my employee wastes too much time on bad ideas

by Alison Green on September 27, 2022

A reader writes:

I am a manager for a small but extremely busy office. I have one employee who is part-time and comes in only a few afternoons a week. She wastes a huge amount of time pontificating about every little detail about her job, always making suggestions of how things could be done better, and constantly seeks my advice for even the smallest thing. I am always open to suggestions, but when she makes suggestions it is normally a long-winded conversation about how and why, etc. and I often end up explaining we have tried to do this before and it hasn’t worked and these are the reasons why, but I am extremely busy and I am finding it really frustrating and a waste of time. She is also very quick to put other staff members down to me about mistakes she finds, even though they have more complicated and busier workloads and are all there full-time.

I always recommend staff email me suggestions for the next team meetings, but she has emailed me more suggestions herself then everyone else put together. She has also started to text me on my day off even though there are senior staff members to address queries to on that day. Any suggestions of how to handle this would be really appreciated.

I answer this question — and three others — over at Inc. today, where I’m revisiting letters that have been buried in the archives here from years ago (and sometimes updating/expanding my answers to them). You can read it here.

Other questions I’m answering there today include:

  • Should we consider a candidate’s hot-button political views in hiring?
  • Can I ask for a chance to process things at work before responding?
  • I don’t want to hire someone I worked with in the past
You may also like:
{ 113 comments }

{ 113 comments… read them below }

  1. Melanie Cavill*

    Admittedly, I’m quite curious what #2’s Hot Button Issue is and if it would make me very angry or not.

    1. DisneyChannelThis*

      Prev comment section on the letter in 2018 had more details and a tiny update: https://www.askamanager.org/2018/06/hiring-a-candidate-with-controversial-political-views-my-boss-doesnt-like-it-when-women-curse-and-more.html

      OP#1*
      June 14, 2018 at 10:28 am

      Thanks for your answer, Alison! I agree that it depends on the issue and the organization. In hopes of clarifying a few things: The candidate came across as nothing but professional in the interview, so we weren’t given cause to think this person would be bringing up their stance on the issue often or at all while at work. And there are definitely others in our company who have the same views as the candidate. Furthermore, this particular viewpoint isn’t one that I believe would negatively affect our organization as long as the candidate maintained a positive demeanor in their public persona/social media when supporting their stance. The folks involved in hiring who had opposite views from the candidate had expressed concerns about the candidate’s judgment, which honestly rubbed me the wrong way because I don’t think someone’s judgment should be called into question because they have views that don’t jibe with mine (hate speech and bigotry aside). I also think (as I believe some readers commented above) that hiring folks with different backgrounds and viewpoints will ultimately strengthen our team. I don’t want a team of robots who will “yes” each other at every turn; rather, I want all of us to be open to discussing new ideas, sharing our opinions, and understanding each others’ views (all pertaining to work, of course). Realistically, this doesn’t come without some friction, but if we agree to come together to argue/discuss changes or ideas without making it personal, I believe we’ll be stronger for it because we’ll be taking every side into consideration before moving forward.

      And an update on this candidate: They were not as strong as other candidates in the skills required for this position, so we decided to go in another direction. Interestingly, when we looked a little further into this candidate, we found that they had resigned from a public position after an arrest (and a very short tenure in the position). The candidate didn’t mentioned any of this in the interview, which was a concern because it wasn’t hard to find (ie, it was the first thing to pop up in a google search). If we had moved the candidate forward in the hiring process, we would have most definitely asked about this. People make mistakes and none of us is without fault, but that they didn’t address this particular misstep (which did affect their career path) in the interview – and knowing that we would find out eventually – seemed like a lapse of judgment on their part. Also, lesson learned for us in researching candidates a bit more before the interview.

      1. Azurelion*

        “The folks involved in hiring who had opposite views from the candidate had expressed concerns about the candidate’s judgment, which honestly rubbed me the wrong way because I don’t think someone’s judgment should be called into question because they have views that don’t jibe with mine (hate speech and bigotry aside).”

        WHAT VIEWS, though? If we’re talking a QAnon supporter or an anti-vaxxer, then it absolutely is legitimate to question that person’s judgment, and the anti-vaxxer could legitimately cause harm to other employees.

        Not all opinions deserve respect, especially if they’re not based in anything approaching reality.

    2. High Score!*

      Eh… that’s the thing tho, what makes you angry might not make someone else angry. A conservative Christian would define someone with feminist views as “hateful” and vice versa. So where do you draw the line?
      Obviously bigotry=hate but I’ve seen people call people with differing viewpoints bigots where that was not the case.
      The sad thing about modern politics is that no one is listening and everyone is shouting. Disagree with me? You’re a racist hater bigot misogynist etc…
      If we made a point of listening and trying to come up with reasonable compromises and solutions then we’d be better for it.

      1. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

        Wanting equal rights isn’t hate and if conservative Christians see femme presenting folks having the same rights as hate, that is a them problem. Conservative Christian women can do their own thing, conservative Christian men can appreciate and approve, but it is the trying to prevent everyone else from having equal rights.

        Femme presenting people who are feminist and want equal rights have a reason to dislike conservative Christians: they want to treat us as if we are not fully functional humans and want to limit our rights. This is a good reason to have animosity.

        2. Lenora Rose*

          “Obviously bigotry=hate but I’ve seen people call people with differing viewpoints bigots where that was not the case.”

          Maybe your experience is different from mine, but the only people I have seen called out for bigotry who weren’t bigots were 1 of two things:

          1: An actual bigot is trying to pull reverse racism or its equivalent (“someone called me a Breeder, therefore these LGBTQIA people are prejudiced against cishet folks! Gotcha!”)

          2: Someone said something dubious. Someone else said “Y’know, that was kinda racist” and person 1 accused them of calling everyone bigots because it was easier than rethinking what they said. Note, they were not called a racist.

          I also find it interesting that in your description of both sides you rattled off “racist hater bigot misogynist ” which are things left wing people tend to call people they see infringing on others’ rights, but you didn’t include the extended list of things right wing people call the people who disagree with them (“Libtard” “Socialist” “commie”). This leaves me thinking you might not be as even and balanced in your perspective as you would like to be.

          As for compromises, I think enough other people have debunked that. Not everything HAS a compromise. How do you compromise on the right to vote?

        3. Curious*

          If you are going to discriminate against employees or applicants based on their religious beliefs, that is a Title VII problem.

      2. Appletini*

        Increasingly the questions we’re dealing with are ones where a compromise would be akin to standing in the middle of a chasm. Either trans-affirming healthcare is available, or it isn’t. Either being trans is an indicator that a kid should be taken from their parents by CPS, or it isn’t. Either abortion is safely available, or it isn’t. Either same sex marriage will be put through the current Supreme Court and struck down, or it won’t be. Either same-sex marriage will be protected by law from the previous, or it won’t be. Either a given book will be banned from school libraries and/or stores, or it won’t be. And so on.

        And there’s also this, which happens a lot:

        “Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.
        You take a step toward him. He takes a step back.
        Meet me in the middle, says the unjust man.”
        — A.R. Moxon on Twitter

        1. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

          THANK YOU for this!

          If we had a “like” button here, I would be hitting it SO hard right now.

          *insert “you nailed it” gif*

      3. Willow Pillow*

        Why is it on me to compromise with someone who thinks I shouldn’t (be allowed to) exist? Not all perspectives deserve equal weighting.

        1. Stuckinacrazyjob*

          Nod. Politics should get back to being about ” should we have a playground or an extra library ” and less ” should these z people die?” Then everyone would be less mad.

          1. Sleepy*

            Right? Like, I can compromise on a budget. I can compromise on where the library is located. There is a lot I can compromise on. But I will not compromise on laws that limit someone’s choices because so and so doesn’t like it, it feels wrong to them, their religion says its wrong.

          2. Parakeet*

            Politics has always been about “should these z people die?” alongside “should we have a playground or an extra library?” Wars, enslavement, civil rights/Jim Crow, the right to unionize, women’s suffrage, Black suffrage, mass incarceration, militarization of the US/Mexico border, the criminalization and decriminalization of men having sex with each other…these are all politics. Politics is how society determines what its collective values are and allocates resources and protections accordingly, and people are right to get worked up about it.

            Which is to say, yes, there are a lot of things we shouldn’t compromise on. I just don’t agree with the implication that this is somehow new.

      4. Marie*

        I agree with this completely. The people who don’t are likely the people you’re talking about, on both sides.

      5. The Rafters*

        We had a temp who also interviewed for several permanent positions. We work closely with an LGBTQ+ population. This person made no secret of her dislike for that population and regularly made snide comments to heterosexual coworkers. We figured it was only a matter of time before she became truely offensive towards our clients. Needless to say, she was not hired permanently – and for the life of her, she can’t figure out why.

        1. Fishsticks*

          One thing I have learned about people with cruel politics – those who think rights should be removed from others, or that LGBTQ+ people should go back in the closet or cease to exist entirely, etc – is that they always believe everyone around them secretly agrees with their cruelty and is just PRETENDING to feel otherwise.

          So she’s baffled because, likely, she believed deep down everyone at your workplace agreed with her and was just putting on a nice face and didn’t grasp that other people might not be cruelly hostile to a group of people even if they aren’t part of that group.

      6. Lizzianna*

        I think the problem is that what one side defines as “politics,” the other side views as fundamental human rights. My husband has a sibling who is LGBTQ, and I have very conservative family members. They get mad when I won’t debate “politics” with them, but my in-law’s access to healthcare and right to exist isn’t up for debate in my mind. I don’t know how to compromise on that.

        I feel similarly on other issues involving under represented groups. If those groups are telling me that this is a matter of their survival, that is going to be more important to me than the “politics” of people trying to maintain the status quo.

        I also think that there is a big difference between someone trying to engage in these issues from a good faith perspective and someone who just wants to argue. But generally, those who want to engage in good faith are not shouting about the issue on public social media pages.

    3. Moonlight*

      LW3

      So in my line of work not hiring someone for having are you considered to be problematic views would absolutely be legitimate. I, however, should state that I do work that touches on antiracism, anti-oppression, sexism, poverty, domestic violence, bodily autonomy (so anti-abortion views would be an issue), indigenous issues, LGBTQ+ issues and so forth. I would have to wonder about the intentions and the judgement of someone who thinks that a job that touches on things like anti-racism initiatives would be a good fit when they hold oppressive views whether that is about LGBTQ plus people or about woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

      However, I wonder if that would have to be an issue in every case. Someone who is an accountant doesn’t necessarily need to be unproblematic in order to be effective at their job. (Also just in case someone comes along and vehemently disagrees with that I classify as problematic, sorry, that’s the language I use for this stuff, but I’m not looking to pick a fight or debate nuances of what problematic is in this forum).

      I wonder if it might be beneficial to have a conversation with candidates in this sort of a situation about publicly available information. Of course, if the issue is more akin to my job and you have legitimate concerns about their ability to do the job, do what you will there. But if it’s more akin to an accountant/ finance /admin role (but NOT HR, marketing, or something that requires sensitivity to employees in different circumstances or disseminating info to the public), I wonder if reaching out to just be like “I want to discuss X, can you tell me what role you see it having in this job, can you keep your views in check as it wouldn’t be appropriate in this role for Y reasons?” And see if that assuages your concerns.

      2. D'Arcy*

        I think it *does* have to be an issue in every case. Anyone who has *any* discretionary decision making authority at all in their job and harbors such beliefs *is* going to introduce their biases into that decision making.

        To use your own example, accountants with problematic beliefs are *exactly why* people of color were subject to segregation through redlining, and *still are* exactly why people of color find it so much more difficult to obtain housing etc.

      3. MK13*

        An accountant with these views would absolutely be problematic and their views would absolutely impact their effectiveness. I’m assuming that since the accountant was hired for the position that implies they have colleagues and fit into an employment structure with other humans. Someone who believes that certain groups are less than, should not have basic human rights, are inherently inferior, etc. cannot treat their colleagues, subordinates, support staff, clients equally since they do not believe they *are* equal. This leads to pay gaps, prejudicial hiring practices, redlining, sexual harassment, hostile work environments, and on and on.

  2. Anonymousfriend*

    I’m of the opinion that if the particular political viewpoint doesn’t impact a person’s ability to be a decent, kind, and respectful coworkers/team member/boss then there shouldn’t be any problem.

    There are political views that directly go against being kind, respectful, and decent towards groups of people, and employers needs to stop hiding behind “But it’s just their political view! We can’t do anything about policing their views!” and start addressing problematic behaviors.

    Also, I tend to think that the shoving of political views down coworkers’ throats is much more of a personality type and behavior that needs to be addressed than due to their holding of the political view. My coworker is very pro-gun in a mostly pro gun-regulation team, and though he’s expressed this before, there’s never been any tension or pressure or argument about what’s the right or wrong thing to do. He is both pro-gun and a great person to work with.

    1. Irish Teacher*

      “I’m of the opinion that if the particular political viewpoint doesn’t impact a person’s ability to be a decent, kind, and respectful coworkers/team member/boss then there shouldn’t be any problem.

      There are political views that directly go against being kind, respectful, and decent towards groups of people, and employers needs to stop hiding behind “But it’s just their political view! We can’t do anything about policing their views!” and start addressing problematic behaviors.”

      This is about the best expression of my view of the situation that I’ve ever read.

      I completely agree that there is a big difference between disagreeing with the view of the majority of your team about whether or not guns should be legal (or say whether it’s better to reduce taxes and have less benefits and services or increase taxes and have better benefits and services or stuff like that) and disagreeing as to whether or not some of your colleagues should have the same rights as you have. Something like “well, my belief is that you are going to hell” is pretty much incompatible with respecting the other person.

      1. NeedRain47*

        I guarantee you that many of my coworkers think I’m going to hell, and that this will be true at any job I ever have, because I am an atheist and I live in the midwest where christianity is the prevailing culture.

      2. Not A Manager*

        “Something like ‘well, my belief is that you are going to hell’ is pretty much incompatible with respecting the other person.”

        Is this really true? I hope it isn’t. I know people who absolutely have a personal connection with their deity that they believe is based on their conscious choice to make that connection, AND on their choice to symbolize the connection in particular ways. They believe that people who don’t have that personal connection *by definition* will not be present with the deity in the future. Those people will be somewhere else, where they will be perpetually not-connected to the deity. Not every religion preaches that hell is fire and brimstone punishment. At its core, hell is perpetual separation from God.

        I don’t see this world-view as a lack of respect for me. It’s more akin to saying, “if you don’t work really hard and have talent, you can’t be on the Olympic swim team with me.” I’m personally not on Team Baptism. To some people, my choice entails certain consequences.

        1. hbc*

          I would say it undercuts respect in the same way that atheists might think religious people are naive children who desperately cling to a myth as disprovable as Santa Claus to make them feel better. You can have pleasant interactions and even like each other, but there’s an undercurrent of…pity and condescension that makes true respect very difficult.

          Maybe we can call it situational respect. If they’re not actively thinking about the fate of my poor soul and I’m not actively wondering how they could miss the giant logic holes in Thomas Aquinas’ proofs of God’s existence, we can get along like friendly equals.

          1. Weaponized Pumpkin*

            I totally agree with this — I am guilty of it on the atheist side. Most of my friends/colleagues have some sort of belief and that’s not necessarily a problem, but I have learned that it’s best for my life partners to be non-believers. That touch of condescension that lurks in my judgemental asshole heart undercuts respect in a way that they don’t deserve so it’s really best for both of us if I go another way. (It’s on my list of things to talk to my thera.pist about because I don’t love this about myself. Why does it bother me so much? Why am I so reactive to it?)

          2. Marie*

            Maybe I’m being naive, but I think this speaks more to a personal trait of condescension and self-importance as opposed to holding a particular view (such as being religious or non-religious). You can have deeply held beliefs and not bring them to work, unless you’re in certain roles or fields where it’s part of the job.

            1. Properlike*

              Yeah, as an atheist, I don’t actually care (or often know) other people’s religious beliefs unless they make them known to me. However, I’ve found that a lot of people with religion confuse my personal atheism with me not wanting them to believe in their deity or talk about it even within the topic of milestones and religious celebrations/traditions.

              Not all atheists are intolerant of belief, just like all Christians aren’t right-wing Klan wannabes. Most atheists I know are humanists first and foremost, and so long as you don’t make me practice your religious beliefs, we’re all good.

        2. Tuesday*

          This. Also, almost every mainstream religion has some tenet about being kind to others and treating them with dignity, regardless of their views. You can absolutely respect and even love someone as a person while acknowledging that they aren’t adhering to the same set of rules as you.

        3. Admin of Sys*

          I was going to post a similar comment to this and realized I was coming at it from a non-Christian viewpoint. As someone who doesn’t believe in hell, I don’t really find the attitude that I’m going there insulting? But it occurs to me that someone who does believe in Christianity might be far more bothered if someone thinks they’re ‘doing it wrong’. Specifically, if it’s not so much a religious debate but rather something like “(our) god hates lgbtq+” type thing. I have worked with folks who was otherwise professional but thought my religious beliefs meant I wasn’t ‘saved’. But that’s a different flavor of ‘going to hell’ than a conflict with someone’s experience of gender/sexual identity.

          1. Properlike*

            True. One is attacking the belief (which they assume you can always change), vs. attacking the core of the individual (which they also – incorrectly – assume is a choice.)

        4. TechWorker*

          I don’t really care if someone thinks I’m going to hell. I do care if they think my lack of belief in any god makes me a ‘bad person’. (I guess still true that I don’t really care what they think, but if they make it obvious in their treatment then.. that’s not ok).

          1. Tuesday*

            I think this is an important distinction. There’s a difference between just recognizing that someone doesn’t adhere to your views and actively looking down on them for doing so. Whether you’re a Christian or an atheist (or Muslim or Jewish, for that matter), it’s not right to make negative assumptions about someone just because they don’t agree with you.

            1. Sylvan*

              But those negative assumptions are baked into some religions, which see their followers as inherently better than other people.

              1. Tuesday*

                I don’t think that “believing there will be divinely-arbited consequences for those who don’t share our beliefs” is the same as “believing we are better than everyone else.”

                1. Properlike*

                  No, but in some cases it’s overt: evangelicals thinking Mormons are “a cult” is one that comes to mind. Ironically, from an evangelical friend who believes themselves persecuted for their Christian belief because not everyone wants to follow evangelical Christian tenets. Ah, irony!

              2. DyneinWalking*

                But people aren’t a carbon copy of their religion. Most people pick some things they like/see as a core part of the religion and ignore other bits. (I guess it helps that religious scriptures tend to be contradictory within themselves, that parts of them tend to be vague and open for interpretation, and that many religious people are practical enough to realize that the texts were written by humans for the society of their time with the (limited) knowledge of their time and that thus the morals and rules for everyday living won’t all fit onto modern life)

                I know several religious Christians and Muslims who basically condensed their belief into “there is an omnipotent deity who created everything and I praise that deity by living (within reason!) and praying according to the traditions of my specific religion”. They are perfectly fine and intelligent people who put the “be kind to others”-part of their religion way over the intolerant parts. To be honest I have no idea how they are able to pull off the balancing act between religion, science, and multiculturalism – I myself maintained it for a few years as a teen but eventually reached the point where I just couldn’t fit religion with the other two anymore and switched to agnosticism – but apparently there are people who can maintain it for a lifetime. I don’t understand it, but I can respect it.

        5. FrivYeti*

          As someone who doesn’t believe in Hell, my gut feeling is that if someone both believes in Hell as a concept and believes that I am going there, they are acting on the beliefs that I am so morally corrupt or bankrupt that I am deserving of a literal eternity of torture.

          I find it hard to believe that this won’t affect their actions towards me, either out of a desperate desire to ‘save’ me from this fate, or out of a condescension towards me for my disastrous life choices.

          I also feel that this is a pretty different thing from “when we die, you won’t get X eternal reward”, which does not imply a horrific punishment. A lot of religions, including many branches of Christianity, have resolved the Hell problem in that way. I don’t find that disrespectful and am perfectly comfortable with those religious traditions.

          1. Irish Teacher*

            Yeah, that is basically what I was implying.

            Not A Manager (and you) did make a good point in that there is a lot of theological debate about hell and not everybody necessarily sees it as “burn for ever,” so perhaps I picked a bad example or phrased it badly. I should perhaps have said something like “well, my belief is that that need to change your ways or you will face everlasting punishment” is incompatible with respecting the other person. I do think most people who tell others they are going to hell tend towards the “everlasting punishment” interpretation.

            1. allathian*

              Yes, I agree. Thankfully I live in a largely secular society, even if we have not one, but two state churches (Lutheran and Orthodox). People who proselytize at work or preach fire and brimstone are largely seen as outliers, at least in the larger cities. In some parts of the country, a conservative Lutheran sect, Laestadianism, is prevalent, and for a non-Laestadian, working for a Laestadian-run company might be difficult. Their central tenet is that women should marry early and have as many children as they can, even if it kills them, so most Laestadian women are SAHMs, but most of the men are small business owners, and some are big business owners…

      3. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

        Yep. Disagreeing about the role of the government vs private non-profits, federal vs local control of programs, direct cash benefits vs criterion based, Medicare for All vs Medicaid for All, etc. is fine and honestly awesome for a workplace because different approaches to problems on a team leads to better solutions. Someone thinking others have less rights or are damned for existing as they are isn’t politics, it is bigotry, and has no place at work

      4. Sylvan*

        Something like “well, my belief is that you are going to hell” is pretty much incompatible with respecting the other person.

        While it is, it’s also such a common belief that we can’t do much about it.

        I’m an atheist living in the South. There are plenty of people who think I’m going to Hell in just about any workplace. Instead of dealing with this, which just isn’t possible, I focus on what people actually say or do.

    2. Clobberin' Time*

      Yes, this. I raised an eyebrow at the OP’s describing her colleagues’ concerns about this candidate as “bias” and the OP’s own more relaxed view as being pro-team-diversity. That whole oh-but-we-don’t-want-an-echo-chamber routine get slung around a bit too often as an excuse for being spineless in the face of indecent, unkind, and disrespectful views on hot-button issues.

      1. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

        Yep. Different ideas about federal vs local control of funding and decision-making for programs? Fine. Different ideas about who is fully human? Nope.

        1. Curmudgeon in California*

          This. If their politics mean that they don’t consider members of X group fully human or deserving of equal rights, then that’s a red flag in my book. If their politics are just about, say, state or federal as primary driver of policy, that’s fine. They aren’t trying to deprive others of their humanity or rights.

  3. lost academic*

    I’m very sympathetic to someone’s need to process things, but I would say the advice should also recommend considering what the typical turnaround time is for input and decisions in that particular field and role. In mine, for instance, asking for that much time is unreasonable and disruptive and suggests you’re not going to be a good fit for the work we do because we just can’t afford for that much time to be spent – unless you’re a truly entry level employee, it’s not reasonable to have that much time.

    I am also not that we should necessarily conflate thinking on your feet with being an extrovert. Framing this as an intro/extrovert situation is potentially obscuring more material issues with the decisions required and the timeframe.

    1. Wintermute*

      You said it well, first it has nothing to do with extroversion/introversion, and second, it’s all relative. In my field asking for days on anything that matters would torpedo your career if you did it more than very, very rarely, but asking to send an email after the meeting is over would diminish your impact and result in it being less likely your input is heard but wouldn’t single you out as being a poor fit for the role.

      1. TechWorker*

        I think it can be to do with confidence though. I have folks on my team who don’t speak up enough in meetings because they prefer to think things through/are worried about looking silly or getting something wrong. (When often the people on the other side of the discussion know less about the issue, have thought about it a lot less, and are just often confidently wrong :)).

    2. Weaponized Pumpkin*

      I’m very much like LW3, I really do better thinking on my own and not in a group on the spot. However, I often do not get that time because my work is like you describe. If we’re in a critical work session, we expect to have the discussion together and leave the room with key decisions made. There may be an opportunity for me to take a piece and flesh it out later when I have time to think, but some amount has to be done right there. (The worst part is I’m often running these group collaborative sessions. I’m the one making people generate ideas and solutions on the spot, even though I suck at it! I try to be sensitive to this, and give that thinking time in advance if I can.)

    3. Just Your Everyday Crone*

      Except that it is widely understood that introverts generally need more processing time.

      1. TechWorker*

        I have never heard of this, though Google seems to agree with you. I do wonder about the merits of treating ‘introverts’ and ‘extroverts’ as practically different species who differ in all these ways (surely…like everything… it is a spectrum..?)

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          Yeah “introverted” and “introspective” may overlap but can exist separately. There are plenty of impulsive introverts or extroverts that need processing time. A lot of these things are correlation vs causation and we tend to overgeneralize both parties.

    4. J.B.*

      I’m struggling because I’m providing technical support for a lot of things and my boss wants to process and make decisions verbally… and it just doesn’t work. You can’t say what software should look like without defining real requirements so the in the moment decisions wind up being that cat video.

    5. Squeakrad*

      I came here to say distance. If you’re asking for a day or two for every kind of conversation when there are time sensitive issues to make decisions on, it probably isn’t a good fit for you in this role. I’ll go so far as to say I have an extremely complex job and I can’t think of many things where we could wait for someone starts for a couple of days except for very major decisions and for those everyone was given time to think about them.

  4. Wintermute*

    Regarding wanting time to answer– I think this is really, really highly contextual. There are some things that it’s reasonable to expect you to have thought about before, there are things where wanting some time to put together a reasoned and politic answer is a virtue, and there are things where not having an answer in the moment would be genuinely alarming and raise red flags.

    As an example, if you’re in a brainstorming meeting and someone turns to you and says “what are the three biggest challenges on the Venneman project you’re working on?” that’s something you should really know in the moment. If you’re in a shift meeting and the topic drifts to “how do we improve the sales of Product X?” then it would usually be reasonable to want some time. But if you were hired as a marketing expert for the Product X line, saying you need time to think about it would risk making you look like you have no idea what you’re doing.

    In general, I think whether you can ask for time depends on A) whether it’s reasonable of people to expect you to have thought about it already B) how central it is to your job C) whether you are a subject-matter expert, solutions architect, or other kind of role where having opinions like that is a large part of the value you’re bringing to the table, or if it’s tangential to your work and D) how much time you ask for.

    I think asking for DAYS is going to make you look bad in most cases of “critical work conversation”. You’d be better served by trying to “pre-process” as much as you can and anticipate what kinds of questions are going to come up and what opinions might be needed, and then asking for a much, much shorter period of time. In the pace of many businesses revisiting critical conversations days later is just not going to fly, they can’t wait that long, but they might be able to take your input last or let you follow-up after the meeting via email.

    1. Ann Ominous*

      That’s a really good point. The LW could stay current on certain metrics and needs, so they always have answers available to “could your department use this additional money that this other department couldn’t spend” or “what are your three biggest pain points” or “how has your department been doing in that arena”.

      You can then give a ballpark answer and say you can come back with details if they are needed. For example, you’d say ‘we are under-executing funds as well, but I can check if this particular project can get off the ground before the end of the fiscal year if we had the money; how much money are we talking about and when would it be received?” Or “in general we’ve been doing well in teapot sales and repairs, but struggling in marketing since the new handle design was released; if you would like exact figures let me know and I can send them to you” or “my top focus areas this year are launching the new ceramic design and expanding the overseas team to bring it to that area”

      Basically say something that shows you’re on your game and then ask for time to provide details.

    2. Educator*

      Yes! This is why I love meetings with clear agendas and resources shared ahead of time. I like to process things on my own, but I do it before I come to the table with others, and have my notes in front of me so I am ready to contribute on the spot when it is time to make a decision together. If everyone knows the topic and is ready to talk about it, I think a facilitator is much more likely to get results than with a few folks speaking off the cuff.

  5. Ann Ominous*

    LW 1: Jane’s behavior gets under my nerves in a way that is disproportionate and not reasonable in response to someone else’s employee that I read about on the internet. She reminds me of people I’ve previously known but had no ability/standing to influence.

  6. LW*

    The word “political” so often gets confused for “human rights.” Is this person’s history truly around politics, i.e. the local city budget? Or is it around whether teachers should be forced to deadname trans kids and out them to their parents? I don’t want to work with someone who doesn’t see other human beings as fully human, and that has nothing to do with their “politics.”

    2. to varying degrees*

      And hot button can be just about anything. When I worked in government/politics two big “hot button” issues were expanding library hours (more $$ and re-occurring) and building a new animal shelter (a lot more $$ but a one time only cost). They generated a lot of debate and public opinion, but certainly nothing that should get in the way of someone being hired in a completely unrelated job.

    4. UKDancer*

      This is really good as a distinction. I had an application for a job in my company from someone who had worked as part of an unsuccessful campaign for a regional mayoral election in a major British city. I would almost certainly not have voted for his candidate if I’d lived in that city but didn’t know anything specific to the candidate’s detriment.

      That said we didn’t have any problems interviewing the applicant because he’d worked for a candidate from a respectable mainstream political party. He’d also done a pretty good job showing relevant skills from his election campaign that would be useful for my company. If he’d tried to get the BNP or National Front elected, I would not have wanted to interview him because I don’t want to work with bigots and those parties are not in keeping with the values my company has.

      I’d agree there’s a difference between having political views and considering parts of the population not to be human.

    5. Glen*

      I am really interested in what definition people use for “political” that excludes human rights! They are fought for and against by political organisations and are about who does and does not hold power in our society. How can that be anything but political? I agree that they should be uncontroversial but I can’t see how they’re not political, especially at a time when the US government is messing with so many people’s rights in really horrendous ways.

      1. DyneinWalking*

        Well, you are basically right, but the things is that we don’t really have word for “political stuff that doesn’t include opinions on human rights. Combine that issue with the general agreement that good politics require a diversity of opinions and frank discussions… and you get people who argue in favor of not shutting down bigots and racists in the name of political diversity and freedom of opinion.

        And as a response to that, you get people like LW who try to differentiate with the limited vocabulary we have. In fact I’ve found myself making that same distinction – I’d argue it’s a very natural one, even if it’s not mainstream (at least, not ,yet – it’s a response to the current political human-rights climate and we really are in dire need of a distinction).

  7. FG*

    A side note about the political question. Charter schools ARE a hot button issue. That may not have been the case necessarily when they started, but these days it’s hard to see them as anything but.

    2. Wintermute*

      the way I read it, that was an example of a hotbutton issue that wouldn’t necessarily be disqualifying. Some issues are ones of basic human rights and dignity, whether they should approve additional local charter schools is something people can have very strong opinions about but doesn’t necessarily mean someone is a bad person.

  8. MissMeghan*

    Thinking on your feet and being able to communicate thoughts in real time are skills that can be practiced and honed. It’s why places like Toastmasters exist. There’s definitely a benefit to taking time to think on and analyze things, but being able to be present in the conversation and contribute in the meeting itself is also needed.

    People come in all varieties, but I think sometimes we are too quick to consider soft skills as immutable, when we can practice and improve them. I don’t think LW should despair or feel like this is how they’ll always feel in meetings.

    1. allathian*

      Yes, this. It’s very difficult to think on your feet if you’re nervous or have social anxiety. But with practice you can learn to overcome your nerves, and severe social anxiety can usually be medicated, and therapy can also help you deal with it. When you aren’t wasting your mental capacity on being nervous or anxious, it’s easier to be present in the moment and think on your feet.

      That said, some people have verbal processing issues that have nothing to do with either being nervous or having anxiety, they just need more time to process things.

  9. Risha*

    I really appreciate Alison’s answer to LW2. It’s sad that hiring managers will use something like that to disqualify a candidate. I understand disqualifying because racism, homophobia, transphobia of course…society has no place for such hatred and bigotry. But if I support issue A and you support issue B, why would I be out of consideration for a job? That’s nonsense.

    I have an opinion on an extremely hot button issue that is not very popular with many people. In fact, I fear for my current job if I were to state it at work (no, it’s not any bigotry against anyone). I so appreciate managers/coworkers who can realize we all have different opinions and also that type of stuff really doesn’t even belong at work. I go to work to make money, not to argue with people who cannot respect my opinions.

    Three jobs ago, I worked in a small office where 99% of people had the opposing view (which is also the most popular view). Someone, who wasn’t aware I’m against the issue, started urging me to agree with them and putting petitions in my face to support this issue that I’m dead set against. At that point, I did speak up and let them know how I feel about the issue. You could hear the record scratch and all noise stopped, everyone looked at me like I was public enemy #1. One person actually started arguing with me. At first, I let her run her mouth, then she said something way out of line and absolutely disgusting (I guess to provoke me) so I said something back. At that point, the manager told me to stop talking about it (!!!). Ever since that day, I was treated horribly by them and finally I was terminated 4 weeks later for falsifying my documents. Of course I never falsified because I take my job seriously.

    1. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

      Depends on the place of employment. My org provides social services, which include maternal-child healthcare, which includes full access to reproductive healthcare. If someone is anti-abortion and it was a hot button issue for them they could not work here. Their beliefs make them unqualified, no matter their skills

      2. DyneinWalking*

        I’d argue that the issue of reproductive healthcare falls under views on misogynism, which would be in the same category as racism and homophobia and thus not disagree with the point that Risha was making. I mean, arguing details like until which week abortion is allowed and such, and deciding against it for yourself – fine, not an issue at all, but I’d argue that someone who equates women who aborted with murderers would definitely be an issue at the work place. Imagine if a woman there is visibly pregnant and open about it, but then aborts due to medical complications – would someone who is strictly against abortions be able to remain friendly and respectful towards that woman?

    2. Appletini*

      Your coworkers should not have been arguing the issue with you at work, with the potential exception of if it was pertinent to the workplace. From context, it doesn’t look like it was pertinent. As passionate as I personally am about some issues, I think a general detente/”leave these topics alone” is usually the best path for the workplace. [Though I leave room for necessary exceptions]

      1. Risha*

        The issue definitely wasn’t pertinent to the type of work we do, in fact it had absolutely nothing to do with our line of work. At first, I tried to actually say “Let’s leave this alone, I don’t want to get into it”, but they kept going on and on and on and urging me to sign their petitions. They wouldn’t accept my refusal so I had to let them know where I stand.

        If one were to go to my personal FB page, it is obvious that I am in support of the opposing (very unpopular) opinion. I am part of groups who promote my views and groups that work to decrease the rates of this particular issue. My fear is that coworkers will see my personal page or somehow learn about my views, and it will affect me at work. A prior commenter said they are a bit touchy on the subject of abortion (but I never said what my hot button issue is). Being “touchy” on the subject and feeling a certain way doesn’t give managers and coworkers the right to fire me or not hire me at all because our beliefs clash. I understand getting rid of someone for having homophobic/racist/sexist views. But now it’s to the point where (general) you aren’t allowed to have your own thoughts/beliefs if it goes against the majority opinion. I scared of getting fired or picked on at work if someone were to find out my opinions on this topic. There’s no such thing as “live and let live” anymore.

        1. Tuesday*

          I prefer to imagine that you are very against wind energy because the turbines are so unsightly! (And I agree with your larger point as well, and am sorry that happened to you. I think it was tacky of your coworkers to be so pushy about their beliefs to begin with.)

  10. Gigi*

    The problem with any sort of Hot Button issue is that even if the person seems nice and chill about their views, it’s still going to rub someone the wrong way, sometimes justifiably so.

    For example, you may be fine working with a pro-gun advocate, but your coworker who worries about their child going through a school shooting (or may have actually done so) will always give that coworker the side-eye. Or a coworker that says “I just don’t agree with that lifestyle” will get raised eyebrows from the guy who just got back from his honeymoon with his husband, even if they’re pleasant in the office.

    There’s plenty of “reasonable” stances that will always alienate people on the other side of that stance. For OP #2, I would advise you to think about the others on the hiring committee, and see if this stance is one that would directly impact them, their rights, or their existence. Even if it’s not, I wouldn’t write off those concerns just because they don’t affect you.

    1. Just Your Everyday Crone*

      I hope you’re not equating those two issues or saying they’re both reasonable. The first, sure, the homophobia, no.

      1. Gigi*

        There’s a reason I put “Reasonable” in quotation marks. Some people assume that if a homophobe isn’t actively hateful, they’re “just expressing their opinion”. Then again, some people would find those opinions comparable, or who would think any anti-gun stance is unreasonable. Different people think differently about all sorts of things.

        It’s not great, but it is also important to keep in mind how other people think about this sort of thing, if only just to think on this more holistically.

    2. Appletini*

      This is definitely true. A lot of people put a clear line between speech and action, but saying something can be an action. Saying “Two men can’t make a real marriage” in earshot of one’s coworker who is a man with a husband is an action in a way that saying, “I really like Fall better than Summer, with the cooler air” just isn’t.

      I wonder if it would help to clarify the difference between believing something vs insisting on discussing it in the workplace. And yet as I type that I think of all the people who would accuse the man I just mentioned of “being inappropriate” and “sexualizing the workplace” for mentioning he has a husband, as if “I have a husband” and “you can’t have a husband, two men can’t get married,” are equivalent statements, when they’re not.

  11. Moonlight*

    LW3

    So in my line of work not hiring someone for having are you considered to be problematic views would absolutely be legitimate. I, however, should state that I do work that touches on antiracism, anti-oppression, sexism, poverty, domestic violence, bodily autonomy (so anti-abortion views would be an issue), indigenous issues, LGBTQ+ issues and so forth. I would have to wonder about the intentions and the judgement of someone who thinks that a job that touches on things like anti-racism initiatives would be a good fit when they hold oppressive views whether that is about LGBTQ plus people or about woman’s right to choose to have an abortion.

    However, I wonder if that would have to be an issue in every case. Someone who is an accountant doesn’t necessarily need to be unproblematic in order to be effective at their job. (Also just in case someone comes along and vehemently disagrees with that I classify as problematic, sorry, that’s the language I use for this stuff, but I’m not looking to pick a fight or debate nuances of what problematic is in this forum).

    I wonder if it might be beneficial to have a conversation with candidates in this sort of a situation about publicly available information. Of course, if the issue is more akin to my job and you have legitimate concerns about their ability to do the job, do what you will there. But if it’s more akin to an accountant/ finance /admin role (but NOT HR, marketing, or something that requires sensitivity to employees in different circumstances or disseminating info to the public), I wonder if reaching out to just be like “I want to discuss X, can you tell me what role you see it having in this job, can you keep your views in check as it wouldn’t be appropriate in this role for Y reasons?” And see if that assuages your concerns.

    1. Tuesday*

      I don’t think this is the right approach if the issue is truly unrelated to the role. I think you certainly could address outspokenness about politics in general, especially if the company has a social media policy and the candidate would need to stop posting about it. But it would be a little accusatory to call out the person’s specific viewpoint just because the hiring managers don’t agree with them.

      1. Moonlight*

        This might be true BUT I think it still matters because you don’t necessarily want someone on your staff who’s, say, overtly racist or sexist when you’re invested in promoting diversity.

    2. AnoninGermany*

      As someone who hires regularly in finance, I think the distinction between “is this view actively opposed to human rights for all people” and “is this just a controversial political issue” is more useful than distinguishing between the types of roles where this matters.

      Like, I don’t want an accountant who is making LGBT+ colleagues’ lives miserable or who refuses to work with ethnic minorities, even subconsciously. On the other hand, it really makes no difference to the work if the HR Business Partner at a bank or the snack foods marketing specialist is strongly in favour of using nuclear power (hot topic here in Germany).

      I also wouldn’t address it in the interview either way — either the view they hold is disqualifying or it’s not. If they won’t shut up about their politics after you hire them, handle it like any other performance issue and tell them to keep it to themselves at work.

  12. Moonlight*

    LW1

    I wonder if the employee wants to work full time, wants more money, feels undervalued compared to other staff etc and is resentful that other employees make mistakes and get to keep doing their thing while she thinks that she never gets recognition/ more status/etc for what she does. If something like that is going on, I wonder if it’s causing her to erroneously/ineffectively show that she’s critically thinking about the details of her job (cause if you see that, then you’ll clue in???) and show how the others are no better than her.

    I’m probably going out on a massive limb here. I’m just speculating and providing (a maybe unlikely?) perspective. Maybe she just sucks at her job and is trying to compensate by making sure you know everyone else makes mistakes and maybe she sucks as her job cause she’s fixating on the wrong stuff, evidenced by her asking questions and bringing up the wrong stuff. Etc. It might just be a bad fit bit I hope it works out either way.

    1. Dust Bunny*

      It kind of doesn’t matter, though. If she wants more hours and more respect, she needs to say so in words instead of doing this oblique “I’ll interfere with everything and hope they get the hint” thing. If this is her method of trying to get ahead, that in and of itself weakens her prospects to move to full-time, even if a full-time position is available (and since one isn’t mentioned, I’m going to assume that the LW is as staffed as they need to be and this isn’t on the table). I mean, it’s misguided gumption, and we’ve seen a lot of that on here.

      Also, the fact that she finds mistakes doesn’t mean that other staff members are screwing up all over the place–people will make occasional mistakes and if she’s combing others’ work for them instead of doing her own, again, she’s demonstrating that she probably has as many hours as anyone wants to tolerate.

  14. Tom*

    “if this candidate is advocating against the rights and safety of groups that may include some of your own employees, that’s additional reason to choose not to welcome that into your workplace”

    Sincere question because I can’t tell. Is this a reference to people with a pro-life view on abortion?

    1. Eldritch Office Worker*

      She specifically says hatred and bigotry. There’s a whole wide selection of hot-button topics that fall under that umbrella.

    2. Fluffy Fish*

      Surely you realize there are a whole host of things that fall under this category?
      There’s plenty of issues involving race, gender, sexual orientation….?

      Abortion is merely one.

    3. Fishsticks*

      There’s a whole host of issues like that, especially right now with increasing pushes to criminalize or ruin the lives of people for all sorts of discriminatory reasons, like homophobia, racism, gender discrimination…

  15. Gumby*

    Re: LW4

    While I think Alison’s answer is correct for now I also think it’s a good opportunity to ask yourself whether you were clear enough with the ex-employee/applicant when you did manage them. Are they just really oblivious that they think you loved their work and would welcome a chance to hire them again? Or did you never communicate that they were not quite up to snuff?

    I *hope* I am not wandering around thinking my managers are happy with my work when they aren’t. I don’t think I am since at least two have approached me to come to their new companies (I didn’t for either for various reasons but it was nice to be asked). But if I had a manager who I knew found my work somewhat lacking, I probably wouldn’t reach out about another role. If for no other reason than I’d think I had a better chance with a new manager who didn’t have that impression of me already.

  16. sam_i_am*

    I’m confused about why introversion is brought up in a question about longer processing times. Those aren’t related things?

        1. Eldritch Office Worker*

          I agree! But people extrapolate all sorts of incorrect qualities to both introverts and extroverts so a lot of us just hand wave the weirdness at this point lol

  17. Lizzo*

    LW #3: Are the conversations where you’re being asked to think on your feet ones that are happening spontaneously in the hallway, or are they part of meetings?

    If the latter, can there be a broader discussion of pre-meeting preparation activities, and adjustments that might give you a chance to reflect in advance of the conversation? As an extrovert who works with almost entirely introverts, I have had to adjust my approach to collaboration. This includes things like having some notes and key questions available in advance of meetings, plus a clear agenda.

    It was HARD because what they were asking for was very much *not* how I work naturally, but it’s been very worthwhile, because I can see how much happier my colleagues are, and how much more they contribute confidently.

  18. DANGER: Gumption Ahead*

    I think you and I have the same point. You can’t compromise on the right to vote, equal rights, or right to be treated a

  19. Hosta*

    If you need a chance to process before you can give an accurate answer, ask for the time. If you can ballpark/estimate with some accuracy you can say something like “my best guess is 5 widgets would be enough, but I want to double check my math/with my team/with my manager.” And then follow up.

    I suspect one of my colleagues needs extra processing time to answer questions accurately. Instead of just saying that clearly, they give all sorts of other answers often that contradict each other and then get frustrated the question was asked at all.

    Eventually to move up they’ll need to be able to accurately answer many of these questions on the fly. But for now the inaccurate answers are hurting their credibility and relationships more than asking for time to think would.

    A lot of the feedback on this question has hinted at anticipating the type of questions you might get so you have the answers ready. This is a vital skill as you move up in seniority. At my current level I have to anticipate the questions my boss will get and ensure he has an answer ready. It’s hard to learn by rote but you can try to force yourself to recognize patterns in which types of projects get which type of questions.

  20. JC*

    Seems like INC is down as of today: “As a result of the FastCompany.com breach, Mansueto Ventures (which also owns Inc.) is temporarily shutting down Inc.com out of an abundance of caution while the investigation is underway.”

  21. PhyllisB*

    I tried to access this article but got a message saying INC. had been shut down. Did anyone else have this problem?

  22. Shannon*

    Hi Alison, would you be able to post your responses to those topics here in your blog? Inc. is down and I think we’d all love to read these!

    1. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

      I was going to post about that! I’ve been trying to get to Inc. since last night, with no luck. Right now, it’s displaying this message:

      “As a result of the FastCompany.com breach, Mansueto Ventures (which also owns Inc.) is temporarily shutting down Inc.com out of an abundance of caution while the investigation is underway.”

    2. VLookupsAreMyLife*

      I’m assuming Alison’s contract with Inc prohibits that. The site will likely be back up soon, so maybe try again tomorrow?

  23. Karen Porter*

    The Inc site has been taken down due to “As a result of the FastCompany.com breach, Mansueto Ventures (which also owns Inc.) is temporarily shutting down Inc.com out of an abundance of caution while the investigation is underway”. Is there any way the content can be posted to this blog?

Comments are closed.