employee said awful things about a coworker who was on the phone, company’s leaders are all white men, and more

by Alison Green on May 1, 2024

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

1. Employee said awful things about a coworker … while on the phone with them

I’m writing about an incident that happened to my coworker, “Jane.” Jane was out of town over the weekend and her corporate lodging card wouldn’t work. She called an admin, “Elvira,” for assistance. Elvira does not like Jane. When Jane explained her situation and asked for help, Elvira turned to her boyfriend (another coworker) and said some awful things about Jane. Elvira either failed to mute her phone or didn’t think she could be overheard; unfortunately, Jane heard everything. It started with “Oh my God, it’s Jane f***ing Smith. I can’t f***ing stand her,” and it went downhill from there. Apparently Elvira got very worked up, to the point that her boyfriend could be heard telling her to calm down.

(Side note: Jane indicated that, based on Elvira’s slurred speech, she might have been drunk during the call. That could explain why she became so worked up. In Elvira’s defense, it was the weekend and she was not on call, so whatever she does on her own time is her business.)

In the end, Elvira did end up assisting Jane, but Jane’s feelings were obviously hurt. Jane is not confrontational and is not likely to tell anyone in management about the incident, especially because Elvira and the HR manager are close friends outside of work.

I am a manager, but not to any of the parties involved. Do I have an obligation to speak up about Elvira’s behavior? I am privy to the fact that Elvira is currently being coached (by her friend, the HR manager) to be less abrasive in the workplace. But the information from Jane is just secondhand. And I worry that my own distaste for Elvira is clouding my judgment. What is the right thing to do?

As a manager, even though you’re not Jane’s manager, you have some obligation to speak up if you’re aware of an employee being abusive to/about a colleague while on the phone with them. This is also an employee who’s already known to be problematic in the way she talks to people. It’s hard to argue that you should keep that to yourself; being a manager gives you a higher degree of obligation to escalate things that are obvious problems for your team/the organization. If Jane strongly doesn’t want you to, that complicates things — but you could point out that the issue being reported is Elvira; Jane just happened to be a bystander, and if Elvira is willing to treat Jane that way, who else might she be targeting abuse toward, including people with less power/influence than Jane and who might not tell anyone about it?

(Also someone, presumably not you, needs to talk to the HR manager about how her close out-of-work friendship with Elvira is a conflict of interest. At a minimum, it’s going to give people pause about reporting concerns with Elvira.)

2. Interviewing at a company where the executive team is only white men

I (a woman) am currently interviewing for a new position. I do have a fairly stable position that I am currently in, so it’s not super urgent, but I’m pretty miserable and would prefer to move on sooner rather than later. Last week I received an invite to interview for a company that at first sounded like a dream. They use a new up-and-coming technology that I’m passionate about, and they use it in a way that both makes the world a better place and makes them a lot of money.

While researching the company in preparation for my interview, I found that every single member of their executive team and board is a white man. The position I am interviewing for is a senior position and a step down from where I am now, so seeing a valid path for growth is important to me if I’m going to take the position. My gut feel is that I would very quickly hit the glass ceiling at a company that has no diversity on their executive team, and isn’t even ashamed to show that on their website for the world to see. Is there any possible explanation for this that is not what it looks like? Is there any way to have the conversation with them without them feeling like I’m accusing them of something? Is it even worth attempting to have a conversation? I’m sure their response is not going to be, “You know what, we never looked at it that way, you’re right, we’re going to fix that!”

No, it’s what it looks like. It’s not an accident.

That doesn’t mean that they’re flagrant racist and sexists who twirl their mustaches while plotting to maintain their grip on power. It does mean that something’s up in their decision-making, culture, and worldview that has somehow led to only white men having a voice at the top of their organization. Will that change at some point? Maybe. Will it be a frustrating path for the first woman or non-white person who makes inroads into their top leadership? Probably. Some people are up for doing that, and others are not.

But you can definitely go to the interview and find out more. It’s very reasonable to say, “I noticed your executive team is all white men. Can you tell me about what the company is doing to bring other voices into leadership and to create paths for advancement for women and people of color?” If they bristle at that or just give you empty corporate pablum, that will tell you a lot.

3. Is this too many interviews?

I’m currently hiring for an entry-level role at a nonprofit. We’ve had issues before where entry-level candidates think they will be doing substantive policy research with a touch of project and stakeholder management, when actually it is the other way around. My team has spoken to HR about how we are advertising the position (but that is a whole other issue).

My team has organized the following interview process:
1. Screener call with HR from a list of 10 candidates
2. 45-minute call with hiring manager (me) — short list of six candidates
3. 30-minute written assessment. We make it clear that they should spend no longer than 30 minutes on this. Expected to send to 4 candidates
4. 30-minute call with another member of the team — narrowing to 2-3 candidates
5. 30-minute call with executive director (1-2 candidates)
6. Offer

HR wants to skip steps 3 and 4 entirely, saying it’s too much for an entry-level position. However, our executive director does not have the time to speak to more than 1-2 people as anything more than a final confirmation before we make the offer. We’ve struggled with retention in part because I think the interview process has been rushed and not allowed sufficient time for the candidate to get to know the team and the role, particularly before meeting our (wonderful) but at times intense executive director.

Am I off-base? This is my first time leading a recruitment process and I want to be respectful of people’s time and attention.

If these are all separate steps (as opposed to several of them occurring in the same appointment), and I’m guessing they are since you’re narrowing down the field at each stage, this is too much for an entry-level position. That’s not to say you shouldn’t be rigorous in entry-level hiring; you should be. But this is too many separate steps.

Don’t get rid of the written exercise though! At least, not if it gives you a direct look into how candidates actually perform. That’s often more valuable than an interview is. I’d get rid of steps 4 and 5, or at least combine them into one step (so you schedule a one-hour meeting and they spend the first half with a team member and the second half with your ED). I’m curious how much value you and candidates get from those last meetings though, and if you’re looking to pare it down, that’s the obvious place to cut.

If you’re struggling with retention, I’d look at how you’re assessing candidates and how you’re communicating the job and culture to them. That’s not likely a “need to add interviews to the process” problem; it’s a problem with how you’re using the time you have with people in the early steps on this list. (Or it’s a problem with the position itself, the salary, or the wider organization.)

4. Company asks about my financial goals for the upcoming year

I work for a small professional services company (~25 people), and overall I love my job. I’m a higher-level individual contributor, and have been a fantastic performer in my 10-year tenure with the company. Our annual review process is quite detailed and time-consuming, but is taken very seriously by managers, which I appreciate – but there is one question on our self-reflection form that always stumps me. The form asks, “What are your financial goals for the upcoming year?”

I think it is generally understood that this question is meant to give associates a space to ask for a raise, or otherwise negotiate compensation, if they choose to. (After all, my personal financial goals such as “pay off a credit card” or “save for a down payment on a house” are not really any of my boss’s business.)

While I appreciate the sentiment behind this question, I never know what to say in years where I am not asking for a merit-based raise or promotion. In the past I’ve written something along the lines of, “I am happy with my current level of responsibility and financial compensation.” But in truth, I do expect the standard 2-3% cost-of-living raise (and it’s always been given, even though I haven’t asked for it explicitly). Is this a common question to ask in end-of-year reviews? If so, what is a professional way to answer?

It’s a badly worded question because it does sound like they’re asking about your financial goals outside of work, even though you know they’re not.

But since they’re raising the question, why not ask for more money every year? You say you do expect it each year (and it’s not unreasonable to expect your salary to go up each year — at a minimum to keep up with inflation), so let’s be explicit about it. And don’t limit yourself by citing a “2-3% cost-of-living raise.” Say you’d like to see your salary increase “commensurate with my increased contributions, as well as the cost of living.” They’re asking! See what happens.

5. Do employment laws not apply to indigenous tribal employers?

A friend works for an indigenous nonprofit in our state, and made a complaint to HR about harassment they were receiving from coworkers. HR is now retaliating, which I understand to be illegal. But when they contacted an employment lawyer, they were told that none of the usual HR rules apply to indigenous organizations. Complicating matters is that this nonprofit receives federal funding. They have spoken to several lawyers and have heard the same thing each time, but I find it impossible to believe that HR just ceases to exist when an organization serves indigenous populations, particularly when they’re federally funded. Is this true, or have they just spoken to lousy lawyers?

I’m guessing this is a tribal employer. Most federal employment laws, including Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (the federal anti-discrimination statute), don’t apply to tribal employers, even if they receive federal funds. (This is because the tribes are considered sovereign nations.) Someone working for a tribal organization won’t have recourse in state or federal courts; they’d need to seek redress from the tribal council (and likely would need a tribal law attorney).

You may also like:
{ 541 comments }

{ 541 comments… read them below }

  1. Ellie Rose*

    the more I learn about a “good” amount of time to spend on an entry level interview, the more I’m baffled by my nearly _6 hr_ interview (all in one day, with a break for lunch) for my first full-time job.

    fortunately the company stopped doing that not long after (though it’s still on the long side).

    1. Michigander*

      When I was finishing up college and looking for an office job, I had an interview for an entry-level position (I can’t even remember what it was anymore, but definitely entry-level) that lasted for hours and involved interviewing with I think 10 different people, some in pairs and some individually. Since I was new to the workforce and professional interviews I didn’t realise how absurd it was, but looking back on it I can see that it was massive overkill. Why do you need that many opinions? How do you even come to a consensus?

      In contrast, I currently work at a UK university where the interview process for most positions is a 3-person panel interview, one round only.

    2. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      LW3:

      I’d combine steps 2 and 4, and make it an hour, like a mini panel. Then the assessment, then the ED if it’s really necessary. (Seems odd for an entry level position, but not my field.) Most people can handle one hour a lot more easily than two half-hours. (I also don’t consider the initial HR contact to be an interview).

      1. NerdyKris*

        Yeah, I don’t see why you wouldn’t just combine the hiring manager and team member interviews. I can’t imagine what the team member is bringing to the interview that requires an entirely separate one on one vs the hiring manager. Most of their questions would be similar.

        And the executive director weighing in on an entry level position is baffling.

        1. Alienor*

          They might be thinking that the candidate will be more comfortable meeting with the team members alone, and therefore reveal things they might not otherwise reveal.

          This did work the other way around for a company I interviewed with a couple of years ago. The first two interviews were fine, and then when I interviewed alone with team members, they were very clearly both sending me frantic signals not to take the job. They didn’t come right out and say “This place is a dumpster fire,” but they said things like “It can get pretty stressful, haha! How do you deal with extreme stress?” while shooting pointed looks at me through the camera. Between that and the Glassdoor reviews, I ended up declining the eventual offer I received.

        2. Tio*

          I am also baffled by the ED interviewing an entry level position! Is this company super small? If you want him to interview an entry level position, I assume he’d have to interview higher positions too. Is he really interviewing every person you hire? Does your ED not have better things to do? What questions is the ED going to ask that you couldn’t ask? (Same with the team)

          Adding all these steps up, you’re asking for nearly 3 hours of time for an entry level position, in 6 separate steps. That’s bananas

          1. Wobegon*

            the first letter — why was Jane calling Elvira on the weekend if Elvira was not on call? Not implying what was said was ok or there aren’t systemic problems there, but why is she getting called on her days off? Seems a significant detail.

            1. JB*

              I feel like if you re-read the question carefully you will discover the answer to your question.

        3. NotAnotherManager!*

          We do separate hiring manager and team member interviews so that the candidate can speak to someone they’d be working with rather than for – their perspective and insight is different – and also so the team member can speak candidly without their manager present. The fact that we provide a peer interview stage has been positively received on both sides, we get a lot of good feedback on it. We also value what the team thinks – they very rarely object to a candidate, but, when they do, we listen.

          1. MassMatt*

            I think it’s always a good practice to try to talk to people you’d be working with in a new job, but that doesn’t mean it has to be a formal interview. It’s easy to let someone have some informal time with potential coworkers before or after one of the formal interviews. I agree it’s too many steps, especially for entry level, and having the ED interview multiple entry level candidates is nuts. It makes me wonder if s/he is an extremely controlling micromanager, honestly.

            And I will add—do all these people conducting interviews have the experience and skills to do this, or are they simply told “OK, tomorrow we have two people coming in for the entry-level job, talk to them”? IME people are often just tossed into interviewing (and managing generally) with little or no training or even guidelines.

            1. NotAnotherManager!*

              We can’t do informal chats as part of our process. HR has guidelines and a brief but very helpful required training, and you are either allowed to interview or you aren’t – no day-of drive bys. All interviewers’ feedback has to entered into the short feedback form, which is saved with the file, to ensure that evaluation points are consistent.

              Our entry-level process only has three steps – phone screen with HR to confirm salary expectations match and base level competencies are met, 30-minute interview with the hiring manager, and 30-minute peer interview. We do not require in-person interviews at that level but will offer them if the candidate prefers it. There are one or two of our positions that require a 1-2 page writing sample, but they can submit anything they have that meets the requirements (or write something new, if they prefer) after the initial phone screen.

        4. sdog*

          Yep, was coming on to say this, that the hiring manager interview could be a panel interview with one or more folks from the team that can make it (that way, you don’t feel like you have to schedule around the whole team for every potential candidate). And that the ED meetup could be skipped at this stage.

        5. Quill*

          I wonder if it’s less that they want them to be separate than that they have trouble booking both the hiring manager and the team member at the same time for each interview.

      2. AngryOctopus*

        Yeah, why does an entry level person need to speak with the ED? I can see meeting the ED after they come aboard, but realistically the ED shouldn’t be impacting their day to day at all, so interviewing with them is a lot.

        1. MsM*

          It could be an executive assistant type position. Most nonprofits I’ve worked for treat those as entry level rather than going after seasoned professionals.

        2. Captain Swan*

          It could be a relatively small non-profit or one that’s growing in size so the ED is very hands on and still meets everyone as part of the interview process.

          See also smallish companies with flat organizational hierarchies

        3. djx*

          Depends on the size of the organization. if it’s small they should. In my org, entry level hires reporting to me had one interview with the CEO, who is the person I report to. This gives a fuller picture of the organization. The CEO only meets with my top choice BTW, and helps sell the organization to that person.

      3. Momma Bear*

        I agree. The initial HR screen shouldn’t be long and may cut off at the pass applicants who don’t have a key thing required for the company, for example, many federal contractors are limited to hiring only citizens. Or there may be a necessary certificate or training.

        We do a panel of three, so there’s always a tie-breaker. There’s usually the manager who is hiring and two others, usually including at least one person who might be their Team Lead or similar. No need to loop back over and over and over if you have the right folks in the first place. You can even tag-team if the senior person can really only give 30 mins. Having it all at once is probably easier for the candidate’s schedule, too.

        I’d look further into retention, maybe have a chat with some of the people you did keep to ask about their first impressions, onboarding, etc. If your ED is “intense”, is there something the company can do to buffer new hires fresh out of college until they get their feet wet? I suspect it is not the interview process (though lengthy). I suspect it is something in the company structure or culture, but everyone is too close to see it.

        1. Boof*

          Yes, the phone screen out to just confirm the candidate is real/wants the job as it is, avoid weirdness where someone applied to something hoping it would become something else (like all remote). No stakes quick phonecall, nothing to prep, leads straight into scheduling the actual interview which includes the 30 min skills test. Then maybe the ceo phone call / interview leads to the offer immediately after (warm handoff). Only ceo/interview someone else if that offer falls through, etc.

      4. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Yes, this! In my current role, a step up from entry level but not by much (and also at a nonprofit), I had an initial screening call with my now-boss, then a 90-minute session with three 30-min interviews, one with her, one with her boss, and one with the head of the org. I agree that an entry level person probably doesn’t need to meet with the ED; pretty sure I only did because it’s a very small org. I have been here three years and would stay longer except for they won’t pay me what I’m worth and there are some management issues that are so ridiculous I don’t know how the org will be able to stay afloat after I leave.

        For the job I just accepted, at a large private university in my area, I had an initial screening call with HR, then a 90-min session of 30-min interviews with the three ppl who will be on my team, including of course my direct supervisor. Then I did a small scenario project using the software I’ll be using at the job, which took about four hours for me to prepare, and did a 30-min presentation for the three interviewers on what I’d done. They recorded the session and passed it along to others in the department and I then had another 30-min call with a manager in another department, and a day or so later had two more 30-min sessions with another manager and the VP of the department. It was a lot. Granted, it’s not an entry-level position, but having essentially four separate days where I had to be “on,” prep for another interview, and be nervous about the whole thing (on top of doing my current job, of course) seemed a bit much.

        OP, your HR is correct in wanting to pare down the interviews, because an extended process like that will likely weed out the candidates who have other options, leaving you with a less desirable pool of applicants. Try to think about how you’d feel as an applicant having that many sessions…it’s really too much. But I do agree with AAM’s advice to keep the written assessment, that can tell you a lot, especially with someone who might get really nervous for interviews but has excellent written skills. It’s a great way to assess different skills than you can see in an interview.

        If your org is having trouble with retention, I don’t think the interview process is where you should be focusing your efforts, with the exception that you do need to be clear with applicants what the job they’re applying for is. You should definitely tell them outright that the job is executive management and not policy research, and pay attention to your candidates’ abilities in that kind of management and whether they focus on research when talking about their past achievements (if they keep saying policy research is their jam, that would be a hint that that person is not the person you want in this position). And I know you probably don’t have the ability to fundamentally change how things work at your org (see also: my org, which is falling apart because of terrible leadership decisions), but I’d suggest that if you can, have them look at salaries, benefits, advancement, training, procedures, etc, and see if changing some of that will help y’all retain employees better.

      5. Miette*

        I’ve worked for nonprofits and interviewing with the ED is always a requirement for some reason, but if the ED doesn’t have veto power on the hire, why waste either person’s time? IME hiring at nonprofits is such a slog these days I don’t understand it.

        1. CommanderBanana*

          I think it’s because a lot of nonprofits, especially small ones, are hellscapes led by control freak, ego-monster EDs*

          *worked in nonprofits for many years

        2. fhqwhgads*

          the only places I’ve worked that required all positions interview with the ED, it was because the ED wanted it that way, and no other reason.

    3. WeirdChemist*

      The first company I ever interviewed for had an 8 hr interview as their 2nd round! Luckily it was zoom was super common, so at least I could do it from the comfort of my own home instead of having to physically be there for a full day. I literally had to lay down on the floor immediately after logging off the last call I was so tired lol

      And didn’t even get the job!

      1. Sloanicota*

        Honestly, that’s part of what companies don’t seem to get. On their side, yes it’s onerous but they’re probably going to end up with an important new hire at the end of the process so it’s worth digging deep. But with interviews literally by design, 99.9% of people aren’t going to get a job out of the process. Only one person out of the hundreds of applications you receive is going to. Everyone else’s time is essentially wasted. Which is why you’ve got to be respectful of your applicants’ energy!

        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          also, they want to make sure they get the right person so they want to spend the time on it. But they are forgetting they are asking the applicant to take time out of their schedule to spend all t his time. Here OP says because they want the person to be sure what they are getting into. But what applicants are learning is this is a non-profit very disrespectful of time. Someone has to find time on 5 different days to meet with the employer for an entry level job. Its not worth the effort.

          1. JustaTech*

            I agree that the 5 different days is in some ways a lot harder on the applicant than 1 5-hour day (which is also brutal). (I did that once and not only did they not feed me lunch but I was on my 4th or 5th interview before anyone offered me a glass of water!)

            I wish I could say that they just need to be a lot clearer about the duties in the job posting, but as was discussed in a post last week, a lot of people don’t really read stuff.

        2. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

          Where are you getting such a huge number of people not getting a job from the interview process? Nobody is interviewing 100 people to hire one. “By design,” an interview means that the person being interviewed is one of the most qualified applicants for the job. Where I am, we may interview 3 or 4 people to hire 1.

          1. Frank Doyle*

            Sloanicota is actually suggesting that people are interviewing 1,000 people to hire one!! Percentage-related hyperbole is a pet peeve of mine. (Everyone, please stop agreeing 1,000%.)

            1. Sloanicota*

              Oh sorry I was thinking 100 applications to one job (and sometimes they pick no-one and start over/repost). The application time can really be a bear too, or at least that’s what I’m currently finding in my job search! Maybe 100 applicants is really high in some fields, but it isn’t that high in mine.

              1. Lenora Rose*

                100 applicants would be really high in our field, but I don’t think I’ve seen more than 6 people interviewed. Maybe there are for more entry level roles? But even so, I would imagine 8-10 at most.

                1. Bast*

                  100 would not be a lot in my field pre-Covid. Our numbers at Old Job definitely took a hit post-Covid. We hired a couple of months prior to Covid hitting, and nearly 300 people applied for one entry level position. Granted, this does not mean that we interviewed anywhere near to that number of people — I’d go through, screen the resumes submitted, pull a group with potential, and then do a phone screen before we called them in for an interview. I’d say I’d maybe do 20 phone screens (including a few people that would end up having an outdated number, and of those, maybe half would come in for an interview. A few would no show. Post- Covid, we posted for the same position and got maybe 30 applicants, most of which were not what we were looking for. Of those, I’d say maybe 5-8 or so were worth calling in?

                  I’d definitely run from an entry level position that required this much effort though, especially if I had to block off so much time away from work, which is simply not feasible for many.

                2. Also-ADHD*

                  Jobs I’ve been in or hired for lately (all remote & not entry level though) get 1000ish applications on average in a few days, but recruiters call 20-25 maximum after we sort the resumes and look at portfolios (if applicable).

              2. fhqwhgads*

                We usually see 200-400 applicants for one job, but that results in at most 20 phone screens, 6 interviews with the hiring manager, (if applicable a technical interview), 2 interviews with a peer-panel, and then one person selected.

              3. MigraineMonth*

                I’ve interviewed for jobs that probably had 100 applicants per opening (well-known company), but I bet less than half made it as far as the phone screening. Our second interview was a 5-hour onsite, so doing too many of those would have resulted in no time to do our actual jobs.

        3. Rebecca*

          Absolutely – overly time intensive interview processes are a red flag for me; it tells me that as an organisation you don’t think much about the impact you’re having on people you’re interacting with. I’ve previously noped out of an offer for what I thought would be a dream job because of issues around the interview process.

    4. Tired Introvert*

      Right? Right out of college I went through an interview process at a company that involved all the candidates (6-10 of us) together at the office where we spent hours rotating through a series of group problem-solving exercises and individual interviews with various folks at the company. From what I recall it was an *entry level sales job*. In retrospect I’m happy I didn’t get the gig.

    5. Antilles*

      I personally think a long SINGLE interview is actually less intrusive than these sorts of six-step processes because every time we have a call, there’s a preparation process (reviewing my notes, interview prep, getting dressed, mental head-space, etc).

      Of course, that’s still not a great process. My first company did similar interviews so I got to be on both sides (as a candidate and the interviewer) and I don’t think the super-long interview day was particularly useful. Are you really getting any new information in hour 5.5 when the candidate is telling the 11th person “So how do you handle conflict?” Is your hiring process better at sifting candidates with a 6-hour marathon than if it a more reasonable 3 hours? Probably not.

      1. Also-ADHD*

        I’d break this into 3 phases with the first phase being virtual and the second phase take home even if the position is in office. Then only finalists actually have to come in.

    6. amoeba*

      Pretty normal in my scientific field, and I actually kind of like it – gives you a chance to meet everybody, have a tour of the premises, a chat over lunch, some technical discussions, talk about compensation/benefits with HR… also, this is always in person, and as we’re definitely hiring internationally and often fly people in for this, it makes sense to not just do an hour or whatever!

      However, that’s all in one day – several separate interviews would be much more annoying to me.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        For entry-level jobs? That seems like a lot, but I guess if you’re doing research it makes a bit more sense. Not at all for most entry-level jobs, though.

        1. Prof*

          keep in m9ind “entry level” in academia is for someone with a PhD in many cases, not quite the same system. And yeah, interviews are usually 1-2 full days, with multiple shorter meetings (and usually at least lunch and dinner things) and giving an hour long talk and/or teaching a class.

          1. amoeba*

            Yes, sorry – that’s definitely PhD level plus probably postdoc for us. Pretty sure it’s also done in stuff like tech or engineering, which typically require “only” a Master’s…

          2. amoeba*

            And not just in academia – I’m in industry. Although as was discussed here already – scientific research in industry (chemistry, pharma, biotech, etc…) is definitely “academia-adjacent”!

          3. Nesprin*

            Entry level in academia is an undergrad working in someone’s lab. Postdoc or assistant professor slots are senior.

            1. amoeba*

              Eh, that’s generally during your education though! And again, I’m not even in academia anymore, I’m talking about entry level in industry, which very typically requires at least a PhD, often a postdoc as well. (Although on the upside, those are typically entry level in the sense that they are people’s first jobs in industry, but also jobs you can happily retire from without ever changing position!)

        2. Quill*

          Science (non academia) entry level it makes sense to do maybe 2 hours total – panel with team and team lead, labs tour, infrequently a skills test. This usually after a hiring manager gives you a 15-30 minute call the week before to confirm that you are not three raccoons in a trenchcoat.

        1. MigraineMonth*

          What counts as “entry level” can really vary across fields. In academia, I think a tenure-track professorship might be considered “entry level” since it’s the level you’re initially hired at. Would a new doctor that has completed their residency but never had separate employment be considered “entry level?

          A lot of fields will hire someone straight out of school into a position of significant responsibility, so it’s important to get that hire right (especially since they have no track record of success).

          1. Go get ‘em, angels!*

            In strategy consulting/investment banking, analyst candidates absolutely go through multiple rounds of interviews (usually callbacks are all on the same day), and yes, they are flown out to callbacks.

            Depending on the nature of the role this organization is hiring for, the setup may be appropriate, and in a smaller organization I have no problem with the executive director meeting entry-level candidates.

    7. Abundant Shrimp*

      Dear lord. Mine was maybe an hour all together? There was a test, then I spoke with the hiring manager, he told me to expect an offer, and that was it. Admittedly, this was in the last century (late 90s, haha) but six hours for an entry-level job is mind-blowing to me.

      1. Glad I'm Retired*

        In the 70’s and 80’s, I remember job seeking was filling an application, taking some tests, and the interview. Sometimes I was hired on the spot. When I was laid off in the early 2000’s, it was a drawn out process, even for office/administrative support type positions.

    8. Alex*

      Same! My first office job–a receptionist position barely above minimum wage–included five separate interviews all on the same day. One with the guy who would be my manager, one with the HR person, who was also working in the office I would be working in, one with the GrandBoss, one with another senior person in the office (why she got a say I still don’t know because I didn’t work for her), and a group interview with the rest of the team. All told I had to meet with nine different people. Sheesh!

      1. MigraineMonth*

        For my current job, there was a panel interview with my hiring manager and two employees from a different department. I spent half the interview trying to figure out why the other two people were there, when apparently I wasn’t even going to be working with their department. I’ve been working here for 3 years and I’ve never seen them again, but apparently getting their input was super important?

    9. LCH*

      it is quite a lot for entry level. i might organize it more like this:

      1. Screener call with HR from a list of 10 candidates with hiring manager listening in (pare down to 3-4 candidates here). This seems like it is really to get the applicants on the same page as far as duties, compensation, etc.
      2. Written assessment (could pare to 2-3 here or keep all 4)
      3. Call with hiring manager, then call with team member; same day, different sessions.

      At this point you should know who you want and could set up your choice to have a final call with the ED (if that is really necessary?) or you could just offer.

    10. LoraC*

      I had one which started with filling out a very long questionnaire, writing multiple essays, followed by a phone screen, and then was called in for a 4 hour in-office interview with NO lunch breaks that included an exam where I had to sit there for 30 minutes and rewrite my essays from memory (presumably to make sure I hadn’t cheated on them?).

      All for an entry level job targeted at recent grads!

    11. MapleLibrarian*

      Very normal in academia. I’ve never had a university library job interview be less than 7 hours including lunch. They’ve even flown me in for them.

    12. OMG, Bees!*

      6 hours?! Dang, that’s almost a full shift. Enough time that ideally they would then pay you for the time spent (but light research doesn’t give a clear answer on when a company should pay an interviewee aside from a working interview)

  2. AcademiaNut*

    For #3 – that’s five separate interview steps for an entry level position. That means that if the person applying is currently employed, they need to take time off and find a quiet place for an interview four separate times, plus fitting in the written test.

    I’d do the phone screen, then combine steps 2-4 (one hour long interview with you and the second team member, followed immediately by a 30 minute skills test; if they do badly on the first half, you can skip the skills part). Then a short Zoom call with the director for the last couple of candidates.

    I’m sceptical that a half hour phone call with the director is going to make much of a difference in retention, except that if “intense” means he tends to intimidate people, meeting him might result in people turning down the offer (which is probably good, if that’s an issue in turnover).

    1. Over It*

      I would argue for cutting the ED interview entirely, unless it’s a very small company or this role otherwise interacts regularly with the ED. There’s really no reason an ED needs to be involved in hiring for entry level positions. I have never interviewed with an ED or senior exec in any job I’ve worked at, with the smallest being a non-profit of about 60 staff. I’d imagine trying to combine the interviews would be very hard from a scheduling perspective, which partly explains why there are so many separate steps.

      1. AcademiaNut*

        Yes, if the ED agrees, that’s a good idea. And doing two short interviews (instead of together) works. For an entry level job, a phone screen plus a 2-3 hour interview is pretty reasonable.

        FWIW, I would count a series of consecutive discussions plus a skills test as a single interview. The interviewee only needs to take one chunk of time off work. The issue with the original idea is that each step would narrow down the number of candidates (10 -> 6 -> 4 -> 3 -> 2), which minimizes the time for the interviewers, but makes it harder for the interviewees.

        They could start with fewer candidates on the short list (10 -> 4), and then circle back if they don’t hire anyone. They’d probably have to do that anyways. With the original idea they’d have to do five rounds of scheduling, which stretches out interviewing process, and increases the chances that candidates will take another job, or not be able to get time off for the fourth interview, or withdraw from the process because it’s gotten too long.

        1. OP3*

          Hi all,

          Thanks for your comments! A few additional details, the role will interact with the ED a fair amount so important that they meet. The written test is necessary. We’re not in an Anglophone country and a strong level of written English is critical for the role, but it is very short and builds on a question that we discuss during the interview. We won’t actually use what they write as work product.

          Thank you for the feedback though! I’ll have a team member join me for round one and then I’ll plan to join the ED for the second round interview to shorten the process for the candidate.

          1. MsSolo (UK)*

            How does your hiring process compare with other entry level roles in your country? Alternately, what career level would most local candidates expect to have five steps?

            In the UK, this process would imply a much higher level job than you’re advertising for; entry level is usually a single interview with a panel, sometimes with a test – no phone screen, no ED. Multiple rounds of interviews suggests you’re going to have responsibilities from the offset that screwing up on presents a level of risk to the organisation. Even if you think you’re being clear in the application materials people may be assuming that the role must have significant responsibilities (or have pretty immediate advancement opportunities into one) because it doesn’t make sense for you to go to senior position levels of effort in the recruitment process otherwise.

            1. londonedit*

              Yep, this is what I was going to say. For an entry-level job here you’d expect to go straight to first interview (phone screens aren’t really a thing) which would generally be with the person who would be your line manager, possibly also with another member of the team. Because I work in publishing, there will probably be an editorial test as part of the first interview, but it’d be no more than 15 minutes at the end – you’d have 30-45 minutes of interview conversation and then they’d complete a short test at the end before they leave. You’d probably do first interviews with around 10 applicants. Then you’d narrow it down and invite the best four or five people back for a second interview – that might involve a more senior member of the team if they’ll be interacting a lot with the successful applicant, or it might just be with the same person/people as the first interview. No test there, just a chance to ask a few more questions on both sides. And then you pick the best candidate and offer them the job. Two interviews is the standard – any more than that for an entry-level job would be far too much.

              1. Leenie*

                We use phone screens for everything. Our internal recruiter calls people before I even see their resumes. Honestly, it’s been helpful. Last time, he only advanced four people to me, out of the 100+ applications he received, and 10 or so phone calls that he made. All four were qualified and I made a good hire. Having someone who actually recruits for a living take those first couple of steps from us has been really valuable. It also helps us get a more diverse slate of interviewees, and helps protect against bias. And it only takes 10 minutes or so from each of those candidates. Totally worth it for all involved.

              2. Tio*

                If you’re a company who gets a lot of applications, a phone screen for an entry level position could absolutely be needed. I work for a major organization now that gets hundreds of applications for entry level jobs; if we interviewed everyone who had a decent looking resume immediately that’s all we’d do for days.

                1. londonedit*

                  Actually in book publishing you *do* get hundreds of applications for entry-level positions, and still we don’t use phone screens. HR will do an initial screen for anything that clearly doesn’t meet the minimum requirements, then the hiring manager will go through the CVs/cover letters and whittle it down. Yep, it does take ages, but we’re not interviewing more than 10-15 people out of all of them. Maybe that’s where the cover letter comes in? It’s fairly easy to whittle down applications just by skim-reading the cover letters.

          2. Smithy*

            For a job that works a lot with the ED, I do think that this makes sense.

            I will also add that during one particularly long and frustrating job hunt, I made it all the way through the process and the final step was an interview with the ED. While technically, I had the skills to do the job – I was at a job I hated and had started casting a very wide net. So had gotten very good at tailoring my “yes, you are exactly the organization I want to work for” pitch per interview.

            The ED was the first person to look over my resume thinking beyond my skill set, and I will never forget him saying “I’m confident you can do this job, but I want you to ask yourself if you want to do this job.” I got the offer, but I’m in nonprofit fundraising – and while I have no negative feelings towards their mission – it’s really just that step outside the bubble of missions I’d want to work for.

            So just to say, if this is a role that does work with the ED and you are struggling to retain staff – there may be other qualities or levels of interest an ED is going to see in candidates that might not come up in the technical skill area. I have forever remembered that ED as a guardian angel and have the upmost respect for the organization as a result.

            1. Bee*

              I once got rejected after an interview by someone saying the same – “I’m confident you would do a great job, and also pretty sure you’d be bored after three months.” I was underemployed after college and desperately looking for a way into a real career, so I was annoyed at the time, but I found a much more suitable job with a lot more room for growth six weeks later and was SO grateful he’d seen that.

          3. Momma Bear*

            So here’s a thought – if you hire people to work closely with the ED, who is “intense” and you struggle with retention AND you admit that the position descriptions need work, maybe the effort shouldn’t be on multiple rounds of interviews but streamlining the back end first. Get the ED to define what they’re really looking for/expecting. IS it entry level or are you trying to pay entry level salary for mid-career work? I would think that hiring the right level of person in the first place would be less costly than a rotating cast of people. I think it’s valid to go back to HR and say that the position descriptions need to be improved to attract people who understand the role and will stay. If you’re not giving them the real scope and they feel it’s a bit of a bait and switch, then no amount of interview shuffling is going to help.

            Also, some people are just tough to work with. I once worked for a Director who went through four EAs in less than 2 years. I can’t imagine any entry-level person working for them successfully. Do they need to work directly with the ED or does ED really need to hire a seasoned EA who can manage this role? Perhaps find an internal hire who already understands the company and ED’s preferences.

          4. Molly Millions*

            If the 30-minute assessment is mostly to gauge language fluency, could you request a generic writing sample instead? Essay-style questions are often more time-consuming than hiring managers realize, and it seems a lot to ask for an entry level role. Especially since it seems the job is more reliant on “soft skills,” rather than a technical skill you need to test for.

            Also, what’s the purpose of the initial HR screening? Would it be feasible to provide basic information by email and skip straight to the call with you?

      2. Fikly*

        Agreed. Why on earth would an entry level position need to be interviewing with the ED?

        The only reason I can think of is that the ED has severe control issues and insists on it, which is a giant red flag. Otherwise, drop it.

        If you are getting too many candidates who misunderstand what the position actually is, the solution is not to extend the interview process, but to take the first part of the screener call to explain what the job is – and if HR will not do this accurately, take the screener call away from HR – and disclose the salary, and then finish the screener with your usual. At this point, you can weed down to your short list, and candidates can go away and think about if they want to continue on in the process as well.

        1. Auntie Social*

          OP chimed in elsewhere that the position interacts with the ED quite a bit. So it’s important that the ED get a feel for the candidates.

      3. StressedButOkay*

        Agreed – if the retention issue is BECAUSE of the intensity of your ED, that’s not something a 30 minute call is going to help with. And how long is the screening call? I might even turn that into a resume review because the idea of three – four different interview calls for an entry level position feels like a lot.

      4. Apples and oranges*

        Unfortunately, I’ve encountered a lot of EDs or VPs at smaller places who insist on meeting every candidate before they are hired. Usually it’s just a cursory meet and greet with the top candidate to give their blessing. I agree it’s unnecessary but I imagine the ED in this case insists on it.

        1. Piscera*

          That happened to me at a PastJob. The bigger issue was that because of the ED’s packed schedule, I had to come back and meet with them separately. The hiring managers felt they could make the decision without ED’s input.

          This happened at an awkward time at my current job. Afterward I told the recruiter I wouldn’t take that kind of risk again.

    2. Kevin Sours*

      If you arrange the 2-5 in a single time slot it’s only twice a candidate needs to set up for an interview and the “long” interview is 2 hours and change. I would absolutely not combine the manager and team member interviews. The main value of a team member interview is to give the candidate a chance to ask culture questions they might be shy about asking their future boss.

      I’m with you on the ED interview. You should take a hard look at the value you are getting out of that.

      1. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        This is HIGHLY field dependent. It sounds like it may be the case here, but in technical fields the team members can get a better read than a manager who doesn’t have current experience in the field.

        1. Kevin Sours*

          Sure. But that still doesn’t change the value of having the candidate talk to a peer out of earshot of the hiring manager.

          1. Turquoisecow*

            Yeah I think they should combine because the questions will probably overlap, but then the HM step out for the last half so the team member and candidate can talk more candidly about the role.

    3. learnedthehardway*

      Agreed – it’s far too much for an entry level position. Three interviews (inclusive of the initial HR screening)) and a skills test is about as much as you can expect an entry level person to do.

      It’s entirely possible that part of the organization’s issue is that the candidates they really want to attract are taking one look at this involved process and deciding it is not worth the effort.

      Also, if the executive director’s interview is “intense” – is that really how your organization wants to present itself to junior candidates? You’d be better off giving candidates some questions about how they would handle a really challenging situation they might face in the job – eg. You have 3 deliverables and someone from the population your organization serves is a walk-in. How do you handle this situation?

      1. Yellow sports car*

        I’ve never had so many steps – and for far more senior positions. Most I’ve had is 2 either a screen and then interview day, or online followed by in person (which might be 2-3 days).

        Time wise it’s a lot more, but far fewer steps.

        Look at what you’re asking for applications. Can you get more useful info from that and interview only a handful of candidates? Then combine your other steps into a single block (meet team, meet you, meet ED as separate activities but scheduled together).

        1. Lady Danbury*

          This. My last set of interviews was for a C suite role that only had 2 rounds of interviews. The first was online with the overseas hiring manager and local HR (local subsidiary of an international company) and the second was an in person panel interview with the local CEO (local manager) and other executives (local peers). Both sides felt like they got a good feel the other side, which was confirmed after I started the role.

    4. AnotherLibrarian*

      Yeah, I tend to agree that this is too many steps. If the written assignment is critical, than you have to fold it in the second interview as part of a skills assessment. I’d just be really careful that the written assignment is really critical for the role, because asking people to do unpaid labor is always a little tricky. Plus, be sure you know have it very clear in your head how you’re going to assess that written assignment. Retention is often a challenging problem to solve. Are people leaving to higher level roles elsewhere? For entry-level jobs, that can be normal and part of the natural process of entry-level hiring. I wouldn’t expect to retain anyone in an entry-level role for more than about three years.

    5. Jellybeans*

      I agree, that’s way too much for entry level.

      In my industry it’s standard that applicants who are required to do any kind of interview task get paid for that task. Not much, say £100. I think the most I’ve been paid for an interview task was £500, and that was for a piece of writing that took a couple of weeks of research and actual writing. No one would expect applicants to perform work for free.

    6. Artemesia*

      When we were hiring people who were not entry level, our initial phone screen was with a small committee — the hiring manager and a couple of professionals doing the same job. We interviewed about 6 people this way and then brought in the 2 or 3 finalists for the in person round of interviews and demonstrations. So a high level position but far fewer steps than for this entry position.

      Why does the CEO have to talk to an entry level hire? Can you involve more people in those initial screens so they don’t have a separate interview.

    7. bamcheeks*

      What immediately struck me is how little control LW has over the final choice, even though they’re the hiring manager for the role! The only bit you seem to have control over is narrowing it from 6 to 4 candidates, and then from 4 to two or three.

      If you have a clear preference at that point, or you think one person is hireable but the others aren’t, what happens? Are you just going to keep your fingers crossed that the other colleague and the ED pick the right person? Or can you influence and share your preference with the other colleagues and the ED? In which case, those steps aren’t really decisive, and it’s a lot to put your candidates through to just be REALLY sure. You’d effectively inviting in one or two people who you’re fairly sure you’re not going to be hiring to one or two more rounds of interview.

      In the UK, we’d basically combine the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th steps and have an interview panel consisting of the hiring manager, at least one other, and, if necessary, a more senior person with a strong interest in the role (though this would not be the norm!) The panel would make a decision together, with the hiring manager being recognised as the panel chair and having the right to make a final decision if the panel can’t agree.

      But really, your ED should trust you to hire a good entry-level person even if they are going to be working closely with them. The ED having the ultimate say would be a bit of a red flag for me about the whole organisation. What other normal decisions are they unwilling to delegate?

      1. Go get ‘em, angels!*

        “In the UK, we’d basically combine the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th steps…”

        Please speak for your organization only. I am American, but worked in the City office of a major investment bank, and we would absolutely interview analyst candidates using a process similar to the one OP describes.

    8. Cat Lady in the Mountains*

      Yeah, for entry level I do:
      1. Phone screen with HR
      2. Work sample (weeds out 80+% of candidates)
      3. One face-to-face (usually video) interview with 30 mins with hiring manager, 30 mins with 1-2 other key stakeholders. You could decide the ED meeting is more important than a peer meeting, but doing both seems excessive.

      I would not entirely cut out your ability to get 1-1 time with the candidates, because getting a sense of that 1-1 relationship is SO important for both of you.

      Agree that retention issues may not be solvable through the interview process, but since it sounds like you have a mismatch of expectations for many candidates – before I decide who HR will phone screen, I send all viable candidates a 1-pager about the job that is very explicit about how little of the role is the “sexy exciting” work. This allows me to spell out what it looks like day-to-day without putting it in job-description-speak, which, like you, our HR team won’t let me do. (Literally this one pager has a section labeled “downsides of the role.”) This usually weeds out a good number of on-paper-viable candidates, and leads to MUCH better conversations in the interviews.

    9. Another Hiring Manager*

      I have to have my ED approve the final hiring choices, but blessedly they take about fifteen minutes and we can usually squeeze it in after the senior director interview.

      Bravo for having your assessment only take 30 minutes. I am a firm believer that any homework that has to be done as part of the interview process should take less than an hour. After that, you’re asking for free work.

      I submit this is too many steps for any position. The interview process has gotten out of hand over the last few years. A candidate’s time is valuable too. Also bear in mind someone who works as a contractor on consultant may not have PTO at all, so the time commitment for all these interviews can cost people money.

      We have our interview process down to a maximum of 2.5 hours–small diverse panel with the hiring manager and peers, senior directors, and the aforementioned 15 minutes with the ED. We use the same set of preliminary questions for each, then try for organic conversation to get the details. It’s been going well.

    10. irritable vowel*

      Yes – for people who are applying for entry-level jobs, that’s a lot of separate times they need to ask to be away from work, which, if they’re already in an entry-level or service-level job, is not practical. The only way someone could reasonably make this work would be if they’re a student or unemployed.

    11. Situation Major*

      I think your first point is probably the most relevant one yet. People applying for entry level positions are much more likely to be working jobs where taking a bunch of small times off work for many interviews is not as feasible as people further in their careers who tend to have more freedom and trust in making their own schedule plans.

      1. OP3*

        I landed on asking people to commit 15 minutes for the HR screener (I get no say in this, HR requires). 45 minute interview with me and a team member but we will block off 60 minutes so the candidate can do the written assessment with the option to ask for more time before the final 1-2 candidates meet with our ED.

        When I say intense, I don’t mean he’s bad to work for. We do have a strong organizational culture with good benefits, competitive salary etc. However, our ED is well known in our field and I found him very intimidating the first time I met him. He’s a great person to work with and learn from, but I really don’t want to throw a young candidate applying for their first full time job in front of him without first having the chance to meet me and another team member and get to know the work. He doesn’t interview every entry level role we hire, just the ones in his office, supporting him directly. Nobody has flagged him as the reason they’ve left – it’s either been a skills mismatch (moved internally) or they were wildly off base about the work they’d be doing. The organization is well known and we get a lot of fresh graduates who think that because they work for us, they’ll get to do really intensive policy research that much more senior and experienced managers do and are frustrated when asked to do entry level tasks. We’ve had a lot of conversations with HR about how to manage expectations and where to recruit and once hired, how to demonstrate pathways for growth and ownership.

        There are more relevant details, but don’t want to dox the organization or the ED. The international non-profit space in our region is small and gossipy!

        Regardless, appreciate everyone’s reflections. I hope that any update I give is very boring, the person is excelling and is on the path to promotion in a year or two etc etc

        1. JB*

          It is worth considering that this lengthy interview process might be contributing to the mis-match of expectations. Most people I know who would have been willing to go through that many individual, seperate tasks for an entry-level application were also the people who were often indignant that their entry-level jobs involved only entry-level tasks.

    12. Turquoisecow*

      That was my thought also, combine the hiring manager and team member interview, maybe with the HM stepping out for the second half. I imagine a lot of your questions will overlap anyway with regard to asking about specific competencies related to the actual job (as opposed to a more high level interview like with the executive). This will give the candidate the chance to ask questions of the coworker and vice versa without the boss in the room.

      I guess OP can decide whether this is better done before or after the written assessment, with performance in one used to determine if they should move on to the next.

      I am also skeptical of how much input the executive has – unless this is a very small company, they won’t have much knowledge of the day to day work and probably will just be making a decision (assuming they have the final say) based on vibes or leaving it up to the rest of the team (“I liked Bob better than Jane but you know better their credentials” or “Joe really rubbed me the wrong way, I won’t allow you to hire him even though you say he’s qualified.”)

  3. Certaintroublemaker*

    LW3, I’ve found that initial interviews and weeding go much faster than you think. Maybe:
    1. Screener call with HR from a list of 10 candidates
    2. 30-minute call with hiring manager (maybe with other team member) — short list of 5 candidates
    3. 30-minute written assessment — to 3 candidates
    4. 30-minute call with executive director (and other team member if not before) — with 1-2 candidates
    5. Offer

    (I’ve hired student workers by picking 5-6 resumes to do 10-minute phone interviews, 3 candidates to get 30 min in-person interviews with the team, and been able to pick fairly easily.)

    1. LC*

      In Australia it’s common for written applications (resume and cover letter) and one 30 minute interview to make the decision. We also use a 30 minute written test immediately after the interview which puts us in a minority.

      This many steps is mind blowing! ;)

      1. Zeus*

        It’s usually a similar process here in Aotearoa New Zealand, too. I would be so fed up with this many steps as a job candidate – especially for an entry level job!

        1. Jill Swinburne*

          This was my experience for my first full-time job – screening call with recruiter, interview with recruiter, interview with actual employer comprising a 30-minute test and ~an hour for the interview, offer made a few days later.

          I know it’s a big decision (especially somewhere like NZ where it’s hard to fire people) but I see a lot of overcomplicating going on here!

        2. Your Mate in Oz*

          For entry level in Australia and Aotearoa I’m more used to “you’re here, you want to work, let’s see how you go” being 90% of the interviews. Sure, with hundreds of applications you want some sort of process, but more than half an hour per candidate seems like a waste of time.

          LW, I’d aggressively filter to get three or four likely ones based on their applications, then ask them to bring the written part in for a 15-20 minute interview. If none survive the interview get another three in after thinking about how you could improve your selection process.

          I think the problem is partly the drawn-out, expensive process (that’s over an hour of staff time per candidate!) and partly the overly bureaucratic approach to everything. Especially since you’re having retention problems, you’re in a “we’re unlikely to make things worse” position so try slimming it right down.

        3. Starbuck*

          This is also how my non-profit has hired in the US. We use resume and cover letter for the initial screening, that usually tells us plenty. Then interview 4-6 people, for about an hour each. Decide on our top two, and check references for those, then make an offer for the #1. The interview includes questions asking them to describe their understanding of the role. Has worked pretty great for us over the 5+ years I’ve been involved in hiring. But we have focused on keeping roles as discrete as possible so we’re not asking people to do 5 jobs at once.

      2. Happy meal with extra happy*

        I don’t think there is one common way of doing interviews in the US, though I think most would agree this is more on the extreme end. For instance, for my three full time jobs, the first had one interview (sole owner/my boss), the second had two interviews, and my current had three rounds (with several scheduled for the first round). I find it really odd that there would be one standard interview set up across an entire country,

      3. Irish Teacher.*

        Yeah, I can’t speak for coropate positions, but I’m a teacher in Ireland and the application process for most jobs I’ve applied for has been CV or application form, depending on the school’s preference along with cover letter, then if you are lucky enough to be shortlisted, one 15-30 minute interview. There are some schools that do two interviews, the first 10-15 minutes with a large number of candidates (one school said they were interviewing 30; I don’t know if that is normal or not) and the second maybe half an hour with 2-5 candidates, but that would be unusual.

        1. Varthema*

          I think for positions like teachers or other civil servants, a standard interview process is probably common. But I also live in Ireland (hi!) and my husband is an architect fairly far along in his career – he’s never done more than one interview or heard of anyone doing it.

        2. bamcheeks*

          30! Blimey. At that point you need fully trained assessors– you can’t keep thirty people straight without a full scoring rubric!

        3. StormFly*

          Also from Ireland, but in the private sector where we do a large graduate intake. With us, there’s a phone screen, and then an hour long interview, where the first 45 minutes are with two managers and then there’s a 15 minute interview with a partner.
          Though with us, we’re probably interviewing well over a hundred people (considering we’ll be hiring 50-100 of them), so it needs to be a pretty well oiled machine.
          But I really don’t think that any more time is necessary. At entry level, there really isn’t much to discuss that won’t be covered by the steps. (Except a practical exercise, where appropriate.)

      4. Myrin*

        Yeah, even after a decade of reading AAM, it’s still so incredibly strange for me the number of interviews that get mentioned here.
        We don’t have phone screens where I am, you just send in your cover letter and CV and if you get an interview, that’s a face-to-face thing of 30-60 minutes, and that’s it. With OP’s additional information in the comments, I can see the written assignment making sense – and indeed I wouldn’t be surprised to encounter that here as well if it were vital for the role in question – but apart from that? Unthinkable.

    2. Inkognyto*

      I’m in a Senior Information Tech position.

      I had 1 hr interview with the team and 1 hr interview with someone in my specialization.

      Done. My role is embedded into the other team to help with the overall or flow.

      Also this was a newly created role.

      I cannot remember the least I had more than two interviews for any of the positions I was in.
      One might be with the mgr and another with the team, and that’s about it.

      One of them or both usually dives into more technical aspects.

      If someone wanted 5 interviews for a role for me. I’d bow out after they told me.

    3. WheresMyPen*

      For all the jobs I’ve had in the UK, we don’t have screener calls. For my first full time entry level job, I had one 45 minute (ish) interview with two managers, then was called back for a second 45 minute interview with one manager and the MD together, as well as a 30 minute written test. Then I was offered the job. I guess a screener call is useful to check the basics, but the other steps can be combined. These were even in person, so took me more time as I had to travel, but if you’re doing them virtually it’s even less of an inconvenience.

      1. MsSolo (UK)*

        We put more information in our ads as standard, like salary ranges and annual leave, and our benefits packages are much simpler without health insurance, so there’s less benefit for the candidate in a screener call. And on the other side, we seem to have more detailed application forms – I’m sure there are places that are CV and cover letter, but everywhere I’ve applied to has specific questions they want you to answer (usually behavioural) in addition, so for the employer there’s more information to sift the applications on before interview.

  4. Sunny*

    OP#3 – Are all your interviews over the phone? Or are you using ‘call’ to mean video interviews? Because if you’re not doing any face-to-face with your candidates, that’s a bit of a red flag – there’s only so much that can be gathered over the phone.

    I’d also question whether your assessment really takes 30 minutes. Is this something that you can do internally in 30 minutes? That means an external candidate – and especially one who’s also new to the working world – will take 2-3 times as long, at least. I’m in PR and I can churn out a press release in well under an hour at my current employer because I’ve been there for years and know the place inside-out. When I’ve had to do the same thing while job-hunting, it takes hours. There’s too much I don’t know, info I end up having to look into, or explaining “I would normally do X or Y here, but not sure what your specific policies are.”

    1. so very tired*

      Yep, same. I had to do an unpaid presentation for the final round of a role that “demonstrated understanding of Company X’s products and audience” and for me that meant 2 days of research, writing, and designing a slide deck. This particular company said I crushed the presentation but they weren’t clear on what they expected from the position so they ended up passing on me. They say “should only take 2 hours” but it’s way more of an investment for the candidate 99% of the time.

      AND PAY PEOPLE FOR THE WORK that is all

      1. OP3*

        Agreed! We’re not in an English speaking country, but a strong level of written English is critical for the role. Internally, it’s a task I could do in maybe 10 minutes or less and it will build on a question that we discuss during the interview process. It really should not take more than 30 minutes. Think someone writes asking for X piece of information, here’s X, write them a short response.

        1. The Meow*

          It seems like it could be useful to have the written assessment earlier, since the info you learn from that is so crucial and there can be a gap between written and spoken Engkish skills. You could then drop people from the process earlier, and then do an interview with you + teammate, and you +ED. Much more condensed and reasonable for an entry-level position.

        2. Venus*

          As a suggestion, achedule 30 minutes with them to do the assignment. Avoid sending it out at the same time to everyone and giving them several days. I had this for an interview and it was a bit stressful in the moment yet made me feel better because it really was only an hour of my time. My end result after an hour wasn’t very good but it showed that I could do a bit of research (I found quotes from relevant websites), I could write in english coherently, and I had a general understanding of what they wanted. If they had given me an hour sometime over the weekend to work on it then that would have been a time-consuming disaster.

      2. Pita Chips*

        I once spent about 14 hours to submit a project plan as part of an interview process. I didn’t move forward.

        I remember saying that the least they could do was send me a Door Dash gift card. I missed at least one meal with that unpaid work.

  5. Jackalope*

    LW #2 reminds me of once when I was visiting another church that met Saturday nights because I had to work several Sunday mornings in a row and couldn’t attend my regular church. Out of curiosity I visited the website for the church I was visiting and discovered that there was exactly ONE position open to me in any sort of official capacity: minister/pastor’s wife. It was so weird how blatantly they had all of the ministry positions filled by men AND had all of their wives listed as a part of their bios. From what I remember they didn’t even have any single men, nor did they even have women in a position like “elementary Sunday School coordinator”. I ram the other direction and never went back. (I also had to leave because they were SO LOUD. I went out of their sanctuary – a closed room – and across a hallway into another, empty room where I also closed the door. I then put in earplugs. Readers, the music was still so loud it hurt.)

    So all of that to say that it would make sense to ask about their leadership makeup, but if they don’t have a satisfactory answer then run the other way. You said you’re miserable where you are, but this could also be miserable. Don’t jump into a situation like that unless you’re really sure.

    1. Crencestre*

      If this happened in the 1980s, or shortly thereafter, they may have only hired married men because of the AIDS crisis. For a while, at least, single men over, say, age 30, were “suspected” of being gay – and thus at higher risk for contracting AIDS (which meant higher insurance costs, absenteeism and bad publicity for the company – yes, homophobia really exploded then!) Whenever this happened, it sounds as if this church was literally advertising their values, and the OP was wise to get out of there ASAP.

      1. Jackalope*

        This wasn’t nearly so long ago; it was in 2007 or 2008 (the last time I worked at that job). It was one of those nondenominational Evangelical churches that have exploded in number in the last few years; so it wasn’t 100% surprising that they had strange ideas about who could be in an official leadership position, but the including of wives was odd to me (not only do I consider it not right to choose not to have women in leadership, but if you’re paying one person for a position you do NOT automatically get their spouse for free), and the lack of a token woman in children’s education was also a bit surprising.

      2. Corrvin (they/them)*

        It’s older than that, there are statements in the Bible about church elders needing to be married. Churches who only put men in authority generally also require marriage “because it’s in Scripture” but the side benefit is that you then get the labor of both halves of the married couple in that position, although only one name gets recognized for it.

        My grandparents’ church was a “men lead” church, but the pastor and pastor’s wife met in divinity school and both had degrees. He gave the sermon and “led the church”, but she led Sunday School and the funeral hospitality and many other things. I’m still not comfortable with that for my own church needs, but admired them both for how they did it.

      3. RagingADHD*

        Wow, what denomination(s) was that in? I have been in parochial school and church pretty much my whole life, including the 80s when we discussed the AIDS crisis a good bit, and have never heard of this. We had single men serving a good bit. But it was a large mainline denomination, not a fringe fundie group.

    2. OP2*

      I didn’t mention it in the email, but there’s pretty good evidence that the entire executive team is part of the same religion as well. I attended the interview knowing I wasn’t interested in the position, figuring it was good experience. I have never been so glad to get the “we are moving forward with other candidates” email.

      2. I Do Flips*

        A religion based out of Salt Lake City? I noticed a similar pattern when job searching in the intermountain west.

        1. OP2*

          Yep, that one. I am on the east coast, but was interviewing for a fully remote position with a company based in that area.

        2. ThursdaysGeek*

          I had a job working for a company owned by that religion, and it actually was a really good job, for a time. Then the local CEO was killed in a car accident, and after that, it was clear a woman geek should be at home, not at a job, so I (and my 2 male coworkers) moved on.

          1. OP2*

            The “a woman geek should be at home” thing was a big concern for me. I’m already in an industry that skews more male, I don’t need to be in a company where those males are judging my lifestyle as a single childless woman in her early 40s or holding me back from opportunities on the assumption that that status may change in a way that they perceive would cause me to give less than my full efforts to the company.

            1. ThursdaysGeek*

              From my experience, if you’re satisfied at your level and don’t want to go into higher management, and if the local leadership is hiring the best person for the job, it can be a good job. But if either of those things are not true: upper management is more interested in keeping their own people employed, or if you want to move into upper management – you’re not going to be successful. And it won’t be just because you’re a woman or single.

              My company (a farm) was actually owned by the church, not just run by members of the church, so it could be different in your case. But it’s not likely.

            2. Hannah Lee*

              “… I don’t need to be in a company where those males are judging my lifestyle as a single childless woman in her early 40s or holding me back from opportunities on the assumption that that status may change in a way that they perceive would cause me to give less than my full efforts to the company.”

              Or that they presume men, especially married men, are more deserving of special consideration, promotions, raises, bonuses because management assumes “they need it more” since they’re men and will be supporting other people (wife, kids, etc) EVEN if the men are single and aren’t responsible for support of anyone else, and yes, EVEN if the single woman (or married woman for that matter) is herself providing financial support to someone in her life.

      4. rebelwithmouseyhair*

        To be clear, even if they had said they would like to move forward with you, you could still have declined to do so! The interview is as much for you to decide whether you want to work there, as for them to decide if they want to hire you!

  6. Chloe*

    Ugh #2, I would stay away. At my current company, the leadership team is all white (with 2 white women). I pretended to ignore it because I was desperate for a job and I worked with someone on the leadership team in the past. They are trying to re-brand the company, including hiring more diverse (but still mostly white, straight men) people, creating company values and talking about creating employee interest groups. It’s soooooooooo slowwwwwwwww and there is very limited momentum.

    Day-to-day the middle directors and managers are deeply sexist and are terrible to work with because they don’t want to make decisions. I’m coming up on 1 year and it’s absolutely so exhausting.

    I’m probably jaded, but I would pass on that company.

    1. WeirdChemist*

      When I started in the lab I worked for in my PhD, the lab was roughly split 50/50 between women and men. Over the next few years, all of the women graduated and all of the new people coming in were men (mostly white). It wasn’t even necessarily on purpose, the first year or so there were circumstances such that our only options for new students were white dudes, so that was what we got. But once the scales tipped too far into non-diverse then it became practically impossible to get anyone who wasn’t a white dude interested in the lab.

      Diversity is a self-perpetuating cycle. The diversity of my lab was an encouraging sign when I applied, and the lack of diversity was likely a turn-off for people by the time I graduated. I tried to explain this to my boss, that he should be making a concentrated effort to improve the diversity before the scales tipped too far, but he didn’t listen. And I just went back and checked his group website… almost entirely white dudes, even years later.

      Also, anecdotally, my day-to-day interactions with lab mates got more and more sexist as the demographics shifted. Just the kind of comments that people would feel comfortable making when they were more of the majority…

      1. OtterB*

        Part of my job is collecting demographic statistics on academic departments. Larger departments pretty much all have at least some diversity. Smaller ones – say 5-6 faculty – may not. And I have heard anecdotally that getting traction to improve that is hard. For one thing, positions don’t open very often. And when they do, women or POC can be understandable reluctant to be the first/only. Departments that have one non-male and/or non-white (or Asian, in our STEM field) member find it easier to add another.

      2. JustaTech*

        When my husband worked at a tech startup he did a ton of interviewing and hiring (he was employee #2). More than once he brought up that there weren’t any women in the company, or that it was only the intern, or the PM. I told him several times that he needed to put a lot more effort into finding women candidates because once they got to a certain size and had no women it was going to be pretty much impossible to hire one just because who wants to be the only woman in a group of 30?

        He then did the whole “but they’re not applying” thing and I told him that we have several friends who are women managers in tech in the area and he could bloody well ask them to recommend some candidates.
        It took a while but they did finally start getting some women in the company. (Their other kinds of diversity were better but still not brilliant.)

        1. Abundant Shrimp*

          Ahh, the one time a new SW architect guy came into a meeting on a project that I was the key developer on, and, as he was following me out of the room after the meeting, he asked if I was the business analyst. I said “no, that’s Fergus” and new guy responded with “so you are then… what? just sitting there?”

          Those were the only two options for a woman in IT in his mind.
          1) Business analyst.
          2) Just sitting there.

          And we even had a decent percentage of women in dev. He should’ve known better.

          1. tangerineRose*

            Did you tell him what you did and get to watch his head explode? He sounds like someone who couldn’t hold very many thoughts in there.

            1. JustaTech*

              In the book “Sourdough” (highly recommend) at one point the main character, Lois, is approached by two guys who also work at her Silicon Valley startup while they’re all at a underground market. The two guys make a comment about she must be a project manager (because woman= PM) and their utter humiliation when she says that she’s an engineer is so very satisfying.

    2. Workerbee*

      Ah, yes, the “talking about” doing something phase can last forever. People feel proud of themselves for Approaching the Topic, form bookclubs that last for one session, and then fizzle out.

      -as happened last year in my tiny nonprofit with all white men in leadership and the all-white-men diversity group doing the reading, to which no women were invited.

    3. Annie*

      Agreed…my company’s top leadership has gotten progressively more white, more male, and more hetero, and the policies are reflecting that. In contrast with the central value DEIB played when leadership was more diverse, it’s now an afterthought.

    4. ferrina*

      Agree. Especially if they don’t see a problem with having a leadership of entirely white men.

      Ex-Job was mostly white men (one woman, one non-white man) and it impacted career growth a lot. White male employees were judged based on “potential” whereas women were judged on “results”. And since the Leadership routines ignored any updates given by someone that wasn’t a white man, the “results” they saw often didn’t include a long list of achievements. I didn’t get any kind of pay raise for three years (not even COLA), even though the product that I was responsible for tripled its revenue. Leadership regularly started pet projects with ridiculous expectations*, completely ignored all SMEs who told them it was impossible (coincidence that the SMEs were all women?) and cut out any of the people who were actually qualified to run the project (again, usually women). When the projects inevitably started to fail, the Leadership was suddenly “too busy” to manage the project and handed it off to the same women who had been completely cut out of the project from the start. The women would work overtime, doing impossible feats, completely rebuild things from the ground up, often having to redo the entire project plan with no support from Leadership (who were far “too busy” to even provide basic resources the project they had run into the ground) and finally make it sustainable. Then the Leadership would congratulate themselves on their brilliant ideas (which had all had to be completely re-written) and give themselves raises. Meanwhile the women who had gotten the results weren’t given any kind of recognition or compensation at all.
      It happened so. many. times. I could point out to at least once a year where this happened across all the departments. High-functioning women (and a couple men) would rise to middle management where they could clean up Leadership’s mess, but would never rise higher than that.

      *they liked to claim that they were data-driven, and regularly ignored data that said things they didn’t like.

      1. L*

        Just in case other women are considering this too, I thought I’d offer a different perspective.

        I am a woman and 7 years ago, applied to my first leadership position at a construction company. I had multiple rounds of interviews with their execs, and every single leader was a straight white guy (I’m also not straight). The signals were wrong too—they keep saying that they only hired the best and brightest and just couldn’t find any women or diverse people.

        However, this company was scaling really fast and like the LW, I could see that they had the ability to make a lot of money. At the time, I was working in at a non-profit in a female dominated industry and was getting tired of feeling like I had to serve others all the time.

        I’ll never know why, but after one of those interviews at this non-diverse company, I decided that I was going to win at their game. I took the job, am now the only female member of the c-suite and am a huge advocate for other diverse people. These guys were also more open minded than I gave them credit for, and they truly had never heard of or thought about implicit bias or the need for allies, etc.

        The fist few years were absolutely rough but I now love my job. I use my skills in a way I’d never imagined and I feel like I’m “doing good” by helping the company’s culture evolve.

        All of this to say that if there are other women or minorities out there who want a job at a place without much diversity, don’t let that stop you. Their prejudices shouldn’t stop you from going after what you want as long as you’re going in with your eyes open. Nobody should feel obligated to be a pioneer but if you feel called to it and can afford to take that risk, I say go for it!

        1. Cicely*

          Great post; a refreshing insight and wonderful encouragement to be the example you want to see more of AND to pursue putting yourself in the position of having the power to make change happen in an environment that, at least from the outside, seems hopeless.

          It’s so easy to demand diversity handed to one’s self on a silver platter. It’s far more motivating and inspirational to do the work involved in fighting the good fight, and those men deserve credit for being open to that change.

          Awesome on your part, L. Truly.

          1. Jessica*

            Excuse me?

            We should not even have to “demand” that we be judged on our actual skills and not our gender. That is not something we should have to do anything to “earn.” Being treated as equals isn’t some sort of privilege women have to prove we are worthy of. It’s a basic human right that we are often—abusively!—denied.

            Equal opportunity is not being handed a gift on a silver platter. That’s *people stopping actively harming us for no reason.”

            If you are hitting me, and you stop, that’s not you giving me some sort of gift.

            1. Abundant Shrimp*

              And it’s not even like equal opportunity is some kind of a gift to women or other minorities. If anything, it is a gift to the company. The company is the one robbing itself of talent when it selects its leadership based on demographics. The women that they turn down can turn around and go somewhere else, like OP2 did.

            2. L*

              I agree—equal opportunity is something that is absolutely necessary!

              I’m just here cheering on any diverse person who wants to try to force their way in.

              Right, wrong or indifferent, certain industries like tech, manufacturing and construction are heavily male dominated. If a diverse person wants to work in a place where they don’t have representation, I’m just saying that they should still feel empowered to fight for a seat at the table (if they want to go down that path). In an ideal world, the seat would already be theirs, but in the absence of that, I’m just saying good for anyone who wants to fight for a spot.

              1. Kaden Lee*

                Nobody is “diverse”. Each person is an individual. Perhaps you mean “under-represented” ,”minority”, etc but the word choices you are making aren’t doing you any favors.

        2. Liane*

          This is great.
          Alison, maybe you should interview L. Truly so we can all find out more about how she navigated this and what worked to make this a more diverse company.

    5. Coffee Protein Drink*

      If you’re jaded, so am I. When I look up a company I might interview with, I check the demographics of their executive leadership. I want to see women and POC owners, CEOs, presidents, COOs, CFOs. I sometimes see these demographics in titles like HR, and Public Relations, and Marketing and that usually makes me think there’s a glass ceiling.

      1. JustaTech*

        I think that one of the weirder things about my company is that we’ve only ever had one woman head of HR. And we’ve had a lot of heads of HR.

        Now our C-suite/board looks diverse, until you learn that most of those people are dictated by our corporate overlords in another country and that the only way to get that job is to be very qualified *and* the nibling of someone important.
        (Nibling = niece or nephew, similar to sibling)

    6. CommanderBanana*

      Yup, it was verrrrrrrry interesting to see at my last organization how much LESS diverse the organization became under the new white, male CEO. He pushed out every senior woman of color, pushed out every Jewish employee, and within a few years, the department he cared about the most was all either young, tall, white men, or young, thin, white women with long brunette hair and there were no minorities in senior positions other than the thisclosetoretirement HR director who DGAF.

    7. ampersand*

      I don’t think you’re jaded–unless I really needed the job, I would also pass. If I absolutely had to take it, I’d have low expectations and an exit plan (say, stay a year or two unless I found something else sooner).

      An all-white and/or all-male leadership team should stand out as the red flag that it is!

    8. Chortle*

      I used to razz my old employer about how he needed to quit hiring so many white dudes (an appropriate interaction at the time) and to his credit, there did start to be a lot more hiring diversity, but leadership is still blocked off for just the white guys. When a leadership position opened up that would be a logical step for me (no one else on staff could do it), I, not a white guy, was blocked out of the role, even when I pointed out it was exactly what I was already doing. They preferred to have a white dude who did not know the role cover it instead.

      TDLR if moving up is important to you, I’d look elsewhere.

  7. so very tired*

    I get very twitchy about long interview processes and unpaid assignments for any level under C-suite. It’s probably because I made it to the final round for 8 (yes, EIGHT) different roles at the IC level over the last year and didn’t get one of them, and each interview process involved 5+ interviews including with a C-suite person and adjacent execs I would only be working with tangentially with complex unpaid assignments. Me, being a bonehead and this being one of the absolute worst times to be job hunting in history, I did every single unpaid assignment and got bupkis for it.

    It’s unethical to not pay someone for their work, no matter the level you’re interviewing for. If you want to see something that represents their ability in writing, project management, etc. ask for a portfolio or to walk through a piece of content they’ve developed. Even asking someone in senior management to do free work for you feels gross and scammy. I’ve spoken to people I’ve worked with about this, people in senior and exec positions, and they all said “hell no” to doing free work for a job interview.

    The funniest/saddest thing of this whole ordeal for me is I just accepted an offer for a new role last week that had 4 interview rounds and zero unpaid assignments. They saw my portfolio and decided it was enough to help them make a decision.

    Interviewing does not need to be an ordeal on either side. If you’re requiring multiple rounds and homework assignments, that adds to the work on your end as well. There has to be a better way to do things in the interests of both company and candidates.

    1. Alphonse Throgmorton*

      It is NOT a terrible time to job hunt. Unemployment is the lowest in decades!
      You must not have been in the workforce in 2008-2010, the “Great Recession”. At one point unemployment was over 10% and rising. It seemed NOBODY was hiring.

      Not trying to minimize your struggle, but it must be specific to your field, or the stage you’re at in your career.

      1. A Girl Named Fred*

        This isn’t a lot of people’s experience right now, unfortunately. Go check the comments on yesterday’s “job searching is so hard” post and you’ll find many, many people agreeing that it’s pretty brutal out there.

        1. Tea Monk*

          Maybe it’s always brutal out there? unemployment is technically low, but that doesn’t mean companies will change their practices

          1. JustaTech*

            And just because overall unemployment is at a historical low doesn’t mean that unemployment in your field or location is low. (Like if a major employer in your area just laid off a whole bunch of people in the X department, so now there are many more people looking for X jobs and many fewer X jobs to go around.)

      2. Abundant Shrimp*

        I keep hearing horrifying things from people I know in real life, through work, that I’d never heard before in my 35 years in the field, 27 of them in the US where I am now. No one’s even getting a call back and these are all people I would’ve hired for my team without a shadow of doubt. I myself applied a few times and never got as much as a call back. In the past I’d always get at least the HR screener, and 90% of the time a tech on-site interview as well. 2-3 years ago I had big tech calling me and begging to interview with them, I hadn’t even applied, they just found me on LinkedIn. (Got to the coding interview both times, didn’t get past it either time, but at least I got that far and was encouraged to apply again.) I was getting calls back and interviews in 2008-2010 too!

        I am suspecting, in my field at least, it’s been several factors 1) mass layoffs in big tech that happened fairly recently and had to have a ripple effect throughout the field (e.g., suddenly the market is flooded with tens of thousands of people that are all far superior to someone like me in terms of skills and marketability), 2) remote work means you can apply anywhere and not just where you live, which is great! but it also means that everyone else anywhere in the country can do the same. Suddenly you have the competition you didn’t before. 3) hearsay at this point, but I heard of people using AI to mass apply to large numbers of jobs. If true, this would mean that every company now has an unusually high number of applications to wade through.

        finally, with all that said, my friends and I aren’t even getting calls back and I promise we are good at what we do – the person you’re replying to got to the final round eight times just in the past year alone, so I would say they are doing something right.

        1. The Real Fran Fine*

          Agree with this, and I’m also a high performer who is getting zero bites when previously, I’d get at least one interview per every 4 or 5 job applications.

          I also like/agree with the comments from yesterday’s job search thread that surmised it’s probably even worse the higher up you go. I’m a mid-senior level professional looking to either make a lateral move into another people management role or a senior manager/individual contributor role OR go up a step into a director role, and there aren’t many of them out there in my field that are also fully remote (I went fully remote pre-COVID for medical reasons and need to maintain that status as my health hasn’t improved).

          I see lots of entry level/early career roles in my field, though, so that’s probably making it seem like the job market is still hot.

          1. Go get ‘em, angels!*

            “Agree with this, and I’m also a high performer who is getting zero bites… there aren’t many [jobs] out there in my field that are also fully remote”

            I suggest the reason that you’re getting zero bites is that other candidates are not insisting on being fully remote. Showing up is half the battle.

            1. no*

              this is a really rude comment to someone who said they’re staying remote for their health.

            2. The Real Fran Fine*

              I’m only applying to fully remote jobs, darling. But that was cute.

      3. Space Needlepoint*

        You are definitely minimizing not just so very tired’s experience, but the experience of every person who is running into this kind of process.

        Unemployment being low isn’t differentiated by type of job or industry. It may not be what it is in tech, for example, but many people may be hiring for jobs that don’t need specific degrees or certifications.

        I was around from 2008 – 2010. This is worse.

        1. Cicely*

          Not for me it isn’t. As such, no one is in the position to promote themselves as sole arbiter of what’s worse.

          1. Space Needlepoint*

            You’re right, I was painting with a very broad brush. That said, this isn’t the only work-related space I am in some of the work stories I see are horrifying and dehumanizing.

            I’m glad it hasn’t worked that way for you.

      4. Our Business Is Rejoicing*

        What does this market have that 2008-2010 doesn’t? Quite a few things that are making things challenging for job searchers:
        1) Increased use of AI and screening tools, as well as jobsites like LinkedIn resulting in a flood of applications for just about any job. A lot of employers are actually finding these tools increase the work they have to do, not lessen it, to identify candidates.
        2) Because of this, once candidates are under consideration, a lot more interviews, writing assignments, coding assignments, etc. (which I blame on the fact that all of those AI screening programs actually don’t tell people anything about an individual’s actual skills, personality, etc.) There is a lot of unicorn hunting going on from what others have told me.
        3) Lots of churn in the market post-pandemic. Companies doing a bait-and-switch on remote/hybrid/in-office work.
        4) Lots of companies staffed up during the pandemic to keep the work going. Now many are laying off or restructuring. Even when restructuring means new jobs, many businesses are still not all that sure about strategy going forward. They may be hiring for new roles that haven’t been well defined.
        5) My favourite one: Companies posting for jobs that don’t exist. And its evil cousin, scam jobs.
        Not all jobs are equal. And there seem to be a lot of companies wanting to pay entry level wages for intermediate level jobs.

        1. Pita Chips*

          I have literally had someone tell me in an interview they were looking for a unicorn.

          1. JustaTech*

            My boss has a position open where he knows exactly the person he wants for the job. But he can’t hire her because corporate rules say she has to be on-site 4 days a week and (reasonably) she doesn’t want to move.
            So he keeps looking for this flying unicorn who is the person he wants, but lives here.

            1. Abundant Shrimp*

              I had a job briefly, in very distant past, that I was extremely overqualified for. It was a small town, economy was in a crisis, jobs were rare, I’d lost mine after my son was born, and he was a toddler. I took the job out of desperation, stuck it out for six months, and quit.

              Ran into a coworker another six months later and she said the vacancy still hadn’t been filled, because he was looking for… me? She said he wanted someone with a CS degree from this specific tier of schools and with programming experience (which I had). For an office admin job at a tiny private school that he ran. But people with these credentials did not have a toddler at home like I did, had not lost their jobs like I had, and so had no reason to go work for this guy, and he was not willing to agree to anything other than a clone of me.

            2. Go get ‘em, angels!*

              “So he keeps looking for this flying unicorn who is the person he wants, but lives here.“

              The audacity of it.

              1. JustaTech*

                I mean, I agree that this person would be excellent at the job, and that the rule about directors being on-site 4 days a week is silly (and as far as I can tell, not observed by all directors).

                But if rules are rules, and we need this position filled, then he needs to let go of that person and find someone in the right physical location.

      5. Hydrangea*

        My LinkedIn feed is full of people in tech, IT, marketing, HR and operations all expressing how horrible this job market is. These are excellent candidates. I’m getting ghosted or recruiters reach out to me for jobs and pay grades well below my experience.

        My client just posted for 2 roles (DevOps and marketing) and received more than a thousand applications in the first day. Continued at the same rate the next day.

        I’ve never seen anything as bad as this job market and I was around for that last recession.

    2. Mouse named Anon*

      I do as well. In the early 2000s my husband had 5 rounds (yes 5) of interviews that were an hour away only to be turned down for the job. This was an entry level position.

    3. Snow Globe*

      It’s not unethical to ask people to do assignments that aren’t of use to the company (other than example of a person’s skill). A portfolio of previously written papers can be helpful, but those may have been edited by others, and some entry-level people might not have that available. A 1/2 hour assignment isn’t any longer than an interview.

      1. rebelwithmouseyhair*

        Yeah, I designed a test with a handful of pitfalls that would show me exactly what kind of mistakes my future colleague might make. I could assess their worth in less than two minutes, so if I had ten people doing the test, I could choose which one I wanted in less than half an hour.
        If they took more than half an hour to do the test, they were eliminated too, because speed was very often of the essence at the agency.

    4. Magpie*

      There are industries where small assignments are really needed to show a candidate’s abilities. This is very common for software engineers. We can’t just ask them to show something they’ve already developed because there’s a good chance everything they’ve written is proprietary and might not be a good demonstration of what we would need to see to understand whether they would be a good fit at our company. There’s also so much open source code out there that someone could easily represent someone else’s work as their own and we’d have no idea whether they’re actually capable of generating that work themselves. So we either give them a small coding assignment ahead of the interview or we’ll book an additional hour during one of the interview rounds for a coding test. It does add more work for everyone involved but it really is necessary to make sure a candidate has the necessary skills for the job and it’s standard across the industry to do interviews like this.

      1. so very tired*

        In my case, the ask is to create things like articles, decks, etc. that the company absolutely can use, and have used in the past. If it’s necessary for hiring, keep it to a limited time as you pointed out, and pay people for work that the company can and will use.

  8. Isashani*

    LW1 one part Alison didn’t adress is the “it was the weekend and she wasn’t on call”.
    how often are weekend calls a thing ? Was it truly urgent ? Or is there a pattern of “always at work” behavior that could create high levels of frustration ?
    This may not be actionable at the manager’s level but a culture that doesn’t respect work boundaries (with no compensation) will have more trouble attracting and retaining good people.
    Speculating here but the WE detail was added like it was no big deal with struck me as odd.

    Elvira is rude and unprofessional and it seems a pattern, so that needs to be dealt with eirher way.

    1. New Jack Karyn*

      Yeah–it’s clear Elvira wasn’t in the office, so Jane called her personal cell. Unless it was Elvira’s mistake that caused Jane to be stranded, she had a right to be irritated.

      Obviously, her reaction was way too far, and LW must report it. But there’s something up with the culture there.

    2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      Yes this jumped out to me too. It seems like we have a situation here where Jane (and others, if Elvira provides admin support for them as well?) needs things on the weekend or evenings etc, Elvira isn’t actually on call but feels she has to answer these calls anyway (clearly she isn’t doing it as a personal favour to Jane as she hates her!). So is she meant to just never drink or whatever at the weekend and be on call 24/7 for Jane or anyone else who needs travel/admin support. The company is trying to get a level of support and infrastructure that they aren’t paying for – no wonder Elvira snapped. Her behaviour needs to be addressed but so does the bigger picture, of which I’m very sure there is one.

    3. Ex-Admin*

      Yes, this jumped out at me as well…if Elvira is off the clock and not on call, why is she having to field work calls on her personal time?

    4. Ask a Manager* Post author

      There are jobs where being available for after-hours emergencies is part of the gig. You sign on for it, and you’re hopefully paid at a level that makes it worth it to you.

      I have no idea whether that’s the case with Elvira or not, but we risk derailing on something that might be a non-issue entirely. (And either way, it wouldn’t make it okay to speak abusively of a colleague, particularly if Jane was just following instructions for what she was expected to do in the situation she was in.) So let’s consider it flagged as something for the OP to consider could be in play, with whatever importance she feels is warranted in her context, and I’m going to close this thread.

  9. Old white guy*

    I guess it’s okay to be a racist as long as you’re directing your scorn at old white guys. Glad I’m retired now.

    1. Ask a Manager* Post author

      It sounds like you missed the question. The concern is that a company that has ended up with a leadership team lacking anyone other than white men is a company where people who aren’t white men won’t have a voice and will struggle to advance — as well as being indicative of a whole range of other problems in who gets listened to, developed, mentored, promoted, etc.

      1. Old white guy*

        Granted, that is likely to be the case. But to assume it will be without giving them the opportunity to detail their ideas and goals going forward does nothing to advance the cause of diversity. A stronger case should be made for hearing them out.

        1. Ask a Manager* Post author

          I suggested she go to the interview and ask, although it’s not on the LW to advance any particular cause at someone else’s company. That’s work they need to do themselves. And you don’t end up with all-white-male leadership without there being a significant problem (as many companies in that situation will acknowledge).

          It’s awfully bizarre to call it racist to point out the utter absence of women and people of color. That’s … not what racism is.

          1. Slightly less old but still old white guy*

            There are lots of reasons that a company can end up with all white men in leadership positions that aren’t reflective of the company specifically but more of society itself. We still live in a world very much feeling the effects of institutional racism and sexism across everything. It is entirely possible that the people who have organically grown into positions of leadership at a company are all white guys and it is even likely in some fields. The demographics just work out that way in many areas.

            That may be due to deeply ingrained problems in our society, but it does not necessarily mean that this particular company is problematic. It may mean that they have not gone out of their way to diversify, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the opposite. It’s a reflection of the world around us.

            I think it also very much depends on the size and field of the company. The larger and broader the company, the more I would expect there to be more diversity among leaders, because by that point they should have made a conscious effort to diversify. A small to mid-size company in a specialized field? Not so much – they simply may not have had the candidate pool to do that.

            1. bamcheeks*

              I’m kind of fascinated that you think the standard we should be holding is “not actively and deliberately excluding people”, and that it’s kind of unfair to hold a company to higher standards.

              Firstly, it is absolutely OK if the standard LW wants to see in her leadership team is not just “not actively trying to promote only white men”, but “actively seeking out, supporting and promoting other people”.

              Secondly, a lot of invisible work goes into maintaining that inequality. You are starting from the assumption that is ~~just happens~~. It doesn’t. That’s a ton of decisions which have been made by people whose idea of talent looks like a white man. The white men given a chance to prove themselves because they have potential. The white men told their work is great and they should put themselves forward. The white men given feedback and facetime. The white men brought in for an interview because someone liked the hobbies or alma mater on their resume. The white men given a second chance because it wasn’t their fault, and they definitely learned from the experience. And alllll the women and people of colour (and probably disabled people and trans people and people with the wrong accent) who didn’t get those chances.

              So my job is to be the woman who is so outstanding that maaaaybe they change the habits of a lifetime? ehhhhh. Have I got an alternative? I’ll take that.

              Yes, it probably is inertia rather than conscious and deliberate strategy. THAT’S STILL BAD.

              1. Slightly less old but still old white guy*

                I’m not advocating for any kind of standard here. I’m saying the situation, as it is, may be more nuanced than the conclusions that people are jumping to.

                You can hold a company to any standard you like. You don’t have to take a job working anywhere.

                1. bamcheeks*

                  No, you’re saying it’s less nuanced. You think that the problem is that there just aren’t any qualified people in the candidate pool, because people “organically grow” into leadership. My point is that that doesn’t happen: what appears to be “organically growing” into leadership is actually something that requires a lot of support, help and development opportunities which are being offered to one group of people, and not to others.

                  Your position is less nuanced. Honestly, we all know the story that white guys are telling themselves about why they aren’t the bad guys! The problem is that you’re not listening to people telling you that your view is inaccurate.

                2. Littorally*

                  If you see that a process is leading to a systematically biased outcome (ie, “everyone in our talent pipeline for leadership is white and male”) then you need to look at what is causing it in the system, whether or not that is something intentional. Unintended consequences are a thing that happens, but that doesn’t mean you can wave them off and say “well they’re unintended so they aren’t a problem.”

                3. JB*

                  No, you are misunderstanding the concern.

                  Nobody is jumping to the conclusion that the company is run by a bunch of Klansmen. Those nuances that you are talking about are still a material problem for minority hires.

                  Being the first is not a neutral position. Being the one voice in the room to say “hold on, why did we dismiss that female/POC/gay candidate so quickly?” is not a zero-energy investment, EVEN IF every white man in the room is perfectly open-minded. Having to do a whole additional unpaid job (being the diversity mascot) can limit and pigeonhole your career, even if your bosses do not consciously think that that’s what they’re doing.

                  Social mechanics do not disappear just because the people involved all have good intentions.

              3. Go get ‘em, angels!*

                “Firstly, it is absolutely OK if the standard LW wants to see in her leadership team is not just “not actively trying to promote only white men”, but “actively seeking out, supporting and promoting other people”.“

                They’re interviewing her for a senior position. How are they not actively seeking her out?

                I’ve no problem with her asking questions about the lack of diversity in leadership, but it is also true that if a company wants to diversify, someone is by definition going to be the first hire.

            2. Jennifer*

              But why don’t they have the candidate pool? Are they only advertising in mostly-white spaces? Are they advertising in more diverse areas or media? There is a LOT you can do to attract diverse employees. Using “it’s just how it is in society” as an excuse will NOT fly. Be better than that.

              1. ferrina*

                Exactly this.

                It’s not hard to get a diverse slate of candidates. Head hunters can help you find a diverse pool of candidates (and if they aren’t, fire them). I honestly can’t think of a single field that I’ve worked with where I couldn’t find a single non-white or non-male highly qualified person.

                And diversity is a key business strategy. When you have leaders that all have the same life experience, you are hobbling your ability to strategize. We reflect the life experiences we have (not hyperbole, physiological way our brains are built). When you have a diverse slate of people that all bring different experiences, you can better understand the opportunities and threats among the different audiences and market places. How many times have we seen a business do a ridiculous misstep because there was clearly no women/people of color in the room? No business relies on solely a white customer base. I’m a consultant, and when we do market research, it’s standard practice to set race/ethnicity quotas to reflect the market place. It’s worth asking the question- why doesn’t the board room reflect the market place in the same way that the market research does? Why does the board room think that they are the exception to the diversity that is prevalent in other facets of the business?

              2. Victoria*

                It actually troubles me more that the *board* is all white men. Staff turnover can indeed be slow, and that can be a good thing. But a board has defined terms that allow for intentional curation.

              3. Light As May*

                We’ve tried and been frustrated. I’ve reached out to HBCUs, advertised through diverse media, etc. In one instance I contacted the local NAACP president to help spread the word about a federally funded project that would pay higher than comparable local pay for the position. Perfect resume builder.

                We still ended up with a pool of 90% white women, and one white man.

                1. Siege*

                  One thing we did to diversify our hiring pool was use an impact format job description. It makes the job description VERY long because it lays out what you need to know to start, and what you’ll be learning and expected to take on at one month, three months, six months, nine months, and twelve months, but it’s a great way to nuance the duties so that people with less direct experience (extremely common in my industry) can still see themselves as a good fit in the role. Our candidate pools are typically majority BIPOC now.

                2. Moira's Rose's Garden*

                  It may help to solicit feedback from your HBCU & NAACP contacts about ways you can make yourself more attractive to their student bodies/ memberships. Just reaching out isn’t enough. You need to be proactively making choices that will in fact support and encourage the careers of under-represented groups you’d like to attract.

                  Putting myself in those people’s shoes, I’d be unlikely to promote a company if I believed it was more looking for A Diversity Hire(TM) – a situation where such hires are often set up to fail, and less looking at How Can We Improve Our Company by Representing Diverse Voices, Opinions and Ideas.

              4. JustaTech*

                Exactly.
                When my husband was bemoaning that he wasn’t getting any women applicants at his tech startup I gave him such a look (yes, I went to girls’ school before I went to nerd college) and said “Have you asked anyone?”
                “Who would I ask?”
                “How about Joan and Betty, who are managers at Tech Giant? Or Cloe and Zoe and Miranda who work at Other Tech Giant? Or your old coworkers Hannah and Jane and Clair and Jenny at Old Tech Giant?”
                “Oh.”
                (He did, and they finally got some women engineers.)
                Sometimes you have to remind people to actually look around and not just take what Indeed gives them.

            3. I should really pick a name*

              It may mean that they have not gone out of their way to diversify

              That in and of itself can be a sign of a problem.

            4. Lady Danbury*

              “It may mean that they have not gone out of their way to diversify”

              As a Black woman who has been in predominantly white, male spaces, that’s a problem in and of itself. At best, it means that they don’t value diversity (because our actions reflect our values). It also means that they’re far less likely to be cognizant of issues that affect women/minorities because it’s not part of their lived experience. This obviously doesn’t mean that they’ll be intentionally racist, but that they may make decisions that are applied equally but have a disproportionate impact on people of certain backgrounds. This then puts the onus on employees who aren’t in a position of power to have to use their limited capital to advocate for themselves instead of diverse considerations coming from the top down.

            5. Coffee Protein Drink*

              The demographics just work out that way in many areas.

              I find that disingenuous at best. Lots of gatekeeping goes on in the corporate world and it can’t be coincidental or pure merit that it’s always one group moving up in an organization.

              It’s 2024. Companies should be broadening their searches and encourage all groups to apply. Diversity is a strength and ignoring that risks becoming hidebound and not keeping up with the times.

          2. evens*

            Have you read these comments? The ones on this site? A lot of them do cross the line into pretty blatant racism. But like Old White Guy said, that seems to be okay (with society and also on this website).

            1. Salty Caramel*

              Why is it when people bring up diversity for discussion a white man often cries racism?

              Institutional racism comes from those in power, which is how you can get an all-white C-Suite. Fighting to break that dynamic isn’t racism.

              1. The Real Fran Fine*

                Yeah, it’s very much an example of “that word does not mean what you think it does.”

              2. DJ*

                If your goal is to hire people based on what race they are or aren’t, that seems racist.

                If your goal is to hire people based on what gender they are or aren’t, that seems sexist.

                1. basically functional*

                  Who are you arguing with? No one said their goal is to hire people based on race and gender, or at least that is a very myopic and probably disingenuous interpretation of others’ comments. The ultimate goal is a well-functioning and productive workplace, which you get by hiring people with the best skills and experience. Unless you believe only white men have the best skills and experience (in which case, ew), you want to attract talent from many demographics and backgrounds. There is a lot of literature out there about how companies benefit from a diverse staff. Different perspectives enhance creativity, innovation, and problem solving. An inclusive atmosphere increases employee morale and retention. And so on.

        2. Happy meal with extra happy*

          How does hearing them out advance the cause of diversity? (The only thing I can think of is that OP would have to sacrifice herself as the token diversity hire, and hopefully the company bucks all of their prior practices and actually allow her to have a successful career.)

          1. Falling Diphthong*

            How does hearing them out advance the cause of diversity?
            This is a very fair question.

            The company could give a power point slide followed by a choreographed dance segment, and diversity would not improve one jot.

        3. rr*

          Alison suggested that in her in her reply: “But you can definitely go to the interview and find out more,” etc.

          But it isn’t the OP’s responsibility or obligation to “hear them out” if they just decide not to.

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

          OP replied above that there were other issues, like they all belonged to one specific religion.

    2. learnedthehardway*

      Uh – the company is in the 2nd decade of the 21st century and hasn’t made a real effort (or at least has made no successful effort – which is also pretty damning) to ensure that its management and board reflect the diversity of the general population – and you think pointing that out is racist against white males?!??!

      I mean, it would almost difficult to NOT hire at least one or two female or otherwise diverse qualified candidates in all that time. Doubly or triply so if there is a more even gender or racial or otherwise diverse split within lower levels in the company. I mean SURELY, if the company leadership placed ANY value on equal opportunities for everyone, they’d have managed to achieve some minor level of diversity – unless they really don’t want to be diverse (which, frankly, seems to be more likely in an organization large enough to have a full fledged executive team and board of directors).

      But sure, it’s racist against white men to point out the sheer unlikeliness that a solid white male leadership team is an accident.

      (Trust me – recruiter here – even companies that don’t really care much about diversity STILL manage to have some level of diversity – if only to not miss out on good candidates who happen to be diverse, or – at the very least – to not look actively discriminatory. Believe me, it’s been a choice to not be diverse if the company is bigger than a very small business.)

      1. MsM*

        I’ve dealt with boards that had openly anti-DEI people on the governance committee (I know; I didn’t like it, either), and they still managed to recruit women and non-white members. Either only having a pool of white dudes or having everyone who isn’t drop out of the process and not seeing anything wrong with that takes work.

    3. KeinName*

      The term racism doesn’t really apply here. White men haven’t historically been stereotyped, been targets of harassment or structural violence. In fact they had and still have a lot of agency over their circumstance and power over other persons, even those white men from working class backgrounds.
      If the general population is very mixed, and a leadership board doesn’t include someone like you already, you are okay to worry a bit – if only that you might have to spend more of your work time creating more diversity because you are the first person to think to do it. Maybe OP would rather spend her work time on career advancement than EDI.

    4. Ellis Bell*

      Unless you’re only promoting a whole bunch of people who look like you, and you don’t have any explanation as to why, while bristling about even being asked, you’re probably fine. But you’d be surprised how often people get offended just for being asked if it is possible for you to get promoted even when there’s a very visible ceiling. The ceiling doesn’t have to be deliberate for it to be a problem.

    5. nnn*

      Can you please be clear about exactly what you find racist in the question and answer? Is it the idea that white men should have to share power?

    6. Irish Teacher.*

      It’s not racist to believe old white guys should not be given all positions of power. If the LW was complaining that one of those in power was an old white guy and white guys shouldn’t be allowed in positions of power, THAT would be racist and/or sexist, but ” people other than old white guys should have equal chance at positions of power” is not racist or sexist.

      1. Irish Teacher.*

        It’s not even the men themselves who are being criticised. It may not be something they are doing intentionally. It may be something like you are expected to have certain unpaid internships, etc that require one to have a lot of free time and the ability to live without salary and white men are most likely to have those opportunities.

        But in any case, it is VERY likely the best people were not promoted in every case as it is unlikely the best person for every one of those jobs happened to be white and male.

        1. Chirpy*

          All of the management at my work is white men, and has been through an almost complete management turnover in the last 5 years. Are they bad guys? No, but they clearly seem to have not thought about what makes someone “feel like management” to them.

          I don’t think it’s fully intentional, but there’s some clear trends in hiring- white guys for management, women for office work. Mostly guys for hardware, and all but one women for softlines. Latino men for warehouse….there’s some biases that need to be examined, here.

          1. How We Laughed*

            Yes- I’ve worked in places that by the numbers were diverse. But once you got into the upper levels, suddenly it’s just white men. People could and did rise from the lower ranks… but only so far if they just so happened to be not white or not male.

            1. Chirpy*

              Sad thing is, it’s a woman-owned company…because she inherited it, she didn’t change much for management/culture (at least at store level) when she did. Aside from employees now get a tiny bit of maternity leave when previously there was none.

              1. Chirpy*

                But they absolutely advertise that they’re a woman-owned company, of course.

    7. Alphonse Throgmorton*

      Given your response to someone being concerned about an organization with zero non-white execs and zero female execs, I’m glad you’re retired too.

      2. The Cosmic Avenger*

        +2 from another old white guy who actively promotes and advocates for DEI.

    8. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

      Is it sexist to point out that all of the senior management in a firm is blokes? No, it’s a factual statement.

      Is it racist to point out all of the senior management in a firm are white? No, it’s a factual statement.

      It’s not heterophobic to point out that most people in a position of senior authority tend to be straight. And cis.

      What you’re missing because you don’t have the experience is that people in the groups being deliberately excluded develop a very good ear for dogwhistles. We can see the underlying danger in what has been for you just how normal life works.

      To those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

    9. SheLooksFamiliar*

      OP’s situation is nowhere near racism, and no one was directing scorn at old white guys.

      But this old white guy’s comment on this thread made me think of the saying, ‘When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.’ That’s an overly simplistic view, of course, but it feels relevant in this case.

      1. ferrina*

        ‘When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.’

        This! Oh, if I had a nickel for every time I saw this play out, I would have solved student debt. The iteration I’ve seen the most is:
        “But why can’t my child have the same unequal advantages that I had when growing up? Why does my child have to be the one to play on an even playing field*??”
        *no, it’s still not even, it’s just slightly less skewed. And that makes them very upset.

        See also:
        “My family had to work for what we had! My father/grandfather/great-grandfather was a [cobbler/coal miner/sharecropper/etc] and scrimped to save every penny so his children could get an education. We worked for what we have!”
        Yes, because clearly your family was the only one that worked hard. /s Also, great that your ancestors worked hard, but where are you in all this? Does their financial success mean that you are entitled to coast on your ancestors’ coattails? And should I just not mention the economic systems that completely denied other people’s ancestors the same benefits, like red lining and government seizure of indigenous lands? (for some reason, people always get mad when I ask how redlining benefited their white ancestors. I mean, they are the ones that brought up the economics in the first place)

        1. SarahKay*

          I was today years old when I learnt about redlining, and am now appropriately horrified :-(

        2. RC*

          Oh, the children on the (figurative) playing fields… as someone who has been working with foster youth and who also has friends with children, it’s not even the same HEMISPHERE that some of these kids are playing on re: access to education and other resources. It’s honestly appalling.

        3. rebelwithmouseyhair*

          “If working hard was the road to success, African women would all be billionaires”
          (I’m ashamed to say I forget who I’m quoting)

    10. OP2*

      OP here. I’m not going to reply to anything after this because I have much better things to do with my time than to fight with nameless, faceless people on the internet. I would have been just as concerned if every single member of the executive team was a one eyed one horned flying purple people eater, as I am not a one eyed one horned flying purple people eater and would be concerned that would affect my ability to grow within the company. The fact that the team just happens to be 100% of the same demographic is incredibly unlikely to be a coincidence.

      1. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

        To be honest I’m there with you mate – there’s a little too much ‘but consider that your feelings are wrong! don’t oppress white guys’ going on in society in general let alone on the internet.

        Sincerely wish you the best of luck and hope you land a great job with a place that lets you succeed.

      3. Spacewoman Spiff*

        Yes! And having worked in an environment that was 100% white men at the top of the food chain (we briefly had one woman on senior leadership, who was incredible and threw in the towel in under 6 months)…I wouldn’t go back, and am happy to no longer be working in that environment. I don’t believe there was a single man on the leadership team who was INTENTIONALLY behaving in a way that limited the growth of the few women and POC on staff…but they did, and it was deflating to work in that environment. One example, we had a new senior hire (white, male) who began having one-on-ones with the staff…but only the men on staff. The day I realized that one was pretty crushing. Another day, I overheard another team lead talking to our HR guy about a hire he wanted to make…they were talking about how they should offer a higher salary than initially planned, because the candidate was a man who was the breadwinner for his family. Again, no one would ever have said or done anything explicitly to me that was sexist, but it was in the air all around me. There was only so far I could progress, and at a certain point I no longer wanted to.

    13. Sharkie*

      What an odd thing to say. This is a valid concern because in today’s workforce it is highly unlikely that the only people with the skills for leadership positions are only white men. It is not hard to get a candidate pool from different backgrounds, especially in the tech field

    14. anon_sighing*

      You sound very out of touch and perhaps it’s for the best you’re retired — I’ve worked with plenty of old white men (including those who can actively remember the Civil Rights Act of 1965 passing) who aren’t as thin skinned to think LW#2 was even approaching scorn or offense. She asked a simple question and if the answer is innocent, then it’s innocent. The defensiveness you display is bizarre.

      (I am also pretty confident LW#2 is a white woman. So the racism here is…white on white?)

    15. Mad, mad me*

      Yes, it’s VITAL that poor, unfortunate white men who are so often deprived of rights in this world be protected at all costs! I’ll guessing a lot of people are glad you’re retired.

  10. hasopinions*

    #5 Indigenous tribes are, at least in part, considered independently governed jurisdictions—so they don’t have to comply with federal laws for the same reason that, say, Idaho doesn’t have to comply with the employment laws in Washington.

    1. roseyposey*

      100%. I know it’s not the same, but the Supreme Court of Canada just dealt with a similar issue in a case a month ago – even where a constitutional human right is at stake, certain Indigenous laws will trump those rights. The case was about a rule prohibiting elected councillors from living off-reserve, and a member argued the rule discriminated against her (she couldn’t move away from the city because her son had health problems requiring quick access to a hospital). The court agreed the rule was discriminatory but the Indigenous nation still won, because the Nation’s right to decide who can be in its government prevailed over the individual’s right not to be discriminated against.

      1. MK*

        However, this case isn’t really a clear violation of human rights. What is the right here? The son might have a right to medical care but no one is denying him that. The mother might have a right to freedom of movement and settlement, but there are plenty of jobs that limit that, because it is generally agreed that most rights can have limitations, as long as these are justified. It would be interesting to know how the courts would handle a blatant conflict between tribal law and a constitutional right, like a position being open only to men.

        1. Radius*

          Canada has a Charter of Human Rights that drives a lot of employment laws and that leads to the term being used differently than it might be in many other places.

    2. DorkGirl*

      This is mind-bending to me (#5 OP), but I really appreciate the perspective from Alison and the community!

    3. Glomarization, Esq.*

      It’s really, really more complicated than that. The EEOC or the Indian and Native American Employment Rights Program may have jurisdiction depending on the law that the LW believes is being broken and the type of problem they are alleging. I can’t emphasize enough that the LW needs to talk to an actual lawyer who regularly practices in this area. They should call the state bar referral hotline for assistance in finding one.

    4. Hugh*

      On the other hand, that means that they do need to follow the law & governance of the Indigenous government. It’s worth consulting a lawyer from that community – in many places, the Indigenous legal system has broad powers to fix/address problems even absent specific legislation, in ways that Common (English) law does not.

      There is quite a bit of variation though, so having a local expert is essential!

    5. Boof*

      Lw may not want to take it there but i would be so interested in knowing what happens if they take it to the tribe council; I don’t think we’ve had any aam letters on managing tribal-legal employment conflicts. I really have no idea how it might go beyond that the tribe has its own governing body. I imagine it varies between tribes, too of which google says there are 574 federally recognized tribes.

      1. AnonforThis*

        I work for one of these types of tribal organizations and I can tell you that the results of taking it to the tribal council will really depend on whether or not the employee is a member of the tribe.

        1. MourningStar*

          As a former reservation resident – this is accurate. I was not a tribal member, and things could be…. challenging at times. I didn’t have any issues with denied tribal petitions for my home, but I know those that have.

    6. NothingIsLittle*

      While I am not an employee of any of the tribes, I work with two in a professional capacity. Their tribal councils and culture of leadership are very different and while one of them would definitely be interested if it was brought to them, I’m not sure about the other. Any information would be identifying, but it’s been fascinating to see their operational differences.

      Given my experience, I don’t think the friend should hold their breath or anything, but if they’re close with anyone on the council or with any of the elders (or anyone otherwise influential/well connected) it would be worth asking for advice. In my experience, having someone important aware of, and disapproving of, a situation can be more effective than any kind of legal pressure.

  11. Jinni*

    LW4: in law firms this question always referred to business generating and billable hours. Compensation was separate.

    1. Professional Services Anon*

      Agreed—if this is in the context of setting or reviewing progress towards performance goals this is probably not a question about compensation.

      It’s almost certainly a question about billable hours targets and/or targets for revenue generation or account growth—as in “increase revenue in account A by x%. What gets included here would vary by seniority and responsibility at each level—very junior individual contributors may have only billable hours or utilisation percentage requirements, while senior managers/directors/partners will have increasing responsibility for revenue generation.

      This is typical for accounting firms, law firms and other types of consulting firms.

      1. DogsInPJsAreMyFavorite*

        GOD that’s so much pressure, you have to set your own billable hour goals?! I’ve always been given a target for revenue goals set by our senior leadership based on business. (I don’t have billable hours, I’m not in that kind of field) but that seems like it would be tough unless like you said, you were senior enough to be bringing in your own business. what if you just get assigned to a partner who doesn’t have enough trials that year? or you set aside 3 months for trial prep and then they settle in month 1? … I mean I guess then you’d just be switched to another busier team.

    2. It's All About the Money*

      Yes, I was also thinking this might be intended for commercial goals. Presumably this isn’t relevant to LW4’s position or they would know, but it might be for some of their colleagues. My industry doesn’t have billable hours, but we do have targets around turnover, value of work won, collecting overdue payments, project costs against fees, etc. which factor into goals for some, especially more senior staff.

    3. anneshirley*

      Yes, my company used similar language for sales. It sounds a little silly if it doesn’t apply, but “I want to sell $X” or “I plan to generate Y new contracts” would be a typical answer here in some cases.

  12. Adam*

    LW2, the only adjustment I’d make there is to consider the size and age of the company. If the company is young and small and the exec team is, like, the two founders and a couple friends they brought on in the early days, that’s less likely to indicate a problem than if the company is 20 years old and has thousands of employees. For a young and small company, I’d look to see what the overall staff makeup looks like rather than focusing on top leadership.

    1. Zweisatz*

      Yes and no. LW is wondering whether she will be able to move up in this company. Even if these are basically nice guys I think it’s reasonable to assume there might be a glass ceiling. And it’s hard to tell if everything you have got going for the opposite assumption is a pinky promise from leadership.

    2. metadata minion*

      A young company with a small executive board of white guys just seems likely to be problematic in different ways than an older company with a board of all white guys. If you’re a white guy and so are all your friends, that’s…not a good look.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Yeah OP’s question was more personal. She sees herself a a future leader and is trying to decide if there’s any future for her at a company where none of the leaders share her demographics. It would be valid even at a small start up. She’s going to be the only one and it’s probably going to be pretty rough on her in both cases, and since she’s in-demand it may be better to look elsewhere where she won’t have to do all this work for them.

      2. UKDancer*

        Depends where you are I think. If you are white and live in a small town in rural England you’re highly likely to have mainly, possibly exclusively white friends. My parents’ hometown is 96% white and all my father’s friends are white men. Big cities are much more diverse. Where I live in London it’s much more diverse with larger BAME populations (33% of people in my borough identify as BAME). So my friend circle is more diverse than my father’s because the people I socialise with and live around are more diverse.

        1. münchner kindl*

          Maaaaaybe regarding white/PoC.

          But even a small rural town will have ca. 50% of people who are women, will have at least 10% of people who are LGBT+, will have 5% of people who are disabled.

          So the board/ leadership either decides right from the start that at the very least, they can mirror the actual demographics – or they can use the privilige of “not hiring women doesn’t hurt me, so why change?”.

          The easiest way for me is still quotas – if the company decides that 50% of all positions, at all levels, should be women, then it’s motivated to go out and find qualified women to fill those positions.
          Otherwise, it’s easy to hire women for admin stuff and then never promote them because of the known (to most people) mechanisms.

      3. MsM*

        And the fact your board is just you and your friends and hasn’t expanded out to people with different skills or perspectives is also a problem. Trust me.

        1. Lady Danbury*

          Even more of a red flag in terms of advancement, regardless of their racial/gender makeup. You do NOT want to be the first outsider in what is essentially a friends/family business. Guaranteed roller coaster ride ahead!

          1. Double A*

            I mean, some people are up for that! But it’s definitely good to go in with the expectation that that is the role you will have to play, and it’s totally okay if that’s not something you want to do.

    3. Victoria*

      This is why it’s the makeup of the board that waves a big red flag to me. Yes, the executive team of a startup could easily be CEO Jim, CFO Allen, and CTO Pete who went to business school together. But they should then be intentionally building a board + leadership team + pipeline that includes experiences, backgrounds, perspectives, life and professional experiences they don’t have.

      1. DJ*

        Do you assume that all white men have the same perspectives and experiences? I don’t know how someone could claim that when the data you have is their skin color and gender.

        1. basically functional*

          Do you really not understand the concept that – on average, in a way that is measurable by statistics rather than individual anecdotes – people from different demographics tend to have different experiences and perspectives? Take the very well-documented gender pay gap, for example. Is there a woman out there somewhere making more than her male counterpart? Yes, probably several. That doesn’t negate the overall trend or invalidate the problem.

  13. Gawaine42*

    LW1 – I’m a white male, and I was just talking to one of my leads yesterday about turning down an interview request from a company that had sent a brochure with a picture of their executive team, who all presented as white males. Agree that it’s worrisome, and unless you already have a personal relationship that gives you some background on it, I’d be worried too.

    1. Ellie*

      When we book travel, the travel coordinator’s mobile number is always listed on the itinerary in case there are any issues that come up with the booking. This is needed because not every entry level employee can afford to pay for their own hotel and/or flights if the booking wasn’t done correctly. I assumed Elvira was the person who coordinated the travel, in which case, Jane was probably just following policy.

      Maybe I’m just a cold, unemotional type of person, but Elvira sounds a bit unhinged to me.

      1. LW1*

        LW1 here. You are correct that Jane was unable to pay the hotel charge on her own. I am not sure whether Elvira made the original arrangements or not, but she is listed as the emergency contact for hotel issues.

        Jane contacted Elvira on her company cell phone. As Alison correctly guessed in an earlier thread, part of Elvira’s job is to be available in those cases. I don’t know how often she fields those types of calls, and I certainly sympathize with being annoyed by the interruption, but she definitely should save her commentary until she’s off the phone.

    2. MK*

      Jane’s corporate lodging card wasn’t working whilw on a business trip and Elvira was the person who could help with that. Sure, you shouldn’t contact people outside works hours, but emergencies are a exception to that, and not being able to access accommodation is definitely an emergency. I understand being annoyed, but cursing at a colleague who is stranded on a business trip and is calling the person who can help them isn’t reasonable. And the level of abuse described in the letter is am overreaction either way.

    3. Myrin*

      OP says that Elvira was not on call but it’s still possible that with a situation as the one in this case – travel lodgings – she was the only person who would know how to solve this and/or the most logical person to ask about.
      Generally, I think it’s best – and also most likely to be closer to reality – to assume that this wasn’t a random “lol let’s call Elvira who actively doesn’t like me because why not” type of situation on Jane’s end.

    4. Polly Flinders*

      If we’re in a world where it was inappropriate for Jane to call Elvira at that time, we’re also in a world where Elvira had the option of not answering, or saying “sorry Jane, I’m not at work right now”.

      I’m guessing the LW would have said if that were the case.

    5. RIP Pillowfort*

      Given Jane knew Elvira didn’t like her beforehand and is conflict avoidant- I doubt it was a random call.

      If it’s anything like work travel I dealt with in the past- Elvira may be the person she had to contact to get this resolved so she could get to her lodging for the night. It goes on to say Elvira did solve the issue. So what was Jane supposed to do? Not call anyone? Pay for it herself? People are acting like she called and asked Elvira a inane work question that could have waited. Jane had an emergency. That generally is a once off type of call that you can be annoyed at but not annoyed at Jane personally who didn’t cause the problem with the lodging card.

    6. HonorBox*

      I know from experience similar to this that certain workplaces have people who are authorized to make a call to get support for work credit cards. I had an employee whose card was declined (they had exceeded their limit because they’d been traveling a bunch and the payment was in the mail) and they called me on the weekend. I was the person authorized to make a call to the credit card company. Was I on the clock? No. But I was also not going to have an employee stranded and unable to get into their room while they were traveling for work.

      It is quite possible that Elvira was in a position to address this, or it is quite possible that Elivra was one of the people authorized to help and others hadn’t answered. On the clock or not, it is likely something that Elvira was in position to help with. And it doesn’t sound like it took hours or required her to go into the office.

    7. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      I love how everyone is turning this around on Jane. How dare she interrupt Elvira’s weekend. If Jane called for a work travel issue, not just to chat, then that is probably SOP for the company. Jane is not at fault here.

      Elvira is the problem. OP you probably feel you can’t do anything because you didn’t personally witness this. But you are not in a court of law. You don’t need rock solid evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Elvira did this. It is your duty as a manager to address it. Not only how she spoke to a coworker who needed assistance but also her friendship with HR.

      1. HonorBox*

        Could not agree more. I have to imagine that Jane was not at all excited about the prospect of calling someone whose feelings about her are well known. But Elvira was in a (or THE) position to help out in an emergency situation. So what else was Jane to do?

        I’d agree that OP needs to figure out how to address this. They obviously know what Jane heard Elvira say. They can’t legislate Elvira’s feelings, but there is a place to legislate how we treat coworkers and the language we use “at work.” The fact that Elvira and HR have such a close relationship means someone else probably needs the info and will need to figure out how to address Elvira’s actions.

    8. Happy meal with extra happy*

      I’m incredibly curious to know how having a smartphone allows one to make changes/fix an issue with a corporate credit card that they don’t otherwise have the authority (with the CC company) to make.

    10. Dust Bunny*

      Allison addressed this above: There are jobs where this is part of the deal, so let’s not derail based on it. If handling this kind of thing is part of Elvira’s job, it’s part of Elvira’s job.

  15. Twix*

    LW2, I’d say it’s worth considering the industry, size, and age of the company. Working with a new and up-and-coming technology makes it sound like it could be a start-up, in which case I wouldn’t read as much into the makeup of the executive team. If I were to launch a start-up with friends and professional contacts, which is a pretty common thing in my industry, we’d probably end up with an all-male, all-white team. I’ve been approached several times by people considering it and in all but one of them that would have been the case. That’s just the reality of my background, industry, and geographic location. On the other hand, if this is a larger, well-established company that hires from a wide talent pool and has a diverse workforce, I’d definitely take it as a red flag. A company in that position has the ability to bring more diversity to their executive team and has chosen not to.

    1. Ellie*

      The industry itself matters as well – I’m in IT, and if I boycotted companies like this I’d have no-where left to work. If OP has options though, then she absolutely should try and find out if her chances of being promoted are as good at this company than they would be at another one. It’s certainly a bad sign.

      But OP… why are you considering taking a step down? For that reason alone, I’d be worried they would undervalue me.

    2. bamcheeks*

      That’s just the reality of my background, industry, and geographic location

      Honestly, you could actually do something about that. If you are in the start-up adjacent space and all your professional contacts and friends are white men, that is not weather. It’s something you have control over. If there are tech networking events in your area, I guarantee you there are Black Engineers and Women in Tech events and you have every opportunity to start expanding your networks.

      I have a white male friend who just started a scale-up and they are a mixture of men and women and not all white because he has prioritised mentoring people who aren’t white men and bringing together diverse teams at every stage of his career, so that’s who is contacts are.

      You aren’t telling us about your background, industry or geographic location, you are telling us about your choices.

      1. Lexi Vipond*

        That sounds like quite a London-centric view, to be honest – you don’t think that this is likely to be a different experience in 54% white London versus 88% white Glasgow or 98% white Inverness?

        I’m not saying this is an ideal situation, but unless you have the personal power to bring large numbers of people from the large cities of the warm rich south (where they or their family probably joined people from their area who had already settled there) to the smaller places of the poor cold north, or whatever the US equivalent might be, I don’t see how geography isn’t going to play a part in your own experience.

        1. Twix*

          Yup. According to the most recent census, the area of the US I live in is 94.4% white. It’s not an ideal situation, which is exactly why it’s a red flag at a larger company that has the resources to hire from a larger talent pool. But startups are often started by a group of people who know each other personally taking a mutual risk. Of course demographics play a role in that.

          1. Distracted Procrastinator*

            I used to live an area that was heavily skewed white. 50% of the population is still women. We don’t go hide somewhere inaccessible until all the other “diversity hires” show up.

            1. Twix*

              I’m in a STEM field that is 8% female. I know some women in my field who are excellent at what they do and I’d happily include in a startup team, but they’re a small minority of my network because they’re a small minority of my field.

              1. AnonThisTime*

                Yup. My company’s executive team is all male though there is racial diversity. But having 2 women on the 10-person technical staff *crushes* the general gender ratio of our field. Normally you wouldn’t think 20% women – yay! But it actually is a pretty big yay given the givens.

                Also, as a small company of under 20 people we don’t have a lot of leeway to, say, encourage HBCUs to start PhD programs in [field] (none exist currently). The “pipeline problem” isn’t something we can affect a ton as a company. But we’ve definitely supported our employees in attending conferences or giving talks and the like for “Women in [field]” type events.

              2. Ellie*

                Same. As one of the very few women on my engineering team, I’m desperate to hire more women onto my engineering team. 99% of the CVs I see are from men. 100% of the people who connect with me via LinkedIn are men. I can’t personally do anything about that, although I really wish someone would.

        2. bamcheeks*

          No, not at all! Twix says they’ve been approached several times by people considering start-ups. They’re either in a scene which is big enough to have diversity, or they are networked outside that immediate city. And even if it’s well over 90% white, I guarantee there are women.

          FWIW, I’m in a city which is 80% white, so not significantly more diverse than Glasgow, and so is my friend. There are Black Entrepreneurs events, Diversity in Tech events, Young Black Professional events, to name a few I’ve come across in the last couple of years without going looking. Only having white men in your network is a choice!

          1. Myrin*

            Not knowing anything about start-ups I don’t know if I’m misreading your first paragraph or am just missing start-up-specific facts which would clear that up for me, but I’m not seeing how the fact that Twix has been approached about people considering launching a start-up automatically means that they’re in a scene big enough to have diversity or networking outside their immediate city/circle – can’t you also be approached about this kind of thing in a small town and/or homogenous environment?

            1. bamcheeks*

              I mean, I am including gender diversity as well as ethnic diversity– if you’re in a scene small enough to have no qualified or up-and-coming women and yet big enough that multiple people are considering start-ups, that is really, really unlike any tech scene I’ve ever encountered! If Twix says there are no publicly advertised and open-to-all Women in Tech events in his area, then OK, fair enough– I strongly suspect that he’d find there is still some kind of informal, word-of-mouth network if he looked, though.

          2. Twix*

            I don’t live in a city at all. I live in a small rural town that is 94.4% white. We literally have 3 Black residents. I have business contacts in the surrounding area, which has similar demographics. If you live in a city you may not understand what living somewhere with demographics like that and a low population density is like. There aren’t diversity-focused professional events (other than LGBTQ+ ones) in the immediate area. It’s just not a thing.

            That said, I don’t disagree that your network being entirely white men is a choice! There are diversity-focused events in cities within a couple of hours of me, and plenty of opportunities to network online. I’m just not really interested in actively growing my network (which is not exclusively white and male but is heavily skewed that way, especially if you filter for being in a financial position to gamble on a startup). My point was not that someone like me can’t have a more diverse network, it’s that there are a lot of people like me who don’t for reasons that do not speak to their willingness to hire and promote people who aren’t white men.

            1. bamcheeks*

              OK, but then you’re asking people to assume good will based on zero evidence — your pitch is basically, “sure, I’ve done literally nothing to expand my networks beyond white men, but that doesn’t mean anything!”

              It’s the employer equivalent of, “I’ve never done software development before because I’ve never had the opportunity, but I’m feeling pretty confident!” Like, it may or may not be your fault you haven’t had the opportunity, but I think it would be pretty unusual for an employer to decide to take a risk on that person based zero evidence. Realistically, why do you think candidates should give you the benefit of the doubt?

              (there is an obvious irony here that it is extremely well-documented that employers are way more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to white male candidates with “potential” than female or minoritised candidates with experience. I realise I’m being kind of hard on you, but it is basically because you are asking for that exactly that grace which is SO often extended to white men to the detriment of other candidates, only you’re asking for it from exactly the candidates who don’t get it in reverse. And that’s kind of galling.)

              1. Twix*

                Perhaps I was unclear, but I’m not trying to say LW should assume goodwill. I’m saying they shouldn’t assume malice. I’m absolutely not disputing that a company that has made an active effort to bring in a diverse team has demonstrated a positive commitment to diversity that a company with a homogenous team has not.

                1. bamcheeks*

                  Genuinely, I think you should reflect on why you jumped to the conclusion that anyone was assuming malice. Nobody suggested that: we are all painfully familiar with the fact that this is about lack of effort, lack of care and ignorance. The fact that you started from the assumption that we thought it was malice and that you needed to defend people is part of the problem and why this conversation is so exhausting. If you had ever engaged with any diversity initiatives or conversations you’d probably know that.

                2. Twix*

                  @bamcheeks I didn’t jump to the conclusion that anyone was assuming malice. I also was not asking for any special grace for white men. My original comment was that I wouldn’t read as much into the makeup of the executive team at a startup vs a more established company, whereas I would very much consider malice, passive or otherwise, as a factor at a larger company. I’m not sure why you’re so convinced that my not actively cultivating a more diverse professional network in a role where there’s not much reason to actively develop a professional network at all, and the fact that as a result it’s simply a reality of my industry that startups are launched by small groups of white men, is proof that I don’t think diversity is important or know anything about it.

            2. Elitist Semicolon*

              Given that you’ve just stated a few ways of expanding the hiring/networking pool (events a few hours away, online groups), I’m not sure I understand why not having a more diverse network and not being interested in actively growing that network does not still somehow speak to your willingness to hire and promote people who aren’t white men. What am I missing here?

              1. Twix*

                That I’m not eschewing those events specifically, I’m just in an industry and role where there’s no real reason to actively develop a professional network at all. Whether not doing so is a good thing or a bad thing, it’s a very normal thing, which leads to startups launched by groups whose demographics reflect those of the industry and area, which does not necessarily say anything about willingness to bring people who are not white men on board.

            3. The Kulprit*

              “I’m just not really interested in actively growing my network (which is not exclusively white and male but is heavily skewed that way, especially if you filter for being in a financial”

              and that’s how homogeneous boards and orgs keep happening.

        3. Nobby Nobbs*

          Are those areas also 98% male? At least companies in a 98% male region wouldn’t have a problem finding gay people to promote!

      2. Twix*

        You aren’t telling us about your background, industry or geographic location, you are telling us about your choices.

        And you are missing my point. Those are neither mutually exclusive nor independent of each other. It is “the weather” that in my area and industry, the vast majority of people are white men. My point was not “It’s impossible to recruit women or POC into startups in white- and male-dominated fields.” It was “White- and male-dominated industries are full of people like me who haven’t gone out of their way to develop their professional networks beyond people they’ve worked with directly, which leads to startups run by groups of white guys, which does not necessarily say anything about their willingness to hire or promote people who aren’t”.

        1. bamcheeks*

          I don’t agree. Telling me that you haven’t gone out of your way to develop professional networks beyond white guys you’ve worked with is actually telling me quite a lot about your willingness to hire or promote people who aren’t.

          You’re literally asking me to assume good will on the basis that you haven’t actively and deliberately discriminated. That don’t impress me much!

          1. Katie A*

            I don’t think it says much about their willingness to hire or promote people who aren’t white guys. It says something about their willingness to proactively seek candidates, including candidates who aren’t white guys.

            That could be cause for concern, but it doesn’t inherently reflect on whether or not they’d hire or promote someone who reached out to them. It’s reflective of how much they value diversity in their networks, not how they feel about the people who are already within their networks or trying to become part of their networks.

            1. bamcheeks*

              What is says to me is that they probably won’t recognise talent and potential that doesn’t come in a white-guy package.

              I am sure these guys think they just hired the best people for the job, and that there just weren’t any women or ethnic minorities who had the right qualifications and experience, but if there were, sure, they’d hire them. I think it’s way more likely that there were some excellently well-qualified women in front of them, and they only had eyes for Dave and Matt.

          2. DC 18*

            I don’t think Twix is either hiring or in a leadership role, so I think you’re conflating a couple of different things here.

            Yes, companies should do what they can to expand their networks and pool of candidates across the board. I don’t think it’s on any one non management/non hiring employee to start networking if they don’t wish to though.

            1. Twix*

              Exactly this. I’m an individual contributor in a technical role. Networking is not part of my job. My network is essentially people I’ve worked with directly, which means it reflects the demographics of my field and area.

            2. bamcheeks*

              I meant he’s in the position where he has been approached multiple times about being involved in start-ups. That may not give him direct hiring power yet, but it puts him int he position where it might be directly on his radar very soon. When is the right tome to start educating yourself and behaving like someone else with the power to make a difference?

              1. DC 18*

                I don’t know, but again why are you putting this all on one commenter who doesn’t hire, isn’t planning to, and doesn’t want to network.

                There is literally nothing wrong with someone NOT wanting to grow their own network.

                1. bamcheeks*

                  I’m not — he just gave himself as an example of how exclusion isn’t necessarily calculated and deliberate, but can be simply people choosing and comfort and ease, as it that was brand new information, and I’m making the point that we know that already, and that’s the problem.

                  I think the idea that because someone’s individual choices are understandable and reasonable, you can’t criticise the negative impact of those choices is really shitty. No individual *has* to do anything about DEI in our industry, but equally there’s no reason at all why any of us should be protected from criticism by the people excluded.

        2. Distracted Procrastinator*

          People get that the demographics are skewed in your situation. What they are saying is that demographics are skewed nearly everywhere and people have to make an effort to fix it. A company that has made zero effort to include people who don’t look exactly like them is suspect. It says they don’t see diversity as important.

          You are standing at the top of the ladder looking around instead of down. That’s the issue.

          1. TxEE*

            I’m a woman in electrical engineering, when I graduated something like 1 in 9 graduates were women. I’m not sure where the statistics have gone in the last 20 years but 50% of electrical engineers are not women. I’m not sure what the statistics look like for other STEM disciplines but I can guarantee the graduates do not match the population demographics.

            1. bamcheeks*

              But it’s actually pretty unusual for the board of a company to be made up entirely of graduates in from the same area, even in STEM areas. You’re very likely to have people whose background is sales, HR, ops, finance– if all of your board are coming from the same discipline and professional background, I think that might be another kind of problem!

              1. Twix*

                It’s actually incredibly common for STEM startups. A lot of start-ups are led by 3 or 4 people with the same technical background. Once you grow past a certain size that’s no longer viable, which is why I said this would be less of a concern at a startup but a definite red flag for a more established company.

          2. Twix*

            You are standing at the top of the ladder looking around instead of down. That’s the issue.

            My point is that I’m not looking anywhere. I’m not in a management/leadership role, I’m not looking to move into one, I’m not involved in recruiting, and
            networking is not a part of my job. But it’s not unusual for several people in roles like mine to launch a startup together. The fact that those startups tend to reflect the demographics of the field does not necessarily speak to how much importance people who have previously been in roles like mine will place on diversity once they’re in a role where their personal investment in it matters. If a company has been around for 5 years and has 50 employees and has done nothing to diversify their leadership, yeah, absolutely that’s suspect. If it’s a company that’s been around for 6 months and is less than 10 people, I wouldn’t necessarily assume that.

        3. How We Laughed*

          But you’re saying you won’t go out of your way to diversify your network. Which means that even if you aren’t actively hostile to other candidates, you don’t perceive them as worthy of your time. That may seem like a minor thing to you, but it isn’t to the non-white, non- male candidates.

          1. Lady Danbury*

            This. At best, you’re saying diversity isn’t a priority to you. Which is entirely your choice, but someone who isn’t white and male also has a choice to look at that and decide that it’s not an environment that they feel like they’d thrive in.

          2. JonBob*

            I think you’re underestimating how people want to take the path of least resistance. It’s extra effort and work to network with people outside your immediate area, and sometimes there’s just less time or availability to focus on that.

            If I were beginning a startup, I would definitely want to work with people I’m comfortable with, since there’s gonna be a lot of discomfort to go around for a while.

            1. bamcheeks*

              Honestly, we totally get that. We know it happens. But it’s wild to say that people should still assume good intentions. If your “path of least resistance” this far has been “stay surrounded by people who look like me and who make me feel comfortable”, then it’s only sensible for me to assume that that’s going to continue to be the case.

            2. SarahKay*

              In which case it’s perfectly reasonable of OP#2 to want to take the path of least resistance and not work for a company where it looks like she’s going to spend a lot of time coping with discrimination, whether deliberate or otherwise.

    3. DJ Abbott*

      The big question is, *why* is that the reality? There are women and non-white men who have the talent and skills to be involved in this, but are not.
      It means the sexism and racism started earlier, by keeping girls and non-white boys out of the school tracks that would lead them to a career in IT and tech. This is not ok, and something needs to be done about it.

      1. wlasscar*

        All the executives in all the companies I’ve worked at were all multimillionaires prior to being at the company.

        I wonder what that says about society.

      2. Twix*

        It means the sexism and racism started earlier, by keeping girls and non-white boys out of the school tracks that would lead them to a career in IT and tech. This is not ok, and something needs to be done about it.

        I absolutely agree with this.

      3. DJ Abbott*

        Also the tech bros may not want people from other backgrounds or females in their friend group but if they start a company, they should make an effort with diversity from the beginning. Every group of bros must be acquainted with women and non-white men who have skills, even if they’re not close friends.

  16. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    #3 One interview only is the norm in my field (R&D eng) and more generally in the countries (Europe) where I’ve worked,
    An interview can last hours if both sides asking lots of questions and you tour the site, meet coworkers & managers.

    I didn’t have to suffer formal tests in the interview or do work in advance; instead, the interview would include discussions about accomplishments and “how would you tackle this”, so less structured than actual tests.

    I don’t think we have any more unsuitable / bad hires than the USA, so I wonder if it’s just habit / to reassure nervous HMs / cover their backs / arrogance that the jobseeker is at your mercy.

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Also, travel and hotel expenses were always paid for interviewees in my field, but obviously not in all roles

    2. Irish Teacher.*

      I think it’s really interesting (not bad or good necessarily, just surprising) that the US seems more be more likely to have longer interview processes than many other countries (or maybe it just seems that way because those are the ones that get discussed here and the US is the country most represented here) when it is generally easier to fire people in the US than in a lot of other countries. I would have expected countries where it is more difficult to fire people to be more stringent with interviews as it would be harder to get rid of a bad choice.

      1. bamcheeks*

        Yes, it’s interesting! Although my impression is that the interview process is longer, but the “initial interest / screen” stage is much more light touch, at least than public sector / formal recruitment in the UK. By the time I get selected for interview, I can *easily* have spent 5-6 hours on a detailed application form and supporting statement. Plus, I’ll probably get told that interviews are on the 5th June, take it or leave it– I have seen a few smaller and more agile companies who allowed you to schedule an interview, but generally it’s pretty unusual.

        I can definitely see the argument for a more light-touch CV application and initial phone screen rather than a shortlisting straight down to 5-6 people based purely on detailed written applications. But I don’t really see an advantage in having 2-4 interviews with different people over having a fixed interview date and meeting all those people in one go.

        1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

          I’ve never had to fill in an application form, as my field always had a shortage of people with the desired STEM quals and especially with R&D experience.
          I’d hear from my network about a vacancy and then contact them for an interview. Most of my colleagues did the same, except for those coming straight out of uni, who did have to go through a formal application process.

      2. Jam*

        Now that I think about it the longest interview process I’ve had in Dublin by a very long distance was with a US company which brought me in for four rounds of interviews (before cancelling the search lol). Everywhere else was 1-2 interviews including phone screens, and when I’ve been involved in hiring it’s been the same, one round of interviews and then a decision.

        1. Mairead*

          I think I did 4 or so for my current job in tech with a US co in Ireland (I actually did a few more but it was complicated by a hiring freeze which switched the role to a different group and restarted the process).
          While I was job hunting, in 2020/21, it seemed to be mostly at least 3 – screening by a recruiter, chat with hiring mgr and then tech grilling by various folks either individually or en masse. Since I didn’t get any of those, I can’t say if there would have been more after that. It was exhausting.

        2. StormFly*

          In my company in the tech sector Ireland, a phone screen and two interviews would be the max for mid-level roles. Junior roles would be a phone screen and interview.

          So, there definitely seems to be a trend. I know people say that you should be having more to get a better sense of candidates. But I really don’t think there’s anything you’re getting from the third or fourth interview that hasn’t already been drawn out before (if you’re interviewing somewhat effectively.) Plus, having so many interviews puts people who are good at interviews further to the top of the pile, which doesn’t necessarily correlate with people who will be good at the job.

      3. Sloanicota*

        Yes I remember international commenters weighing in before that just one interview was pretty common. That’s not the norm here. I’d actually probably be a bit weirded out to be offered a job after one short interview. If you have a really structured process like our government does (can only ask certain questions, must ask those exact questions, there’s a scoring form and that’s it) maybe it makes more sense, I’m not really sure. It is interesting to me that, from what I understand, other countries make it harder to fire/lay off staff, so you’d think they’d be more concerned about getting the full picture of who they’re bringing on.

        1. londonedit*

          I’m in the UK and while I wouldn’t say one interview is ‘common’, it does happen, especially for entry-level jobs. Earlier in my career I had two jobs where I was offered the role on the strength of one interview. Small publishing houses, you go in and meet the Publisher/maybe the boss, they make the decision.

          Phone screens aren’t really a thing unless the hiring process is being handled by an external recruitment agency (in which case they’ll likely call to discuss your application before agreeing to put you forward) – the usual process is application by CV/cover letter, then first interview with the person who would be your immediate line manager and possibly another senior member of the team you’ll be working with, then a second interview with the line manager and maybe someone else from the team (could be higher up, could be someone who’d be a colleague). For entry-level jobs there’s also usually a short (I’m talking 10-15 minutes) editorial test as part of the first interview – you’d have maybe 45 minutes of interview time and then you’d complete a 15-minute test before you leave, which will be something like proofreading a page or reading a book summary and producing a short paragraph of marketing copy.

          I suppose we do have probation periods here, which are usually at least a month but can be longer (1-3 months is standard in my industry). Where I currently work the arrangement is that either side can terminate the agreement for any reason within the probation period, with two weeks’ notice. Once you’re out of the probation period the employee has to give a longer notice period (usually a month but again it depends on the position – for senior jobs it can be three or six months) and it becomes more difficult for the employer to fire the employee without following proper disciplinary processes (except in cases of gross misconduct). Redundancy is slightly different as employees don’t have any protection for the first two years, but still, proper processes need to be followed. But the point of a probation period is to allow either side to get out of the contract on a ‘no harm, no foul’ basis if it turns out to have been a bad choice all round.

  17. Keymaster of Gozer (She/Her)*

    2: Most of my career has been spent in heavy engineering (IT departments) and it’s been white men as far as the eye could see across the C suite generally. Maybe a white woman as director of HR included. I’d never have the power to change that but I have tried to ask a bit about diversity initiatives at meetings and at interviews and Alison hits upon a good point – trust your gut.

    Most of the firms can talk a pretty line about inclusive growth but you’ll generally know when you’re being fed pure bovine fecal matter.

    I chose to stay in that field knowing it was sexist (and xenophobic) because they were extremely good at accommodating disabilities (big machines cause big injuries) and I figured that was more important to me at the time.

    It may be that they’re utter rubbish at dealing with any gender that isn’t a cis male and have racist tendencies up the wazoo but they have good inclusion in other areas. Ask the question and trust your gut as to the answer.

  18. bamcheeks*

    Oof. I think if I ruled all the large organisations in my field with all white male executive teams, I’d probably be left with about half as many jobs to apply for. If I ruled out all the ones which only had one or two women, or only had a female Director of HR, that would probably be all of them.

    1. Cyborg Llama Horde*

      Yeah, I don’t remember looking at the leadership/board of my current company (it was the middle of the pandemic, my unemployment benefits were running out, and I was basically, “Eh, not completely sold on these folks, but they’re the only ones offering me a job”), but going down the list in my head, the only women I’m coming up with are probably the head of HR, and maybe the head of Customer Service. (No idea what the board situation was, or if there even was a board at that point.) But that’s basically what I expect of tech organizations, even though I’d like them to be better.

      And, to be clear, it’s definitely not perfect. (We were recently celebrating that we’ve hit the State of California targets for board diversity, which are the most aggressive in the US, and come out to be three non-white or non-male people on a 12-person board. Possibly it’s just three total, regardless of board size?) Salary equity has been an ongoing struggle, though they’re working on it. Women of color leave at a rate that seems to me to be higher than average. But for me personally? I feel like the “glue” work I do has actually been recognized and rewarded, and I’ve been promoted, and there’s way less casual heterosexism than I’ve seen at other jobs. It also helps that I’m no longer customer-facing, so I have way fewer meetings where it’s assumed that only the man is technical and I’m just there for… I don’t even know what they think I’m there for.

    2. Distracted Procrastinator*

      The company I’m at is all male at top leadership levels with a female Director of HR. It’s also about 90% male employees (but not all white.) The difference is when I interviewed there the HR Director openly acknowledged the disparity and discussed with me the steps they are taking to change those numbers. It’s slow in our industry, but I have seen the work they are doing to change things. My boss is currently a black woman who was brought in from outside the industry because her management skills were valued as more important than industry knowledge. And it works. She’s learning the industry and she’s doing a good job managing people.

  19. Yellow sports car*

    LW2 how big is this team (5? 15?)? Is the board likely to be volunteer or paid? What’s the demographic makeup of the industry and community they are drawing from?

    If this is a mid-sized company with paid board positions (likely given make a lot of money) I’d evaluate differently to growing company started by three blokes with a volunteer board (possible if the mission is philanthropic/community focused).

    If the latter I’d be asking questions, but diversity of volunteer boards is challenging in some industries. A history of the glass ceiling has meant a smaller pool of women (and other groups that were excluded) with the training to hold positions – and they often have many demands in their time BECAUSE they are a minority.

    1. Sloanicota*

      Mm, I don’t know about this. Nonprofits are being pushed every day to think about Board diversity in my experience – by funders, by members, by the public. I don’t know what issue they’re happy with an all white all male board in the nonprofit sector; you’re supposed to be “representing the community you serve.” And honestly, when people tell me there’s literally no people of color in their community, I tend to think they’re telling on themselves a bit (in addition to eliding why they have no women; there’s no women in their community either??).

      1. MsM*

        And even if OP hadn’t clarified in the comments that this isn’t a small organization, a nonprofit with absolutely no women in C-suite positions? That’s really weird to me, even if their focus is a field that’s male-dominated.

    2. OP2*

      Exec team was ~13 I think. Board was another 10+. There weren’t pictures of the board, the names likely indicated a little bit more diversity, but still no women.

      1. Sandi*

        Oh wow, I was thinking maybe 3-5 people on an exec team so that might have been a coincidence, but 13 is way too many. It’s slightly possible that they happen to have a change in leadership that is looking to diversify, so if the job looks good otherwise then it’s worth going and asking the questions Alison suggested, and their answers will tell you everything.

        About 20 years ago I was in grad school for computer science and I commented about all the profs being white men, and my open-minded supervisor said that it was a huge competition for any female or BIPOC PhDs who wanted to be profs (most wanted to go to private industry because it paid better). The school was encouraging diverse grad students, they had an environment that was supportive, and their lack of diversity was a reflection of the time and field. Their first BIPOC female prof was one of their grads whose research was too cutting-edge to be of interest to companies so they got lucky to hire her, and then the tech bubble burst and that helped them even more. Their response to Alison’s questions would have been honest and helpful, and that makes all the difference.

  20. OP3*

    Responded to a few comments but posting separately here. Will take Allison’s advice and condense the process to 2 interviews and the written assessment. Thank you!

    A few other responses. Retention within the organization is actually quite high. The people that have left my team have left to other roles internally and are thriving. We’ve reworked the job description considerably and hopefully will be hiring people with the right set of skills for this specific role this time around. The written assessment is necessary, we’re based in a non-English speaking country (Spain) and a strong level of written English is critical for the role. However, it will be discussed during the interview, candidates will have all the information they need to complete the assessment and really should take no more than 30 min. Think someone writes asking for X, here’s X, write them a short response. The individual will be working with our ED quite a bit so important that he meets the candidates. However, most of our team is scattered across the country and the role is largely remote so no face to face interviews, just video.

    I appreciate the advice! It’s been a minute since I interviewed anywhere, but I remember it being a miserable process and it’s been interesting to be on the other side of the desk.

    1. A Significant Tree*

      From the comments it’s clear that even for entry level jobs, the amount of interview time or number of interviews varies widely. But I wanted to comment on something else I noted in the OP – new hires who think they’ll be doing substantive policy research with some project management, when the job is mostly project management with a little policy work.

      If the job description has been updated to more accurately describe the position, this may correct itself. But it occurred to me that the number of interviews, combined with who they are interviewing with, is giving the impression that this is a higher-level position than it really is. If your org is retaining people who rotate out of this role into other positions, then you must be hiring good people, but I can see how they might be motivated to move upward quickly if they thought that was the nature of the job to begin with. I expect you’ll still get good people with a shortened interview process and more clarity about the role, and they’ll be inclined to stay in the position for longer.

      Good luck!

  21. Interviews101*

    OP3, that doesn’t seem like an unusual amount of interviewing to me and as a candidate I’d be upset not to have step 4. Step 5 sounds like something the ED requires for all hires (if not, cutting that step may be okay). What I would expect is steps 3-5 to happen in sequence at one interview. If the written assessment requires being outside of the interview process then I would make it a homework assignment for after, but in this case I would make sure it’s clearly a test and not something that could ever be used by the company. If it is potentially useful for a company (such as an actual requirements document or similar) you should pay a small honorarium to folks.

  22. SizeMatters*

    LW2, How big is the company? That makes a huge difference. I’ve worked for tiny companies and huge companies and everything in between. At the tiny companies, the staff makeup varies and it also changes over time. I currently work for a small non-profit. I was employee #4. We’ve had as many as 7 and are currently understaffed at 5. Most of the additions were through a merger not hiring. Our ED is a white male. When I was hired the staff makeup was 1 white male, 1 white female, 1 Asian male. I am a Jewish female who some people think presents white and some don’t. At the current time we have 2 other white women and 2 white men on staff. All of us appear on the website and would present as “leadership” not “all the staff” to someone unfamiliar with us. We have only hired one role directly, a white woman. One of us is visibly disabled but that wouldn’t be obvious on the website. No one openly speaks about their SOGI status but several folks are in heterosexual marriages. We are hoping to hire further; each new hire has the potential to greatly affect our diversity because we’re so small (just as departures did the same). Because we’re so small everyone has the ability to affect company direction and major decisions. It’s also the only place I’ve ever worked that gave real, meaningful promotions as warranted (as opposed to promotions from regular -> senior -> principal teapot designer).

  23. Justin*

    I taught a seminar on race in employment a few years ago (summer 2020, for reasons you may remember) and as a joke I randomly picked a big company (a hamburger chain we can call “Wobbling Domicile”) that had a lot of “we are so down with the people of color” language in its materials, and I said, “I bet they have one token person of color.” And, yep, the lowest rank exec was an Asian woman. (I’m not making a comment about her being Asian, would be the same if she were Black.)

    I kept using them as an example for a few months and then by the time I finished teaching the class the next spring she was gone! It had gotten worse!

    The moral is, if you’re hired there, I can’t imagine it’ll be a pleasant experience, even if they’re not out and out sexist to your face.

    1. Speedy Leaf*

      I hate that it took me so long to figure out which chain Wobbling Domicile referred to!

  24. Tara*

    I’m at the best job I’ve ever had (wrt company culture, work-life balance, and chances for progression), and leadership is all white men. The company is about ten years old and has a little over 100 employees, in a male-dominated industry, where most of leadership knew each other in the early days, so it isn’t suprising. I absolutely agree that it is a yellow/red flag, depending on the field and company makeup, but I wouldn’t rule it out automatically.

    1. WellRed*

      Same. Our exec team of 12 is all white, one woman, which I’ve pointed out (at my low level). There are lots of women managers, directors and vice presidents. So I agree it’s a problem but this is why you interview and ask the questions.

  25. Yup*

    #2: My spouse’s (publicly owned) company recently created a diversity team, headed by none other than a… straight white dude. It’s a roving position that will be headed by execs and the entire executive suite looks the same.

    How this doesn’t ring alarm bells for them..

    1. Yup*

      Also so may of the responses here show a lack of understanding of why diversity is important, why it’s actually missing from companies, and what the barriers are to ensuring employment equity for all that no wonder this issue is still happening in our workforces. And that starts in our schools–from university all the way down.

      1. Sloanicota*

        These comments about how gee, the field just happens to be male dominated, what do you want them to do?? are *sending me.*

        1. Yup*

          There is SO MUCH written about this and why it’s problematic, and what can be done about it. But any time a company gets its back up, it stops listening.

        2. bamcheeks*

          “Look, all those times they excluded women from their pool of qualified candidates, they didn’t mean to. They didn’t even notice they were doing it. So it’s really rather unfair of you to hold it against them, and especially unkind to imagine that they would do the same thing in the future.”

    2. Orv*

      Where I work they announced a diversity committee position, and couldn’t staff it. The problem was the white employees didn’t feel qualified and the minority employees were sick of always being stuck with those kinds of extra unpaid responsibilities.

  26. Turingtested*

    LW 1, in my experience when the wronged party refuses to report obviously bad behavior it’s because management has shown that the perpetrator won’t face consequences but the reporter will.

    1. LW1*

      You are correct; that is very likely what will happen here. I did give Jane advice on how to handle the issue (given that reporting to HR is not the best option in this case). I wrote to Alison because I wanted to be sure that I wasn’t missing some responsibility on my end.

      Historically, this company is slow to deal with bad behavior/poor performance. In fact, this subject came up at my annual review. I remarked on some departed employees who were quite obviously a bad fit, saying that I knew it was only a matter of time (a lot of time) before they were gone. My supervisor seemed surprised and asked me to be more forthcoming in cases like that. I want to honor that request, but I also don’t want to hang Jane out to dry.

      1. Polly Flinders*

        Looks like you posted this before either of my replies below, as I only just saw it.

        What you’re saying is that Elvira’s bad behaviour is, basically, allowed in this company; and yet you think it shouldn’t be allowed; and also you have been asked in your capacity as manager to report it. Yet at the same time you think reporting it will expose Jane to retaliation.

        Let’s say you don’t report it, Elvira keeps Elvira-ing until she can’t any more. What’s the worst that can happen?

        Or let’s say you report it and Elvira retaliates against Jane with HR’s tacit blessing. What’s the worst that can happen?

        Every scenario I can think of (and I’ve been trying for all of 3 minutes) comes out equally badly, so I don’t know if you can affect the outcome. I do think you have the power and the duty to try, and you certainly have more power than Jane does.

    2. Polly Flinders*

      It doesn’t have to be management – only life experience. The default reaction is always to side with the bully.

      As I said above, if it was unreasonable to ask Elvira to take a work-related call in those circumstances, Elvira could have not answered, or said she couldn’t help. But it’s Jane’s choices that are being criticized here, not Elvira’s. So why would Jane expect management to support her instead of correcting her and, potentially, reinforcing Elvira?

      1. Managing While Female*

        So true. It’s crazy how often someone exhibits objectively bad behavior and there are whole threads of people twisting themselves in knots trying to blame anyone besides the person who was behaving poorly.

      2. Turingtested*

        I’m so sorry if I wasn’t clear, I was implying that Jane has been wronged but may be afraid to come forward because Elvira has protection. I encourage the LW to investigate why Jane doesn’t want to report this terrible behavior not trying to defend Elvira in any way. My point is that it’s likely systemic and Jane has reasons for acting the way she has.

        1. Polly Flinders*

          Yes, I understand, but I was making the point for two reasons. First, LW1 is also management; and second, I think most people would expect management to treat the person making the complaint (Jane) as the problem, unless management had explicitly proven otherwise.

          Instead, as you point out, Elvira is friends with one of the people responsible for correcting her, and LW1 may be the only responsible person on Jane’s side.

  27. WoebegoneWednesday*

    In Elvira’s defense, it was the weekend and she was not on call, so whatever she does on her own time is her business.

    Pity that Elvira picked up the phone. Maybe Jane had never called her on this number so Elvira didn’t know it was Jane? I’m guessing Elvira wouldn’t have picked up the phone if she knew it was Jane.

    Elvira is clearly difficult to work with and may be given her walking papers for other behaviors, but Jane got her problem solved despite overhearing what she already knew – Elvira dislikes her.

    1. HonorBox*

      We know nothing about the setup of this office. It is quite possible that Elvira was the one who coordinated the travel or was someone authorized to assist with a corporate card. Had she not picked up the phone, stranding a coworker without a place to stay, I’d say that is even more egregious behavior. Yeah, it was the weekend. But sometimes we have to do a bit of work on our off-time when emergencies come up. And this is sure an emergency.

      1. WoebegoneWednesday*

        Maybe – but it was noted that Elvira was “not on call”. Which implies someone was on call and that means Jane should have called that person instead.

        LW wasn’t a witness, this is what LW was told by Jane. Who may have her own agenda (to get Elvira fired).

        I don’t hold Elvira being drunk or high against her as she was not on call. It was her weekend off.

        1. Colette*

          I don’t think it implies that someone was on call, just that it was OK for Elvira to be drinking. A lot of times, no one is “on call” – but sometimes work comes up when everyone should be off.

          1. LW1*

            LW1 here. Yes, this is exactly the case. No one is assigned to be “on call.” Elvira is the listed emergency contact for lodging issues. Elvira was not on company time, therefore drinking was ok. And Jane followed the proper procedure, calling Elvira’s company-issued cell phone.

            1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

              Was anyone but Elvira witness to Jane’s slurred speech? It sounds like she is setting up a line of defense, “I may have sounded rude to her because she seemed to be drinking” or simply deflecting, “well, she was drunk.”
              And OP, not saying you have a reason not to believe the source, but without anyone to confirm, you’ve already accepted it as fact.
              Does Jane know that Elvira is telling people that she was rude because Jane was drunk? That’s a thing she should know.

              1. Hlao-roo*

                I think you have the names backwards–Elvira was the one with the slurred speech (“based on Elvira’s slurred speech”) and the one who was rude to Jane. I think the only “witness” was Elvira’s boyfriend.

            2. WorkerBee*

              Is Elvira salaried or hourly? If she’s hourly, expecting her to work off the clock is wage theft.

        2. Saturday*

          I agree with Colette that the reason LW mentioned that Elvira wasn’t on call was to make it clear that she wasn’t drinking/high on the job.

          But even if there was someone else on call, we don’t know that Jane didn’t call them first. Not everyone is authorized to deal with the company card. All the blame being thrown at Jane is strange to me.

    2. CommanderBanana*

      ^^ No. See the LW’s reply in an earlier thread confirming that this is part of Elvira’s job.

      I would not be thrilled if someone from work called me outside of work hours, and I can choose not to answer the phone, but if I do, it’s still inappropriate for me to do what Elvira did.

    3. Esmae*

      I think if you insult your coworker essentially to their face, regardless of whether or not you’re on the clock, it’s your coworker’s business.

      1. linger*

        But — since it’s entirely excusable for Elvira to be drunk at home on the weekend, is it also excusable for Elvira to, in entirely predictable consequence, be spectacularly uninhibited in her reaction to Jane’s call? It absolutely sucks for Jane, but Jane’s reluctance to pursue any complaint under the circumstances is pragmatic, and it’s not clear LW1 could escalate this to the point of Elvira facing any serious consequences, even if Elvira weren’t besties with HR.
        If Elvira is ever less than professional with Jane in the workplace, however, that will be a different matter. At the very least, this incident needs to be documented somehow for reference in that (likely) event.

  28. Mouse named Anon*

    3- This is way too much especially for an entry level position. Keep in mind that even though its entry level people still have other commitments. Such as another job, school, family etc. Personally that is a big ask of time to commit, even for a non-entry level position.

  29. Managing While Female*

    1 – The fact that it was the weekend and this employee was not on call does not excuse Elvira unleashing a torrent of abusive language with Jane on the phone. It’s really shocking to me that people would try to excuse or explain away this behavior, especially since Elvira is already abrasive in the workplace. Unless Jane showed up to Elvira’s house banging on the door at 3 in the morning or something wildly inappropriate (which, I believe, LW would tell us if that was the situation), there’s no reason to start talking about how you “f*cking hate” someone while on the phone with them. If Elvira didn’t have an obligation to answer the phone, then she could have ignored it. Stop excusing people’s sh!tty behavior. There’s enough of that in the world.

    1. Yup*

      Right? If Jane called inappropriately, the correct response would be “I”m sorry, you should not be calling me after hours.” Not a barrage of insults. How this can be viewed as anything other than unprofessional and hostile bordering on abusive is beyond me…

    2. Saturday*

      Yes, it’s surprising to me that people are saying, “But it was the weekend!!” as though that partially justifies Elvira’s behavior.

  30. I should really pick a name*

    a company that has no diversity on their executive team, and isn’t even ashamed to show that on their website for the world to see

    I wonder a bit about this comment. Is the idea that they shouldn’t post a photo of their team until it has reached a certain level of diversity?
    Also, there are types of diversity that aren’t necessarily visible in photos (sexual orientation, gender identification, neurodiversity)

    Please note that I’m specifically addressing the point about the photo, not the entire letter.

    (Unrelated: I’m actually not a fan of photos of teams on websites, but it seems to be a norm)

  31. Pretty as a Princess*

    LW3, I would make this less onerous for candidates by:
    – nixing the writing assignment and asking for a writing sample they have already produced (appropriately redacted of anything proprietary). These are entry level candidates so presumably they have recent schooling? Reinforce that a school assignment would be fine.
    – have the writing sample submitted up front, not as a “if you make it through X phase gate”
    – use writing sample & manager screen to determine if there will be a team member interview
    – eliminating the executive director from the interviews

    I can’t think of any reason for an ED to be interviewing entry level candidates in an organization large enough that you are actually having trouble with HR controlling how they post your position description. That’s simply not scalable for an ED. I only see that being practical when you are a brand new tiny organization looking to build your early people foundations. It sounds like you are past that stage.

    You are the manager and are doing a qualification screen already. A conversation with 1-2 team members would benefit your team and the candidates far more than the candidate talking to the ED. Remember, candidates are interviewing your organization, too, and I think it’s important they get time with people they will actually be working with who can answer questions about what it’s like to work on the team.

    I also think the hard sequencing here also creates challenges for candidates. I’m not a fan of a bunch of sequential gates in a hiring process where you have to keep passing through the next gate. We do recruiter screen – learn about candidate and what they are looking for, comp expectations, etc etc. I take the notes from the recruiter screen and we decide if we will move forward or not. Tech manager screen determines who we will bring in to meet our team. Then it’s interviews and a presentation with the team, scheduled on the same day. We don’t do a presentation and then use that to winnow down who meets with the tech team. I also think that the hard sequencing here that it looks like you have designed to try to reduce workload, actually creates MORE work because you are creating a “rank the candidates” requirement at every single step. If you want a “team members only will interview x number of candidates, just decide after the sample & manager interviews who to schedule those interviews with. You can split the effort by having 1-2 senior people on your team assigned to reviewing writing samples and then providing feedback on them, and then combining that with your manager assessment to determine who it makes sense to bring in.

  32. K*

    While Elvira is out of line I don’t know why Jane was calling her on the weekend when she wasn’t on call. She should have either called whoever is on call or wait until Monday.

    1. Managing While Female*

      “Jane was out of town over the weekend and her corporate lodging card wouldn’t work. She called an admin, “Elvira,” for assistance.”

    2. Falling Diphthong*

      Is Jane supposed to just walk the streets of a strange city, towing her little suitcase, subsisting on the free samples from any Costco she passes, until 9 am Monday Elvira’s time?

    3. HonorBox*

      “Whoever is on call” assumes there is someone actually listed as “on call” AND if there’s a person in that position, that they can actually do what is needed. Elvira is likely to be in a position where she is authorized to assist with a corporate lodging card.

      What was Jane to do otherwise?

    4. Distracted Procrastinator*

      My company is small enough that there is no “on call” person for travel. There is one person who handles travel arrangements and the understanding with that position is that you are the person called if there is an emergency. It’s entirely possible that this is the set up with this company.

      It’s silly to get so caught up in the “but Jane called after hours!” when she was stranded in a strange city. 5 minutes of Elvira’s weekend peace is more important than Jane’s safety?

      2. ConventionAdjacent*

        Same here. I’m traveling to the other coast for work tomorrow through next Wednesday. I don’t anticipate any issues, but if something came up with my work credit card upon arrival, I’d have to call one of two people in the office who have authorization to fix the issue. When I arrive, it will be outside of work hours for both of those people. I’d hate to call them, but I know for a fact that they’d want me to because they’d rather spend a few minutes fixing a problem that is not of my own doing rather than hear that I spent the night in the hotel lobby.

    5. Happy meal with extra happy*

      Geez. Okay, let’s say that there was a clear phone tree for these types of emergencies and that Jean was 100% incorrect to call Elvira. That STILL doesn’t excuse or explain Elvira’s reaction. I mean, if I had a stranded coworker call me for help on my off hours, even though it’s not my job at all, I would do what I could to help, even if that was just suggesting other people if I was busy.

    6. SnackAttack*

      What was she supposed to do? I get the importance of setting work-life boundaries, but sometimes there’s a legitimate reason to have to handle some business on the weekend or after hours. Jane needed lodging and Elvira was listed as the emergency contact.

  33. Ember*

    LW2, some day this company will “diversify.” A white woman will be in charge of HR, and if the company gets bigger, there will be one minoritized male VP. That’s as good as it gets for these kinds of places.

  34. Overit*

    Five (5) interviews for an entry level position?!!!
    That is nuts. Just nuts. (I withdrew from a department head hiring process when it got up to 5 interviews. If you don’t know after max of 3 whether or not the candidate is the right fit, that says your org or process are dsyfunctional.)
    The only people willing and ABLE to do that are the desperate and currently unemployed. Is that the small pool from which you wamt to hire?

    1. OP3*

      It was only 3! Now 2 with the written test as something they can do during time block for one of the interview or later, depending on preference. The HR screener is not an interview, but a double check that they are still interested in the role, ok with the salary range etc. I’m making the case that this could be an email going forward, but that’s a battle for a different day.

  35. Lyudie*

    Thank you for introducing me to the word “pablum”, what a useful term. I’ll be adding that to my vocabulary asap.

  36. AngryOctopus*

    LW#3, people have addressed the length of the interview already, but I just want to say that you are worried about retention AND in your opening you basically say that your hires are coming in expecting “X with a dash of Y” to be their work when in fact it’s “Y with a dash of X” that you’re hiring for. This is a huge problem! If HR somehow refuses to be clear about the job duties, you need to be SUPER SUPER CLEAR when you speak to the candidates in the second round about the day to day of the job. If I thought I was taking a job where I would do mostly bench science with a couple of committee obligations smattered throughout the year, I’d be really really angry if I started and it turned out my job was mostly committee obligations and I could only do bench science a couple times a month. That’s what I’m seeing here, and you need to make a concerted effort to make sure that applicants know exactly what the job entails before you move them to any interviews after you. And don’t be surprised if you get dropouts because HR didn’t give the right impression in their screening call (which is really an issue you need to work on, but a little separate from your question).

  37. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    2. Ask the question about equality *if you want to* but listen to your gut. There’s a lot of different prejudices around and after a while you get a sense for which one you’re dealing with. I took a job in a place almost entirely filled with white cis men that’s pretty xenophobic and sexist but had spectacular disability accomodations. The chances of finding a place with no bias at all is remarkably low so you kind of have to work out what you will deal with versus what you won’t.

    Having said all that, in your position and without evidence that they’re looking to change or have VERY good diversity in other areas that might not be so visible I’d probably call it a day. I’ve worked for a number of smaller software firms where all the higher ups were white guys and most of the staff were too and let’s just say I’d never go near the games development sector again. Not a good experience.

  38. HonorBox*

    Regarding letter 1: There are quite a few comments suggesting that Elvira was not on the clock, not on call, should have ignored the call, or had a right to be miffed. Yet it is probably very likely that Elvira was someone (perhaps the only one) who could step in and address what I would consider to be an emergency.

    Let’s flip the script. Say Jane wrote in. Her company card didn’t work for some reason that she had no control over. She didn’t want to (or couldn’t) put the full cost of her hotel room on her own personal card. She called the person in the office who could address the problem and that person ignored her. If Jane was writing in, would we tell her she was in the wrong for reaching out to the person who could fix a problem that was not of her doing? Would we be telling her that she should have sucked it up and paid for the room herself, not knowing how easy it is to get that reimbursement? Would we tell her to post up in the hotel lobby until Monday, possibly making it more difficult to do her job? Would we tell her Elvira was totally right to ignore her just because she was not on the clock? I’d like to think people would be outraged that someone didn’t take a couple of minutes to help out a coworker.

    I’m not suggesting that Elvira can’t be miffed about the situation. What she said after she hung up isn’t my worry. But the fact that Jane heard her not only upset, but calling her names, is so far out of line. There are plenty of jobs that require some sort of work outside of normal work hours, and when that happens, someone can certainly roll their eyes, but treating a coworker (or customer or whoever) like crap is completely unacceptable.

    1. PotsPansTeapots*

      Yeah, the situation as described is an actual work emergency. Even if Elvira wasn’t the right person to call, what else was Jane supposed to do beyond call someone at work?

      1. MsM*

        And even if there was absolutely no excuse for calling Elvira for some reason, Elvira could just…not answer the phone?

        1. HonorBox*

          Not answering the phone is not an option…or at the very least, not returning a call promptly is not an option. Because again, my point would stand. Jane could have written in and said that the one person who needed to answer to fix the problem wasn’t available because they’re holding to “I’m off the clock.”

          1. anon for this*

            depends. If I am not being compensated for handling emergencies in my job, then I will not be answering the phone. Heck, I literally do not provide my phone number to my current work for this reason (and when I’ve had to, I put the number on do not disturb outside of work hours)- you may email me at my work address, which I will not be looking at until Monday morning. The organization’s lack of foresight and compensation does not make it my emergency. What can I say, I’m over being called off hours uncompensated (I had a job where this was a thing and I had to put boundaries in place- you want me as a part time underpaid hourly employee for a job that needs full time coverage? You get what you pay for. Had a fun conversation with my boss, and all issues were meant to be forwarded to the full time person who was on the clock). That said, no it wouldn’t have been ok to go off on whoever called me off hours0 but I DID remind them later of my hours and that I wouldn’t be available/reachable otherwise.

            1. HonorBox*

              So let’s play Devil’s advocate. Let’s say Jane calls Elvira and she doesn’t answer because it is the weekend. Jane is stuck unable to get into her hotel room, and unable to be prepared to do the business she’s out of town to do. You’re the boss and get a call Monday from Jane indicating that Elvira wasn’t available to help (again, presumably it is within her job description because Jane called her when she needed help) and Jane was stuck without access to her room and wasn’t able to do her work. What do you do then? We can talk all we want about people being properly compensated, but that’s Elvira’s conversation to have with her manager/employer. It doesn’t mean you just ignore someone, leaving them without the proper tools they need to do their work.

              1. Polly Flinders*

                Indeed, what’s technically required is not the same as what’s humanly reasonable, and I agree it would have been worse if Elvira had refused the call and left Jane with no place to stay and/or having to go to great lengths to solve a problem that Elvira could have fixed with a phone call.

                I’m sorry Elvira had to take a work call on a weekend, and for all we know this company should be organizing out-of-hours support differently, but it seems like Elvira’s social skills would make her unsuited to that particular job duty regardless.

            2. Polly Flinders*

              Logically, it either was reasonable to expect Elvira to take the call, or it wasn’t. If it wasn’t, Elvira had the option of not taking the call, rather than taking the call and expressing her hate for Jane in the process.

              This is moot now because LW1 has confirmed it was Elvira’s job to take the call. It may be arguable that it shouldn’t have been Elvira’s job, but in that case it also isn’t Elvira’s job to tell her coworkers she hates them.

    2. HonorBox*

      I’ve been in Elvira’s shoes before, and it may be that Jane wasn’t able to solve her problem on her own. If there’s an issue with a corporate card, there are certain things that we (cardholder) can do but other things that only an authorized person can do. We have to assume, per site rules, that LW is to be taken at their word. So we have to assume that Jane NEEDED to call Elvira.

      Stranded is appropriate. While Jane wasn’t stuck in the Mojave desert without transportation, she was traveling for work and was unable to use her company card to check into her hotel. That’s a pretty difficult situation to be put in, especially because there are plenty of instances where, on this site, people push back strongly on someone having to pay personally for work expenses. It might have taken quite a bit of time to get reimbursement. It might be that Jane’s card was already maxed out. We don’t know and that doesn’t matter.

      1. Rachel*

        That is why i said “my opinion hinges on.”

        It is possible Jane tried everything she could before calling somebody on the weekend and she didn’t have personal funds to cover the room. Then I think the answers here are appropriate.

        What people seem to be ignoring is that it is also possible Jane’s card was declined and before doing anything else herself, she called Elvira on the weekend and Elvira had to walk her through very basic adulting steps to solve this problem.

        Elvira’s communication about Jane is not appropriate. It is a problem. But I sympathize more with Elvira if Jane lacked the skills to solve this on her own and jumped immediately to calling somebody else on the weekend.

        I think there are a lot of missing details that could sway this.

        1. HonorBox*

          But per site rules we need to take LW at their word. Had there been additional details, they could have provided them. Unless we’re seeing that Jane didn’t try anything else, or could have solved the problem on her own, or something else, we are supposed to just know what we know.

    3. Lady_Lessa*

      What would happen if she didn’t have a credit card that would cover the room? She would be out of town and no place to stay and expected to work there. I would consider it stranded.

      Personal trip, I agree, but you have more options when travelling just for yourself.

    4. Managing While Female*

      Your opinion on whether Elvira was correct in going on a rant about how much she “f*cking hates” Jane is dependent on the amount of legwork Jane did before calling Elvira? How is that relevant? I think we can assume that if Jane called Elvira, it was because she had no one else she could call in this particular situation. Even if it was just a panic response on Jane’s part, it doesn’t justify Elvira’s response. You’re going up and down the comments section calling everyone ‘dramatic’ but what about Elvira’s response? Isn’t going on an expletive-filled rant against a colleague while she’s literally on the phone and can hear you and your boyfriend is saying you need to chill out a tad dramatic?

    5. Clementine*

      Yep. There also tends to be a large contingent here of people who just don’t want to accept that in some jobs you are to be accessible off the clock. Sure you may not be “on-call” in an official sense but if there’s an issue that happens after hours your expected to be reachable via phone. It’s very, very possible that this is part of Elvira’s job. It’s also very, very likely that her reaction came from not liking Jane not because she got a work call on the weekend.

      1. Polly Flinders*

        This. It is not Jane’s fault that she has to call Elvira out-of-hours if she can’t get into her hotel room.

        If the company’s processes are wrong, that’s the company’s responsibility, not Jane’s.

      2. WorkerBee*

        If the employee is hourly and they aren’t getting paid for being on call it’s wage theft.

    6. Colette*

      I don’t think it matters. Elvira was unprofessional, regardless of whether Jane was correct to call her.

      It seems like Elvira was the right person to call, but even if Jane got it wrong, Elvira’s behaviour was wrong.

  39. amoeba*

    LW1: I’d also try to combine/streamline – we also have a pretty intense interview process, but it’s generally two rounds only, of which the second one is a half day or full day on site. Four separate meetings would annoy me, especially because of all the waiting for a decision between each round.

    For me, a normal schedule would be:

    1. 45-60 min interview with hiring manager plus potentially one or two colleagues. (around 5-10 candidates, although possibly more)
    2. On site interview including technical, HR, panels, grandboss….. including a presentation you have to prepare in advance, typically.
    3. Offer.

    We don’t typically do first round HR screens – mayyybe if you have much more than 10 qualified candidates, so, say, to get down from 20 or 30. Or if there’s really some formalities that are unclear from the applications.

    So for you, I’d suggest something like:

    1. Interview with you (6-10 candidates)
    2. Writing assessment for the top 3-4
    3. Final round interview with those 3-5, where you discuss the results of the assessments and have both the colleague and the ED present (either consecutively or, as I’d prefer, both together so you don’t have to do all the intro things twice… you can have one of them start with the questions and then have the other one take over for the second half!)

  40. PotsPansTeapots*

    LW3 – I was recently hired for an entry-level plus job (there were some skills expectations, but it’s the lowest position at the company). There was a 45-minute skills assessment and I really appreciated it – I thought it was a chance to show off my skills and I thought I got a feel for the kind of work and expectations. I don’t think you should get rid of your assessment if you can help it.

  41. Elsa*

    LW3, in addition to the cuts suggested by Alison, I bet you could do without the phone screen at the beginning. It should actually be easy to check whether you need it or not. Next time you’re interviewing candidates, look over the resumes of the ten candidates who will get the screening call, and decide for yourself (based on the resumes) which five you think are the best candidates. Then see if the screener’s conclusions after the ten calls are the same as what you had already thought. If not, see which candidates do better on the next round – the ones chosen by the screener and not you, or the ones whose resumes you had liked from the beginning. If the screener isn’t picking up on stuff that you are missing when you look at the resumes, then you can skip that step.

  42. Lizochka*

    LW2 – the presence of women or BIPOC on the executive team is not always a sign that things are healthy either. I was once one of 5 women, 3 of whom were BIPOC, on a leadership team where we still felt unwelcome, unheard, and forced out. It can be hard to tell this from corporate materials, but it’s worth trying to find out if any of those women have been in a leadership position for more than a few years. That’s about how long we’re willing to take being marginalized.

    1. kiki*

      Yeah, I’ve also seen companies react to complaints about lack of diversity on their leadership team by promoting women and people of color to kind of made-up leadership roles. The roles sound important enough that their photographs appear on the website’s page for the leadership team, but they have no power or meaningful say in anything. Except when something complicated and hard is going on, then these women and people of color are told to create plans to handle things but also given no resources and essentially set up to fail.

    2. Pita Chips*

      That’s a really good point. Some of the information might be available on LinkedIn.

  43. Mehitabel*

    Re: LW #3 and the written exercise — IMO, unless the exercise is being done in-person and in real time, I think that they are not as valuable anymore as they may once have been. I once hired someone who had done very well on a written exercise that he’d done on his own time and then emailed in; it turned out someone else had written it for him, because once he was on the job it became clear that he struggled to write a coherent paragraph – and communicating with clients via email was a huge part of the job. I had to let him go before he’d completed a month on the job because he simply could not do the work. And nowadays a lot of people just use ChatGPT to do their writing for them — and I guess there is nothing wrong with that (I personally really dislike the practice, but I try not to be judgy about this). Chances are quite good that if you do ask for a written exercise, you’re going to get back something that is AI-generated or AI-enhanced.

  44. Suzie the Doozie*

    LW1 – I would gently push back on the “white” men perception. I have 2 friends who are biracial and who appear to be “white”. (One is a redhead.) Photos are especially deceptive. My cousin, on the other hand, is often perceived to be African American as he is dark-skinned – courtesy of Italian grandparents. I would also offer that you don’t know if any of these leaders have disabilities or are part of any other underrepresented class.

    1. Peanut Hamper*

      This is such a stretch that the rubber band is in danger of breaking.

      I’m not saying this doesn’t happen (I am also biracial and white passing to most white people), but if LW is concerned about it, that concern shouldn’t be downplayed because there is a 0.000001% chance that the majority of these dudes are white-presenting biracial people.

      1. Orv*

        Also biracial people who pass as white generally benefit from white privilege. Most people don’t check your family history before deciding how to treat you.

    2. kiki*

      As a white-passing biracial person who is also neurodivergent, I’m pushing back on this. If an organization’s best presentation of diversity is me, the organization is still not diverse enough. If you are an organization who is only diverse in ways that are not visible that’s not really enough. To me that says, “we love diversity that is easily digestible and nobody can identify from the outside.”

  45. Hiring Mgr*

    If the exec team being all white is a dealbreaker that’s understandable, but I’d say if you are truly passionate about what they do AND they’re making the world a better place it’s at least worth a conversation

  46. CastielNeedsHisOwnShow*

    To reframe a bit? For #1? You had an *admin*, whose job it is to assist other employees. An employee called for assistance, and the admin treated her disrespectfully, inappropriately, and entirely outside the level of decorum expected in ANY professional interaction?

    As noted by Allison? You’re a manager. A leader in the company. You have not only the right but the *obligation* to take this up both with her direct manager and with HR. At the least? This would require a formal apology to Jane (in front of others to drive home the point, since it sounds like this is not unusual behavior for Elvira) and a PIP. At the most? And if this was my employee? She’s be emptying out her desk and not coming back.

    Civilly assisting employees is her job. If she can’t do her job? Especially after being coached *already*? Fire her.

    1. Polly Flinders*

      Agreed. This is all very basic stuff. The question isn’t “Was Jane wrong for following company policy?” or “Is company policy wrong?” or “Is Elvira’s job description unreasonable?” or “Can Elvira reasonably be held responsible for her actions?” although those are relevant questions – to which the answers are no, no, no and yes, in that order.

      The question is what does LW1 do about this, given that she is a manager, but not Elvira’s manager; and that Jane doesn’t want to say anything, and that saying something is likely to provoke retaliation against Jane?

  47. Nancy*

    LW1: you didn’t witness this, you heard it secondhand. Stay out of it. Make sure when employees travel they have the number of the person who actually is ‘on call’ or who booked the travel in case something happens.

    1. HR Friend*

      Yes, this! I’m sure Jane’s emotions were heightened due to her travel difficulties. So I wouldn’t be surprised if she misremembers exactly what was said. Not excusing cursing at a coworker, but as you say, LW didn’t hear the conversation and she’s basing her report entirely on what she heard from Jane.

      And the speculation that Elvira was drunk is unnecessary. That’s the sort of unfounded rumor that can really damage someone’s reputation.

      1. tabloidtained*

        Are you literally Elvira’s HR friend, or…? Because these excuses you’re making definitely make it seem like you are!

        1. HR Friend*

          Nope. I just have a different take on the situation, but thanks for asking!

      2. metadata minion*

        I had read the comment about Elvira possibly being drunk as actually giving her some leeway. She wasn’t formally on-call and and one instance of being possibly drunk on a weekend on her personal time seems like a completely innocuous thing to wonder about someone unless you’re in an extremely anti-alcohol culture.

    2. SnackAttack*

      The LW pointed out that Elvira was listed as the emergency contact in the case of a travel/booking kerfuffle. Even if she weren’t, that wouldn’t give her the right to behave that way.

  48. Plume*

    I’m sorry but the answer to LW 3 is also out of touch. There should be no “homework” for a low paid entry level job at a mission based non profit.

    I am in a competitive industry, pharmaceuticals, in an experienced professional level role, and my interview process was 5 steps (2 steps were the resume and job app that OP excluded from their steps) and contained no “homework”.

    1. Resume & Cover letter only 2. HR screen (I assume Hiring manager then looked at these resumes to further reduce the pool) 3. Job application after passing screen(s) 4. A single 1-hour interview with hiring manager and the executive who would be part of the decision process. 5. Offer

    1. Colette*

      It depends on the job. In some cases, it makes sense to have a skills test to make sure you’re hiring someone who can do the job. “Entry level” does not mean unskilled. If you’re hiring for a job with writing or data analysis requirements, it makes sense to screen out people who don’t have the skills.

      1. MsM*

        And if a 1-2 paragraph communication to a fictional stakeholder (which is the kind of assignment I’d give a candidate whose professional writing skills I didn’t feel like I could assess from their cover letter or any samples they provided) feels like an overly onerous task, it’s definitely not going to be the kind of thing they’ll enjoy doing day in and day out for not much pay.

      2. Plume*

        The skills test shouldn’t be homework. If it absolutely has to happen it should be small enought to be completed on site.

        That said if my company can do well hiring scientists, statisticians, chemists, analysts, marketers, etc. etc. without these tests I think other companies can too.

    2. Sneaky Squirrel*

      Entry level often can mean that the candidate has obtained a bachelor’s level education or equivalent in X field. This is not the same as unskilled work. If the field is writing or math heavy, it makes sense to ensure candidates can complete the tasks by administering a test.

      1. Plume*

        I’ve had a lot of success in hiring competent analysts fresh from college without a skills test.

        We just talked through our work and asked about their internships, and on the rare instance of someone with no relevant background, talked about their coursework.

        If the hiring manager trains up how to effectively screen the resumes and interview the candidates there really isn’t a need for a skills test IME.

        1. MsM*

          I’m sure that works great in an industry where your coursework is likely to be directly relevant to what you’re doing, but while there are more undergraduate nonprofit/public policy programs than there were when I was in college, there still aren’t a lot. And only screening for applicants who’ve done internships instead of needing to take whatever paying work they could get leads to problems like LW2’s lack of diversity. Can we agree that while five steps are indeed too many, maybe one process doesn’t serve all sectors or roles equally?

        2. Colette*

          There are a lot of jobs that do not have a direct path from an educational program. (In fact, I think it’s probably most jobs!) And a lot of people are poor at evaluating their competence in things like using excel or writing (especially since good in one context is inadequate in another). Short skills tests can be really valuable.

          Yes, they’re probably irrelevant if you’re hiring pharmacists or electricians, but there are lot of jobs where they’re useful.

  49. JC*

    OP2, this isn’t great but I (a woman) wouldn’t personally take it as a reason to run away. I’m the only woman on the 6-person executive team where I work, at a smallish org of 120 people. When I joined the exec team it was all men. It’s certainly not a good look, but at my org I also haven’t felt like I wasn’t welcome or had no chance of making it to the exec team. I work at an org that is engineering-focused, which is part of how we got to be so male-heavy. That’s not an excuse for having zero women at the top for a while but an explanation.

    I’d also want to note that our executive team is all white, myself included, and I can’t speak to how people of color at my org feel. I’m sure they don’t feel good about it!

    1. Sneaky Squirrel*

      It’s not a deal breaker for me (cis white female) but it’s not a good look and I would suggest probing into what efforts they’re making towards DEI to ensure that there is a good faith approach as opposed to lip service.

    2. anon_sighing*

      For most BIPOC people, even if there were white women in there somewhere, I wouldn’t view their board and executive line-up in anymore of a favorable light than it is now. The systems that have the most dangerous repercussions for me most are not on gender grounds, they are racial. The form of sexism I’m subjected to are colored by the perceptions of race.

      (I’ve had white women colleagues compare racism in the workplace to sexism they’ve face. But…hello? I also present unambiguously as a woman? So, maybe I’m very jaded because okay…)

  50. Silver Robin*

    just a quick language note, Alison:

    Tribal nations are not “considered” sovereign, they just are. Their sovereignty is not conditional, nor the result of 3rd party assessment (like how one might be “considered” for a position, or “considered” a great leader) and we are not giving them special “consideration” by acknowledging sovereignty. Especially as the US continuously undermines this very sovereignty at every opportunity. It is a subtle language thing, but I think it is worth adjusting.

    As an analogy, we moved away from “preferred” pronouns because “preferred” implies an differentiation from default. Nobody has “preferred” pronouns, they just have their pronouns.

    1. Steve-O*

      When we nitpick perfectly well intentioned language to this level we make it impossible to discuss things.

      1. BikeWalkBarb*

        Or, to describe this differently, when we provide a clarification on legal status we give people the opportunity to improve their understanding, particularly on topics that have been treated so very, very poorly in our educational system over the years.

        Nothing in the remark makes it “impossible to discuss things”. Hyperbole, on the other hand, doesn’t advance the dialogue much.

      2. Gidoombiigiz*

        Being well intentioned, which I’m sure Alison is, doesn’t mean it’s impossible to hear feedback, to learn, or to make adjustments to how we discuss things. A gentle call-in shouldn’t make it impossible to move forward with a conversation, and to suggest otherwise is a disservice to us all.

    2. MourningStar*

      As someone who lived on a reservation, I’d like to say while I don’t have blanket ability to recommend language, this is a common use of English, and saying something is “considered to be” (Consider: ‘regard (someone or something) as having a specified quality’ – MW), is saying that it has the qualities one is discussing.
      Besides, the reservations and tribal entities are subject to some United States Congress administration – which creates understandable confusion on sovereignty. I’d say in that respect, using even a minor qualifier is fair.

      1. Silver Robin*

        And the folks I spoke to, also from reservations, disagree, so I made the suggestion.

        Lots of things are common use of English and also play into uncool dynamics. Like declaring folks “man and wife” upon marriage was pretty standard even in my lifetime (not sure why that was the first example that popped into my head, but here we are).

        Yes, the legal systems are absolutely confusing; I think it depends on the goal. Most people do not recognize Indigenous sovereignty at all or realize it exists. And we are not in a legal space where that turn of phrase has a particular context. In that case, adding a qualifier (though accurate from one view), adds a qualifier to something folks are already primed to dismiss. Forgoing the qualifier reinforces the sovereignty.

        My suggestion was not taken, so the matter has been addressed as far as this instance goes. It was, after all, just a suggestion.

        1. MourningStar*

          While I disagree with your initial suggestion, I would like to show my support for your comment of “Most people do not recognize Indigenous sovereignty at all or realize it exists… [it is] something folks are already primed to dismiss.” This is an incredibly valid and cogent point, especially in today’s legal, political, and social climate.

          My reservation has warnings near the borders that you “break a treaty, break a law” – and those aren’t just friendly or cute reminders to tourists.

          I may have made them differently, but that doesn’t change the fact that your comments are make very important and correct statements on the view of many towards native governance.

  51. djx*

    We’ve had good success with the following process for entry-level hires:

    HR screen of 10ish people passing rankings with recommendation to 3 or 4 for me the hiring manager to interview.

    I interview 3 or 4 and pick one.

    Then my boss (CEO) does a 15-minute interview with my top pick – both to look for red flags I might have missed and to re-sell the org to the candidate.

    Once the top pick declined, so my boss had to interview one other person.

    Adding in a skills test would be fine. More than three interviews is too much for entry level.

  52. bamcheeks*

    I feel liket he responses between OP2 is showing a clear split between:

    – look, the fact they hired any women or people of colour is just one of those things! There just aren’t many women or BIPOC in this industry. It’s not deliberate. I’m sure if you are good, they’ll see that immediately and you’d be the exception.

    – they are no women or people of colour on their board because they have overlooked talented women and people of colour and preferred white men, probably at lots of different levels of the organisation, and they didn’t even know they were doing it. Am I going to believe I’ll be the exception to that? Or is it more likely that I’ll be right in front of them, doing great work, and they’ll be looking past me at the white guy with half the experience but lots of ~potential~? And they won’t even know they’re doing it, because they’ve never, ever asked themselves that question.

  53. OP3*

    Thanks for the comments and advice! Shortening down to 2 interviews and the written test (plus the 15 minute HR screen that’s necessary for some of the logistics eg salary range, availability etc).

    The written assessment tests a critical competency for the position (written English) in an international hiring market where it is not a given and there are differences in spoken vs. written fluency. Same with the ED, this is an entry level role, but does interact quite often with the ED. I’m on the team that supports him directly, but this role will be more supporting us as we support him.

    Interestingly, retention is not an issue across the organization. The past few hires for this role have moved on to other teams internally and are thriving (under the same ED). We’ve reworked the job description substantially and have added the written test because the mismatch has been in their ability to communicate clearly with external stakeholders. That wasn’t caught during the past interview processes so might have over corrected slightly in an effort to avoid a repeat of a past situation. Thanks for the insights.

  54. Sneaky Squirrel*

    #1 – A lot of the responses seem to be attempting to justify Elvira’s reaction because it was a weekend call to Elvira’s cell phone when Elvira wasn’t supposed to be working. If Jane didn’t follow procedures or makes this a habit then that should be addressed directly. However, Elvira’s words should still be addressed with Elvira’s manager or HR.

    #3 – Too many interviews for entry level. Can you cut out #4 and/or 5, or combine some of them?

  55. Bella Ridley*

    If I wrote in with a letter about two colleagues and saw that the comments section was wondering why I didn’t give a full recounting of every policy and structure in place for workplace travel as well as a full debrief of everything Jane had done prior to that point, I would never write into this website for advice again.

    1. Rachel*

      Elvira was wrong.

      Jane may need some coaching on using the on call procedures properly and problem solving on work travel.

      These can both be true at the same time, I don’t understand why the comments section is so viscerally averse to the concept that two people can both need improvement.

      1. HonorBox*

        We can’t say that Jane was in the wrong, though. What coaching does she need if the company card was declined and Elvira was the person who could help her fix it?

      2. Managing While Female*

        LW confirmed upthread that sorting out these situations is Elvira’s job, weekend or not, ‘on-call’ or not. Jane also could not afford to pay for the room herself. Elvira may have been frustrated by having to solve a work problem over the weekend, but that frustration should never have been taken out on Jane.

        1. Polly Flinders*

          This. Gee, I wonder why Jane doesn’t want to escalate this incident? Is mystery!

      3. SarahKay*

        OP#1 has added comments (near the top of the comment section) that it is actually Elvira’s responsibility to deal with these issues.
        Could you now stop trying to throw blame at Jane?

    2. HonorBox*

      Yep. I’m pretty appalled that not only are we not taking LW at their word, people are also not remembering that not everyone gets to punch the clock at the end of the day and totally leave work behind. It sucks to get a call during your off hours, but sometimes things happen. And it seems that many are overlooking the fact that Elvira likely was someone – maybe the only one – authorized to assist in this type of emergency situation.

      1. Kitry*

        Possibly my background in emergency medicine is skewing my reaction to this, but a) describing being unable to check into a hotel as an emergency seems like a wild overreaction, and b) calling someone about work when they aren’t on call is a serious boundary violation. Not respecting off hours can lead to burnout and mental health problems and is unacceptable.

        Elvira’s behavior was aggressive and unacceptable, but so was Jane’s.

        1. HonorBox*

          LW posted above that Jane wasn’t able to cover the room herself and it is Elvira’s job to handle situations like this. So maybe not an emergency in the same way a medical situation is an emergency, but not being able to do your job properly is pretty serious too. Jane didn’t call Elvira to discuss TPS reports. She called to get help, which is neither aggressive or unacceptable, nor does asking someone to actually do their job violate boundaries.

        2. Rana*

          Huh??? Being without accommodations in a strange city is, in fact, an urgent situation that requires fixing within the next few hours. If having to handle an urgent travel issue periodically leads to burn out and mental health problems, Elvira needs a different job.

        3. Polly Flinders*

          It would have been a wild overreaction if Jane had called the emergency services, but Jane called the admin whose job it was to handle the situation, and unfortunately the situation arose out-of-hours. It is not Jane’s fault that this happened, nor that it happened out-of-hours.

          People are using the word “emergency” figuratively, because the context isn’t emergency medicine. A more accurate term might be “irregular situation”. It’s unfortunate for Elvira that her job required her to handle this irregular situation, and unfortunate for Jane that she had to do it, but according to LW1 it was SOP for this company. As such, calling it a “serious boundary violation” seems like hyperbole.

        4. Albatross*

          What would have been the correct solution, then? We’ve established that Jane had no other housing, and that there was no one else “on call” to deal with it. Obviously spending the weekend sleeping in the lobby is not an emergency in the same way that a medical emergency is, but it’s also not good from a mental health perspective.

          1. Managing While Female*

            Seriously. I don’t know how to read Kitry’s comment other than being wildly dismissive. It wasn’t a heart attack so Jane should have just sucked it up and… what? Slept on the streets rather than inconvenience Elvira? She couldn’t afford to pay for the room herself. It was Elvira’s job to sort out these types of situations (as LW confirmed above). I don’t understand the need to condemn Jane for reaching out to the person she was INSTRUCTED to reach out to in case something like this came up during her trip, or why there are so many people so quick to say that Jane is the problem.

            1. Polly Flinders*

              At this point we know Jane was following company policy when she called Elvira, so if people think Jane should have gone against company policy rather than call Elvira, they should say that.

              It’s clear that’s not really why people are criticizing Jane’s actions more than Elvira’s, though.

            2. Kitry*

              I hadn’t seen the letter writer’s comments when I posted that. I still think that calling Elvira was not an acceptable solution, but it sounds like the company is the problem more than Jane. I mean, if the response to any time sensitive travel issue is to call Elvira, then what does that mean for Elvira’s quality of life? So she never gets to go hiking in an area with no cell service, or get too drunk to deal with work issues competently, or just turn off her phone and go screen free for a day? That’s not a good solution!

              And if Jane wasn’t able to float a night in a hotel on her credit card she is probably underpaid.

              If I was the owner of this company.I think I would solve the problem by giving all my employees who travel a one time travel bonus of a few hundred dollars and make it clear that going forward, there is no after hours support for travel and the bonus is meant to cover any urgent expenses until they can be reimbursed.

              1. SnackAttack*

                But…like…Jane was literally following the protocol. She couldn’t check in, so she called the listed emergency contact. This is super standard stuff – I’ve never been at a company (either on the traveler side or the travel arranger’s side) where there isn’t after-hours support for travel issues. And the LW didn’t indicate that this is happening all the time.

                Also, there are a lot of reasons why someone might not want to put such a big chunk of money on their credit card.

                1. Colette*

                  Agreed. And I doubt Elvira is support for 200 people who are constantly travelling; it might be 10 people who each travel for 3 days of the year, which still leaves a lot of time for Elvira to be out of work mode.

              2. ConventionAdjacent*

                This is still a pretty large step to take. That Elvira is the support person for people traveling doesn’t mean she’s going to get calls regularly. It sounds from LW’s description that this was something out of the ordinary. That someone is the contact for an urgent situation doesn’t preclude them from doing something that isn’t work-related. Elvira didn’t need to sit by her phone “in case Jane called” which is why LW states that she may have been drinking.

                There are plenty of reasons that Jane wouldn’t or couldn’t put the stay on her personal card that don’t have anything to do with pay rate. And giving someone who is traveling “emergency cash” seems like a potential internal control issue that a lot of companies wouldn’t want to touch with a 10 foot pole.

                Asking someone to be available on the off hand chance that a coworker needs support isn’t at all out of the ordinary, and I find it really strange that so many people are so willing to make sweeping changes when the main problem is that the person whose job is to provide support in an urgent and unforeseen situation is so put off by it that a coworker hears them swearing about it.

              3. Property damage and fleeing*

                Have you ever worked anywhere before????

                Jane didn’t do anything out of the ordinary and the company’s procedures all sound pretty standard and normal. The “solutions” you’re suggesting (“giving all my employees who travel a one time travel bonus of a few hundred dollars and make it clear that going forward, there is no after hours support for travel and the bonus is meant to cover any urgent expenses until they can be reimbursed”, for example) and acting like Elvira can’t have any off time ever are just so wildly ridiculous that they have to be jokes. That’s not how the real world operates.

    3. anon_sighing*

      For me, the confusing thing in this letter is the letter says Elvira wasn’t “on call” but clarifies in the comments that Elvira was indeed “on call”– she’s “on call” every time someone travels and needs support with the card.

      That’s the reason why the policy was being asked — it appeared, before one critical piece of info, that Jane was just calling Elvira out of work hours for help (i.e., Elvira is doing her a favor vs Elvira is doing a core function of her job is a big distinction).

      1. Polly Flinders*

        There is such a thing as ad hoc out-of-hours support for situations that arise infrequently enough that they don’t merit hiring staff to cover shifts nor having staff on-call.

        If this happens so frequently that the company should be hiring staff or should have staff on-call then that’s a separate issue. The question as framed doesn’t imply that that’s the case.

        By saying Elvira wasn’t on-call, LW1 was explaining that Elvira had the right to be drunk, or hang gliding, or doing basically anything at all, at the time when the phone rang.

        By saying Elvira may have been drunk, LW1 is implying that Elvira may have been making a careless mistake in allowing Jane to overhear her, instead of maliciously intending for Jane to hear, or negligently not caring if Jane heard or not. That’s speculation, and not really all that relevant, but it’s an attempt at giving Elvira the benefit of the doubt.

      2. I should really pick a name*

        How is that critical information?
        How would it change the advice?

      3. Colette*

        If I’m on call, I can’t drink or go skiing or go on a long hike in the woods, because I have been notified that I may have to work.

        However, if a rare situation comes up that I would be the best person to address, I may get a call even though I am not on call. If I don’t answer it, that’s OK because I wasn’t on call, but if I do answer it, I am then working.

        Elvira wasn’t on call; she wasn’t working until Jane called. At that point, she was working, not on call.

  56. HonorBox*

    Even if the business is large enough to have someone on call for weekends/after hours, it might be that the person on call isn’t the right person to handle something that comes up that is abnormal. Elvira may very well be the only one (or one of the only ones) authorized to assist in a situation like this.

    A good friend is a manager who has to be on call a few weekends each year. But depending on what happens at the workplace, they may need to reach out to another manager who isn’t on call because they’re not in a position to weigh in on a broken machine or they’re not authorized to order a part. That’s something that can happen that would be outside of normal “on call” duties.

  57. TheBunny*

    LW2: It’s a concern but I think it’s worth asking in the interview. Some companies were incredibly late to the realization that this is important and they are doing it wrong. I’d be curious to see how they reply to direct questions, but I would go in very cautiously.

    LW3: Way too many steps. You are going to lose all but desperate “will take anything” people from the process. And I’m not saying that people who really want a job aren’t potentially great candidates, they absolutely can be. But the more you empty the pool, the closer you will get to no longer being able to look at your top picks because they will be telling you they accepted other jobs or now have competing opportunities due to how long you took.

    My former employer did something similar. It was like everyone believed that if 900 people interviewed the person, no one could be blamed if they didn’t work out. Hiring for this company was a constant game of candidates backing out, withdrawing due to length of the process, or showing up with competing offers they didn’t have when they applied because during our process they applied, interviewed, and were offered elsewhere.

    Managers were frustrated as their top picks never were hired, HR was ready to scream. It was not pretty.

  58. some*

    For #2, as many others have mentioned size, age, and geographic location of the company are factors that should be considered. Also, racial diversity is one of many equity make-ups that can be considered. I am not saying that the executives are diverse, but sexual, ethic, religious, economic, and physical diversity are not always as easy to discern from a quick google. There is no harm in interviewing to obtain more information.

  59. BikeWalkBarb*

    LW3, if you calculate the time cost of all those steps for the people involved in-house I don’t think you’ll find you’re getting the return needed to justify it. I’m a division director in a public agency. We’ve filled 10 positions in the last 18 months including 2 interns and we have a rock-star team. The interns came in through a pooled recruitment with multiple departments involved in the interview. Every other position we filled requires a fair amount of experience in which they’ll be very self-directed much of the time and we don’t put them through what you’re doing. I’ve also been a nonprofit ED; it was a tiny organization, no HR. I was then #2 at a larger nonprofit, created the HR function and it reported to me.

    What we do to fill positions in my division:

    HR does the first pass on whether applicants meet the minimum required qualifications. From there they aren’t involved in any of the interview process. They don’t know what we know about the position and don’t have capacity to do this for every part of a really big agency. They approve all our interview questions and scoring rubrics and ensure that we’re running an equitable process that meets legal requirements. All our interviews are via Teams and we plan for the possibility of tech going wrong and reassure candidates glitches aren’t held against them.

    1: Search committee reviews and scores all qualified applicants on a rubric HR has to approve. This is based on elements of the job; we choose which topics to score on in this first cut and define what gets 1 point vs 5 points or whatever math we’re applying. This step gets us to a decision point about how many to interview as semi-finalists. We usually have a clear break somewhere. So far we’ve been able to get this list to 5-7.

    2: Search committee interview. This reduces the number to 2 or 3.

    3: Depending on the position we do usually have a written exercise. Our positions require critical thinking, a lot of writing, and the ability to organize and present technical information. We give them a length and time frame and it’s not like taking their SATs; we don’t have time to read long responses. They submit those in advance of the next step. We tell them we’ll be discussing their response in the next interview. This step doesn’t screen anyone out; we wouldn’t ask this work of anyone who isn’t worth interviewing as a finalist.

    I wouldn’t do a written exercise for your entry-level positions; that may be where they’re getting to write about exciting policy stuff and you’re setting expectations the job won’t fulfill? It just isn’t worth your time to score or theirs to do the work for entry-level. If writing ability is really critical you have their cover letter and could ask for samples of written work, not a new product.

    4: Finalists interview with as much of my division as we can get calendared at the same time–everyone including our admin assistant who’s the one who has been communicating with the applicants about scheduling. How they respond to meeting her and how they interact with her tells me how well they will work with our team, which has a low power differential, and she’s a keen observer whose opinions I value.

    They’re asked to describe their thinking on the written exercise, which gives us a sense both of their technical knowledge and how well they can explain their thoughts to an audience. We always ask a question about their commitment to equity and environmental justice and how that has shown up in what they do, including volunteer or lived experience as well as work (our job descriptions say that we consider these forms of experience in meeting minimum/preferred qualifications–still working with HR to build their understanding of how to score that).

    So far, this process has yielded a clear top candidate every single time.

    5: Check references, clear it with HR, supervisor calls to extend offer.

    If we had two finalists who were so close we couldn’t choose, the person they’ll report to could do one more interview. That hasn’t been necessary. I’m a participant in our second interview and group discussion of the finalists so I have what I need to provide my thoughts. I don’t do a final interview as the director; I trust the judgment of my two top managers who have the direct reports.

    I would expect an entry-level position’s supervisor to run interference for someone new with this “high-intensity” executive director, prepare them for it, maybe have a behavioral question in the interview about how they handle a typical scenario you know could come up. If your ED is landing their energy on top of new people at an unbearable level your labor-intensive screening process isn’t going to fix that. I also don’t know why an ED of a nonprofit big enough to have an HR function has time to do individual interviews with entry-level people. That time could be spent on big-picture leadership or fundraising–better use of their time. Maybe none of these are things you can change but again, search process isn’t a solution.

  60. Random Academic Cog*

    Our HR does a paperwork review, but they don’t understand what we’re looking for anyway and make some wildly inaccurate evaluations about which candidates are highly qualified. I found my most recent hire in the “not competitive” panel and made them move her so I could bring her in for interview. She recently hit her anniversary and she’s been outstanding in the role.

    How are the 10 people being selected? If the hiring manager has input into that initial selection process, I would 1) make sure the job description includes “musts” under the criteria and 2) include those “musts” as questions (if possible) like “Do you have at least a bachelor’s degree?” or “Do you have at least 1 year of experience with ?” so people who don’t meet the minimum criteria are tossed. Then skip the HR phone screen and combine that into the hiring manager phone screening slot. Go from there to the written exercise for the people you want to pass over to the panel, then do a combined 1-hour with 30 minutes for peer panel and 30 minutes for ED. That will result in around 2 hours total with 90ish minutes being during standard working hours, which is a reasonable time expenditure from the applicants.

    1. HR paperwork evaluation > forwards max of 10 candidates (and you can always request an opportunity to review the screened-out applications if they aren’t reasonable choices).
    2. Hiring manager call – 30 (up to 45 if unavoidable) minutes > forwards max of 5 candidates
    3. Written assessment – 30 minutes, due within 2-3 days > hiring manager reviews and forwards max of 3 candidates
    4. Panel/ED interview – 30+30 > forwards recommendations to hiring manager

    You can block out potential interview slots for step 4 ahead of time (try to have 5 or more options for 3 candidates) and then provide those options immediately to the 3 people you advance to final interviews.

    In theory, the entire thing could be handled in 5-7 working days, though you might want to schedule step 4 the following week or two to give people who already have a job time to sort out any necessary leave. Also try to spread out options for morning, lunchtime, and evening to better accommodate candidate schedules.

  62. badger*

    Just a pet peeve on #5 – if you talk to multiple lawyers and they all tell you the same thing, the conclusion shouldn’t be “they’re all bad lawyers” simply because none of them has told you what you want to hear.

    (do talk to a tribal lawyer; they’ll hopefully be familiar with the options for redress *and* they’ll be admitted to practice before the tribal courts, both of which are critical when dealing with legal issues involving indigenous nations. Or, depending on where you are, one or another of the law schools may have some sort of an indigenous law center which can at least point you in the right direction.)

  63. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

    #3 – if steps 2, 3 and 4 all have value and the ED can not interview more than 2 finalists why not combine it. Send the writing exercise to the list that HR has screened, have them complete it and then do a joint interview with you and the other team member – either simultaneously or back to back in one session.

    You get better people if you don’t drag out the process so long that they have other options that they have to make a decision on.

  64. WhyAreThereSoManyBadManagers*

    If I knew ahead of time I’d need to go through SIX separate interviews and a writing exercise, for a low level entry position, I’d never apply. Really hope the OP gets the message from all the responses that it’s too much to ask of an applicant…too much time off from their other job, too much time period, too much effort involved from everyone.

  65. Plume*

    Yeah I got a lot of pushback when I said a homework exercise for entry level simply isn’t OK anymore.

    I get the sense that those pushing back either have retention issues like OP or have not hired entry level in a few years. This new crop of applicants is happy to walk away from requests that previous generations were willing to endure. I think it’s a good thing personally. The pendulum of power swung way to far in favor of employers during the great recession and made practically no progress back until around 2021.

    2. Radius*

      I just don’t think a half-hour exercise (to demonstrate competence at a task that should take 10 minutes once you’re on the job) is an onerous power grab. Just reduce the rest of the process by half an hour to make room for it.

  66. NotARealManager*

    Lw3,

    For an entry level role I’d combine steps 2, 4 and get rid of step 5.

    But if the Executive Director really wants to be involved, then maybe add a step 5 back in or combine steps 2, 4, and 5 together, but for fewer candidates.

  67. DC 18*

    One thing to note – it’s not always better to have one long interview day as opposed to multiple 3o minute ones. Some people can get away from their jobs for half hour or an hour at a time but taking a whole day or half day off might not be doable.

  68. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain*

    #3 I think one thing for you to consider is that entry-level positions “struggle with retention” in general because they’re entry level. You don’t give specifics, but if they are staying about a year, that’s pretty average unless you have a good professional development channel that they can move out of entry level quickly. If they are seeing that entry level is indefinite — until someone else quits or retires — they’re going to leave.

    The second thing that stood out to me is the amount of time for each of these interview stages, although 5 stages is a lot for entry-level. If you don’t want to eliminate any stage, cut the time down. 15 minutes for written assignment unless the job is >70% writing (but it doesn’t sound like it). Hiring Manager — 45 min is fine — why not tack the Team Member interview on the end as a last 15 minutes? A 1 hr interview slot is pretty common IME, and less disruptive to schedules than 2 shorter interviews on different days.

    I guess if you’re down to 2 candidates, and you really need a tie-break, sure a 15-30 interview with the ED sounds good; but for entry level, if you really have a top candidate after steps 1-4, it sounds like a waste of time. Entry level is a short-term gig…1-2 years max…for most people.

    1. OP3*

      Thanks! The hope is to get people to stay 1.5-2 years until promotion or more likely, grad school. Last two hired moved to other teams internally after less than 6 months as there was a big mismatch of skills. We’ve spoken with HR and are trying to avoid that happening again.

  69. anon_sighing*

    Sorry, I think I missed it or I’m still a cup of coffee behind but why does Jane think it’s okay to call Elvira on the weekend when she’s not on call?

    I guess I have a slightly different take but Elvira was impaired on her own time and private thoughts, which plenty of people have, slipped out because she was impaired and didn’t mute her phone. It unfortunate and deserves a talking about because it happened, but what will Elvira be punished for? Not liking Jane? Not muting her phone? Will she be reminded to mute her phone before saying things like this? Tell her to stay sober and dictate how she behaves in her free time?

    Sorry – Elvira doesn’t seem like an issues to me here. Jane is lucky she got help at all because I would have told her off, politely and professionally, for calling me on my free time like that. :\ Absolutely not okay.

    1. anon_sighing*

      Okay, I saw LW1 confirmed Elvira needs the be available for this type of emergency but I am confused why in the letter it says she “wasn’t on call.” She should be “on call” (i.e., sober) if someone is traveling and may need her. The company then needs to make it clear how available people need to be because frankly, what is Elvira was blackout drunk by that point? Jane would have zero support.

      I still maintain that you cannot HR these two into being friends. You just need to tell Elvira to be more discrete.

      1. LW1*

        LW1 here. Sorry to be confusing in the original post. I hesitated to use the phrase “on call” because that’s more of an official designation. I usually take it to mean the person “on call” gets any/all after-hours calls and they can’t be under the influence during the time they’re on call.

        In our small company, certain jobs can be expected to receive the occasional after-hours call. These responsibilities are made clear up front. Employees who take after-hours calls receive a company cell phone and, depending on their exempt status, can take overtime or flex time to make up for the weekend work. Because these calls are infrequent, it would be unreasonable to expect employees with a company cell phone to remain sober at all times.

        1. Awkwardness*

          The way you put it in the letter made complete sense to me and this is not as unusual as some comments make it seem.
          At old company, there was staff that was explicitly “on call” during the weekend on a rotating schedule. Others might be called after work in case of an emergency and therefore had company-issued cell phones. As an example, nobody would have expected the head of production to be sober at weekends the whole year, but there were things that only he could decide in case of one of those rare emergencies!

    2. tabloidtained*

      If you take a look at the other comments, the LW says that Elvira was the emergency admin contact. Jane did exactly the right thing in calling her. The LW specified that Elvira wasn’t on call to indicate why it was okay for her to (potentially) be drunk.

      Regardless, of course Elvira is the issue! It is never acceptable to verbally abuse your coworker at length, for any reason. She failed to meet a basic standard of professionalism and cordiality and it seems to be a pattern with her.

      1. NotARealManager*

        But Elvira is “on call” if she’s the emergency admin contact? Though I agree once she was on a work call (drunk or not) her behavior towards Jane is unacceptable.

      2. anon_sighing*

        I think you wrote this a minute after the comment above when I noticed LW1’s clarification — LW did Jane a disservice in the letter by not clearly stating Elvira is “on call.” It’s a HUGE distinction.

        She didn’t verbally abuse Jane at length – that’s painting a distorted picture when what happened was Jane overheard Elvira’s tirade about her. There is a huge difference between in intention when it’s “I’m talking to X about Y and Y overheard” vs “I’m talking directly to Y.” I tried to look quickly to see Elvira’s other behavior but I am not sure where LW1 recounts them in the comments. What happened was unfortunate and upsetting for Jane, but I don’t see this as purposeful.

        Jane needs LW’s protection and her wishes respected on how she wants to proceed. Honestly, there are so many letters here about “your management sucks and it won’t change” and “your coworkers suck and it won’t change” — this is one of them. I have to ask again, what consequence do people want Elvira to face? There’s so much “Elvira is a nasty person” and pitchforks out but zero solutions and zero thought to Jane’s comfort.

        1. Polly Flinders*

          If Elvira is on the phone for work, and she doesn’t know how to use the hold function, and she says things that shouldn’t be heard on the other end but are heard, that’s a basic failure of telephone etiquette. Adults with jobs shouldn’t be making mistakes like that.

          I don’t know what consequences Elvira should face, but if it’s really a mistake arising from incompetence with telephones then Elvira’s management needs to know so they should retrain her and never let her take calls from customers until the retraining is complete. And since Elvira is supposedly being coached to not be abrasive to coworkers, whoever is coaching her needs to know the score.

          I think this deserves a written warning myself, and I wouldn’t consider incompetence with telephones a mitigating factor, but rather a reason to question why Elvira is in a role involving phone use at all.

  70. Joe Lies*

    Re#2….I worked for 20 years for a large national company. I watched white guys come in as entry level staff rocket to upper level management in just a couple years. An opening would arise at the executive level and we’d take bets on which young white guy would get the gig, leap frogging over excellent candidates who were women or people of color. A 20 something I taught how to use the fax machine is now VP.

    It sure is something to consider.

  72. Mark This Confidential And Leave It Laying Around*

    For LW#3, the deep interview process is another reason your applicants expect a higher level job. Too many nonprofits (incl where I work) get so jazzed about the mission and aligning with new hires, they give every single new hire the impression they’re being brought on to save the world. It’s just a job. Fill accordingly. Presumably applicants know what you do and are attracted to it. You can screen for that without the ED getting involved.

  73. Lizy*

    OP2 – Definitely go in with questions. When I was interviewing for my current job, I had a similar experience — the board/leadership was all white men, and there was at least one Glassdoor review that was rather critical of the AWM leadership thing… (rightly so).
    So I was hesitant. Turns out that the company had/has gone through some major changes, and the leadership is actively shifting in diversity. It’s slow-going, as many of the upper-level staff tend to stick around for AGES, but I have noticed a definite shift in the make-up of newer hires, across the entire company.

  74. Anonamama*

    LW 3 – when I hired an entry-level-ish position last year (we were looking for 0-2 years experience) we had very similar steps to yours, but a different overall structure. I think it’s really important to be clear with yourself about the purpose of each step in your process, and simplify it for the candidate wherever possible — to avoid “oh they should talk to Jane because they might work with Jane sometimes”

    Step 1: Recruiter phone screen (15-30 min)

    Step 2: 30 min written assessment; hiring manager interview (45-60 min)
    We sent the written assessment at the same time we reached out to schedule the interview, and interviewed regardless of quality of assessment. Since the role was more junior, it was most important to me to hear their thinking and see how they’d respond to questions/feedback. We didn’t screen anyone out directly based on the assignment, and that made it simpler to schedule/fewer distinct steps for the candidate.

    Step 3: Peer interview (30 min)
    The peer interview was to assess domain expertise, since I’m not an SME in the area I was hiring. Plus getting an additional perspective on soft skills/fit, since only having me assess that seems like a source of bias.

    Step 4: Grandboss interview (30 min, optional depending on situation)
    The grandboss (i.e. my boss) interview was to have a gut check if I was very iffy on something, since I don’t have a ton of hiring experience (so I might ask my boss to probe Topic X or Skill Area Y, and see what he came up with). If I was very enthusiastic on the candidate, it could be skipped and we’d just make the offer, or we could schedule it for after the offer went out to make it more of a “we’re so excited to hire you and bring you on board” call.

  75. It's Marie - Not Maria*

    I used to be the HR Manager at a First Nations owned company (read Tribally owned). I can confirm that they can legally do preferential hiring to candidates who are individuals who identify as First Nations, and that the majority of US Labor Laws do not necessarily apply (although we followed many voluntarily).

  76. Raida*

    2:
    How can you bring it up without them feeling accused?
    Well, since you have framed this as: “They’re all white men – how are they not ashamed!”
    I’m curious what exactly you think *wouldn’t* be accusatory in you having a severe negative opinion of them *personally* from these photos?

    Mate, you clearly have a different perspective to the guys that are successfully running the company.
    The question is – are you going to treat them like they’re ars*holes for not diversity-hiring at the top? Or are you interested in the job you are offered?

    If you are only interested in the job if it means a career path at the business, well then you need to discuss that frankly.
    If you are interested in the job as offered, then you need to decide if your distaste from this misalignment between their perspective and yours when it comes to diversity is palatable or not to you, at the pay rate offered.

  77. RedinSC*

    The current job I have right now was a 45 minute single interview with 2 people.

    It’s relatively senior (though a step back professionally for me). I wasn’t prepared for that, as I didn’t get a chance to really ask my questions, but I really wanted this job, and thought, Ok, I’ll accept and see how things go.

    At my last position, when I was hiring, we were more like the LW. 15 minute phone screen, and then interview with hiring manager, team interview and for the more senior people time with the CEO. This was 3 contacts. phone screen, in person or zoom individual and team meeting. And then the CEO if needed.

    None of my jobs were very entry level, they all required some experience, but like the LW we wanted to make sure that the candidate was a good fit and give them a chance to make sure we were a good fit for them. All told, it was less than 2 hours, though.

    We required a cover letter as the writing sample.

  78. DivergentStitches*

    I did say something about lack of diversity in an interview once. They’d asked what I liked at my current company and I said I really liked their diversity ERG and employee engagement around diversity topics. I mentioned that I’d noticed on their website that their board appeared to lack diversity, and asked if they had a diversity plan or DEI initiatives. They acknowledged that the board was very white and male (fwiw, the interviewers were 2 white ladies), and said they had plans to institute DEI intiatives, but hadn’t yet.

    I didn’t get that job. No idea if my question was a factor.

Comments are closed.