can my husband hang out in my office, asking coworkers to treat me like “the talent,” and more

by Alison Green on August 14, 2024

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

1. Can my husband hang out in my office at night until I’m ready to leave?

I am a woman in my early thirties. If I am going to stay late at night at work, would it be possible to bring my husband to stay somewhere in the office until I finish my work? Is it an unusual request to make?

It will vary by office. Some offices would be fine with it. Others have security policies that could make it tricky.

Are you wondering about it for safety reasons or something else (like, I don’t know, you carpool to work and your husband needs to wait somewhere until you’re done so you can drive home together)?

If it’s safety reasons, I’d raise that with your manager directly; if you need to stay late at work, you need to feel safe doing that and your employer should work with you to make that possible.

If it’s more “my husband is bored and needs somewhere to hang out until I can leave,” it would be better for him to find somewhere else to do that until you’re done (especially if it would be a regular thing).

2. How do I get my coworkers to treat me like “the talent”?

I work in an industry where there’s crew (the production peeps) and talent (people in front of camera or behind the mic). I’ve been crew for maybe 10 years now. But I’ve pitched a project of my own and will be behind the mic for it. Exciting!

Usually, the production peeps take a lot of care briefing the talent — what happens when, who’s handling what, next steps, etc., etc. But because I’ve been on the team and am part of the company and someone from outside, they are skipping all these steps with me.

Classic slippery slope. Initially, I didn’t mind, because we were still in my area of preproduction expertise. No need to brief. Now we are reaching post and I feel totally lost and worried about who’s handling what and is somebody handling it at all or must I be sorting it out, etc. It feels dramatic to now hit them with an email saying KEEP ME ABREAST AT ALL TIMES. And how do I transition from being a mellow fellow coworker to a fussy client with lots of pointers about editing and marketing and such? (I don’t go overboard with fussiness, I swear.)

“Hey, I know I didn’t initially need everything talent normally needs, but now we’re at a point where I do need the same level of support we give to people without experience in production. I’m realizing I feel lost about things like XYZ, so going forward, can you give me the same level of briefing you’d give anyone else, even if you think I won’t need it?”

As for moving from a mellow coworker to a fussy client with lots of notes … there’s just some inherent awkwardness in there that you probably can’t entirely avoid, but if you just jump in and do it, it’ll feel more natural in time. That said, your knowledge from being on the other side can inform your approach — be as detail-oriented as you want, but be kind about it. Think of it as taking the work very seriously, rather than taking yourself seriously; that usually helps with humility. (At the same time, I bet seeing the process from the talent side is going to make some things talent does that were annoying when you were crew seem less annoying now. That always happens when you do this kind of flip, and that perspective-broadening can be useful if you return to the crew side at some point.)

3. What feedback should I give to a temporary worker who didn’t get the job?

I became a first-time manager within the past year, so this is all new to me. My first act was to make a temporary hire for my old role until our organization could fill it full-time. I hired someone I knew from a similar org who had recently been let go for budget reasons. I am completely confident she knew it was a temporary position. Within a year, I got the greenlight to hire full-time. She applied and was a finalist out of a pool of several hundred applicants. But she lost out to someone with extensive specific past experience that made them a unicorn-level fit for the job.

I told her that she did not get the job, and that it honestly wasn’t anything she did wrong; we just had a candidate we couldn’t pass up. She has been professional about it but is taking it hard.

This surprised me. Even during interviews, she did not seem very excited, but rather like applying was the expected thing to do. Even so, it was a close decision because she is very good. I have honestly told her I will be a glowing reference for her. I told her, if she wants, she can stay through end of the month. (She doesn’t know this yet but I’m also trying to get the budget to give her some cover for the next month.) We also lined up some short projects that I hope she can use as examples in future interviews. I genuinely want her to do well in a job she cares about.

In our last check-in, she started crying and asked for more specific feedback. Like anyone, she isn’t perfect and I have a couple of things I could suggest. But none are why we didn’t hire her. Do I give her honest feedback? Does that include telling her she didn’t seem to want to be here? Or does that rub salt in the wound? As a newbie manager, I try to start with empathy, but I clearly misread her enthusiasm and am doubting my instincts now.

Give her feedback because she’s asking for it, but frame it as, “I can give you some feedback on things that will strengthen your work generally, but I want to be clear that they weren’t the reasons you weren’t hired. You were a very competitive candidate and the decision was about hiring someone who was an unusually good match; it wasn’t based on any concerns about you or your work.”

I would not tell her she didn’t seem enthusiastic unless she seemed so disengaged that you’re concerned it will be an obstacle for her in future interviews. But it’s useful data that people don’t always wear their hearts on their sleeves in interviews and can be much more invested than you can see on the surface. (Not always! Some people genuinely aren’t that enthused. But it’s good to be aware that there’s a wide spectrum of “normal” on this.)

Related:
how to show passion for your work when you’re not a demonstrative person

4. Can I ask for my own office?

I work for a large nonprofit that is mostly remote, but has an office from the days when folks were expected to come in. The building sits mostly empty. On my floor, for example, there are about 20 cubicles and 15 enclosed offices. There are maybe five of us that come in at some point during the week, and of those, only two of us are in every day. Of course, all five of us are in the same cube area, and the two of us in every day sit right next to each other. This leaves over 15 offices empty and unassigned.

This is frustrating! All of my meetings are on video calls, so I spend a lot of time going in and out of enclosed offices. My colleagues often take their videos and calls in the open area, which results in unnecessary sensory overload and frustration for me. (If it matters, I likely have sensory processing disorder from some combination of anxiety/ADHD/etc.)

I’ve only been here a month, and I’m the lowest role in our structure. Still, with so many offices sitting open, I would love to move into one. Would it be okay to request? How should I approach it?

“I’m spending a lot of time going in and out of the enclosed offices since I have so many video calls. Since it seems like a lot are unused, would it be okay for me to regularly work out of one of them?” They might say no — a lot of offices have intense politics around who gets an office and who doesn’t, even the people they’re assigned to are never there to use them — but it’s reasonable to ask. (Those politics are why my suggested wording is “regularly work out of one of them,” which sounds less permanent than “can I have my own office?” even if that’s what it turns into in time.)

If the answer is no, you could ask about moving to a cubicle that’s further away from the current cluster so that you’re not in the middle of so much action.

Also, depending on how much the sensory overload is interfering with your work, you could also consider going the formal accommodations route — but in a lot of cases it makes sense to start with a less formal conversation first.

5. Should I tell my over-performing employee to leave?

I have a superstar employee. She was fairly fresh out of university when we hired her, but I have never had a regret about her performance. She’s now been working for us for almost two years and doing more work than I would expect someone at her level to perform, it’s at an exceptional quality, and she consistently takes on bigger and newer challenges.

Obviously, I’ve been advocating for her to get a promotion. Recently, HR told us that for her to get that promotion, she’d have to have had three years of experience in her current (or any equivalent) role. But she’s performing at a higher level than what her title indicates! She deserves the promotion. She did get a decent raise, which I am happy about, but I know from experience that the title can make a big difference as well. Honestly she could leave and do so much better for herself. I’ve made the case again for her and hope that HR will change their mind (or find some combined level of experience that will help her qualify for it), but what else can I do?

Do I tell her that she should start looking elsewhere because she deserves a role that recognizes and pays her what she is worth? This is the first I’ve heard of the title structure that bases things off of years of experience, but I assume I should just lay it out for her so that she knows what the logic is? Do I have to make it sound like I agree with this because I am her manager?

It’s not terribly unusual to have experience requirements for promotion. It’s also reasonable for you, as her manager, to argue for an exception to that policy, based on her extraordinary level of performance and the possibility that the company may lose her entirely if you don’t reward that performance sooner rather than later.

That said, what’s your employee’s take on all this? Is she happy to wait another year for promotion or is she pushing for it to happen sooner? If she hasn’t shown any unhappiness with the situation, there’s no reason to encourage her to start looking outside the company. If you had the sense that they’d never promote her, that would be different — and you’d owe it to her to be relatively candid about that — but that’s not the case here. You should still share with her what the promotion timeline is so she has it, and you should lay out for HR why you think her accomplishments in two years are the equivalent of the average candidate’s accomplishments in three (or longer), but the three-year timeline isn’t inherently outrageous (as long as it’s real and they don’t kick the can down the road once people get there, and also as long as it’s not at odds with the norms of your field).

You may also like:
{ 324 comments }

{ 324 comments… read them below }

  1. Viki*

    LW1: I can speak to the possible carpool part. Due to a bad transit system and different hours, my spouse and I carpool 3 days a week, with me having ~3-4 hours of spare time. I clearly can’t hang out while he works. That would be inappropriate and undermine his professionalism.

    So I go to the gym in the same office block, and then I do groceries or I read in the car. I would suggest your husband find something like that if it’s a carpool issue.

    1. Sleeve McQueen*

      okay, carpooling makes sense. I couldn’t for the life of me figure out why anyone would want someone hanging out in the office when they’re trying to finish up. I’ve never had jobs where I couldn’t use public transport so it didn’t even occur to me.

      1. ghost_cat*

        For some reason, I get the heebies if I stay back on my own in the office at night. Work late from home, no problem. Come in early, no big deal and do it all the time. There is something about an office late at night with no-one else around, the silence, lighting that only comes on with movement etc etc, that makes me feel like I’m in a Stephen King novel. Nope. I’ve made my husband sit with me until I’ve finished and ready to leave.

        1. Wolf*

          Funny how different minds work! I often start working at 6am because I love the silent, dark, empty office. But my office is in a very safe area, so no scary vibes here at all.

          1. ghost_cat*

            I don’t mind the morning either, but something about the night and things slowing down, getting darker, quieter… it just squeeks me out.

          3. Seeking Second Childhood*

            I was fine working late alone until the morning I ca.e in to find we’d been burglarized approximately half an hour after I left.

            1. Bast*

              I used to go in to Old Job super early, and never felt odd about it though I was cautious — I’d lock all the doors behind me, would not answer if anyone tried to buzz in before other employees got in, etc — until a woman was brutally beaten in our parking lot approximately 10-15 minutes before I got there one morning. I barely missed this event, and it scared the crap out of me. I started parking right in front of the door when I showed up so it was only a matter of a few steps into the office, and would move my car once other staff got there. I still work in a not so great area on the other side of the city now, but it’s a little more populated with a college and a string of coffee shops nearby, so there’s (usually) people milling about at 7 AM — this other area was in the middle of a bad neighborhood with no other businesses around, so if you were out and about at 7 AM you’d be the only one.

          4. Fed Worker*

            I work on a military base with armed security and 100% ID verification to get on, and my office creeps me out at night! But not in the morning. Weird how our minds can act.

        2. Falling Diphthong*

          One of the unexpected insights of reading AAM is how big a thing haunted office parks are.

          1. Wolf*

            My personal theory is that the architecture and design of modern office parks makes them feel that way. Big impersonal grey spaces, soulless by day – take away the people and you’re left with a creepy Stanley Parable vibe.

        3. inksmith*

          I love working in the office when most other people are gone – I did it all the time in my last job, where I had management responsibilities and could focus much better when all my team had gone home. The lights that only come on with movement made me feel like a magician (I totally make magicky hand gestures when I walk around the office) and I can usually hear security chatting downstairs, as well as the cleaners coming through.

          1. COHikerGirl*

            I love offices at night. I’m naturally a night owl and love working once everyone is gone. It was a more comfortable feel than being the first one in for me. I don’t like that!

            I also love pretending to be magic and turning on lights. So much fun! I’m 41, so I don’t think it will ever get old.

      2. General von Klinkerhoffen*

        Oh I had a colleague whose husband spent time waiting in reception most days, and who also called her most days during his breaks.

        The marriage didn’t last long.

      3. Tio*

        I wouldn’t mind it if I were concerned about safety, but I have a husband who can be quiet and entertain himself. Not wanting to walk alone to my car at night was the first thing I thought of when I read the letter, and if my husband were the type who were more distracting, I might have other ideas.

    2. Hroethvitnir*

      On the flip side, I’ve never worked anywhere partners coming by and hanging out for the last bit of the shift was a problem. Well, for perception reasons, anyway – I have experienced it not being done due to security/lack of practicality.

      My partner would be welcomed out the back and chat to other staff (who did and do like him) while I finished cleaning the animal hospital, and at another job occasionally would hang out with me while I finished off some extra manufacturing work (tiny warehouse, no safety issue). Never *hours*, to be clear!

      I have never worked in an office, and I assume it being seen as weird or unprofessional is more likely in that case. But as Alison says, it varies *a lot*.

      1. Coverage Associate*

        I worked in an otherwise uptight office that had extra space and offered my spouse regular use of an office through the workday regularly, so it really depends on the office. Even among the law firms I have worked for, different firms had different policies about visitors maybe seeing something privileged on a desk.

    3. PhyllisB*

      When I worked at the phone company, our local office closed and the nearest office was a two hour commute. One of the ladies was driving home one night, fell asleep at the wheel and ran off the road. (Thankfully, she wasn’t seriously injured.) Her husband, who was retired, started driving her to work every day, spending his day in the company lounge and driving her home at night. I was shocked that the company allowed that, but no one blinked an eye.

  2. Skippy*

    LW2, this semantic, but is there a word besides “talent” you could substitute? Even if that’s the common term, it can be a loaded one, especially with the added emotions around colleagues changing jobs. It might also help focus attention on what you need to do rather than what you are. I need the guidance that we give other other presenters/hosts/interviewers/etc…

    1. nnn*

      Possible scripting, building on this: “I’m finding I’m starting to get lost as we move further away from my areas of expertise, so please brief me like you would someone who doesn’t have any production crew experience.”

      1. WingNWing*

        Coming as an outsider I like this framing; it focuses on the needed action not the implied hierarchy

    2. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

      I think you’re conjuring up a problem where none actually exists.

      Talent is the standard terminology for someone performing before a camera or behind a microphone. In that context, it is just professional jargon, not a loaded term, and trying to avoid using the word would be wasted energy, imo.

      1. Cynthia*

        I work in entertainment (publicity) and talent is common terminology. Though I can’t think of a time anyone has had to refer to themselves that way, Allison’s script would not phase me at all.

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

        Exactly! Its not like anyone is saying that the production team doesn’t have talent or anything. That is the term that is used for entertainment industry.

      4. Skippy*

        I work in media, so I’m familiar with the term being used that way, and I have been in both sides of the camera and microphone. Choosing a different word takes no effort and emphasizess what the LW is actually doing that is different than before.

      5. Curiouser and Curiouser*

        Yeah, I work in TV, and this seems precious to me. No one in my (behind the scenes) life would bristle a the word “talent”. It’s a shorthand for “on camera talent”, and in my organization everyone would know that and would be confused why you’re not just saying it.

    3. Awkwardness*

      I did pause for a moment because of the headline, too, but this seems normal wording, at least in how I read the letter.
      OP should not make this more awkward than necessary in using extra formal language.

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

        yeah her coworkers will probably look at her weird, possibly like she is acting all high and mighty now that she is behind the mike.

        The biggest thing here is that she IS talent not that she has talent. I’s a noun not an adjective.

      1. Polly*

        When I saw the headline, I laughed because when I was an extra in an indie film, the Director of Photography referred to me as talent, which I thought was absolutely hilarious. I knew what the term meant, but I was an extra. In case anyone is wondering why the DP was even referencing me, I was ready early, so I went to the room we were filming in to wait. The crew was joking around, and I think some foul language was used, and he said “not around the talent.” I started to look around, and then I realized he meant me.

        1. Yelling at Cloud*

          I think your story is exactly why some people hate the term “talent” as is used in the industry. By saying “not around the talent,” he implied that it was OK to use foul language around other employees. This suggests that the non-talent employees don’t deserve the same respect. Sort of “pedestalizing” people who are considered talent. This is the type of thing that can lead to workplaces like the Ellen DeGeneres show allegedly had backstage.

          1. Lexi Vipond*

            This is interesting, because I read it completely the other way round – that the ‘talent’ are too fragile to be treated like ordinary people.

            1. Yelling at Cloud*

              I accept that this is another possibility. It still doesn’t help the reputation of the term “talent.”

          2. MigraineMonth*

            I read it as “we in-group people can goof off and use foul language around each other, but we need to put on a professional front for the out-group people.”

            When medical professionals are speaking with each other, they often have a very black humor that they don’t use with patients or the families of patients. It’s not because they don’t respect their peers, it’s because they don’t need to be “on” professionally in front of htem.

          3. Roland*

            That doesn’t really have anything to do with the term itself though. You could say “not around the sneerpfoos” and have the exact same us-vs-them dynamic remain.

          4. JSPA*

            Eh, the crew know each other and their limits; the talent is just passing through, and thus an unknown quantity.

            Not to say that everyone must enjoy edgy jokes. Or that anyone needs to tolerate hazing or harassment. But enough TV and theater is itself edgy / loaded, that crew tend to have fairly high tolerance in that regard. While talent are highly (and unpredictably) variable.

    5. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      It’s the industry standard. The headline raised my eyebrows even knowing that, but the letter itself makes it clear LW isn’t asking to be treated like she’s better than the crew, just to get information.

      1. Talent*

        Yes, it’s also important to stress that the term ‘the talent’ does not imply that the ‘talent’ in any particular case is actually… talented.

    6. Interestingly Fat*

      This doesn’t seem like an industry you are familiar with. This is common terminology.

    9. TPS Reporter*

      OP did not write that they are having issues with their colleagues balking at the use of the word talent to refer to OP. OP didn’t say that their colleagues have any resentment towards them for transitioning to this new role.

      They presented their problem as- I’m having a hard time expressing that I want to be informed of the backend process, how do I express that to my colleagues when they assume OP already knows what’s happening due to their experience.

      It’s entirely possible using the term talent as shorthand is very much acceptable and useful in the OP’s workplace and that changing the wording will make things more awkward, away from what the OP wants.

    10. BuildMeUp*

      You’re getting some odd replies! The phrase “the talent” can absolutely have connotations the OP might want to avoid, depending on their specific part of the industry and their coworkers. It doesn’t matter if it’s “normal industry jargon” if using may result in the OP’s coworkers having an unconscious bias or negative reaction.

      Using a slightly different word is a valid suggestion imo

      1. Kit*

        But as Alison’s answer points out, this is not fundamentally about the use of an industry shorthand, it is about coworkers making assumptions while LW is dealing with a transition in their role that means they have different needs. It is entirely possible to handle that transition gracefully and professionally, whether LW uses the word “talent” to designate the new role or not, and that’s what LW had a question about.

        FWIW, I’ve always felt that particular media-production terminology made the on-camera/on-air roles sound like performing dogs, but that’s a personal bias and not relevant to the actual question any more than feeling as though LW is putting on airs by thinking of themselves as “the talent” in this new role.

      2. tabloidtained*

        I think the point is that normal industry terminology will not result in a negative reaction from people in that industry (LW’s coworkers).

  3. Elsa*

    LW4, if there are offices sitting empty and you are going into them anyway whenever you have a meeting, can’t you just… go into one when you get to work on the morning and stay there until the end of the day?

    1. nnn*

      That’s what I was thinking. You could try it one day and, if anyone asks why you’re there, you can say “Oh, I just got off a call and have another one in a few minutes.”

      If you really do feel the need to ask permission, another way to frame it might be “On days when there are multiple enclosed offices free, is it okay to say in the enclosed office between calls, so I don’t have to waste time setting up and tearing down my computer setup all day?”

      1. Sloanicota*

        Yeah. This seems like the move to me. More likely to get OP what they want versus either requesting an office as the lowest person in the hierarchy or trying to get it as an accommodation. Others may disagree but I suspect “private office” is an unusual accommodation to be granted when they could also just move your cube, get you headphones etc. There’s a lot of politics around offices in cubefarms.

        1. LateRiser*

          I actually do have a coworker who got a private office as a disability accommodation, at a company where literally only the CEO has their own office, everything else is open-plan. I don’t know the specifics of their disabilities(?) to require such an accommodation, but it definitely raised eyebrows even before the rest of the office switched to hotdesking.

          1. Silver Robin*

            I have a coworker who comes in with a service dog, so they negotiated priority for using an office whenever they worked from the office. Keeps the dog out of the way of other coworkers, keeps coworkers from distracting the dog. Not sure what your situation was, but that is at least one example of a reason a person would need and receive an office.

            1. LateRiser*

              Whatever their needs are it’s due to an invisible disability. I only know as much as I do because I’m on the IT team and my colleague who did the desk setup mentioned in a team meeting that they’d never heard of a private office being a “reasonable accommodation”.

              2. not nice, don't care*

                I wouldn’t be able to do my job without a private workspace. Thank goodness my employers agree, sparing me the trauma of a formal accommodation process.

          2. MigraineMonth*

            I have a coworker who should get an office based on seniority, but can’t use one because my org is so stingy on disability accommodations they won’t install one of the door-open buttons. (They even refused to install one on the department’s door until he was trapped inside during an unscheduled fire drill and my grand-boss overruled the assessor.)

            The kicker? One of my org’s services is making homes accessible for people with disabilities.

            1. I Have RBF*

              “The cobbler’s children have no shoes.” It’s endemic that while they would spend whatever it takes for clients, the company does not perceive its own staff as needing the same services.

            2. Fishsticks*

              My org ended up having to shelve their Return to Office plans because they had divested themselves of so much space during the pandemic that they can’t fit even two-thirds of the workforce in our current available space. Offices were rabidly fought over, and they keep moving people around to places where there aren’t any offices available, and those people are bitter and angry about being expected to work in the awful half-walled cubicles that do absolutely nothing to block sound.

              So they had to drop it and let us work at home if we can. It’s interesting because people were generally willing to come back at least hybrid if they had access to quiet space, and the company – which previously had plenty – no longer had any available.

        2. Also-ADHD*

          WFH and private office are fairly usual accommodations I received for ADHD even back in the heyday of the open plan office, pre this WFH and hybrid friendly era. If there’s office space available for use, it’s a super routine accommodation to give that to the employee from my perspective (and I’ve done some work on that side of HR though I’ve worked across functions). It may not get designated as their private office if issues are hierarchical but Alison’s advice basically makes it functionally the same for LW while the hierarchy saves face. An accommodation would make it particularly official. Headphones might not be an appropriate accommodation due to sensory issues, since the space is so clearly available (so it’s not an undue burden on the employer).

    2. Dwight Schrute workspace*

      To Allison’s point about politics, I’ve known places where this would have been seen as overreach/being too big for your britches. I think individual office dynamics matter quite a bit here.

    3. doreen*

      That depends on the politics around offices. At my job, there were some people with offices that were almost always empty – usually because that person worked in multiple locations. Sometimes, that person had an office in each location – but there was really only one circumstance where it was OK for another person to sit in it and that was when the person the office was assigned to was on vacation and someone from another location was covering for them.

      1. Sloanicota*

        In that case I think I’d request people use a calendar system to clearly show when someone’s in or not. When offices are limited and a large number of workers are in cubes, I just can’t see the justification of giving certain employees multiple mostly-unused offices for their exclusive use. That said, in my experience most leadership downplays or doesn’t recognize how awful it is to work in a cube farm.

        1. doreen*

          Oh sure , someone could have requested it – but it wouldn’t have happened. But how awful cubicles are depends on the previous set-up. At this particular employer, cubicles were actually an upgrade for those assigned to them – previously there were either tiny shared offices that actually gave each person less space than the cubicles or an open space with rows of desks touching each other.

        2. I Have RBF*

          I’d rather work in a cube farm than an open plan any day of the week. Open plan is an absolute downgrade from cubes.

    4. My Useless Two Cents*

      That would be a very bold move. Maybe not bad, but very gutsy. At best it would be ignored by management. At worst it could paint OP as entitled and/or ignorant of standard office etiquette.

      I am curious how the ‘hot desk’ movement will effect office culture in the future. However growing up in the era of the ‘open office’ movement, true offices are sacrosanct and MUST be “earned” is ingrained in my psyche. The idea of a newer employee just claiming an office would have me (if coworker) giving major side-eye to that employee.

      1. UnCivilServant*

        I have the same mindset. I may have worked my way up to a window cube, but the real status symbol is rating a Door.

        1. I Have RBF*

          Nothing sucks more than having a Door and a bookcase, even if shared, and then everyone being demoted to an open plan desk with half of the drawer space and zero visual or sound privacy. Then management starts gaslighting you by telling you that “Everyone loves this more collaborative setup, you’re the only one complaining.” No, they don’t. I’ve talked to a lot of people who have been completely demoralized and distracted by it.

  4. SJ*

    LW3: I’ve kinda been in your employee’s place. You hired someone to temporarily fill a role for a YEAR and she not only did well enough to make it through the year, but well enough that you let her effectively apply for her own job instead of discouraging her from doing so. Without any feedback about how she could improve, she probably viewed this as an awkward formality after a year-long job interview. I guarantee you she feels like she’s been fired. And she has to keep coming in and facing you every day knowing you think she isn’t good enough, yet you still don’t have solid feedback for her? No wonder she’s in tears. I’m amazed she’s still showing up.

    My situation happened 20 years ago, slightly different. They let me believe I had a shot, and I came so prepared with examples of my accomplishments that year. But the boss was just using this as a way to hire a shady buddy of his rather than keep me on in the job I excelled in. So I was an idiot to be so engaged in the process. I will never forgive the people who allowed it. Not surprisingly, the boss hasn’t done too stellar in his career since then (he was fired again this year!), which I take glee in on a semi-regular basis two whole decades later.

    This is all your prerogative, of course, but you had to have known what the fallout would be. I hope for your sake the new hire works out and that it’ll be worth it.

    Your current employee may accept your reference just to be polite, but someone’s going to ask why she wasn’t hired on full-time. What are you going to say?

    1. TheBunny*

      This. All of this.

      I read the letter and it left a bad taste, but I was struggling to put exactly why into words. You did perfectly.

      As I was reading, all I could think was “Great LW found their unicorn…maybe. Or maybe their unicorm was already doing the job and the manager forgot to notice.

      She’s been successful in the job. For a year. I guess I’m wondering why there was any kind of interview for the permanent employee?

      I hope that new person is a great a they think. They would have to be in order to be better than a candidate who was almost offered the role and has been doing it for a year.

      1. Ask a Manager* Post author

        Sometimes the temp version of a role is more of a keep-the-trains-moving kind of position, but it’s not the full version of the role … and the full version can require additional skills. (Just to give one random example, someone might be do fine executing existing plans on an interim basis but not be the ideal person to create strategy, build external partnerships, etc.)

        1. Myrin*

          Additionally, the fact that OP talks about the eventual hire’s “extensive specific past experience” as the deciding factor makes me think that this is the type of role where, longterm, you’ll have to do a lot of X which anybody can learn but which takes time and practice and is kinda hard to come by. So OP’s existing employee would be perfectly capable of learning X but the new hire has already been doing X extensively for the past 15 years and as such wouldn’t need any training, ramping up, and has a proven track record of being a capable Xer.

          1. Exit Pursued by a Bear*

            I think it could be helpful to explicitly name some of that experience to your current employee, and mention ways that it’ll allow the role to grow in the future.

            My initial reaction was also that not getting a job you’ve been doing for a year is going to feel much worse than a normal rejection, and I’d be wondering what I did so wrong that they’d rather take a chance on someone new than let me continue.

            It sounds like OP had good reason to choose the other candidate, but I think it would be good to spell out to Current Employee, and let her know you’ve been pleased with the work she’s done, and that it was a close choice.

            1. Sloanicota*

              Yes OP using the framing in these comments in explaining the situation to the temp worker may help.

              1. LW3*

                OP/LW3 here. Thanks for these framing suggestions. I’m definitely taking notes from this thread..

          2. Aggretsuko*

            Yeah, “I don’t have to train them” is HUGE these days, I’ve been told they just don’t want to train anyone in interviews. Which is ridiculous, even if you’ve done X program before, you’d still need to learn how it’s used in Y office!

            1. Elle*

              I think the point is that you’re only having to train for the latter, not the former. We don’t (and couldn’t) expect folks my team hires to know how we use our authoring program, but it’s nice when they’ve at least used it before and we don’t have to train on “This is how content reuse works,” only “This is how WE do content reuse”

          3. Smithy*

            I do think that this is a kind of marker of experience that supervisors seem to struggle to articulate.

            Things like doing a budget or going to an annual conference – those are experiences you do once a year, and someone who’s done 5 of those is coming from a very different place. In my world with multi-year grants, securing one of those, closing them and renewing them – that can take 4-5 years to do just once. So while over a year someone can do the daily work very well, someone who has years of experience doing those things really does have a significant leg up.

            That being said – everyone stated about how people doing very good work for 1-3 years and not understanding why they’re not getting promotions or hired into full-time roles happens all the time in my world. Very often people are not amazing at deeply articulating the experience gained over time that cannot be sped up just by being a high achiever. Particularly supervisors who may end up in their roles via a quicker promotion or two.

        2. AcademiaNut*

          It also sounds like the original temp hire might have been done quickly through the LW’s contacts, while the full time position was a more rigorous open application where external applicants were considered.

          I see it as more like a situation where a very good internal applicant has to apply along with external applicants for a new position, or cases where someone is filling in a position on an interim basis, but isn’t hired to do it permanently, rather than an outrageous wrong to the person in the temp position.

          1. amoeba*

            This is how I read it and it does make sense, at least somehow – but probably wouldn’t keep me from feeling like described in this comment if it happened to me!

        3. Brain the Brian*

          Another example: we had a temp facilities officer for about six months a couple of years ago. He was charged with checking the mail, paying the rent, etc. When we hired a new long-term person, he was also charged with finding us a new corporate insurance policy and investigating potential new office locations. There’s a distinct difference.

          1. TheBunny*

            Right. But it would have been pretty easy to tell the temp “hey we hired this person who has done *these things* before.

        4. KateM*

          But it seems that OP did think she would have been a good match for this position. And if she was not the ideal person to create strategy etc, then surey OP would have this feedback to give?

          1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

            I wonder if OP has explicitly said “NewHire is absolutely the only person better than you for this position”?

            Knowing you came second still stings, but it does reduce any lingering imposter syndrome or worries that the employer has been unhappy with your work.

          2. Hyaline*

            That’s where I was confused too—if there were particular elements of the role the temp hadn’t been doing, or a range the role was going to expand into, and Unicorn candidate had that cornered, isn’t this very easy feedback to give? I wonder if the root issue LW is having is less knowing precise feedback to give and more new manager guilt over hard decisions.

          3. Typity*

            Yep. LW very nearly hired her, and it sounds like they would have hired her if Unicorn hadn’t popped up. That doesn’t sound like she’s any kind of mismatch for the job in its final form. If Employee is feeling rejected, that’s more than reasonable. She *was* rejected.

            (And if her the perceived lack of enthusiasm had nothing to do with the hiring decision, why bring it up? “Enthusiasm” in job candidates is part of selling themselves, and Employee understandably didn’t think she had to do that.)

            1. Learn ALL the things*

              I used to have a position where I interviewed candidates for internal promotions and transfers, and the advice I always gave was to pretend you haven’t spent the last however long working with your interviewers. When they ask you a question, answer it the way you would if they were a stranger. Don’t leave anything out, don’t assume they already know all the particulars of a situation. Convince them you’re the best person to hire just like you would if they didn’t have any knowledge at all of what you’re like as an employee.

              So many times, we’d ask a “tell me about a time when…” question, and our internal candidates would be like, “you know, that time with the thing,” and end the story there, while our external candidates would be going into a lot of detail. And even if the entire interview panel did know and remember “that time with the thing,” it made the internal candidates seem much less engaged when compared side by side with external candidates.

        5. Coffee Protein Drink*

          If that’s the case, though, then the temp didn’t have a chance because there was information she didn’t have and experience she didn’t know she needed and someone decided she didn’t need to function in the job she was applying for. Why was she even interviewed?

          1. I strive to Excel*

            It’s probably a situation where OP’s workplace was not expecting to be able to find someone with Y skills, so they advertised for X which the temp was already doing very well. Then out of nowhere they got someone who was good at both X and Y, which they didn’t advertise for because they didn’t expect they would get it.

            I recently got hired for a job where I did not have Y skills (a very specific industry software) but I did have X skills. Had someone come along who had my same skill set and *also* had experience with this software I probably would have lost out to them.

          2. Polly Hedron*

            The temp was interviewed because she did have a chance. The temp would have been hired permanently if the unicorn had not appeared.

        6. TheBunny*

          This makes sense. But I think that’s also why I’m stuck as OP doesn’t seem to know how to give the feedback, which to me more reads as “you weren’t picked for these intangible reasons” vs “here are the 19 pieces of the job you weren’t doing as a temp that the Unicorn has done”.

          If that’s the reason it should be easy to give the feedback…I would think.

      2. Irish Teacher.*

        A variant of that situation is common in teaching in Ireland and for us, it is a Department of Education requirement. The first year teaching in a school, you get a year-long contract, then the school has to re-advertise the job, you have to re-apply and if you are successful, you have a very good chance of a Contract of Indefinite Duration, which basically means permanency.

        I assume the point is so that substandard or just adequate teachers don’t get permanent jobs from which it would be very hard to fire them (really only if they do something very egregious) but it DOES sometimes happen that schools find s superstar, even though they had planned to re-employ the person doing the job.

        I agree that the person probably thought it was a formality and that that is likely why they seemed like they were just doing what was expected, rather than because they didn’t care about the job.

        I had a friend who had a situation like this and yeah, she was wondering if she did something wrong, even though the school said they’d realised they needed an additional subject she didn’t have – think she was a French teacher and they realised they wanted somebody who could also teach Maths when her other subject was English.

        I’m not surprised she’s taken it hard, but I also think there may well be valid reasons the company went with another candidate.

        1. Sloanicota*

          In the case of your friend, I hope it’s not also a pretty bad black mark against her moving forward, since it sounds like she did a good job and just got unlucky, but is now in the pool of teachers who essentially washed out.

        2. Humble Schoolmarm*

          We have something similar where I teach and I ended up in a situation much like the letter at the end of my first year. I interviewed well (but may have done better if I thought it was competitive) but was edged out by someone with slightly more experience. The complicating factor was that it was the first year of a new system where you could rank the jobs you applied for within the school district, but, very stupidly, the. default was to rank the job you applied for last as your top pick. Obviously, I had applied to the job I was in first and then an other 10 or so just to cover my bases, but to the hiring manager, it looked like their job was ranked 11th. When it came out that they were a bit miffed that I had ranked them so low (after the other person had been hired), I explained the mistake, but I’ve always wondered if that had any impact on me not getting hired. (Bright side, my manager gave me a glowing reference that got me my next job at another school the next day).

      3. inksmith*

        I work for the government – we can’t convert a temp to a perm position unless we did full recruitment to get the temp (which we often do for this exact reason, but not always, especially in an emergency or short notice longer absence). Otherwise, it doesn’t matter how great you were, we’re doing full interviews, and if you’re not the best candidate in the interview, someone else gets the job.

    2. KateM*

      And that’s also probably why during interviews, “she did not seem very excited, but rather like applying was the expected thing to do”.

      1. Ellis Bell*

        Yeah, my read on that was not that she was unenthusiastic or disengaged but that she genuinely believed the interviews were just a formality and part of bringing her on permanently. She probably acknowledged a slight risk, but assumed that her work over the past year would speak louder than the interviews of comparable unknowns. She was so very nearly right! What a terrible blow it must have been. Now I think she has gone too far in the other direction and is questioning if her confidence was completely delusional.

    3. MissBaudelaire*

      I’ve been in the employee’s place, too. It had never even been discussed that anyone *but* me would be getting the promotion. And then the rug was pulled under me, and there wasn’t actually any real feedback on why I didn’t get it.

      I actually had five years experience to the girl who got the promotion’s one. (It was later told to me my manager said to a coworker “MissBaudelaire doesn’t bring enough to the table for me to bother getting her more money.”)

      I had been doing the work, was expected to train the girl they promoted over me–which I declined, and I told my manager that I was unhappy. She was unhappy I was unhappy, and ultimately I quit.

      1. blah*

        If you had more experience, then your situation is different than what was described in the letter.

    4. bamcheeks*

      It was really drummed into me from very early in my career that if there’s a competitive interview process, it’s *never* a formality. Search and interview processes are expensive: there is no reason to go to that expense unless you’re open to hiring from outside.

      I know from the other side it can sometimes feel like the internal or unconventional candidates is a shoo-in, and it’s certainly true that they often have a strong advantage but there are lots of good reasons to conduct a broader search when you’re going from the interim version of the role to the permanent hire; and you should never take it for granted.

      Interim and fixed term jobs are very often about “keep the show on the road and do the necessary operational stuff”, and “develop the role, introduce new functions, strategic leadership” can be a different skill set. Hopefully you know enough about the role and the longer term strategic vision to succeed at that part of the interview, but that’s usually what the process is designed to find out.

      This doesn’t mean it doesn’t suck and it’s normal to be disappointed and angry! But it doesn’t mean the organisation did you dirty.

      1. Myrin*

        Yeah, I honestly don’t get the outrage in some of these comments.

        I was brought on as a temporary support for a one-person-department; this person left four months after I started and my contract got extended to the end of the year until they knew what to do with his position (it had become apparent that it was actually two jobs in a trenchcoat disguised as one but seeing how this is local government, the wheels are slooow). Nobody was sure for several months whether I would have to interview for my own job or not.

        They ended up not doing interviews for it and I simply got an indefinite contract but it was very clear to me that should I have to interview, there was a real chance that I wouldn’t get it, simply because it was unlikely anyone actually formally applying would have less experience than me. The only thing I had going for me was that my employer knew me by then and was very happy with my work – but boy would it have been possible for them to find someone with glowing references and 20 years of experience in this very same role who could’ve easily booted me out.

        That really would’ve sucked and I’m eternally grateful I got to keep my job but it’s also not outrageous that it was seriously on the table. In the same manner, the situation in the letter really sucks for the employee but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the process itself or with OP’s handling of the situation (although I do think she should make it clear to her employee that she really did find an unlikely unicorn in the other finalist).

        1. blah*

          There’s always outrage in AAM comments because commenters somehow see themselves in letters, even if their situations drastically differed from what is being described. Then the commenters get caught up in their righteous fury.

          1. bamcheeks*

            I think it’s also a cultural difference. I work in the UK public sector, and as I say, it’s been emphasised to me since Day 1 that if you have a competitive process, it’s a REAL competitive process and that there are good reasons for that. There are individual managers who know how to subvert that process, but everyone knows what the process is supposed to be, and everyone involved in hiring will go through the training that explains why that is. The question about “what do you say to your next employer” doesn’t really arise, because “I did the job for a year as a temp but didn’t get the permanent post” elicits more of a “Oh, bummer” response rather than a “hmm, what did you do wrong?” reaction. We’re all familiar with the situation and it’s no more a reflection on that capability of that individual candidate than being made redundant or not getting a promotion is.

            If you come from a place with a less formalised approach to hiring, I can see why this seems like an unfair, impersonal and unnecessarily bureaucratic process. And I think there are also strong advantages to a less formal hiring process! Neither is perfect.

          2. Salty Caramel*

            Somehow? There are often enough similarities to empathize with a letter writer or to evoke past memories.

            Temps and contractors often get screwed like this because employers aren’t honest about whether the temps even have a real chance to be offered the job. Doing a job for a year and then being told, “You get to interview,” can make a person feel devalued.

            It’s like the person who likes you enough to date you for a while and then leaves you to marry someone else.

            1. I Have RBF*

              This.

              Also, sometimes they say “temp to perm”, and then there’s an interview where they hire somebody’s brother, or an H1b, and then ask you to train them. IOTW, they don’t tell you that it’s a competitive interview and that you’re just a warm body until they find a guy they like better.

              I now never count on conversion to perm until the actual paperwork goes through.

        2. Learn ALL the things*

          I feel like the problem is that so many of these things are unspoken. If you don’t have an especially candid boss who will lay out all the expectations before you apply for an internal promotion or temp-to-perm job, a lot of people genuinely don’t know whether this is a “for real” competitive interview or a rubber stamp interview. I’ve been involved in both types, and in some of these situations, it can be impossible to know if no one actually tells you “hey, there’s every chance that you might not get this job you’ve already been doing for a year with no complaints.”

        3. A Simple Narwhal*

          Fwiw I’m not sure it’s outrage about the situation itself. I get the sense that OP3 is bewildered that their employee is upset at all, and I think the commentariat is latching onto that. Almost everyone has an example of getting passed over for someone else or being disappointed, it’s hard not to feel triggered (for lack of a better word) when you hear from the other side that the person responsible doesn’t understand why or think you deserve to feel that disappointment.

          It’s totally understandable that a temp didn’t get hired into the permanent role over an external unicorn, there’s nothing wrong with that. But it’s also very understandable that the temp is upset. Your goal can’t be to ensure that no one is ever upset by something, but part of that means you have to accept that people will get upset by your actions from time to time, even if your actions were correct.

          1. Myrin*

            Then I guess I’m not sure where you (and possibly other commenters) are getting bewilderement from. The only thing OP says in that regard is “[That employee is taking the rejection so hard] surprised me”.

            That is… well, surprise.

            And I don’t think it’s terribly unusual or weird to be surprised when the employee previously “did not seem very excited” about the role and like the interview was something she had to do because her supervisors or coworkers expected her to.

            I mean, like Alison says, let that be a lesson to not judge people too much on their outward excitement (or lack thereof), but OP already says that she “clearly misread [employee’s] enthusiasm” so I feel like that lesson has already started to take roots anyway.

            1. A Simple Narwhal*

              I think that’s exactly the point – the person was surprised someone could be upset by this, and commenters are offering a different point of view as to why someone might be upset.

              1. Myrin*

                OP was not surprised that “someone” “could be” upset by this but rather that this particular employee who previously hadn’t appeared to even particularly want that role, was upset – two very different situations!

                (And quite apart from that, OP seems plenty empathetic and very kind in her letter. IDK, if that is really the reasoning for people to comment like that – thinking OP is somehow too emotionally stunted or whatever to comprehend that in general, people tend to be upset about losing out on opportunities – thene I honestly don’t even know what to say to that.)

                1. Ellis Bell*

                  It’s not that OP is emotionally stunted, they just have a very, very different perspective of the situation than the employee. An employee who thought the interview was a routine formality could actually feel more crushed than someone who’s adrenaline was pumping. Finding out you underestimated your chances is very distressing. From OP’s perspective the OP did very well, seemed collected, and was always aware that this was temporary, but the employee never really truly witnessed the quality of the competition or their chances in the same way OP did; hence different perspectives.

        4. Butterfly Counter*

          This was my reaction too.

          I teach at a university. I have a Ph.D. When I started working here, I was only part time, filling in for someone who had a family emergency and couldn’t teach the class that semester. I was hired to teach that class. After that semester, with the glowing evaluations from my students, I was rehired again and again, for the next few semesters part time. Then, a full time position was opened up with the minimum requirement being candidates had to have an MA. I’m sure some of my other part time coworkers applied and, having worked there longer than me, thought they were a shoo-in. But I had the Ph.D. and research experience they were looking for in a full time instructor.

          So I get it from the side of the “unicorn” that fell into the company’s lap.

          After another few semesters, a full time tenure-track role opened up in my department and I was encouraged to apply. I didn’t. I knew that they were opening up the search nationally and that I would be competing for this job against candidates who had years of research momentum behind them. Since I had been teaching for the past few years and not actively researching, I knew that even though I was a known entity and that I was well-liked by my coworkers and students, that’s not what the department was ultimately looking for. I also knew that if I applied and didn’t get hired, I’d be super resentful of having to go through the process and failing and that I likely wouldn’t want to continue to work there. So I didn’t apply and happily stayed in my position.

          So I’ve seen it from the other side of being someone who might have thought they had the job clinched, but with the reality that there were likely better candidates applying for the job. It’s just that I really knew where my experience lacked and OP3’s coworker seemed not to have. It’s a definite blow to the ego.

          Also, I’m someone who is pretty evenly-keeled. I don’t really get emotional/enthusiastic about work because it feels as though I’m faking or acting it out. I’d rather be my low-key self instead of someone too effusive that it comes across as disingenuous. I wouldn’t mention that at all to coworker. She thought she was just being herself.

      2. Dust Bunny*

        This: I have always assumed that if there is an actual application involved, there will be other applicants and thus never a guarantee that (I or whoever has been filling in) will get it.

        My organization opens positions to internal applicants first but there is always the expectation that they will interview external applicants if nobody internal is really The One. We’re not that big and I would say we mostly end up hiring externally simply because there aren’t that many internal prospects, but neither is a given. My current supervisor was an internal hire. Her predecessor was an external hire; there were no strong internal candidates at the time.

        From what the LW says, it was clear it was a temporary position, and then there was an application process. I understand that it’s easy for people to think after awhile that it’s “just a formality”, but sometimes the problem is that people’s expectations are wrong.

    5. Also-ADHD*

      Yeah, I thought it was a little wild they even had open interviews for the role instead of hiring the temp on full time if the temp was meeting all the requirements for a year. I know some orgs policies will require it—even there, I would anticipate the issue being more the waste of time for other candidates vs a known quality already doing the job. If it was close, there’s no feedback to give, and the temp worker didn’t get it, that’s wild to me. It’s also wild to me that the temp worker’s lack of enthusiasm in applying for their own job was notable to LW. Though maybe LW works in an industry this happens more commonly. In mine, and in previous functions I’ve worked in, converting temp to perm is first priority if the temp is doing well.

    6. Part time lab tech*

      I just had this situation I’ve been working for two years 0.4 PT contract and my employer finally got to advertise the permanent position and 1 year pool for a total of 1.5 full time positions. The other person got 0.6 permanent position before going on maternity leave. They asked me if I could work more hours, I couldn’t so they’d rather have only 2 people rather than three. No job for me as there were others who were willing.
      Next day, 1st choice turned it down, someone else got the permanent, they offer me the maternity cover contract and I agree to work 0.5 after a lot of thinking about how I could make the extra 4hrs/week work. The next choice changes their mind and resigns two weeks after starting.
      We really need someone else on this job so I hope there’s someone else in the pool. At this point I’m wondering if anyone else is left in the pool and whether to ask to convert my 0.5 contract to permanent 0.4 plus the 0.1.
      Now, I was expecting to get a permanent position and I was a little disappointed, but my family is not depending on my job and I’m not that invested in the kind of work I do.
      Your temp did a great job and probably is relying on it. Because she was such a good candidate, there would have been a lot of positive signals so not getting it was a shock. However, take a candidate ‘s application as notice of their investment, not big excitement. Some great candidates are reserved.

    7. Sloanicota*

      That was a tough one to me. I totally understand how someone can think it’s obvious they want the job because they’ve been dedicated to the job for over a year and are now interviewing for it – and I can see that OP felt there was “less enthusiasm” compared to applicants who were chasing a Shiny New Thing versus someone who was hoping they’d be a shoo-in and already knew the exact parameters. Also, it’s a very big deal to be unemployed (again!) as this woman is about to be. OP is coming off as maybe not understanding what a big deal that is for this person who has presumably made many sacrifices to be as good as they can be at this job over the last year. It’s just a tough situation all around.

      1. Hyaline*

        I don’t love measuring on visible interview “enthusiasm” anyway. People present enthusiasm differently, nerves and anxiety play a role, it’s a barrier for neurodivergent folks, and it’s generally an area wide open to bias.

        1. My Useless Two Cents*

          Totally agree. Visibly reading “enthusiasm” in strangers is a total craps shoot even though most people think they do it very well.
          People think they can read me, but a good 80-85% of the time they are wrong. Even people who really know me only have a 50-50 record of reading me just by looking at the outside. With my personality there is a good chance that if I go into an interview for a job I really, really, REALLY want, the interviewer is going to think I barely want the job.

          1. Reluctant Mezzo*

            It’s like ‘smiling at the judges’ being part of women’s gymnastics and not for men.

            1. I Have RBF*

              This.

              I’m pretty sure that I’ve been turned down for positions for “lack of enthusiasm”. Sorry, folks, I don’t do rah-rah. My preferred “face” is calm competence, not bubbly enthusiasm.

        2. Alz*

          Hmmm…I think I would need a bit more information before I said that you should never use “enthusiasm” at all as a consideration. I have worked in a few fairly toxic places and, when up for promotion I have been very candid about the issues that I see and the dealbreakers I have. I have been lucky(?) enough to be successful in those applications…but I wouldn’t fault a manager who referred to “enthusiasm” of a new person if they had more experience working with some of those challenges and had successfully (and happily) solved the issues at other sites- fresh with a new perspective can be a wonderful thing.
          If I had missed those opportunities I suspect I would be disappointed but also understand that there was a reason for it- so I guess that is slightly different to what the LW experienced

      2. rebelwithmouseyhair*

        And she wasn’t looking for any other jobs, probably, thinking she would be hired.

    8. ecnaseener*

      Re what LW should say if a reference asks why she wasn’t hired permanently: “It was a one-year temporary position with no option to extend it another year.” That’s it. The reference-checker has no way of knowing that a permanent position was ever on the table – it could’ve been a leave replacement.

      1. MigraineMonth*

        “She did wonderful work and we would certainly hire her again if we have the opportunity.”

    9. Hyaline*

      Yeah I couldn’t get past “she did the job, seemingly well for a YEAR of course she thought she was getting the job.” Hire who you’re gonna hire, but oooof you’ve got to see how she sees it, right?!

    10. MsM*

      Yep. I don’t think you need to love a temporary assignment to feel hurt if you’re not the obvious pick to continue doing it, unless the person who’s replacing you was also just temporarily stepping away.

    11. Friday Hopeful*

      I agree, there should have been no application process at all, and if she were doing well the job should have just been offered to her first. Why would they even take applications, unless they were some sort of municipal place that requires the job be posted (even then, most government places are free to choose form the top three applicants). I would also feel like I just got fired.

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

      I understand where you are coming from but I don’t see it that way. There was a clear understanding that this was a long temporary position. We don’t know that the OP never gave her any feedback. To me it sounds like the employee wanted more feedback as to why they didn’t hire her. It sounds like the new person has a specific set of skills that are hard to come by and that is why they didn’t hire her.
      If the employee thought it was just a formality, without checking with the OP or anyone else, then that is on her. I think in her mind she had the job already and just expected to continue. Which it sounds like if this other person didn’t apply she would have been hired permanently. I don’t think anyone did anything wrong and that the OP is actually going above by trying to get her some more money and to give her projects to use for her resume.

      1. Learn ALL the things*

        I do think it could have been helpful for OP to meet with her prior to the job being posted to once again make it clear that while he was pleased with the work she’s been doing, this was going to be a comprehensive and competitive interview process. Psychology is weird, and even if she knew from the beginning that the job was temporary, she’s been doing well all year with no complaints, so her brain is going to make some assumptions absent any other information being provided.

        But they can’t go back in time and do that now, so really all we can advise is that he be kind and honest with her now.

        1. All Het Up About It*

          This is where I come in. Knowing that the job is temporary a year ago is really different than feeling it is temporary after you’ve done it for a year and are interviewing for it. Especially if no one had the, you’ve done great work, we are happy you are applying, but please know that this interview process is not just a formality and we are really looking to hire the best candidate.

          It sounds like both the OP and their temp employee were making assumptions about each other and the process that weren’t true. OP just needs some reframing of the situation which I believe they have received and hopefully the feedback won’t be whatever small flaws this person has, but “The only feedback I can give you about why you were not picked for the permeant position is because you were not an original cast member of CATS and there is know way that this performing arts studio could have turned away the candidate who was. They truly are a unicorn and you did nothing wrong that made you not get this job, sometimes in business it just happens. And that sucks. And I’m sorry if as your manager, I didn’t prepare you enough for the fact that this interview process wasn’t just a formality.”

    13. Aggretsuko*

      I had this happen to a temp coworker of mine, down to the “unicorn” stuff. My office was just horrible to her about it–told her she wasn’t hired because she didn’t have a degree (note: that probably wasn’t it, see below), she found out she wasn’t hired in the all-staff meeting before they told her on Zoom when the big boss talked about getting her computer back, they made her cry, and they told her they’d extend her contract so she could train the new hire.
      She got a new job within a week and I was SO happy for her.

      We were told that our unicorn hire had 18 years of experience in the same kind of office. I don’t know where they got that idea, but no, she didn’t, she did other clerical work that wasn’t this. The hire hated this job and went back to her old one after two years.

    14. Cranky Old Bat*

      Temp agencies and the employers who use them often dangle “you might be able to go full-time” as a carrot to get people to accept assignments all the time. I’ve been burned by that myself.

      You’d think someone who had proven that they could do the job would have a mark or two in their favor. Maybe the unicorn will work out, but they’re an unknown quantity and that’s a risk even if they’re new and shiny.

      and yet companies expect employees to be loyal. It disgusts me.

      1. I Have RBF*

        and yet companies expect employees to be loyal. It disgusts me.

        Seriously.

        I have been in supposed “temp to perm” posts where they just kept extending the temp contract, but with shorter and shorter time between the renewal and the end date. When for two months in a row the contract was extended one month, and I got less than a week’s notice that it had been extended, I went out and got a different job. The stress was too much. Three month, with two weeks notice before renewal, okay, mostly. One month contracts with less than a week? If they aren’t committed enough for three months, why should I be committed? I have me to look out for.

    15. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

      “Your current employee may accept your reference just to be polite, but someone’s going to ask why she wasn’t hired on full-time. What are you going to say?”

      Assuming that is even a question that the hiring person asks (because she’s a temp and can just say the temp assignment ended or she decided to leave to find something different–she wasn’t fired), she’d say “Janet was a great employee–she was timely, proactive (etc etc). When we hired for the job, we found someone who had XYZ qualifications, and so were uniquely suited to the position but if that person had not come along, we would have been delighted for Janet to continue in that role.”

      We regularly hire from our interns and sometimes would happily hire all of them but can’t. In our case, it’s often that they were terrific but we only had 2 positions and it was a really difficult decision.

    16. Annie E. Mouse*

      This is what I’m thinking too. “I’m completely confident that she knew this was a temporary position” does not mean the same thing as discussing with her the differences between doing this role temporarily versus permanently and being transparent about what skills or experiences LW lacked in order to be the top candidate for the permanent role.

      It doesn’t sound like LW has been very clear about what she was missing, which would understandably lead her to go into the interview process believing it was more of a formality.

    17. fhqwhgads*

      I’m not saying all of that isn’t a normal human reaction. It is. But at the same time, if it were just a formality, they wouldn’t have bothered interviewing anyone else. They’d interview her and then offer it.
      Your situation was nothing like what happened in the letter. This employee did have a shot. There’s no nepo hire in the background. It wasn’t a sham of a process. It was a real process.
      If the current employee had written in, what she’d need to hear is what Alison said to the current LW. It’s not anything this employee did wrong or badly. It’s just that there was someone better. Which was always a possibility given they opened it up to applicants in general. If the person they’d hired instead had no experience or was otherwise sus, it’d be like what happened to you. But it sounds like what happened here was more like they had a choice between a pitcher with 3 Cy Young awards, and someone with one.

    18. LW3*

      Thanks for asking this question, because I’ve been thinking about it and also the answers on this thread help me frame how I’d answer. If someone asks me, I can say very honestly that we hired her as a temporary employee for a fixed time, that she was excellent, and that if there had been a permanent role that suited her, I would have hired her.

      Does that seem right? I don’t have to disclose she applied for a full-time job, right? If I could have hired both these people, I would have. But I just had the one job.

      At the risk of asking for more advice: I’m also just curious about what the boundaries are for talking about a hiring process with an internal candidate you manage. I was nervous about crossing lines, so I communicated where we were in the process but not about comparative strengths and weaknesses. Or, really anything that could be construed as my trying to help her get this job.

      1. Tio*

        I think once you’ve selected someone, as you seem to have, you can be much more open about what specifically it was that you picked the for. The deal’s done, you’re no longer giving them an edge. But before then, you don’t have to tell them anything if you really don’t want to, but *depending on the internal candidate* you may be able to tell them “I just want to let you know, we’re seeing candidates with a background in X and that’s making them very competitive.” She may not have her hopes up as high and also, it will give her an idea of what the people who are getting the job she wants have that she could shore up in the future. The reason I say depending on the candidate is because if you’re worried the candidate might leave or even for some reason make things difficult while they stay, you may want to save that conversation for only after a candidate has been selected as a feedback conversation. But yes, tell her what kinds of things you saw in the candidate that was hired that she didn’t have! Tell her about that experience so she knows what will help her in the future!

    2. Excel-sior*

      I’m glad it wasn’t just me! i was half expecting something along the lines of “I’ve been a runner for 2 weeks, why haven’t i got a trailer and personal make up artist yet?!”

    4. Love me, love my cat*

      Yes, I feel cheated. Robbed, even. Probably the first time anyone has ever complained that an AAM letter was just too normal, though.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        I was totally expecting someone who was good at their office job wanting special privileges and being treated as a priority on all her requests to coworkers because of how great they were.

        Instead we got totally normal, umm, how do I handle this transition to a new role so everyone doesn’t hate me?

  6. PDB*

    LW2: Been there, done that. I was a production and post production sound mixer. But I was also voice over talent, did some acting and was actively pitching a sit com.
    The hardest line to cross is the one between crew and talent-above the line. It sounds like you’re in a producer type role where you have some say in what goes on. You just have to be confident in what you want. In the end it’s your decision. Make it and move on because another is right on the way.
    My experience is that the crew will be rooting for you.

    2. Syzygy*

      Producer here. LW #2, congratulations on your successful pitch! Your experience will obviously be of great value in making your project a success. Alison’s wording is excellent. Just be sure that you aren’t taking on your old tasks in addition to your new role. Trust your team to do their jobs, the way you wanted talent to trust you to do yours!

  7. Charley*

    LW3 – “Even during interviews, she did not seem very excited”. Some people don’t wear their emotions on their sleeve. This doesn’t mean they don’t have feelings!

    1. amoeba*

      I once got that feedback for a job I was actually super invested in. As in “you were so laid back and relaxed during the interview, it seemed like it would also be completely fine for you not to get it!”
      Then, the next interview for a different job I was also super invested in, and also didn’t get: “You were extremely motivated and excited about the position, but very nervous during the interviews”.

      OK. Well. Guess I overcorrected? (Actually, pretty sure I didn’t behave that differently…)

        1. Space Needlepoint*

          I agree. I think some interviewers really need to look at their conscious and unconscious biases.

      2. bamcheeks*

        This is why I’m less than enthusiastic about post-interview feedback. Very occasionally, it’s possible to say, “You were very uninformed about the National Llama Grooming Assessment — if you want to make the leap from alpaca grooming to llama grooming, it would really help you to find out more about that, because it’s so critical to what we do.” But so often, it’s going to be no more useful than “someone else was better” “better how?” “the vibes”.

        2. amoeba*

          Hah, yeah. Although I did find it somewhat helpful in both those cases, also just to know that I can indeed come across as very nervous (when I wasn’t, actually, in fact…) – and they did take care to also add some other, more specific things. So not a waste of time, luckily. And also good to hear the positive points, which both of them did also take time to point out! So in general, I was quite happy with getting the feedback, but also quite amused by that discrepancy.

        3. Emmy Noether*

          Also “too nervous” or “too relaxed” are pretty useless feedback. Sure, you can work on appearing less relaxed, or you can practice interviews a bunch to be less nervous, but that seems a lot of effort to put into presentation over competence. (Unless you’re so nervous you forget your own name and everything you know, OR you’re interviewing for a sales job.)

          Interviewers sometimes have weird preferences. Some find nervousness charming and think a confident candidate is too full of themselves, some are impatient with nervous candidates and like natural salesmen. Some also cannot read people at all and are dead wrong in their interpretation. Since one can never know in advance, aim for the middle and don’t worry too much about it.

        4. Coffee Protein Drink*

          It doesn’t tend to be very useful because feedback could be misinterpreted as bias and be grounds for a lawsuit. Especially when the person hired has very similar experience. That’s not the case in the letter, but I feel it’s a strong reason for only vague feedback or saying someone has more experience.

          1. Georgia Carolyn Mason*

            I recently made a hire and had some members of senior leadership sit in on the finalist interviews. When I wanted to talk about folks’ experience after each interview, the senior people wanted to smack-talk everyone’s demeanor, including absolutely savaging one candidate because she was “shaking.” I’m guessing it was actually shivering, as I forgot to warn her that the AC is set on Arctic. But even if she was super nervous, let’s not use that as a dealbreaker if the candidate is qualified.

      3. A_Jessica*

        Reminds me of a Scout parent who was convinced I didn’t help the other co-leader do any kind of pre-planning for meetings because when things got chaotic, I was calm.
        She equated being relaxed in high stress situations as not knowing what was supposed to be happening.

    2. Also-ADHD*

      It’s also just not exciting to apply for a job you’re already doing—it’s a little frustrating frankly. I agree some people just don’t slow emotion, but I’m really confused why excitement would bee anyone’s natural reaction in that circumstance.

    3. UnCivilServant*

      I’ve done far more interviews from the hiring side than the job seeking side, but I’ve never found level of displayed enthusiasm to be a useful metric. I suppose it helps that the roles I hire for are the kind of job where “Someone’s got to do it” but nobody is particularly thrilled with the job itself.

      More hiring managers need to go do some essential but uninteresting jobs periodically.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Yes, also some people just always convey a high degree of warmth/enthusiasm no matter how invested they are, and unless that’s central to the role itself (like a patient advocate or something) it’s probably not the most important metric of how someone will do in the role. It just feels good to the interviewer.

        1. UnCivilServant*

          As a person of phlegmatic personality, I generally don’t express much emotion in a professional setting and will often sit there like a lump while other people are talking. I can’t say how this reads to the interviewer, but I doubt I’ve been accused of being enthusiastic about a potential role.

          Another reason I don’t read too much into apparent enthusiasm or lack thereof.

    4. Hyaline*

      Someone asked in Friday chat about the marker of “enthusiasm” being problematic for their neurodivergent mentee to hit—and I feel like “shows excitement” falls in the same bin. Judging candidates on how they express emotion in an interview is imo not a good idea and verges into bias.

      1. Paint N Drip*

        Totally agree. I swear this is the biggest hurdle for my career. And though Alison does have some good advice for employees on this I think (if you can’t perform excitement, you can perform deep dedication) but for those of us unable or unwilling to perform at all, it’s still a biased rubric. (And I’ll be honest and say that as a woman, I’m unconvinced that the ‘dedication’ schtick is an effective alternate – society still wants me to be doing the emotional labor of Enthusiasm)

    5. blah*

      LW didn’t say the temp didn’t get the job because she didn’t seem very excited, it was something she noticed later.

    6. Analyst*

      Seriously. Hiring Managers need to stop expecting candidates to perform enthusiasm in particular ways for them.

      1. Broadway Duchess*

        I don’t think that’s what LW is implying. It reads to me more like LW is surprised that the temp is taking it so hard because she didn’t seem that enthusiastic, not that she was expecting temp to be enthusiastic to get the role.

    8. Space Needlepoint*

      Damned if you do damned if you don’t. Someone excited could just as easily be dinged as “not taking the job seriously.”

    9. Charley*

      I do speak from personal experience as well – I once got rejected after interview with the feedback that I “lacked passion for the role”, which felt very unfair. It was an admin job!

      1. Pizza Rat*

        I swear some companies want their candidates to act as if working for them is everything they ever wanted in life.

        If most of us had everything we wanted in life, we probably wouldn’t be working for someone else.

  8. “What does it all mean”*

    L3: as a recruiter this happens literally all the time. I even genuinely route for the temp worker but sometimes talent comes along that you cannot afford to pass on. Also as some have noted typically a temp worker is hired on a fast track (typically through an agency) vs an open competitive posting – so in reality if the company had advertised a full time posting in the first place she might have never gotten the job due to the quality of candidates that apply to perm roles.

  9. Juniper*

    LW5: You star employee is fresh out of college, so she must be mid-twenties at most. Don’t understimate the value of all the non-task related experience she is gaining. Becoming comfortable and learning the ropes in a role, organization, and industry is so much more than executing projects at a high level. I don’t doubt your description that she is an exceptional performer, but unless she has expressed frustration at a lack of upward movement, I wouldn’t push her.
    She’s been there less than 2 years, has already received a raise (assuming it wasn’t a COL adjustment), has a supportive manager, and a path to promotion in a year. To be frank, I’d find it strange if I was doing a great job and my boss was pushing me to leave! Continue to advocate for her, be honest with her about any organizational challenges that might impede her development, but otherwise let her chart her own course.

    1. bamcheeks*

      Yes! Sometimes it’s as simple as having seen three annual cycles through and having a much broader base of information about what A Good Year, A Bad Year, and an Average Year look like,. Sometimes it’s gaining confidence in dealing with the unexpected and being able to make decisions about how to proceed when things don’t go to plan. Sometimes it’s filling gaps in your knowledge because you’ve been in more meetings where people talk about the history of decisions or why things are a certain way. Sometimes it’s literally being more experienced than the new intake of graduates behind you and being able to exercise authority.

      It’s great that she’s doing so well, and we shouldn’t get too hung up on years of experience as the only criteria for advancement and progression — but years of experience are ALSO valuable and it’s often worth keeping that in mind.

    2. Love me, love my cat*

      You made an excellent point! The temp might not even register any praise you give her if you’re also saying, “We aren’t giving you the position you wanted. Actually, you should leave.” Talk about a mixed message!

    3. Sloanicota*

      Yes, plus although you think it would be easy for her to find a new job, it’s probably a pretty intimidating prospect to her, and many people prefer staying where they are, with the devil they know – a kind, supportive boss who thinks they’re great! There’s no guarantee she’d find that again if she moved on. That said, when the HR manager gives you a new “rule” you’ve never heard of before, and particularly if you notice it doesn’t really apply to everyone but apparently does apply to your employee, be very cautious parroting it to them as if it were true. Your employer may well think it’s great to be getting high level work out of a low level employee and not feel any incentive to change that – not next year, or any year in the future. So I think put it on the radar that she shouldn’t wait around forever expecting things to change.

    4. el l*

      Yeah, I’ll put it this way: Worst case, what’s a year to her?

      There are fields or personalities where that’d be intolerable – but for general advice, let it play. Focus on getting her interesting opportunities and mentoring her so when the next step comes she’ll continue her exponential growth.

      (If they don’t give her the promotion in a year, THEN you have the “you should see if better opportunities elsewhere” conversation. But there’s no good reason here to do that now)

    5. Smithy*

      By the way the OP’s written it – I agree.

      However, I think this is a case where a lot more specificity would push me one way or the other. Mostly if where the OP works there are perhaps more interim steps up that simply do not exist. In a very rough example, one place may have Assistant, Associate, Officer, Manager Director roles – while another has only Assistant, Manager, Director roles. Because a new hire is on that team where the step after Assistant is Manager – they may not have visibility that in other places there are two other steps up that not only provide more money, but also gradually increasing responsibility. And that no matter how well an Assistant does, making the case that they’re ready to be a Manager will take far far longer than if they apply for Associate or Officer roles at a competitor.

      In my industry those gaps in position aren’t always immediately obvious because of course my industry doesn’t have standardized titles. But personally and also among peers, I’ve seen so many people so frustrated with not being put up for promotion after years of good work – but not necessarily seeing those gap positions that their current employer just doesn’t have and won’t be adding.

      1. Juniper*

        Really good point on the progression discrepencies from org to org. A promotion in one place can look very different from a promotion elsewhere and involve so many different factors. I know VPs that in practice have less responsibility than managers at another company. The federal gov’t is another example with strict advancement schedules — step increases only happen after a certain amount of time and aren’t considered a promotion, with grade increases requiring another set of conditions.

        1. Smithy*

          Yeah – I will also say that there are employers like government where promotion pathways are very specific. There are also jobs where promotion pathways aren’t necessarily going to be helpful in giving advice to someone in another field. Thinking of something like academia or big law, if either of those are systems someone is familiar with – that’s not necessarily going to apply to other career tracks.

          All I can say is that I was that person working somewhere with a title of Officer and furious that I wasn’t being considered for a promotion. But the reason is that my team had no need to add a seniority role in between mine and the Director. And proving I was ready to move into the Director role could have taken years or never happened. By the time all of that clicked and I left, it was for a place that that had the following set of roles – Officer, Sr. Officer, Associate Director, Director, Sr. Director.

          When you’re newer to the working world, this stuff isn’t always obvious. But once it clicks it can really clarify some of the why’s.

    6. Miracle*

      I truly appreciate the experience I had in a job that I was “over-qualified” for. It required so many organizational skills and was a physical challenge that it really prepared me for the next 20 years of my career. Building confidence and being great at a job is a great way to kick off a career.

      I have seen several promotions of people a little bit too early that end up causing problems later with people being underprepared for supervisor or dealing with politics.

      That said, I will encourage restless staff to look outside of our organization when they feel like they have outgrown their role and there isn’t an obvious next step.

  10. BigLawEx*

    LW 5 a friend’s daughter was in your employee’s position and my friend and I thought a kindness when her manager told her she could wait for a promotion (which should come, but might not due to any number of unseen factors) or she could also look because with her her excellent skills she could move up quickly by moving on.

    I think it’s worth having a serious conversation with the employee.

    1. Hannah Lee*

      Agreed!

      The one thing I’d mention, though, is to be open minded about what the *employee* might be looking for. What I mean is, if the employee likes their job, is finding it interesting and learning a lot, gaining confidence because they are good at it, you don’t want to come at them with an “up or out” bias, like you assume anyone in that role should either be on track for promotion and should start looking around.

      The message LW 5 might be intending to send is “I think you’re a great and valuable employee capable of much more! I’d confidently promote you right now if I could, and am laying the groundwork for that to happen when it can. But if you are eager to move up sooner rather than later, if remaining in your current role/level for another 12-18 months would disappoint you, you should start looking elsewhere and I will support you in that, even though I’d hate to lose you.”

      But the message the employee might receive is “Don’t expect to move up here anytime soon (or ever) Because of ‘reasons’. And while I may be saying those ‘reasons’ have nothing to do with your performance, hint-hint, there *IS* something about you that means you’re not going to advance here. So, you better start looking, tick-tock, tick-tock. I’ll give you a good reference to help you on your way. Or the employee could think you’re trying to tell them that the position they are in is a feeder position, with the expectation that new hires will work in the position for 1-2 years and then it’s “up or out” and they’ll be like “oh, how did I miss that” and start scrambling to find something, anything so they can move on before being asked to leave.

      And some people aren’t primarily climb-the-ladder ambitious and while they might appreciate a pay increase, bonus, or title improvement in recognition of a job well done and the fact that they’ve gained skills, knowledge and are a more valuable employee than when they first started, they’re not in a race to the top or impatient for a big promotion. While you wouldn’t want someone to stagnate or become complacent at work, and it might be good to make someone aware of alternate opportunities or paths they could take, there may be aspects of their current position that are just as valuable, or more valuable, to them than a move up the hierarchy.

      If I were in your shoes, I might ask *them* what they are looking for, hoping for in their current role, position and going forward over the next 1,2 – 5 years as part of a general professional development conversation(s). And that doesn’t have to focus solely on promotions, or next career steps, and could also include training, exposure to certain kinds of projects, departments.

  11. ecnaseener*

    LW3, it sounds like you’re worried you’ve done something wrong because your employee is upset about this outcome. I don’t think there’s anything you could’ve done that would have prevented her from being upset – it’s an inherently upsetting situation!

    She knew this was a temp-to-perm situation and that getting the permanent position wasn’t guaranteed. Hard to tell from your letter, maybe you could’ve made it a little clearer that it wasn’t a guarantee, but it’s not like you overstated her chances – she clearly had a good chance and just got unlucky with this unicorn candidate. And you’re giving her some notice before her job ends. That’s really all you could’ve done. There’s no magic wand that a more experienced manager could’ve saved to make the experience of losing her job not suck.

    2. ecnaseener*

      Oh, also – it sounds like this wasn’t a one-year contract with a set end date at which she would either have a permanent job or not, right? just a short-term position that got renewed until you made this hire? That’s naturally going to make the blow hit harder because she hasn’t really gotten used to this end date being a possibility.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Also from her perspective, she was working there for a year – maybe with no set end date – and then the possibility was presented that she could get the job full time and stay forever – yes obviously she knew it wasn’t a guarantee but it was hope (and she was in the top two!) which makes it more difficult emotionally than just “well, you knew it was a temporary job when you took it …”

  12. Anon for This*

    #5 – Where I work we also have a three years before promotion to the next level rule. It was put in place because superstars were getting serial promotions a little too fast causing one of two things to happen – 1. some of them reached a level they were not prepared for, causing them to fail and we lost them. 2. those who did succeed at higher levels found themselves at a level where there was no promotion potential because the positions above them were filled with people who were not going anywhere, so we lost them. It wouldn’t surprise me if your company’s rule was put in place for similar reasons. We tend to look for other ways to reward people who have to wait another year for promotion – awards/bonuses, prestigious conferences, advanced training programs. If your employee isn’t pressing for promotion you may want to look for a different way to reward her.

    1. Sloanicota*

      It would be tough to implement a rule like that when hiring of specific roles often feels a bit arbitrary; it’s kind of more about timing and who was in what candidate pool when versus some kind of perfect sorting algorithm to ensure everyone is in the perfect step (which seems like is more common in government, where such a rule might make more sense).

    2. Analyst*

      I mean…people who fall into #2 are now more likely to be lost to the company because they will leave to rise faster elsewhere. If #1 was happening, yes, some promotions were being fast tracked too much and a way to avoid that is needed- time is the easy way out and means you’re preventing people who could move up from doing so.

  13. Traveling Nerd*

    LW1 – This would go over very strangely at anywhere that I have worked. I would worry that at best you’re unaware of professional norms, and at worse that you are in an abusive/controlling relationship.
    Maybe once a year it would make sense. Or once every other month if it was something like “my husband brought me some takeout we’re eating together and now he’s waiting to drive me home.” But otherwise it really brings unprofessional vibes.

    1. Observer*

      I think that this is true, unless you have a specific reason for it. Like “we carpool and public transportation is not a real option because of ~~reasons~~”

    3. Femeninomenon*

      I can’t tell exactly why LW1 is wanting hubby to hang with her until she’s done at work – could be carpooling as some have suggested, but sounds more like not wanting to be a woman alone in an office (which I totally understand!). Ironically, what could make her more comfortable has the potential to make others very uncomfortable. If I had to work late and there was this male non-employee hanging out in the office, I’d be super uncomfy.

  14. Apex Mountain*

    Many many years ago when I was a temp and applied for the full time job but didn’t get it, the supposed reason was that to convert me from temp to full time they would have had to pay the temp agency some outlandish fee that wasn’t in the budget

    Doesn’t sound like that’s a factor here but you never know

    1. blah*

      Pretty sure the LW would have included such a detail if it was a contributing factor in the decision.

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

      OP does not say that this was through a temp agency. She specifically said that she knew this person from another org that had laid her off because of budget cuts. There is a lot of conjecture in the comments that talks about a temp agency and rules for temp workers. Non of that is in the letter.

      1. Apex Mountain*

        Yes, I was raising this as a general topic for temps not getting hired full time, not saying that this is what happened here.

  15. Nia*

    LW3 She probably didn’t want to be in the interview because it’s incredibly insulting to have to interview for the job you’re already doing. Would you be happy if your boss forced you to interview for your own job after working there a year. What exactly do you think you learned from this interview that you didn’t already know from a year of supervising her work?

    1. Spicy Tuna*

      That depends… I was asked to take on responsibilities for another department while the company looked for someone to fill the role full time. I went above and beyond but still had to interview for it. I ended up getting the job, but only because they couldn’t find someone with more experience to take the job. In my case, it was in a regulated industry, so there were reasons for preferring someone with more experience.

    2. metadata minion*

      It’s not at all uncommon to have to go through an application/interview process to get hired in a permanent version of a temp position. It feels very weird as the candidate, but sometimes the permanent position has higher-level responsibilities than the temp position, and some candidates might be good enough for a year but not someone the employer wants to keep on permanently, and in that case I’d much rather have “1 year temp contract” on my resume than “fired”.

      1. Cat Lady in the Mountains*

        Yeah, and we have MUCH looser recruitment requirements for temps than for full-time positions from a DEIJ lens. We are able to hire known friends/colleagues/etc. quickly as temps to solve the immediate staffing gap, but for full-time roles we have to follow a fairly extensive process to truly assess who the strongest person for the job is. We can sometimes skip a step or two with a temp (like maybe they don’t have to do the phone screen or maybe we don’t check references as extensively), but we need at least a few ways to assess them in the same way that we assess the rest of the pool.

        1. bamcheeks*

          This is key, and I think it’s one of the major cultural differences between sectors. I understand why people hate formal recruitment processes, but there is a lot of evidence that they foster more diverse workplaces. Places that do a lot of temp-to-perm hiring and value incumbency do privilege people who already have an “in”, and that’s one of the reasons for conducting a wider and more open search. I get why that seems unfair when you’re the incumbent, but there are good reasons for it!

          1. Lady Danbury*

            100% this. Temp positions can be abused as a way to get your connections (often people who are like you) into the door at a company and disadvantage those who aren’t in your immediate network. Forcing every permanent position to go through the normal recruitment process not only benefits the company but it also benefits all potential workers, especially those who aren’t “connected” (often minorities, those disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, etc).

        2. Humble Schoolmarm*

          All of my unionized jobs have had a requirement to post jobs when they go from term to permanent (although it’s been relaxed quite a bit since we have a teacher shortage and are trying to get people slotted into permanent spots before they go try their luck elsewhere). I’ve been screwed twice by this rule, but I do think it’s good for DEIJ. The other thing is that although it’s a misconception that you can’t fire someone in a union, it is much harder to fire someone without a good reason. Having a lot of filters at the start of someone’s career makes more sense from that perspective.

      2. Nia*

        If the permanent position had higher level responsibilities that LW felt the temp couldn’t handle she would have mentioned it. As it is the LW says the only reason the temp didn’t get the position is because a unicorn that *might* be better at the job applied. So yes it was incredibly insulting that LW made the temp apply and interview for the job she had already been doing well for a year.

        1. DisgruntledPelican*

          metadata minion referred to higher level responsibilities as a reason why a temp would still need to interview for a permanent position, not as an explanation for why this particular temp was not hired.

    3. blah*

      This is ridiculous. It was a temporary position moving into a permanent one, which could mean adding more responsibilities than would be given to a temp. LW says the person hired was basically a unicorn, and we’re supposed to take LW for their word. Unfortunately for the temp, she didn’t make the cut!

      Even going with your hypothetical, yes people should be mad if your boss asked you to interview for your job, but that’s because I already have it! I don’t have a temp version of my position.

      1. Nia*

        If the permanent position had higher level responsibilities that LW felt the temp couldn’t handle she would have mentioned it. Since she didn’t we can be assured that the temp was perfectly capable of performing the role long term. So the temp already did have the job.

        1. Nonsense*

          Yes, the temp was already working the job. However, the LW’s company has a policy in place that requires interviewing for a permanent role, means the temp had to go through the process. And from the LW wrote, it sounds like, even with the disinterest, she would have gotten the job had the unicorn not shown up. That’s why the formal interview process is in place – no matter how strong your internal candidate is, it’s always possible there’s a stronger external candidate.

        2. Analytical Tree Hugger*

          No.

          Communication is a skill and leaving out relevant information is common and understandable, so it’s entirely possible (even likely) there is more not included in the letter.

        3. Peanut Hamper*

          No, she did not already have the job. A temp job is not the same as a permanent job. This is what you seem to be misunderstanding. She may have been performing the duties, but duties do not a job make.

          It’s a mistaken assumption to assume that because you’ve been filling this role, you will be the one to get hired if it goes permanent. It often does not work out this way.

        4. Colette*

          That’s not how it works.

          The temp could have done the job – everyone agrees. But in the process of choosing the best candidate who could do the job, she came in second.

          It’s unfortunate. She’s not wrong for being upset. But that’s how it goes. Sometimes people miss out on jobs they could have done well because the employer picked someone else. She had an advantage in the hiring process because she’d already done the job, but it wasn’t enough to put her ahead of the other candidate.

      2. Glen*

        I’m sorry, if that was the issue, how would it have been a close hiring decision? The erstwhile temp made it into the top two, and LW says it was a difficult choice. That doesn’t describe someone who isn’t capable of filling parts of the role, especially when competing with someone described as an exceptional candidate.

    4. Peanut Hamper*

      if your boss forced you to interview for your own job after working there a year

      That is a completely different situation though. A temp job is not the same as a permanent job.

      I mean, it’s possible she wasn’t happy about having to interview, but this is a standard practice most places.

      1. Nia*

        Standard practices can still be bad. Making any temp formally interview for a position they’ve held for say longer than the company’s standard probation period is insulting and an absolute waste of everyone’s time. An interview is to determine if a candidate can fill a position, something that a good manager should have already figured out about a temp.

        1. Peanut Hamper*

          Yes, but this is assuming the temp position and the permanent position are identical. They often aren’t. Temp positions are usually about keeping things running, permanent positions usually have a lot more responsibilities. See some of the other comments upthread about this. It’s not insulting and it’s not a waste of time to see if they are capable of handling these additional responsibilities.

        2. Colette*

          It obviously wasn’t a waste of anyone’s time, because the temp didn’t end up getting the job.

          An interview is to determine if a candidate can fill a position, yes, but it’s also to determine the best candidate who can fill the position. As others have said, having an open process gives opportunities to people who otherwise wouldn’t have gotten a chance. And that’s good – it increases diversity and reduces nepotism.

          1. Nia*

            I’m wasn’t saying that having an interview process was a waste of time(though I do think it was, it took a unicorn to beat out the temp for the job. Looking for a unicorn is *always* a waste of time whether or not you find one). I’m saying forcing the temp to participate in it is a waste of time. She should have been considered without needing to interview because there is nothing an interview could have told LW about the temp that she shouldn’t have already known.

            1. Colette*

              But they weren’t looking for a unicorn – they just happened to find one.

              They could decide to not have her interview – but then she wouldn’t be measured fairly against the others. For example, in a past job I used SharePoint. I started with my current employer as a temp, and had no need to use SharePoint. Now my organization is considering using it. My experience with it might come out in an interview, but wouldn’t be something the people I worked with as a temp would be aware of.

              I’m inclined to believe it’s to the candidate’s advantage to interview, even if it’s with people who know her work – because no one I’ve ever worked with knows my entire work experience. In this case, the temp had an advantage when interviewing – she knew the people and the work better than any external candidates. But missing out on the interview stage wouldn’t have helped her.

              1. Humble Schoolmarm*

                Agreed, I know it varies by industry, but a lot of my day-to-day teaching practice is more or less invisible to the higher-ups, especially in a large school. Generally, they know if you did something really cool, if you screwed up royally or if a parent believes that you screwed up royally. Yes, you have supervisions, but even that is highly dependent on the observer affect. My interviews allowed me to remind them of key bits of my skill set that didn’t come up a lot and to share outcomes that were valuable, but probably unknown to them (ie, turning around my relationship with an oppositional student).

        3. Hannah Lee*

          “Making any temp formally interview for a position they’ve held for say longer than the company’s standard probation period is insulting and an absolute waste of everyone’s time. ”

          There’s a lot of emotional heft (ie “insulting” “absolute waste of time”) in this statement that doesn’t match what I’ve experienced in my career. Sure, there may be cases where someone has been acting or interim senior director of whatnot and fully in the role with the expectation it’s just a matter of timing, formalities before they are officially in that position.

          But in most cases, a “temp” version of any position does not include the full scope of a permanent version of that position. There can be differences in responsibilities and latitude, autonomy such as setting major priorities, developing ST and LT strategy, high level decision making, relationship building, budget responsibilities, staffing.

          And, as the LW described, the open position may be envisioned with XYZ skills, responsibilities that the temp could be a great fit for, but then in walks a candidate who has ZZ+ experience that would be a huge added benefit.

    6. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

      Most of the time temp jobs and permanent jobs differ in one key area – growing the job. We hired a temp for the equivalent of my job and they kept the balls in the air for a year. But the actual job includes making improvements, taking on projects, deep diving into policy, etc. What I would expect from a quick temp hire and what I would expect from someone permanent is very different.

    1. Myrin*

      I’m not sure I’m following – that’s basically just a different version of saying “I know she knew it was a temporary position” which, btw, sounds like something OP only brought up to begin with because she foresaw that there would be commenters going “But are you sure your employee really knew that this was only a temporary position?”.

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

        I don’t understand why people are second guessing the OP and saying that the employee didn’t know. We are supposed to take the OP’s at their word. And if you are hired for 1 year you should expect that at the end of that year you need to look for another job.

        I’m thinking that the employee just got it in her head somehow that she was going to keep the job and they weren’t going to hire someone else. I think its more on the employee thinking that she was just going to get to stay. especially if she never checked in about becoming permanent.

        1. Seashell*

          Maybe she thought that since she was encouraged to interview and had been doing the job successfully without any feedback that she wasn’t qualified enough or doing a bad job that she was likely to keep the job.

        2. Learn ALL the things*

          There are multiple kinds of knowing. The employee knew intellectually that the job was temporary. But knowing intellectually and knowing emotionally are very different things. Intellectually, yes, there’s a hiring process for the permanent version of this job. But emotionally, she’s been doing it for a year and nobody’s had complaints or criticisms all this time and it feels different.

    2. Hiya*

      LW is just asking the unasked question of “are you sure she knew it was temporary?” And the answer is yes.

      1. Saturday*

        Yes, I was thinking that the LW is probably a regular reader of this site and knew people would say, “but are you really sure?”

    3. Hyaline*

      I kinda agree given the timeframe…she might have known when initially brought on and it might have been nothing but clear in paperwork, payroll, etc, but it’s hard to imagine without, idk, regular gentle reminders that she still thought of herself as a temp after a year.

      1. Colette*

        I’ve been a temp, and … it’s not something you forget. You might minimize it (i.e. “sure, my contract is up in April, but they’ll renew it”), but you don’t forget.

    4. bamcheeks*

      This seems kind of unnecessary! You can know from the beginning that it’s a fixed term position and that you’re going to have to go through a competitive process to land the permanent role and still be disappointed when you don’t get it.

      I think the big thing here is that LW doesn’t have to have done anything wrong for her employee to be disappointed and upset. That’s normal! It’s absolutely worth reflecting on whether there’s anything that could have been communicated better, but it’s also 100% possible that LW did everything right and her employee is still gutted. That’s just how these things work.

      1. Awkwardness*

        You can know from the beginning that it’s a fixed term position and that you’re going to have to go through a competitive process to land the permanent role

        I have seen two people at old employer starting as a temp and then being offered permanent roles without a competitive process. Taking into account regional aspects/ size of the employer/ type of positions it was realistic to hope for this to happen even if the position was temp. And I have seen people handle this with different degrees of realism.
        So “knowing” and “understanding” might not necessarily be the same for the employee.

        1. Awkwardness*

          Which is not to say LW did anything “wrong”. The moment the job ad was externally available and the employee had to apply in a formal way it would have been clear, even with the employer mentioned above!, that it is competitive and not a 100% safe outcome.
          But it might be worth reflecting if there were things that could have been communicated better (as need for specific experience of ABC, or a different focus of the perm position)

    5. WellRed*

      It’s certainly an awkward way to phrase it. Better to say “she understood when I hired her it was a temporary position.”

      1. Awkwardness*

        If everybody agrees that this is just an awkward way of phrasing it, this is completely fine! But if I was using this wording, it would indicate that I am not 100% sure, but find it very likely (for example due to knowing hiring practice of my company). But there would be a small chance that the employee was under the impression the temp position will be changed to permanent after some formalities, instead of being truly temp.
        On the other hand, this hire was coming from LWs contacts, so it seems unlikely that the type of position was not discussed properly.

        I hope this makes clear where my confusion is coming from.

    6. sparkle emoji*

      I took this to mean that LW told the temp very explicitly the role was temporary. If for some reason she ignored that, it wasn’t LW’s fault. The fact she was interviewing for a perm version of her job would clue her in even if she’d forgotten.
      But based on the letter, it seems pretty clear the temp also knew the position was temporary anyways, so why are we questioning LW?

  17. Spicy Tuna*

    LW#3, I was in a similar situation to your temp hire. I was working for a company in one role. A gap was identified in a similar department and the company wanted to hire someone with specific experience for the role. However, they needed someone to “hold things together” while they searched. That person was me. I was doing my “real” job and this extra job at the same time. I discovered I enjoyed the extra job much more than my real job, and applied to be hired for it. My boss was honest that due to regulatory requirements, their strong preference was to hire someone who had direct experience in the role.

    They interviewed many, many people for the role with zero success. I was going above and beyond to do a great job at the “temp” role while also fulfilling my obligations to my “real” job. If I didn’t get the new position, I wouldn’t have been let go… I would just go back to doing my original job only. However, I had already decided that if I didn’t get it, I would leave the company.

    As it turned out, they were unable to hire someone and I got the role, but it was a really uncomfortable time in my professional life.

  18. ZSD*

    #2: Based on the headline, I desperately wanted this to be an accountant who wanted their fellow CPAs to bring them sparkling water and kale salads.

  19. Hiya*

    LW3 – First, kudos to you for writing in and being such a conscientious new manager. Ultimately, I don’t think there’s much you could’ve done to soften the blow here. No one likes getting rejected from a job, especially your job that you are already serving. It probably feels like getting fired. I think her reaction is natural and I think her desire for feedback makes complete sense.

    The only thing you could’ve done better, perhaps, is being really explicit at the beginning and, perhaps, end of the interview process that this process was NOT a formality and that there was a possibility you would go with another candidate. I know in my office, we take that approach for internal candidates when we are also interviewing external candidates because people often assume it’s just a formality and there they are a shoo-in.

    (And, admittedly, we often need a really compelling reason or candidate not to hire our internal candidates – which I know external candidates hate to hear – but it’s true. Everyone has a chance, but internal candidates have their candidacy strengthened by their existing knowledge of institution and our knowledge of their work.)

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

      I agree. I think some people are just looking at the OP and bashing them. They did everything right. they made it clear that the position was for 1 year. I think this is the case of an employee who got their hopes up and thought they were going to be just handed the job.

    2. Resentful Oreos*

      I also agree. I think that the one thing the LW might have done better was to say that the external interview was for real, not a formality. And also tell the temp in the role that this time there WAS a truly compelling unicorn outside candidate.

      It’s normal for internal candidates to feel they have the edge, and often they do. This time the internal candidate got unlucky because Unicorn popped up. I would be upset under the circumstances as well. Don’t tiptoe around the temp or try and cosset their hurt feelings all the time, but you might want to reassure her that you found someone from the outside who was so tailor-made for the job that you had to go with them. If there is anything that the temp person is missing – experience or credentials – it would be a kindness to mention that so that the temp can get those somehow.

      But nobody is at fault here. It just shook out in a bad way for the internal candidate who got her hopes up and maybe didn’t realize that the interview was NOT a formality.

  20. Cat Lady in the Mountains*

    LW3: how transparent were you with the temp about the hiring process from the beginning? Did you say something like “this is going to be a genuinely open hiring process, you’re a strong candidate but ultimately we will hire the best match from the pool we build?” Not much you can do about it now, but it’s an easy way to manage expectations in these situations. (And if you were transparent and she didn’t believe you, well, it’s on her to manage her feelings about it.) If you weren’t that transparent, an acknowledgement of that to the temp might help smooth things over.

    LW5: I’ve found “stay” conversations super helpful for this – like, “I think you’re great, and I’m very invested in fostering an environment where you want to stay on our team. What would it take for you to feel enthusiastic about staying in this job for two years, with the possibility of a promotion in one year?” and then deeply listen to what they say and respond with transparency (but neutrally and non-judgmentally) about what you can and can’t deliver. This is immensely trust-building and gives you useful information about what they care about. It’s really not your role to coach your superstar on how to manage their career holistically (unless they specifically ask you to play that role), but you can give them factual information about what is and isn’t realistic to expect from THIS job at THIS company.

  21. Lady Danbury*

    LW #1: I would be weirded out if my coworker’s spouse was hanging around the office every day. Depending on the role/company, it’s a security risk for the business and a potential safety risk for other employees. Of course you know your spouse would never do anything untoward towards other employees, but they don’t know that and neither does the company. If it’s a safety issue, the company absolutely has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment, but the solution to security concerns usually doesn’t mean bringing an employee’s personal connection into the company’s controlled environment. Obviously the details of how these concerns should be addressed would vary based on the specifics of the situation.

    1. Hannah Lee*

      ^ this!

      I’ve worked places where a spouse or SO or friend came and hung out. And it was weird and uncomfortable. Things like not wanted to enter their workspace to talk to co-worker about a work issue/question while a 3rd party is sitting there, or them bantering with their person non-stop, which made it seem like it would be interrupting them to bring up work stuff, or like the person is not really concentrating on work, or bringing something up that might require more than a minute of their time being an imposition … because guy is obviously right there tapping his toes waiting for her to be done with work already so they can move on whatever they are doing next.

      And that’s before I get into my own personal deal-e-o’s of disliking being around people who are killing time in shared non-public spaces with no reason to be in that space besides their person being there doing something else – with the hanger-outer watching (and assessing or worse commenting on) what others are doing in those shared spaces, or people performing their personal relationships in non-relationship-y spaces. (Hah! as I wrote that, I realized this paragraph of hang-ups stems from a series of bad living situations where current roommate’s SO would hang out for hours in a shared dorm room or apartment living room acting like the Grand Poobah and boss of all he surveyed, sucking up all the energy and attention in the room while I was just trying to go about my life, and one work-study job where my co-worker’s bored and boring boyfriend just lounged and fidgeted around the place during many of our shared shifts) LW #1’s husband could be perfectly normal and non-intrusive, so none of those things may apply.

    2. TheBunny*

      Same. Occasionally? No big deal. My mom and I were going to NYC and her train arrived early. She sat in my office for an hour because the airport shuttle we were taking left from the that building.

      I asked my boss beforehand and no one thought it was odd. But it was once.

  22. yikes*

    no. dont let your husband “hang out” at your work for extended periods of time. it’s obnoxious. dont bring your kids or pets either. i know it doesn’t bother YOU when they ask questions, force awkward chit chat, or make other people uncomfortable. i mean, obviously, YOUR husband and kids and pets are sweet and adorable and who wouldn’t enjoy having them around? but as a coworker who has to make chit chat with them (if in shared areas) or if they’re just in your office feel awkward or uncomfortable going in to talk to you about work or ask you a question. work isn’t a day care or pet care. be professional.

    1. blah*

      Did you read the letter? The husband would only be there when LW is staying late, which presumably means he wouldn’t be bothering LW’s coworkers. Sorry YOU have had annoying experiences, but those aren’t applicable to this situation.

      1. yikes*

        so other people dont stay late? regardless, it’s not a playground it’s a place of business. if she has to stay late often enough for it to be an issue, wouldn’t it be weird that nobody else ever has to? and if nobody else was in the building, why would she even think to ask?

      2. Lady Danbury*

        If LW is working late, there may or may not be other people working late as well. I’d definitely be uncomfortable if I was working late and my coworker’s husband was also in the building late at night, if only for my own personal safety reasons.

        1. Chad_Chad*

          Your immediate assumption is that a coworker’s husband presents a safety THREAT to YOU? That’s very cynical.

          1. Lady Danbury*

            Umm, have you seen the stats about violence against women? There’s a reason why women chose the bear over and over. It’s a fully rational concern that an unknown man MIGHT be a threat to my own personal safety in an isolated situation late at night. Obviously coworker has vetted her spouse, but the company hasn’t and neither have I. Plenty of married men commit heinous crimes, so simply being married to a coworker does not alleviate any safety concerns that I might have.

            1. Observer*

              Umm, have you seen the stats about violence against women?

              Yes. Which means very little in this case. Because those stats are not about women who happen to be in the same space as a guy *and his spouse*.

              Now if the guy were hanging around the office while you were only other person there, and the spouse were not there for some reason, that would be different. Still unlikely all things considered, but to toooo out there. But this? No, married men generally don’t commit those crimes in the presence of their wives.

              1. Cardboard Marmalade*

                Next time you’re in a group of, say, 20 or more women/AFAB people, go ahead and ask if anyone there has had any creepy interactions with married guys whose wives were in the same building, or even just across the room at a crowded party. I promise you, the results will be illuminating.

                1. Observer*

                  I happen to be a woman.

                  In any case, there is a difference between “creepy” and dangerous. And it really is a jump to assume that the LW’s husband is going to creep on any woman who happens to be in the building *and* assume that there actually will be other women around.

    2. ZSD*

      I think this is a bit harsh. It sounds like the husband would only be there in the evening, after normal working hours, so he probably wouldn’t be interacting much with the letter writer’s co-workers. As Alison said, there are some offices where this would be fine.

    3. Hyaline*

      I’m failing to see how a person having their spouse in the same vicinity as their coworkers means the spouse will “force awkward chit chat.” Like…they probably don’t want to talk to you, either, if they’re just waiting for their spouse to finish before they carpool home or whatever, especially if this is regular routine. And suggesting that having a spouse in your office somehow constitutes “day care” makes no sense. LW never suggested bringing kids or pets.

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

        I agree with you, I don’t see the issue. Especially if there is like a waiting area or something for him to sit. Or if she has her own office maybe he could sit in there (if its not against policy).

        I wish the OP was more clear as to why her husband needs to be there. If it’s because of car pooling or if its because she doesn’t feel safe.

        If it’s a safety issue (Like there is no lights in the parking garage or there have been muggings or other crimes at night in the area) then she should talk with the boss to see what they can do. Whatever the solution is it should not be that she has to rely on her coworkers to walk her to her car. I worked somewhere where that was the solution for those who had to park several blocks away.

    4. Chad_Chad*

      The LW is working late, alone. Pretty sure any chitchat between her and her SO would not be awkward. You’re making a lot of assumptions that aren’t relevant to what the LW said are the circumstances. Also, how did you leap to “adorable” pets and kids? LW is working late, and for either logistical reasons, or reasons of safety, would like her SO to be there to either drive home together or walk her to her car, etc.. As long as he isn’t wanting to talk to her the whole time and interfere with her work, there’s no reason he shouldn’t.

      1. Peanut Hamper*

        Yes, agreed. LW said nothing about pets, kids, etc. I also read “somewhere in the office” so I’m thinking LW thinking about someplace appropriate, like a waiting area or a breakroom, not walking around schmoozing their coworkers.

        Some of these comments, today, I swear. People would rather soapbox than actually offer helpful advice. I’m just like “Holy Reading Comprehension, Batman!”

    5. Daisy-dog*

      I’m sorry you’ve had such a horrible experience with co-workers’ families. This has not been my experience – any spouse, kid, or dog that I’ve met that was hanging around work has been very well-behaved & stuck to where they were supposed to be (this is a very weird sentence to craft when discussing that broad range of spouse to dog). All of those instances were one-offs for me though, so not sure what would change if it were a regular occurrence. It’s hard to imagine it being anything that horrific outside of security issues.

    6. Observer*

      i know it doesn’t bother YOU when they ask questions, force awkward chit chat, or make other people uncomfortable.

      WOW.

      That’s a lot of projection. And it really does not make a lot of sense in the context of the letter. The LW is asking about her husband hanging around when she *stays late*. In other words, unlikely that there are going to be people for him to bother. And, by the way, not all people who wait for someone do the things you describe. So even if others were around, there is no reason to believe that Husband is going to behave badly.

  23. Art of the Spiel*

    LW4: If you decide to pursue formal accommodations and ask for a Dr’s recommendation, don’t be terribly surprised if “sensory processing disorder from some combination of anxiety ADHD” ends up diagnosed as autism. Ask any of the people who were diagnosed later in life, “how did you describe this in layman’s terms before you were diagnosed?” and that’s almost word for word what they’d say.

  24. Fikly*

    LW5:

    The you must be in your position for X amount of time before you can be promoted is utter nonsense, and it being a norm doesn’t make it less utter nonsense, for two primary reasons.

    First, when an external candidate is applying for the same role that an internal candidate would be promoted into, there isn’t a rigid X years in previous role standard applied. Those requirements are always flexible. And those requirements can be filled with multiple jobs/positions, rather than in just one role.

    Second, if anything, the requirement should be rigid for an external candidate, not an internal one. With an external candidate, you know very little about how they actually perform, and have limited ways to know before hiring them. So one way to help lower risk would be to impose a rigid experience requirement. But with an internal candidate, you know so much about how they perform already, because you can see that right in front of you. So the idea that you can only promote them if they’ve had X amount of time with you, rather than looking at their performance, is only sensible if you realize it’s to the employer’s benefit, not the employees.

    In summary, let the employee know the requirement, and that if they want to advance now rather than waiting however long, look elsewhere. After all, if it’s just business, not personal, why shouldn’t they leave the company for a better position elsewhere?

    1. Florence Reece*

      I think you misread the situation a little bit? LW5 specifically says: “she’d have to have had three years of experience in her current (or any equivalent) role .” There’s no requirement that she work for three years HERE, just three years in the field IN GENERAL. Because this is her first role in the industry, it just happens to mean that her three years will all be at this company (if she chooses to stay).

      Some positions absolutely do have a firm minimum experience for both internal and external candidates, especially if the title conveys degrees of experience. It sounds like in this case, the employee would go from Llama Groomer I to Llama Groomer II. I think the LW is right to advocate for an exception if she’s truly performing at Groomer II levels. But setting minimums for those roles in general isn’t some kind of trick to screw over employees. In my experience, it’s actually meant to make promotions (and pay) more equitable and consistent across the org, both for internal and external hires.

      I think LW is great for wanting to encourage their superstar employee and push for her to be recognized. I agree that telling her the requirement and that LW thinks she might be able to get the title/pay sooner elsewhere is a good idea. Certainly, there’s no reason the employee shouldn’t feel empowered to leave for a better position elsewhere if she wants to. But it doesn’t sound like the company is exploiting this person or anything lol. It’s not “nonsense” to expect that Groomer II carries a certain level of experience that isn’t common before X years in the field, and in fact that helps prevent bad managers from boosting or hiring ‘superstars’ based on personality instead of actual talent. It sometimes holds back *actual* superstars a little bit, but it doesn’t sound like this employee is even concerned about it — LW just wants to reward their great employee, which is a wonderful impulse that suggests the company culture is quite healthy. I don’t understand the hostility.

  25. rebelwithmouseyhair*

    OP3 Can you not just give your employee the info you gave Alison? “You are a great employee and have done well in this role. It so happens that New Hire has more experience in X and will be able to expand the role and bring their expertise to it. We weren’t even hoping to pull in such a candidate, which is why I suggested you apply. It’s not that you are inadequate in any way, it’s that this person will bring so much more than we had even hoped for.”
    Also, is there not another role in the company that you could maybe fill?

  26. STG*

    #1 is going to be so office specific that the question should really go to your boss before you do it regardless of AAM.

    In my office, this would be a no-no but that’s because of the heightened security of working with sensitive data. There’s one area that they could wait but only during normal business hours. They’d have to be escorted anywhere else and constantly watched.

  27. Delta Delta*

    1 – I’d like a little more information about how long the husband might be at the workplace. If it’s 15-20 minutes while OP is wrapping up, that seems easy to communicate and accommodate. If OP husband carpool, that’s also easy. If it’s that OP is going to be there for several hours and they’re lonely or they just don’t like being there that late alone, that seems more like a systemic job issue where the employer ought to have more people working at the same time.

  28. Hyaline*

    I feel like LW1’s situation depends a lot, too, on the size and layout of the office and whether others are usually there. Some objections I’m seeing here are “no, he’ll bug other people”–well, not really if she’s the only one staying late! Or “it’s weird if he’s hanging out where you work”-but not really if it’s a large area with open lounge seating or something where it’s normal for people to just…plant for a while. (I work in a big academic building. No one would bat an eye if someone hung out with their laptop in an open seating area or a lounge because…that’s what they’re there for.) If it’s a small office building/area with nowhere to just kind of exist for a while except literally in your way, then it might be awkward, especially if the only reason he’s there is to hang out, but I feel like many objections are more “ick, blurring the boundaries between personal and work life” and well…that’s an issue more abut perception than hard and fast rules.

    Honestly, as long as he’s not hovering over LW interfering with her getting work complete, or in others’ way, or a very weird lurker (in which case this is the least of LW’s problems), it’s unlikely anyone is going to care, and if it’s something LW feels strongly about for safety or is a logistical issue for carpooling or something, I don’t see the big deal. If anyone asks “why is Mr. LW here so much?” any reasonable human would take “we carpool” as an answer.

    1. Daisy-dog*

      Yeah, I’d have to ask our Office Manager if it’s allowed. I’d probably have to sign him in to the visitor log. My husband would then just sit somewhere and watch videos on his phone (with headphones, not on the WiFi).

  29. Coyote River*

    LW1: This question is nearly impossible to answer as it so dependent on where you work and the specific policies there. The best advice would be to ask your own manager, but as a general rule no, spouses should not be loitering about the office.

  30. Kesnit*

    LW3
    I had something similar happen to me several years ago.

    I had been trying to get hired by a specific state agency with offices all around the state. After one interview (5 hours from where I lived), I was told that the agency had started a Fellowship program to bring in people for about 3 months to give them a test-run in the work. The office 5 hours from me was one of the offices participating and – although they were not offering me the permanent position I had interviewed for – they offered me a Fellowship position. I put the offer on hold to see if any office closer was also participating and learned there was a position 30 minutes from me. So I took that one.

    The work was a lot of fun and I really liked the people in the office. So I was thrilled when about 2 months in, one of the people announced he was leaving, which would create an opening for a permanent position. I put in my application. A few days later, the head of the office announced they had hired someone for the opening – and it wasn’t me. I was crushed, especially because the application deadline had not passed. So I screwed up my courage and went to the office deputy to ask why I wasn’t considered.

    Turns out the guy they hired had been doing the job in another office for several years, but was relocating for family reasons. Knowing that helped so much. It wasn’t me. It was nothing about me. I still tell myself (whether it’s true or not) that I would have gotten the job if it wasn’t for that guy. LOL!

    What hurt more is that – years later – I was hired permanently by the office 5 hours away that originally told me about the Fellowship. Their Fellow HAD gotten a permanent position in that office (and it was him leaving that opened the job that I filled). Being reminded over and over (because I was) that I had turned down what turned into a permanent position felt like constant salt in a wound.

    1. Fluffy Orange Menace*

      Kesnit! I hope you aren’t still agonizing over that. We ALL make choices that make sense for us in that moment in time. 5 hours away is a LONG way away, and you HAD another, closer opportunity and took it. THAT made sense to you then, and it makes sense to me reading it now! And, maybe the people in that other office at THAT time, would NOT have hired you for the full time perm position, so you needed to be there “years later”. It all worked out the way it was supposed to! :)

      1. Kesnit*

        Oh, I’m not stressing over not accepting the Fellowship 5 hours away. I wasn’t at the time. The hurt came from the fact that my then-boss kept pointing it out, and that I had had a tough time finding a permanent position up until that point.

    2. Silver Robin*

      Were other coworkers reminding you? Because it is extremely weird of them to constantly remind you, and weird to think you should have taken a 3 month stint in an office 5 hours away!! You acted entirely reasonably with the information you had

      1. Kesnit*

        Only the head of the office kept reminding me that I could have had the Fellowship and then permanent position. I kept telling him that the reason I turned it down was that I am married and did not want to relocate my wife for 3 months. Which he said made sense, until the next time he reminded me of it…

  31. Lily Potter*

    OP4 – slow down. You’ve worked in the office all of twenty days. It’s inappropriate for you to ask for a permanent office when the other four people that work in the office don’t have one. I would start by casually asking the other co-worker that come in every day about the politics of private offices. Have any of the office “regulars” ever asked about using them? There might be history there that you don’t know anything about. You could even “jokingly” ask the other regular in-office person “What do you think would happen if we just started working out of those offices?” The reply could be quite revealing.

    1. Hyaline*

      This was my reaction, too–that a month in is probably too soon to make an ask for an office. It probably isn’t too soon, however, to raise the logistical issue LW is having–“I have multiple calls a day for which I have to move, which is disruptive and cutting into my productivity, any ideas?” with their manager. The answer may well be “well, we have a bunch of unused offices, let’s just move you into one of those” but it might also be “eh, that’s what everyone here does, tough cookies” or a range in between those extremes–but you’d have an idea of what is considered appropriate to ask for.

    2. Peanut Hamper*

      LW is already going in and out of an office on a regular basis, and that is very different from actually moving in. So yeah, it’s probably a good idea to find out the history/background/culture surrounding these offices.

    3. D.C. Paralegal*

      Yeah, I don’t see this ending well. This may be one of those times where “it doesn’t hurt to ask” doesn’t apply. As Alison noted and in my own experience, a lot of thought goes into who gets an office, what sort of office it is, etc., and for the sake of workplace harmony, people are loathe to mess with that system. Someone who had been working at a job for a month asking for one, when all her peers are in cubicles, seems pretty audacious.

      And yes, I acknowledge the distinction between asking to work out of an office and asking for an office, but you know who likely won’t? The other people working out of cubicles who have presumably been there much longer than the LW. If the supervisor grants this request, she’ll have a bunch of other people asking “So where’s my office?”

      As such, I would just go straight to “Is there a cubicle further away I can work out of?” Maybe mention that she’s been using an empty office, but realizes that’s not sustainable. That gives the supervisor an opening to say “Go ahead and keep using the office for now,” without the LW actually asking for it. But I suspect this ends with her staying in a cubicle no matter how it’s presented.

      1. Lily Potter*

        “But I suspect this ends with her staying in a cubicle no matter how it’s presented”

        Same here. There is a reason that all of the employees are clustered into one area, whether logistical or culture. OP hasn’t been there long enough to understand why they’re sitting where they are.

        Relevant side story: I worked for a Fortune 50 company 15 years ago. There were very strict internal rules about what you “deserve” for office space, depending on where in the pecking order you laid. VP’s and above got enclosed offices, with Senior VP’s getting a nicer furniture packages. Only Directors and Senior Managers could be placed on the end of a row in the cube farm. Senior Directors got to have their cube entry face 90 degrees away from the main cube farm aisle, if they wanted. I could go on, but you get the picture. OP4 says that they work for a large nonprofit – it’s possible that there are all kinds of rules being followed that the OP doesn’t know about……

        1. D.C. Paralegal*

          And those rules tend to be sacrosanct. I used to work at a firm that also had a set system in terms of who got an office, what sort of office, etc. Paralegals could get a tiny interior office, but only after five years of working in a cubicle. One enterprising junior paralegal noticed a window office had been empty for a while and asked the senior partner she worked with if she could have it. The partner was like “Sure!” Within a day of her moving in, the office administrator found out and sent her back to her cubicle.

          In the hierarchy of the firm, did the partner outrank the administrator? Yup. By a wide mile. Didn’t matter. Rules are rules.

  32. HonorBox*

    OP1 – I see in other comments that there’s a lot of speculation about commuting, etc. It sounds to me like there are instances when you’re having to work late and your husband just comes with you so you have an additional, friendly body nearby. I think this is a question to direct to your boss. If you’re not working late ALL THE TIME and just feel more at ease if your husband is there, perhaps just simply asking if it is OK if he joins you, hangs out in the conference room and watches a show on his iPad is the right approach. I’d hope that if it isn’t that regular of an occurrence and you can show that his presence isn’t interrupting your work, and his presence allows you to be more comfortable in being there when you have to, they’ll allow it. The biggest thing is showing that it isn’t negatively impacting your work.

  33. Fluffy Orange Menace*

    LW1: It depends on a lot that you’ve left out of your letter. Is it for 15-20 mins or a couple of hours? Is it logistical or is safety/feeling weirded out? Is there somewhere he can sit, front lobby, empty CR, etc… that is far enough away from you that you won’t be distracted by him? I’ve had colleagues whose SOs would hang out until it was time to go, and frankly, that time was wasted. They were chatting/giggling/canoodling/making evening plans, etc… But, if it’s after hours and the other workers are gone and you don’t feel safe or need a ride, AND can continue to actually work while he’s not IN YOUR FACE the whole time, it seems like a reasonable thing to do.

    1. JP*

      Yeah, we had this happening for a while in our office, and it was disruptive enough that multiple people complained. But, it was a pretty different situation to what the LW describes.

  34. sb51*

    LW4: what about asking about the possibility of a policy where any calls by anyone are taken in the enclosed offices? (You don’t have to disclose anything to say “the loud conversations are distracting”.) And perhaps some improvements to the setup so that it’s fast to transfer in and out of them. That doesn’t get you your own office, but it addresses the big problem you’re having.

    Or a policy that if there are less than X people in the building, anyone can use an enclosed office, but as soon as more people show up, they’re meetings-only.

    Basically: give everyone the possible benefits, not just you.

  35. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

    #3 “Even during interviews, she did not seem very excited, but rather like applying was the expected thing to do.”

    I find this is extremely common when people are applying for the job they are already doing. No matter how it is phrased that there are other candidates and that this is a real application process, there is the core belief that the job is essentially theirs if they are doing a decent job at it already and it is hard to get pumped for what most people feel is or should be a formality. Excitement is a combination of nerves and newness, both of which are absent in this kind of situation.

  36. Hyaline*

    LW3, another angle here. You say you’re a new manager and this is all new–and that includes the fallout from making decisions. You had a temp who had been with your company doing, I’m presuming from you letter, good, solid work for a year. They were a finalist out of hundreds of candidates. This is a GOOD candidate, not someone who would just get a courtesy interview. You very well could have hired her. For reasons you don’t elaborate beyond “extensive experience” you felt another candidate was better. You hired this candidate and ended the temp’s employment with you. OK–the choices all made sense, but now it’s time for variables and emotions! You made a decision, and now there are outcomes–and some of those are hard. One absolutely unavoidable outcome is that *your temp will be disappointed and has every right to be and you cannot make this better.* Another outcome is you hired someone else–who may or may not end up being the best fit because that’s how hiring goes. Maybe you are 100% confident in this decision. Maybe you’re second-guessing. Maybe you made the best choice. Maybe it turns out that temp would have been better. Maybe an unnamed third person would have been better! There are always unknowns and you hire based on the information you have and then do your due diligence to follow through and help the person develop in the role–but some nerves or second-guessing is normal. Add on top of that your temp’s (very reasonable! very understandable!) reaction to being passed over for this role and it’s a tough spot to be in. I think what you’re dealing with isn’t “what do I say to this temp” but “is it normal for this stuff to be hard” and yes, yes it is.

    A couple things I do notice, and forgive me if I’m reading between the lines a little but I thought I’d mention:

    1) You seem to gauge your applicants’ “enthusiasm” in the interview process. This is tricky and not IMO advisable. People display emotion in very different ways, and some may seem more enthusiastic than they actually are or vice versa. Nerves and anxiety come into play. Personality plays a role, some people are simply more low-key, and neurodivergence can make interest read differently than straightforward “enthusiasm.” Simply put, it’s an area rife for bias, so try to reframe this as something less biased (“shows interest in developing these skills” or “is informed and invested in our field’) or just leave it out of your calculations entirely.

    2) You valued “experience, general” over “experience, in our company.” Sometimes, depending on role and company, a month of experience in the company itself is worth a year someplace else! That might not apply here, but it’s something to consider. There are value-adds to retaining someone who knows processes, policies, and your workplace culture, and you know they’re a good fit within the team’s dynamic, too.

    End of day, I think you need to take stock of this hiring process, say “is it possible I flucked up? Yes. That’s always possible. Did I? Time will tell.” Take what you can learn from it, and move on.

    1. LW3*

      This is particularly helpful, thanks. I am for sure still sorting out “is this normal” and “did I mess this up” and all of these comments have helped me think about it.

  37. Three Owls in a Trench Coat*

    LW 2: Is there a template of production information typically prepared for the talent? I would make that standard documentation that is always prepared for every production/episode/filming day/etc. It doesn’t matter if everyone is extremely familiar with processes or the production has become routine. Keeping a standard set of documented information makes sure everyone is always working with the same data every day through the whole project and can be used as a reference later for future projects.

    I used to create Event Worksheets for a VIP I worked for that always had the same field sets. Event name, date, time, location, host, purpose, dress code, names of other attendees (if known), transportation info (Staff member driving? Uber? Parking?), staff member(s) accompanying, etc. Think of the Ambassador scene in The Devil Wears Prada. Keeping that documentation was incredibly useful to the entire staff. No more “hey, who was that guy in the red coat at the conference last year?”

  38. learnedthehardway*

    OP#5 – I would not advocate for your high performing team member to leave for more senior roles. It sounds like they are knocking it out of the park in their current position and that they would have growth opportunities in the company (whether they get this current promotion or not). If they don’t get the promotion, consider that there are other factors at play – sometimes years of experience does count for something, because you don’t know what you haven’t encountered before. If the team member does decide to leave, you can offer to be a reference for them. You can also mentor them about how to strengthen their experience / candidacy for future opportunities (whether in or outside the company). The furthest I would go would be to tell them that they are ready for progression to the next level. Let them figure out whether that will be inside out outside of the company.

    I was talking with my sister last night about a very similar situation to yours – she has a team member who is working at well above their level of seniority, and who really deserves to be promoted from a skills and abilities perspective. However, in their field (engineering consulting), it’s just not possible to promote a person that quickly – in fact, the person should not have been working on that level of work in the first place (which happened because someone foisted their work onto this junior person. The fact that the junior person succeeded is great, but the other person would be fired if they weren’t already leaving the organization). My sister has advocated for the junior engineer to be given recognition and a raise, and to be put in the high potential employee development program, in which their career progression will be a focus and explained to them. It would be irresponsible to tell the junior engineer that they should look elsewhere or that they should be promoted – it simply can’t happen because years of experience really do matter in their field, and another company isn’t going to hire them at that senior level, either.

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

      There’s nothing in the letter that suggest this has anything to do with a board husband. I’m more leaning on that they carpool and he has to wait for her or there is something else that makes her feel unsafe to be at work by herself.

  40. Agent Diane*

    LW1: if the reason you want your husband hanging out is a safety one (dark carpark, dodgy walk to public transport) then that safety issue applies to anyone working late alone. And you need to raise it as your employer needs to realise it’s a risk they need to mitigate for the safety of their workforce. The solution cannot be that anyone working late gets their spouse in, as that’s unfair on single people or people whose partner’s can’t swing by to hang out (or who the worker actively wants to avoid by working late sometimes).

    When I was in government jobs (UK), we had lone worker policies for offices which meant never less than two people stayed late, and signing the late book. Having a partner hanging out as a visitor after hours would have breached security guidelines so was a no go.

    If it’s just that you want to hang out with your husband whilst on the clock? That’s a tough luck thing. If I were working late, as one of two people on lates, and the other person brought someone in who wasn’t cleared to be in the building? I’d be deeply uncomfortable and would be raising it as a risk to my own safety.

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

      I don’t get where you are saying its unfair for single people if a married person lets their spouse in. A single person could ask their friend or another adult family member.
      I think the bigger issue is how late are we talking (is he going to be hanging out for an hour or 3 hours.) And is there a common area like a lounge that he could sit in as to not be disruptive to other coworkers or be around confidential materials.

      I’m wondering if there could be a compromise. Lets say she has the car keys and they are carpooling. She dropped him off and he walks or gets a ride back to her work. I think it would be fine if he came to her office to pick up the keys. Then he could have the car and she could call him when she is done. If its an issue of safety, such as its dark and there are people who hang out and hassle people who walk to their cars. Then that needs to be addressed by management. And the solution should not be that there is 1 other person staying late. Because 2 people doesn’t mean that it’s going to be safer, and it puts more presure on the coworker to keep the other one safe. If there is a problem then 1. have a policy no one works after a certain time. 2. have security.

      1. inksmith*

        Because typically spouses are willing to do things for you that friends and family aren’t? Like, I love my best friend, but I wouldn’t go and sit in their office for two hours every night because they didn’t feel safe walking home – I’d push them to sort it out with the employer. I wouldn’t even feel OK asking my best friend or my mum to do that for me, and I’m very close to both of them.

        1. inksmith*

          Plus, my best friend and my mum both have spouses of their own that they probably want to hang out with in the evening (or who expect them to be at home not hanging out every evening with me because my employer won’t make sure I can get home safely). Much as I don’t love it (because I’m never going to have a spouse), people generally prioritise their spouse (and kids if applicable) over everyone else in their life.

  41. mango wango*

    I’ve been the temp in #3 so many times and nothing takes the sting out of this. “Not showing enough enthusiasm” one day to “seems desperate to work here” the other. I’m sure as a manager you feel badly and that’s ok. Telling someone that they did great for a year but someone else is better even though they haven’t been doing the job is always going to suck to say and suck to hear. If you’re decent, don’t ask the temp to train the new unicorn in on the job they’ve been doing unless you’re going to hire them in another role.

  42. Head Sheep Counter*

    I would be deeply uncomfortable with a non-employee just hangin out.

    But as stated elsewhere – there’s a goodly chunk of information missing and that is contextual to your environment.

    As a colleague I’d be worried about your home life and how controlling your spouse appeared to be. I’d then be further worried that if things were indeed bad that this could translate to workplace violence.

    1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      It could be LW1 that’s the controlling one, too. There isn’t enough detail there to determine which way the control is flowing, if at all.

    2. Hyaline*

      There’s way too much info missing to jump to “controlling spouse and abusive home life.” Yeah, if the spouse was just…there…all the time…with no explanation, it could seem weird. But if it’s “Hey, Joe is going to stay with me since I’ll be here after everyone leaves to make this deadline, and I don’t feel safe doing so solo after the break-in attempt last year” or “Since we carpool and I’m here past when Joe’s building locks up for the night, he’ll be hanging out in the lounge” it would be very uncharitable to jump to “abusive spouse.”

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

        yeah I think it is a jump. especially that it doesnt sound like its going to be a every day thing.

    3. Head Sheep Counter*

      I agree that there’s way too much missing to say that I’d definitely feel this way… its just what I’d feel if a random person was hanging out and then I found out that sir random was a husband.

      1. Dawn*

        My personal experience with spouses – which I am sharing just to provide a contrast – is that when they “hang out” at work it’s usually because they’re the sort of spouse who is dependent upon their partner to provide their entertainment/social life/hand-holding.

        1. Head Sheep Counter*

          See… I still find that uncomfortable and unsettling. I’m fairly certain that unless the LW’s job is babysitting… that providing entertainment is not their job. But I appreciate that there’s a non DV possibility (I’m guessing that most of the possibilities are non-DV). And to be equal here… I’d have very similar concerns if it was a wife hanging out.

          I’m one of the women who’d hang with a bear over a strange man any day any time.

          1. Dawn*

            A man asked how I was doing at the bus stop the other day and I think if my hip hadn’t been really bothering me I might have run.

  43. LW3 says: Thanks for your advice and comments, even the angry ones*

    LW3 reporting in. Thanks to Alison and everyone for your comments–even the angry ones! They’re helping me figure out what to do next and reflect on how I could have been better.

    Just to address some questions that came up: Alison’s is right about the “keep the trains running” nature of the position. Our work is seasonal, think..like school year? The initial offer was to help me finish this year’s season while higher-ups discussed if we could expand the team or if we had to cut back work so I could go it alone. It’s policy that we externally post all temporarily filled positions. We’re to be super clear when we engage people that it’s not temp-to-hire but that we will have a hiring process that is not a formality.

    She and I spoke repeatedly about all of this, and I have been a reference for her as she applied for other jobs during her time here. But I see in hindsight how it’d be easy to discount those conversations, particularly as the months ticked up. I maybe should have been reiterated it more, or been more guarded. I wasn’t sure whether it was good or not to flag work issues that weren’t dealbreakers, because of signals that sent about the long term. But maybe that made her think everything was perfect, and contributed to her surprise. I know people who are in temporary positions are in a vulnerable spot. I wasn’t keeping that in mind as I should have been and I regret that.

    As for her qualifications, to use a teapot analogy, my team makes and distributes teapots. She is truly outstanding at making spouts. Spouts are important. Can’t have a great teapot without a great spout. But the person I hired has experience making and distributing whole teapots, just on a smaller scale than we do. Still, I know our temporary worker does good work, and I recognise I may live to regret this decision. And I appreciate that advice not to have her train the new person. I wasn’t planning on it, but I definitely will not do this.

    Also, I should have said in my original note that, yes, she has every right to be upset! That’s human and I expected it. What surprised me was the degree to which she was upset, which is why I asked if the perceived lack of enthusiasm was good feedback to give her. But I appreciate all your comments about how different people present in interviews, and how it can be a catch-22 to seem reserved or overenthusiastic. I hadn’t thought about that before, and will keep those biases in mind the future.

    Serious thanks to everyone. I’m new to all of this. I’m a longtime lurker here, and this community has helped me both get through some bad times at work and give me some confidence that maybe I could be a good manager. So, again, I genuinely appreciate your advice.

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

      thank you for the update. It sounds like you did great. I honestly don’t think there was much more you could have done, except maybe when she applied have a frank conversation reminding her that there is no guarantee that she would get the job.

      I think this is one of those times where you are just going to have to let her be upset. You can still be encouraging and help her connect with people in the field that may be able to offer her a job. But you cant manage her expectations or her feelings. It’s rough but its just how things are sometimes.

    3. Industry Behemoth*

      Fwiw now, I wonder if none of the other jobs the temp applied for worked out, and she came to hope this one would. And then it didn’t.

  44. Raida*

    For waiting in the office – if it’s not a very long time, interruptive, distracting, breach of security to the building or confidentiality of your work, then I’d say it’s fine.

    For the superstar who the manager feels needs a promotion – I’d be honest on the framework, after getting in writing from HR exactly what the parameters are. Is it One Step Up is 3 years and another year for each step after that? 3 years for this particular role?
    and would id be 3 Years and 1 week she’ll have it or six months from the 3 Year mark for you to get all the paperwork and everything done?

Comments are closed.