of the team or for team member performance. At most their responsible for ensuring priority items are the ones the team is focusing on. But if they were to get any push back on that or if a team member wasn’t performing that would be on the manager to correct not on the Team Lead.

        2. Hroethvitnir*

          Yes! I have been an unpaid and unofficial (supported by managers but may or may not be open about it) supervisor in a bunch of workplaces.

          I always thought I thoroughly disliked leading, but it seems to be natural – but I like being able to do actual hands on work with a side of timetabling and making sure H&S is being followed, ensuring processes are smooth and efficient and jobs are fairly distributed.

          I would *never* want to be a manager.

          Also informed by my partner being good at being a factory manager (working with people), but struggling with and hating being a higher level manager (nothing but reports and meetings – though also still being a go-to person).

      3. Caramel & Cheddar*

        They need to be signed with someone with authority, but a reminder certainly doesn’t need to be given by someone who can sign off, surely. In a previous admin role, I was responsible for organizing/double-checking/etc. the time cards before manager sign off, and I definitely sent reminder emails to our department the day before they were due. It would, frankly, have been a complete waste of time for the manager to be the one doing this.

    2. LimeRoos*

      Yeah, I’m confused on this too. Like, a timecard reminder is not really a big deal. And everywhere I worked that had a team lead, they weren’t a replacement manager, they were basically a SME who could answer questions, provide guidance, and allow exceptions for issues we encountered. Anything other than that, we’d go to our manager.

      The group chat is kinda annoying, but you should definitely be able to figure out a way to mute or leave it. Heck, if the app isn’t necessary for work and you don’t use it outside this chat, you could delete the app too. It does sound like there’s something else going on that’s creating this friction.

      1. OP #4*

        You’re right that this is a symptom of a larger problem, but this isn’t an app I can delete – this is my phone’s texting service. Not whatsapp, not slack, not anything downloaded.

        And fair question to everyone asking if this maybe actually part of Taylor’s job, but given that my actual supervisor regularly emails the team timecard reminders themself, I would be pretty surprised if they had also delegated that to Taylor. Either way, Alison and everyone is correct that the larger issue is a failure to define what this lead position is (I do know for a fact they do not supervise any other staff) and timecard reminders are really a relatively small piece of it. The real annoyance is a combo of the lead role’s lack of clarity and this ridiculous group chat.

    3. Cat Tree*

      This is one of those letters that start with a long list of problematic things, only to ask about one specific annoyance. LW probably feels like this is the most fixable problem and is directing all annoyance at it. It’s also easier to be annoyed by an outsider who recently joined than by the long-term boss who may have hired LW.

    4. Rocky Coco*

      Also people who do their time cards are always annoyed by the reminders but lots of people won’t do them without a ton of reminders and calendars invites

      1. MassMatt*

        The annoyance is well-founded. If people are not turning in their time cards (or are coming in late, or whatever) the manager needs to follow up with those people and not be lazy and send an text blast to the whole team—or worse, devote time in a meeting of the entire team to the issue.

        This type of reminder is very irritating to the people who already adhere to the process while simultaneously being extremely ineffective at getting those that misbehave to adhere.

        1. Falling Diphthong*

          This is a good point: If the boss in letter 1 had asked OP to examine different methods of getting people to fill in their timecards, parameters that it would simultaneously annoy those already doing the thing and be ineffective on those not doing the thing, the generic blast would be where they eventually wound up.

    5. Paint N Drip*

      I’m finding MYSELF annoyed at OP4’s office’s approach to changing the leadership structure without actually doing it, so I agree with your last statement. I’d guess Taylor (was it Tyler? idk) is annoyed being a powerless “middle manager” and doing annoying (to OP4) things because of that, but we can also give the leads grace for walking into such a crap situation. I guess I just am feeling empathy for OP4 and their office on the whole.

    6. Katie*

      I mean I get why it’s annoying because of the 20 or so reactions to the reminder but it is really quite innocuous.

      As someone who works in payroll, people need reminding.

    7. Riley*

      Yep. I agree with you.

      I also find the reminders to sign timecards annoying. My last boss sent out a meeting notice from 4-4:15 to sign timecards, and I consistently rejected it bc it annoyed my so much. But, I separate the annoyance I feel from the question of whether he is right to do so. Amusingly, I guess he eventually found it too much or maybe realized it was ineffective, bc at some point he sent out an email saying he was no longer going to remind people to sign timecards and if their paycheck was delayed bc they didn’t sign on time, too bad for them (he had better wording).

      Also, though, why does LW4 see this as an authority flex? It could be that Taylor is trying to be helpful and make sure people get paid on time.

      I think LW4 needs to do some reframing.

    8. Pi314*

      But if we assume the LW is correct that Taylor doesn’t have the responsibility for timecards, I can completely sympathize with the annoyance. I have a coworker who constantly reminds everyone to sign their timecards, which is definitely not anywhere near the realm of their responsibility, and it really grates at me. If I got a text on my private cell phone from them about it I would be absolutely livid.

  12. sarahkka*

    LW4: I don’t know which messaging app gives you notifications for other people’s reactions to other people’s posts, but that sounds absolutely exhausting. I couldn’t tolerate that even if it was a chat I otherwise enjoyed.

    1. mreasy*

      This happens in iMessage when some chat members have Android phones. I don’t know if there are other incompatibilities that cause this but this is the one I see all the time among family.

    3. Seeking Second Childhood*

      Plain group text messages — just phone-based–do that on my Android when a reaction comes in from an iPhone.

    4. RagingADHD*

      GroupMe does it. Fortunately, I have my notification bar set so I can see whether there’s a substantive message or it’s just a like, so I don’t really check until I see something meaningful come through.

    5. MigraineMonth*

      It’s not even a messaging app, but I’ve had to mute my family group messaging because while my niblings are adorable, I don’t need to hear every aunt, uncle and cousin chime in to say so on every single picture my sister shares.

  13. Cheesesteak in Paradise*

    I work at a VA and walk by a portrait of the current president every day. I walked by the previous president every day too. It’s been fine.

      1. Juniper*

        I think the point is, there is no getting around that in most federal buildings, the president is the highest authority. I know it’s not uncommon to have visitors, but this is kind of an inescapable fact about the nature of working for the federal government.

      1. Lime green Pacer*

        To dig a little deeper: The VA portrait was paid for and placed by a government agency, as a standard practice, in a public area. OP will pay for the portrait themself and place it in their private office. One is a policy, the other is personal expression, and so will be perceived differently.

        1. UKDancer*

          Yes. I mean a few weeks ago I meet someone for lunch who works in the civil service. Her building has a picture of the king in the lobby. I know that’s a departmental policy and doesn’t say anything about her views on him or royalty as a whole. It’s a thing for the whole department. Having a picture in your personal office or on your desk says a lot about who you are as a person and what is important to you. So the message is very different.

  14. Percysowner*

    I understand the rationale for having a picture of the current President in federal offices. They are, by definition, the Big Boss and so it is like having a picture of the founder or CEO of the company. In any other business, I think it is too political. The only exception might be if someone had a picture WITH the current President, in a frame on their desk. No matter how you feel about the whoever is in charge, it can be considered an honor by someone who has had personal contact, no matter how brief, with the President. Even so,, in these polarized times, it’s not a good idea and in any case, it should not loom over the office.

    1. Anonymous Reader today*

      I figured (and a prior reply to another thread said this, but seems to have been glitches away) that it’s because the government is really old and without pictures (or paintings) people 100 years ago wouldn’t necessarily know the President if thet walked in. I assume that’s why the Secretary of X is also displayed in buildings for department of X, etc.

    2. amoeba*

      Haha, at least in my company, putting up a photo of our CEO would be seen as incredibly bizarre, actually!

    3. Random Bystander*

      I agree–unless one is employed by the federal government *or* the ____ Party (whichever matches a current President), portraits of the President of the United States should be confined to those of former Presidents (and other notables) located on the folding paper in one’s wallet (for those who still have occasion to carry cash). And I’ll also agree with the exception for a photo that includes the individual displaying the picture.

    4. RegBarclay*

      One of the managers at my company is a big history buff, particularly about the various presidents. His office has all sort of memorabilia about various presidents, he has traveled to presidential libraries, etc… If that guy, in that context, had a current presidential picture I think it would not be sending any messages, any more than someone else’s football memorabilia does.

      Although now that I think about it, I don’t think he has anything any more recent than Bush I on display in his office , which is probably wise.

  15. Juniper*

    Funny story, here in Norway it is tradition to hang up portraits of the king and queen in the bathroom. Why, you ask? Is it because we think so little of our monarchs that putting them next to our toilets is some kind of protest? Quite the opposite in fact. Back in the day, when outhouses were prevalent, toilet paper was often in short supply. And the weekly magazines piled up in our nation’s outhouses were often the only paper at onne’s disposal for one’s wiping needs. These magazines often had portraits of the kings and queens, and no one would disrespect the monarch by using their face to wipe their bum. So the last page left of the magazine would get tacked up on the outhouse wall, and here we are now 60 years later still staring at the king while we go about our business.

    2. Nonanon*

      This is nifty, and the only discourse about political figures in the office that I want to hear!

  16. Your credit's fine Mr Torrance*

    In #3 can’t you just mute notifications from this group? If it’s just photos and social stuff you’re not going to miss anything urgent.

    It sounds more like you’re looking for ways to mess with an employee you don’t like which as a manager is not good, so try to keep that in check. It’s just a signature, let it be

    2. Peanut Hamper*

      Did you….not read the entire letter?

      I’ve muted my own notifications from that group but apparently my phone will neither allow me to leave the group entirely nor prevent notifications from showing in the status bar.

      1. Your credit's fine Mr Torrance*

        Yes but if they’re still showing up doesn’t that mean they’re not muted?

        1. Peanut Hamper*

          The notifications are off, but they are still showing up in the status bar.

          “Mute” does not mean the same thing as “do not see this ever again anywhere.”

          1. Your credit's fine Mr Torrance*

            On my phone, muting means I don’t see it until I purposely look for it. Could be this person has a different setup.

            My second paragraph still applies though – this seems like such a petty thing to be concerned about

  17. CR Heads*

    Whatever you decide on #2, don’t put up a picture of our 8th President, Martin Van Buren. You might be mistaken for a member of the notorious street gang, The Van Buren Boys

    1. Bumblebee*

      I have a secret fondness for Martin Van Buren because, years ago, in my AP History Class, whenever we didn’t know an answer we’d just yell, “Martin Van Buren!” Occasionally our teacher would throw us a bone and he’d actually be the right answer, and hilarity would ensue. Good times.

      1. bamcheeks*

        Same thing with my little brother when he was two and thought “Socks!” was always the answer to “I Spy With My Little Eye…” :D

        1. I am Emily's failing memory*

          Just reminded me of my high school boyfriend who, when playing 20 questions, always opened with, “Does it wear purple boots?” And the time we played with someone for the first time who didn’t know this about him, and they had picked Barney (the dinosaur). When the answer to his usual throwaway question was actually “yes” I laughed so hard I could barely breathe for a couple of minutes.

  18. Glomarization, Esq.*

    I suspect that LW#3 is not hearing the unwritten “I hope that you” or “May you” that comes before “have a nice day.” It’s not a command; it’s a wish. And it’s one of any number of social niceties that people use to to try make their workday proceed more cheerfully.

    1. londonedit*

      Yes, I always find it slightly odd when someone responds to something like ‘Have a good day’ with a ‘Don’t tell me what to do!!!’ attitude. I’ve only really come across it through reading AAM, like the people who don’t want to ‘have to’ say good morning to their colleagues because they don’t want to be ‘fake’ or whatever.

      ‘Have a good day’ just means ‘I hope you will have a good day’. It’s a social nicety, just like ‘good morning’ or ‘how are you?’ (which doesn’t literally mean ‘tell me how you are feeling’, it just means ‘hello, I acknowledge you as a fellow human and I hope you are well’). Same with people who agonise because they don’t want to tell their colleagues what they did at the weekend – again, it’s just social niceness and convention to say ‘How was the weekend?’ on a Monday morning. No one minds in the slightest if all you say is ‘Good, you?’. And it’s not ‘being fake’ or ‘lying’ if you didn’t have a good weekend but you still say ‘Good, you?’. It’s just the way humans interact with each other. I suppose you could say it was all pointless, but wouldn’t the world be a sadder and more lonely place if we didn’t wish each other a good day and let each other know we hope they’re well and all the rest of it?

  19. KellifromCanada*

    Re OP2, and to the Canadians on here … can you imagine having a picture of Justin Trudeau on your wall? Ugh.

    1. I should really pick a name*

      It wouldn’t bother me more than a picture of any other PM would.

      There are legitimate reasons to criticize him (like any other PM) but the whole fuck Trudeau thing doesn’t leave any room for that, because most people don’t want to be associated with the people who say that.

    2. Nodramalama*

      It kind of feels like the first time I visited the U.S and couldn’t stop noticing how many flags there were everywhere

      1. Beany*

        I’ve lived in the U.S. for 25+ years (more than half my life), and the number and location of national flags here still shocks me. (As does the singing/playing of the National Anthem before regular events with no particular national significance.)

        1. Clisby*

          I’ve lived in the US my entire life, and I wholeheartedly agree. I mean, it doesn’t *shock* me, but it’s weird. As is the seeming impulse to round up herds of people to pledge allegiance to the flag at public events.

          1. Spooky*

            Nobody recites the pledge of allegiance after grade school? People watch the national anthem, but that’s different.

            1. Clisby*

              All K-12 public schools here (SC) are required to designate a specific time each day for students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

              Anyone wishing not to say the pledge or participate in the pledge ritual in any way is exempt.

              When my son was in 7th grade, he and several students were sitting out the pledge. When the principal found out, she called them to the office and said they *had* to at least stand, to show respect for the students who were standing.

              When she called me to tell me about this, I pointed out she was already in direct violation of state law, which says:

              “Any person not wishing to say the “Pledge of Allegiance” or otherwise participate in saying the “Pledge of Allegiance” is exempt from participation and may not be penalized for failing to participate.
              A person who does not wish to participate may leave the classroom, may remain in his seat, or may express his nonparticipation in any form which does not materially infringe upon the rights of other persons or disrupt school activities.”

              I suggested she obey the state law, since that would set a good example for the students, and otherwise she was highly likely to end up in court.

              End of conflict.

      3. MigraineMonth*

        When I was in high school, in a fit of patriotic fervor, the state legislature passed a law requiring an American flag in every classroom. Not just a symbolic one either: it had to be full-sized and on a pole. In case we forgot which country we were in between Algebra and Social Studies, I guess.

    3. HannahS*

      Yeah I’ve really only ever seen photos/portraits of elected officials or the Queen in the legislature, and I attended public schools and universities before working in a government-funded service. If someone put a photo with themselves and the prime minister on their desk, I’d take it as a symbol of their strong political views. If they had a photo of the prime minister just hung up on the wall, I’d think the coworker was worshipfully devoted to them or something equally bizarre.

      1. Lexi Vipond*

        You do occasionally get ‘This building opened by … on …’ on a plaque and a picture of the person beside it, but it’s not that common. (Our building was opened by Princess Anne, but I don’t think we have a picture of her!)

        1. HannahS*

          Yes, that’s true. Many places that were visited by the monarch have their pictures somewhere, including some of the major hotels.

      2. Bella Ridley*

        I don’t know about all public service, but almost all military buildings will have a picture of the reigning monarch. Usually somewhere in the entry.

      3. Caramel & Cheddar*

        Portraits of the Queen definitely used to be more common, but there’s probably a reason why when you encounter one outside of a government building these days, it’s usually from the 1950s or 1960s if they’re still up. I was trying to google if there was a reason for this (i.e. was there some sort of Centennial celebration initiative to put up her portrait or something), but instead I found info about people swapping her portrait for the King’s, though I also haven’t encountered his portrait anywhere since his mother died.

    4. Caramel & Cheddar*

      I mean, I can’t imagine putting up a photo of a prime minister anywhere, but that applies to any combo of past and future prime ministers, not because JT is somehow infinitely more objectionable than the rest. Frankly, it would come across to most as “too American” and definitely not something we would want to do in general.

    5. learnedthehardway*

      Well, we’d have the king, not Justin Trudeau.

      I’d still find it quite weird if a non-gov’t company or an individual had a picture of King Charles III on their office wall. He’s the monarch, not a patron, founder, or afficionado of your business.

    6. under cat duties*

      It seems to me I’ve seen pictures of the Queen in schools and other places. (haven’t been in a school for a year). Is that not the same?

  20. Hyaline*

    LW2, I think I read your question a bit differently than Alison did, so I want to respond to that potential perspective, too. I read it that you have portraits of *whoever* the current sitting president and vice happen to be–so the question about “think about how you’d feel with the previous president” would have been “yes, the same, in fact I had that portrait up during his term.” If this is the case, I admire your commitment and find the continuation of an old tradition kind of nice in a quaint way (to commenters stating this is weird, it used to be quite normal even in private businesses in the early-mid twentieth century–watch some old movies and you’ll start to see it everywhere!).

    However, I think you need to be aware that it may not be landing the way you intend. Even if you have a portrait of the sitting president, regardless, every time, you’ll replace Biden with Harris or Trump with no qualms either way, the impact on your colleagues may be same as if you were playing politics–they’re reminded of political issues whenever they walk into your office. Those who don’t know your personal nonpartisan tradition may believe you’re making a statement, which could be deeply uncomfortable. I kind of hate that that’s how it is, but the portrait that to you is politically neutral may be distracting, upsetting, or divisive to others.

    I would strongly consider taking it down–now, before the election results, so the removal isn’t seen as a statement in and of itself.

  21. I should really pick a name*

    My big questions for #2 is “why would you want one?”

    It doesn’t change the answer in any way, but it seems like an odd things to want in a personal space.

  23. Nodramalama*

    I work in government in Australia where our office buildings often have pictures of the Ministers. And I would still find it odd is someone had a portrait of a Prime Minister, any Prime Minister on display in their office.

  24. Former BJ (Boris Johnson) fan*

    There’s room for a charitable interpretation when it comes to photographs of politicians. My parents bought me a signed photograph of Boris Johnson back in the 2000s because I was a fan of Have I Got News for You, on which he was a fairly frequent guest. I have since grown to loathe Johnson for his response to the pandemic but I still have his photograph on my wall—it’s been there for around fifteen years now and I honestly forget it’s there unless someome comes asks about it. I may not like the man in the photograph but the photograph itself serves is a reminder of far happier times.

    1. Former BJ (Boris Johnson) fan*

      *I honestly forget it’s there unless someone comes round and asks about it

      Also, I don’t know how to use italics properly.

    2. Nodramalama*

      But in an office you can’t only consider the meaning to you. You have to consider how it will read to others. And if you hang a picture of Boris Johnson up in your office most people are going to assume it has political meaning.

      1. Former BJ (Boris Johnson) fan*

        Of course, and I wouldn’t do so where I work for that reason. That said, there are places where it would be so obvious that you’re not a Conservative supporter that it would I think be acceptable as an obvious joke (think the offices of the Guardian for example).

  25. Buffalo*

    #3: my last boss was a very cold and direct person. I’m more of a “wait, every sentence in this e-mail should not end in an exclamation point, I need to go back and change at least a couple of them to periods” person. A few months in, my boss realized that I was a little scared of him, and started including, “Have a nice weekend.” at the end of e-mails on Fridays. But somehow, because I knew he was doing it specifically to seem warmer, it actually just made him scarier?

    1. Silver Robin*

      I wonder if it is the period at the end, making it feel like a ponderous statement and not an upbeat well wish? Poor you and poor manager. He is trying to be nicer, which is quite sweet on the face of it, and it backfired. I have a boss that can seem really aloof and folks are scared of him, but he is actually such a sweetheart. I hope you can find a less fearful normal with yours.

  26. ecnaseener*

    I’m tickled pink to find that there’s an IRL version of the guy from Drake and Josh who responded to “Have a nice day!” with “Don’t tell me what to do.”

    1. Decagon*

      I always wish I could pull off the response Paul Fussell attributed to a friend: “thanks, but I have other plans.”

      1. Clisby*

        I don’t know whether anyone else here remembers the British TV series “The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin”, but the title character used to head off to work with his wife handing him an umbrella and saying “Have a good day!” or the like, and he always responded, “I won’t!”

  27. mango chiffon*

    Personally, with all the other things you COULD decorate your personal office work space with, I just don’t see why you would want to put a photo of the current president in your office. I would feel less of an issue if it was in a common area with the knowledge that it changes with the sitting president, but in a personal office space…idk…it would make me uncomfortable regardless of which president it was because I assume it comes with a set of values and beliefs about the country that I don’t personally agree with, and I’d rather not see that every day in an office space. If you have direct reports, would that make them less comfortable to come speak with you? Possibly.

  28. Pretty Pumpkin*

    I am reminded of a previous manager I had who had her email signature “Thanks and have a great day!” with a wintery graphic of a snowman all year all the time. I always questioned the professionalism of it within in our large national org but I did enjoy it’s friendliness.

    2. In My Underdark Era*

      I honestly would find the off-season snowman graphic at the end of a professional email so charming that whoever sent it would be secretly ascribed to my internal “I must protect them” list.

  29. Get Krackin'*

    “I think I am also personally annoyed by being told to have a good day.”

    I honestly don’t understand people who think like this in letter 3 (and I honestly also think they only exist online because that’s really the only place I’ve encountered them). The statement “have a good day!” (and similar statements) when said in these kinds of contexts, or while concluding a retail transaction or leaving a restaurant, etc are just inane social niceties. They’re not commandments for you on what type of day you should have. And to treat them as such is actually pretty self-involved or even downright narcissistic. Is LW 3 honestly unfamiliar with the concept of “the Walmart cashier might lose their job if they don’t wish customers a nice day?” (or at least get reprimanded by a boss especially if a customer complains)??? Or the concept of “this is just something that people say???”

    Again: they’re not ordering you to have a particular type of day. So maybe stop assuming that the world revolves around you for 5 seconds and, to paraphrase Tomato Nation, “emerge from your cocoon of post-adolescent dithering and self-absorption and join the rest of us in the world ” (Tomato Nation website, “25 and Over” by Sarah Bunting, published January 17, 2005. Seriously worth a read, it’s an amazing essay).

    1. Czhorat*

      Yeah, I try not to judge LWs for their reactions to things, but this strikes me as weird. The one thing I *could* see is that “have a nice day” feels somewhat casual for a professional communication; I’ve joked about signing off emails with “Hugs and kisses – Czhorat”, but would never actually *do* it because I at least try to be perceived as an adult.

      “Best – Czhorat” feels professional and a bit cool, while “Have a nice day” feels warmer but a bit less businesslike and more casual. It’s not something I’d get upset about, but I *could* see raising an eyebrow at someone who isn’t as buttoned up as the norm in their role/company/industry.

      1. Delta Delta*

        I was feeling very snarky one day and signed an email, “Hugz, Delta.” Deeply satisfying in that particular moment.

          1. musical chairs*

            If I got an email with a period at the end of the sign off I would think about that for YEARS. This is diabolical, I love it, thank you, more.

    2. Peanut Hamper*

      Thank you for that essay. It is a good read.

      “Buy a new shirt or quit eating cheese” — adding this to my personal vocabulary.

    3. Cicily*

      I honestly also think they only exist online because that’s really the only place I’ve encountered them

      It’s funny that you mention retail, because this LW absolutely exists as a real-life retail customer, as I suspect that other commenters who have worked in retail can attest to. I wouldn’t say it’s super-common that people lash out at workers who say this, but it’s not rare either.

      1. Le Sigh*

        Oh boy do they ever. And boy do they love to tell you about it. Things I got grief for:
        – Greeting them when they walked in the store (can’t you see I’m busy?)
        – Not greeting them when they walked in the store because I was tied up with a customer
        – Telling someone to have a nice day (similar to LW)
        – Forgetting to tell someone to have a nice day (this is what’s wrong with young people today!)
        – Wishing them happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas
        – Wishing them happy holidays instead of Happy New Year (because it was two days before New Years? I dunno)
        – Asking if I want to join the free rewards program (I’m obligated to ask, take it up with the manager, idc)

        Of course, I always tried to read the room if a customer looked upset or stressed or whatever, but I find this is a little bit like email signatures — there’s no way to please people and no matter what you choose, you’re likely to have someone who criticizes it.

        1. Irish Teacher.*

          Not quite the same thing, but there were discussions on Facebook where people were talking about how they try to slow down the cashiers in Lidl or Aldi and prevent them from scanning quickly. Yeah, minimum wage workers who get timed for how many items they scan per minute and can get in trouble if they go below a certain number.

          So yeah, given that people purposely sabotage them and boast online about doing so, I am not at surprised that there would be people who complain about cashiers giving greetings they are required to.

    4. nerak*

      Aw, Tomato Nation! I miss that, and TwoP. I know Sars is still around, but TN and TwoP were something so special back in their heyday.

      1. jane's nemesis*

        I miss TWoP too. I wish the old recaps hadn’t disappeared because sometimes I’m watching old tv even now and wish I could see what the recapper thought about it!

        2. nerak*

          I used to live for reading the recaps of Lost, Survivor, and Amazing Race at work, always the best parts of my week, aside from watching the shows themselves.

      1. Lisa*

        Thank you for the link!

        I would like to send it to my parents, who have been over 25 for many years now but still haven’t grasped some of those things.

    6. Spooky*

      Yeah the “don’t tell me what kind of day to have!” is just a played-out, unoriginal jerk type of gripe. I think they know that’s not being said to them, but grumble nonetheless in order to sour someone else’s mild niceness.

  30. Ex-prof*

    #3– The tradition in federal government office buildings dates to a time when the president was just the president, whether one had voted for the guy or not. Hard now to believe there was such a time. Maybe I’m imagining it.

    My sister worked in such a federal facility. She was tolerant of the pic of GWB, then cheered every morning to be greeted by Obama.

    Had she lived to see Obama’s successor take over the frame, I think she would have been seriously upset by the pic.

    Okay, yes, it is a weird tradition. Or at least it’s weird to keep it now.

  31. Peanut Hamper*

    I think if someone complained to me that they didn’t like my ending an email with “Have a nice day” (ordinary, pleasant) I might be tempted to change it to “Enjoy the next 24 hours” (unique, ominous).

    Honestly, what a grump!

    1. Catwhisperer*

      Do it anyway! I would be delighted to receive such a spooky but thoughtful message from a colleague.

  32. GenX, PhD, Enters the Chat*

    Some years ago, I walked into an office at my former job (at a university), sat down, and was greeted with a framed picture of The Former Guy having a cuddle with Jesus. It was sitting on her desk, facing her visitors. I was overtaken by an extreme case of the ick.

    I think leave the political pictures at home, even the ones where you’re shaking a pol’s hand at an event. You’re going to give somebody the ick no matter what party you choose.

    1. Delta Delta*

      I have an adorable framed photo of my grandma shaking hands with Gerald Ford. Now I’m thinking about whether or not I’d put that on my desk.

      1. Juicebox Hero*

        Considering Ford’s short time in office, and how long ago it was, I doubt anyone much would recognize him :D

    3. Irish Teacher.*

      Yikes, that strikes me as problematic for so many reasons. Because it’s political, because it’s religious and the latter could be both an issue for non-Christians, who may feel it is indicative the person has strong Christian views and for Christians who may think it blasphemous to imply Jesus supports a particular politician/party/political viewpoint, especially if it is the opposite of how they themselves vote.

  33. girlie_pop*

    LW #2 reminded me of The X-Files, where Janet Reno and Bill Clinton watched over everything the gang did in Assistant Director Skinner’s office from their official portraits hanging on opposite walls.

  34. Delta Delta*

    Re: Timecard reminders. I worked with someone who just refused to do her time cards on time. she just… wouldn’t. And she would get reminded and wouldn’t do it. And people explained that she was holding up literally all of payroll by not being on time. And she wouldn’t do it. Finally a cycle went by where she didn’t get paid because management couldn’t not pay everyone else, and she pitched an absolute screaming fit about not getting paid. When it was explained to her she had to submit her time cards to get paid she screamed that it wasn’t fair. So maybe, just maybe, Taylor has one of these employees on their hands (or several – yikes), and this is the way to get people to do this.

    3. Llama Lamma Workplace Drama*

      The letter writer said that Taylor was NOT anyone’s supervisor though. If there is one of those people then that’s the supervisor’s job to get on them.

  35. The Not-An-Underpants Gnome*

    Is LW 3 Dorothy from Golden Girls in disguise?

    “No, I WILL NOT HAVE A NICE DAY!”

  36. Rep (taylor’s version)*

    Is it also an annoyance when someone from HR has in their signature line, in bold red, all caps “READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. I am not responsible for your assumptions.” ?

    1. Sneaky Squirrel*

      Wow, I would consider that an aggression from anyone, but especially HR.

      Also, I’ve worked with someone who claim to be great at writing and editing before. Half the time I couldn’t understand what they are trying to tell me because they continuously omitted context or made assumptions that I understood a reference point that I wouldn’t have had insights into. It was “readable” but I would say they were certainly responsible for my assumptions.

    2. Irish Teacher.*

      Honestly, I would say that yes, they are to some degree “responsible for your assumptions.” If this is happening regularly enough for them to put it in their signature. Sure, there are people with poor reading comprehension or people who just don’t bother to read, but if it’s happening on such a regular basis that you are writing something like that, then…there’s a high chance the person writing is not being clear enough.

  37. Fíriel*

    LW 4 – the timecard reminders aren’t the real problem, the overwhelming notifications are the real problem. So I think Allison is right that you need to suggest moving the chat somewhere else. Ideally to a) a platform that is easily muted and b) a platform that you don’t actually use that often, since you don’t want to deal with this chat. WhatsApp, Messenger (Facebook), Slack, and even Discord are all good options for this, and I think you can pick what you suggest based on your workplace demographics/what you think your coworkers might be open to. You can pitch this as a positive change (the messages about reactions are probably annoying even to people who use the chat) and then enjoy the peace and quiet of your non-vibrating phone.

  38. Czhorat*

    I feel that people are being unreasonably judgmental and unkind to LW3; they DID consider the possibility that this is a personal annoyance to be gotten over, but also gave genuine reasons why it felt irksome.

    I agree with Alison that short of egregious content mismatch (your bereavement leave is approved. Have a nice day), it’s not really actionable. I still don’t love it, and it can feel hostile if the other content is at all contentious (per my last email, the answer is X. Have a nice day”). It is also, as I said in a response to someone else, less “professional” and buttoned up. Whether that is a misfit depends on office culture, but it could feel like a T-shirt when everyone else is wearing a button-down.

    I agree that LW shouldn’t try to change this, but they aren’t a bad person or even particularly out of touch for being irked.

  39. Sneaky Squirrel*

    #1 – Definitely supply more context about why the priorities were different when prompted; I don’t think it’s throwing anyone under a bus to say that previously the approach was to focus on [James’s priorities]. Your work will also speak for itself too. Michael will be able to see that it isn’t due to your slacking off since you’re showing results in the current work assignments.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      I honestly was trying to understand what the problem was in that letter as well. I would be so relieved to be working under Michael (who matches my working style pretty well) that my gratitude probably would have leaked out of me at some point.

      “I actually really like finishing things quickly and find it more satisfying, so I think my style meshes more with yours in that regard.” — I think I would have said that almost immediately. This is really great phrasing.

    2. Stipes*

      Yeah, LW1, the key thing to remember is that because James had every right to prioritize thoroughness over speed, you aren’t bad-mouthing him to say that he did so. It’s relevant information that will help Michael understand the state of the work he’s taking over.

    3. Spooky*

      Yeah I found it odd that OP1 was being so cagey about it. It seems like they were thinking of it as a childish finger-pointing “It was all James! He told me to do it that way!” but like, you don’t have to convey that info in that tone in order to note that James directed you do do this or drop that. You can just be breezy and open about it because it’s not a shameful secret.

  40. PubIntAtty*

    In re: LW2 and U.S. Federal Offices. Each building is supposed to have a framed picture of the current president (plus v.p. i think) and relevant cabibet secretary on display in a common area- usually a lobby. Furing the 2016 transition we were told that in personal offices you are not supposed to have pictures of prior presidents or agency allow to have pictures of former elecred officials unless it is a personal momento (e.m. It is a picture of you with them or of your award ceremony with them). Given all the Hatch Act restrictions and weird GSA rules we have most of us do not decorate our offices.

  41. JSPA*

    #2, I can vouch that Macron is on the walls of mayoral-level government offices in france, And that the queen used to be posted at least fairly frequently in canada. And I’m not going to comment (for different reasons) on China, Thailand and India, where they are yet more omnipresent (for varying reasons).

    That’s a pretty good chunk of humanity, So the US government is not an outlier.

    I would say that (especially in a public facing non partisan job) it is generally fine to have the president and vice president there if (and only if) you would be doing it regardless of who was president and vice president. That’s what distinguishes between a civic display and a partisan display.

    1. Kestrel*

      You’re also allowed to have a partisan cubicle decoration. You, as an employee, are allowed to have preferences, and that includes politically, if it’s not TOO in your face

      Lots of people have their NPR mugs around, and tbh I’d much rather see a red hat in a cubicle than think that a person was a normal human being for a few months and then find out they’re an actual monster

      1. Jackalope*

        In the US if you are a federal employee you are not in fact allowed to have partisan cubicle decorations at your desk, or on your person at work. Not sure about state, county, or city govt but I would be unsurprised to learn that many of them had some sort of rules about this as well.

      2. JSPA*

        NPR is Public Radio. While individual host’s word choices and social presumptions sometimes imply individual leanings (and sometimes only seem to imply them, while really only being demographic “tells”) they are not a partisan mouthpiece.

        Furthermore, the specific shows that are carried vary quite drastically from region to region, presumably so as to mirror regional interests and preferences. So the idea that an NPR mug is intrinsically partisan in some way is way, way off-base.

        Marketplace, World of Opera, Thistle & Shamrock and BBC World Service define NPR in some markets; in others, you get (or got) This Way Out, or the Allegheny Front, or Kojo Nnamdi or River to River. Jazz and classical music have their own NPR channel in some markets, while in others they share a station. An NPR mug can mean, “I listen to Bach and Mozart” or “cool jazz is my bag” or even, ” I vaguely follow the stock market.”

  42. Bike Walk Barb*

    Am I the only one who doesn’t even read signature blocks from people who work in my same agency? I mean, maybe if it’s someone I haven’t interacted with I do to see which unit they’re with, but for that I’d usually use Outlook’s function to look up the org structure since titles don’t tell me where they fit into the larger unit and I may need to know that.

    I don’t have a full signature block set up for replies either because that would be annoying.

    I feel as if “weirdest, funniest, or best signature block things ever” could be an entertaining thread. I used to work in higher ed and our IT guy always signed off with his nickname (“FirstnameMan”, and most of us did refer to him that way) and a quote from The Tick. It changed occasionally so I’d look just to see if there was something new to entertain us.

  43. Bonkers*

    When my kid was having some significant behavioral issues at preschool, I was getting pretty regular unpleasant emails from the head of school. She also signs all emails with “Have a great day!”

    “Dear Bonkers,
    Little Bonkers hit a toddler on the head with a metal water bottle today, and seems to have no remorse for doing so. Please let me know when we can meet to discuss whether Fancy Preschool can continue to meet her needs.
    Have a great day!
    Scary Headmistress”

    No, Scary Headmistress. I will not, in fact, have a great day.

    1. Forrest Rhodes*

      Commiserating here, Bonkers.
      I’d be tempted to respond with a thank-you email that ended with:
      “In fact, Scary Headmistress, your email has just insured that I will, in fact, NOT have a great day. Regards, Bonkers.”
      But that’s probably just me, stirring up the bear …

  44. KS*

    OP#4-

    It is not only reasonable to ask work stuff to be moved to email or Slack it is absolutely best practices and a thing your company would VERY MUCH want you to do. If you habitually use texting/group chats/phones to send work correspondence (even dumb correspondence like timecard reminders) then when your company gets involved in a lawsuit, it means that your personal phone becomes subject to discovery and upend all the carefully thought through document preservation policies that your company has instituted. This is way more common than you think it is and is a giant pain not only for your company, but for the guy whose phone gets sucked into litigation.

  45. learnedthehardway*

    OP#1 – when Michael asks, I think it is entirely reasonable to say that your prior manager liked to test out various options before committing to a strategy.

    You could say that “While this entailed some more time upfront, we rarely had delays at the end of the project, so it all worked out. This meant some initiatives were abandoned in midstream, when it became clear that other options were better.”

    To make it clear that you have more of a bias towards action, you could say, “It took me a while to get used to this approach, but I can see where it has its place. It’s nice to move forward rapidly, though, when the outcomes are predictable.”

  46. RightSaidFed*

    Someone in my office has a signature that includes “Have a fantastic day on purpose”. Definitely an interesting choice, for sure.

  48. Head Sheep Counter*

    On political figures as office decor – I find it no less upsetting than religious decor. I’d rather a cheesy political smile than an bleeding crucifix.

    I once had a colleague who finally decorated over the line and got reprimanded… she was/is pro-life… and demonstrated it in the fashion of the posters the protesters use outside clinics. All over her cubical. One of her officemates was struggling with fertility and had just miscarried. She was made to take it all down, perhaps given some coaching (these things aren’t public knowledge so who knows) and a crisp notice about what cubical decorations were allowed was sent out (oddly didn’t include the colleague’s choice… weird).

  49. Kestrel*

    In the case of #2, this is NOT the same as having a picture of the last President.

    One case is a normal pair of politicians, the other is actively trying to push a regime that will see many queer people killed, amongst others.

    It’s like saying a neo n@zi and your neighbor who listens to NPR are the same kind of guy

  50. Lizbrarian*

    I agree that you want to think about putting up political pictures, but I also agree that context is key. I have a former colleague who received an award from a polarizing US president (whom she does not share any love for), but it was a pretty big service award, recognizing her selfless lifelong commitment to herding alpacas. She displays the picture of the two of them because it was a big deal for her. A framed picture of just the president? Probably shouldn’t without a visible non-political reason.

    I had another colleague who worked for a tangentially government institution, and she displayed the pictures of the annual invited speaker that she took each year. Often these were politicians, but she did post ALL of them.

  51. Lisa Simpson*

    Alison: I feel like there’s a market for a compilation of worst/most memorable email sigs (I still think fondly of stay gold)

  52. Sarah*

    Wow, the rare time I disagree with Alison! This is likely more commonplace in organizations with a very strong external brand, but every place I’ve worked has considered email signatures part of the institutional identity — similar to a business card — and there are very specific style guidelines that prohibit the use of personal signoffs, random images and so on. Sounds like that may not be the case at LW #3’s place, but from the standpoint of a brand steward, email signatures are (weirdly) minefields of reputational and accessibility missteps. If it’s truly become an issue (and a company has other guidelines for public-facing communications), might be worth a chat with the marketing and communications folks!

    1. metadata minion*

      Yeah, this varies widely by employer. The university I work at has some basic restrictions on what you can’t include, but anything along the lines of

      [generic closing]
      [name]
      [title and contact info/lab website link/etc.]
      [maybe an innocuous quote]

      is fine. If you’re doing high-level official communication I assume there’s a style guide, and there are rules for when you must/can’t use the official university name/seal, but for more casual “hi, we have the book you ordered” or “I’m sorry that database isn’t working; it appears to be demons” emails we can use our judgement.

      I’d be annoyed if someone pushed for standardization of email signatures unless it was because people were using truly inappropriate things.

Comments are closed.