I was told to do less work, two of my employees hold private “accountability” meetings, and more

by Alison Green on August 5, 2024

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

1. My team was told to do less work

I’ve had an interesting three months at work. During this period, my team of three was pulled aside while one service desk team member was out. We were asked in that meeting to work LESS diligently so that the third person had a chance to grab tickets. My sentiment was essentially too damn bad … he needs to catch up and stop watching YouTube all day. When I brought this up to management and HR, they said that I’m not privy to everything going on in the background, plus my current manager has only been in her position for the past three months and she hasn’t had adequate time to address all the problems.

Am I going crazy or is this favoritism from management, allowing this coworker to be on YouTube all day while the rest of us pick up the slack? What recourse do I have in a situation like this?

In some situations, asking you to take fewer tickets could be reasonable — like if someone is being trained and needs those tickets to learn from, or if your manager is trying to give your coworker enough rope to hang himself with (by ensuring there are clearly tickets available that he could be taking but isn’t). It’s also possible that he’s claiming his numbers are low because there’s no work available and they truly believe that … but based on the “you don’t know everything going on in the background” comment, I’m guessing it’s not that.

As for recourse … you don’t really have any. If they’re asking you to take fewer tickets, you’re not being asked to pick up your coworker’s slack; you’re being asked to leave his slack right there where everyone can see it. If that causes other problems (like if he doesn’t do the tickets you leave for him and you end up having to stay late or rush to get them done at the last minute), you can and should raise those issues. But otherwise, take fewer tickets like they’ve asked and see what happens.

2. Two of my employees hold their own “accountability” meetings

I manage a team of five executive assistants at a fairly big company. Two of them meet weekly for almost 1-1/2 hours for an “accountability” call. One of them has this call marked as private on her calendar and the other does not. Here are the questions they have on the meeting invite for discussion:

• What was your biggest priority this week?
• Did you accomplish it, and if not, why not?
• What did you learn this week?
• What was your biggest business highlight this week?
• What is/was your biggest obstacle?
• What do you need to solve it, or how did you solve it?
• What was your biggest personal highlight last week?
• Rate last week on a scale of 1-10 (10 being amazing).
• What needs to happen to make next week a success?
• What do you need help with (and who do you need to contact)?

Another on the team (who is no longer with the company) suggested that these two teammates are manipulating behind the team’s back. I also get the feeling these two may talk about the other team members and also plan on their own to push items forward. I haven’t heard from the other current teammates yet, but I think knowing these two have a regular meeting could make some of them feel like these two are conniving together and, frankly, it makes me feel that way as their manager as well.

I do think it is important to have mentoring discussions and our company fully supports personal development but this just bothers me a bit and I don’t want it to become a bigger issue. Am I just being paranoid?

It sounds great to me! They’re supporting each other and holding each other accountable; those are good things!

If you see signs that they’re plotting together to push agendas you don’t want them pushing, or if work isn’t getting done because they’re prioritizing these meetings when they should be prioritizing other things, you’d address those issues specifically — but that would be about those specific problems, not the meetings themselves. Assuming you’re not seeing anything like that, it sounds like your discomfort is all coming from the former employee (who doesn’t seem to have offered any real reason to be concerned) and maybe your own uneasiness at feeling cut out of the loop. The meetings themselves, as presented here, seem great. And if other team members ever indicate that they feel excluded by not being part of it, you could suggest other people form their own small groups to do the same. (Hell, if there’s interest, you could even suggest that these two share their process with the team as a whole in case other people want to learn how to do something similar.)

3. Will my job chances go up if I color my gray hair?

Recently, I had a conversation with my father, who is a sales manager, about my job search situation, and he said that I would be more likely to get promoted or hired if I dyed my hair. I am 42 and I have salt and pepper hair (mostly dark brown/black and a good amount of gray in front). I like this color contrast and I get a lot of compliments from peers and young people, but I do care about my career. Do you think I should get my hair dyed so that I am more likely to be promoted at my current company or hired at another company, or is this not usually a factor for hiring managers?

I’d love to tell you it doesn’t matter at all because it certainly shouldn’t, but in reality some hiring managers are biased, unconsciously or otherwise, against candidates who they perceive as older. That’s obviously BS, but it happens. Does it mean you’ll never get promoted or hired anyone if they see, gasp, gray hair? It definitely does not. Might it narrow your options in ways we can’t anticipate? It’s possible. Is that more the exception than the rule? Probably. Might you decide you’d rather screen those managers out anyway? Yes!

Personally I think you should do whatever you want with your hair, and if you’re moving along in your career in a way you’re happy with, you should feel free to ignore your father. If at some point you’re struggling for the sort of advancement you want, it could be one thing to consider, but it’s hardly a definitive one.

(You might also consider whether your father works in contexts similar to your own or not, and whether he might be sort of telling on himself with this particular opinion.)

4. My friend asks me to help them professionally but won’t return the favor

Am I being petty because my friend won’t engage with my work or share their connections?

I have a friend who works in social media at a renowned company, and every now and then they send me company Instagram and Tiktoks to engage with such as with likes and comments. This helps them gain traction for their videos and posts, which shows the company that people are engaging with their content.

My issue is, before they got this role, I was doing a similar role at a different company and I would send them videos to like and comment on. However they would never engage on any of the videos I was putting out there. Recently, I worked at another company and sent them videos to do with my work. But again they ignored me when I asked them to engage with my content.

I find it unfair that I engage with their work but they never do the same. I have also noticed that when it comes to networking and connections, they also don’t share their connections (which is fine).

Is it petty of me to stop engaging with their videos? I am also hesitant to now and in the future to mix my networking connections with them because they never do the same. I understand people have to start from somewhere and that they struggled at one point, but sometimes it feels unfair. I sometimes see them engaging with old friends when it comes to the creative field working on projects, but I am excluded despite having a creative background.

You’re under no obligation to do them a favor that they repeatedly declined to do for you. (In fact, it would be better if you all stopped doing and requesting these favors because it’s skewing the data on how the content is really doing.) You could see that as petty, or you could see it as “they showed me that’s not a friendship action they put value on.”

You also don’t need to keep helping them with connections if they don’t share their own. Networking is supposed to be mutually beneficial.

If you otherwise like this friend, I’d just engage with them on completely non-work-related levels. For whatever reason, the work stuff only goes one way with them.

5. Should companies check references for internal transfers?

You’ve spoken often about how important it is to check references, but I’m wondering about in the case of internal hires. For the last two roles I’ve been offered, no one asked to check my references because I was an internal transfer and the bosses had worked with me previously. In one case it made sense to me, but in the other I hadn’t worked with that person in over five years. Theoretically I could have changed and become a less useful employee. I’m curious about what’s normal and what you think they should do in these types of situations.

It’s super normal not to check references for internal transfers, because you’re already a known quantity. The manager hiring for the new position might talk informally with your current manager (they definitely should), but it’s pretty uncommon for formal reference checks to happen in those situations.

Reference checks are for when you don’t know the candidate and their work, and can’t simply take their word for what they say about themselves. When you’re already working there, they know you and your work, and their firsthand experience with you will be more recent, more unfiltered, and more nuanced than anything they’d get from a reference call.

You may also like:
{ 595 comments }

{ 595 comments… read them below }

  1. Elk*

    Goodness, I wish I had the time/capacity to set up a check-in like that with some of the coworkers at my level every week. It sounds like a really useful tool.

    1. Lurker*

      Really? To me it sounds awful– and an hour and a half every week to talk about what you’re going to work on/prioritize and what you did last week? How about just do your work and don’t spend 1.5 hours talking about it. I mean, I guess if it’s an accountability meeting, maybe you’re not good at keeping yourself on track unless you tell someone else? To me, this type of meeting would feel micromanage-y.

      1. Nodramalama*

        It doesn’t sound like one of them is the superior of the other though, so presumably they get use put of it or they’d stop doing it

        1. Brain the Brian*

          This is how I read it, too. The only issue here is if their manager thinks it’s a bad use of time to have a same-level check-in like this at all.

        2. Lurker*

          Right; that makes it even worse. A peer is trying to hold me accountable/manage how I’m doing my work when they are not my manager. They should focus on themselves and their own work.

          1. Nodramalama*

            I’m confused why you think this is against one of their will and not something they both find useful

              1. Nodramalama*

                You’re implying there’s something wrong with what they’re doing because you would find it annoying

          2. run mad; don't faint*

            I think you can look at this from a different angle. These are employees working on making themselves accountable for their own work with the mutually agreed upon help of another employee. Neither of them has power over the other.

          3. Ask a Manager* Post author

            It sounds like they mutually agreed to do it because they both wanted to. That’s not for everyone but lots of people find it really useful in staying focused.

      2. Marshmallows*

        I spend 1-2 hours each Friday reviewing the week and planning for the next week. In my current role it works fine for me to do this activity alone, but I could see situations where involving someone else would be beneficial.

        In roles that have frequently changing priorities, planning activities like this are great! In roles that don’t have frequently shifting priorities or are relatively routine, it’s probably not needed.

        Some people do also benefit from informal “accountability”. They may need to sort of talk things out in a safe environment to make sure their plans are solid, or they may just need it for reasons. These two sound like they’ve mutually agreed to do this, not that one is trying to force accountability on the other so it sounds legit to me. If you’re not someone that needs that then clearly you probably would just say no thanks if someone ever recommended it to you. But just because it doesn’t benefit one person doesn’t mean it wouldn’t benefit others.

        People and jobs are different and have different needs. :)

        1. Jen*

          Yeah, I have a 1-2 hour strategy meeting every other week with a near-peer (we’re both roughly the same title-wise, but she works more on the tech side of stuff and so is classified differently and ‘technically higher’ on our grid structure – but we report to the same manager). This is mostly because we’re the only people in our area doing our kind of work and not many others can speak about it at our level. So it’s good to check in and figure out what we’re both doing, keep each other up to date and all of that.

          I think people are latching on to ‘accountability’ and thinking it’s like a pressure thing or a managerial thing because we often hear that word coming from ‘management,’ but exactly like you said – it’s not being forced on anyone from the sounds of it, and they seem to get benefit out of it. Now, whether it’s needed for their roles or if it could be reduced time…that’s a different story – but if it’s having an impact on other work, is what the manager should address it as, not ‘you don’t need these accountability meetings’ because it sounds like no one knows what they actually get out of them.

      3. Ask a Manager* Post author

        I’m going to ask that we not fill up the comment section with people complaining that they personally wouldn’t like this type of meeting. If you personally wouldn’t like it, then you wouldn’t voluntarily set it up with a coworker. Some people do it like and find it useful; these two people are apparently among them. It’s not useful to the LW to explain that it’s not your own cup of tea.

    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      It sounds a great self-help initiative by 2 people who need this accountability to work more efficiently.
      Reminds me of the ND OP who wanted her manager to give her daily 1-1’s to keep her on track.

      I’m surprised the OP is concerned – she should check herself for micromanaging tendencies. Let people work the way that suits them best, unless it actually interferes with other people working.

      1. some person in asia*

        Even more so surprised that the only person to complain is someone who doesn’t work there anymore. From OP’s own words, no one else on the team ever brought it up except for the person not even at that company anymore.

        Kind of sounds like pot-stirring and I think those are great meetings to continue having.

        Nothing sounds “conniving” or “manipulative” here.

        1. hiraeth*

          Yes, this is very odd and I’ve no idea why the former employee would be invested enough to say anything. Unless there are other signs that these two are in cahoots about something, I find ‘they’re scheming to manipulate us!’ a really, really weird conclusion to jump to. Maybe they just both found they struggled with tracking activities and keeping focus, and came up with this as a mutually beneficial solution. What on earth is wrong with that?

          1. Seashell*

            My guess would be that they’re scheming to have an hour and a half of uninterrupted time to shoot the breeze and occasionally talk business, rather than scheming against their co-workers.

            1. Uranus Wars*

              I have a bi-weekly meeting like this with a peer. We discuss projects we’re working on, how they might affect one another, other challenges, brainstorming, etc. AND we use it to just catch up & shoot the breeze. Depending on how busy sometimes it skews more personal the professional, sometimes we never get to the personal stuff. But its really beneficial and helps us both in different ways. We don’t have other peers tho, that we work this closely with, so its definitely not scheming or catty. Just uninterrupted, scheduled time that we need but probably wouldn’t prioritize if it wasn’t scheduled,

              1. The Valeyard*

                I do it weekly! My partner is one level down from me in our org but in different chains of command and we are also friends who have worked really well together in the past. We work on things together, push each other to set goals, help one another workshop anything sticky, catch up. it’s been really great.

            2. Unstable marshmallow*

              Maybe, but I wouldn’t jump to that immediately. My work friend and I do this because we’ve found it helps us mitigate the effects of ADHD, which we both have. There’s some off-topic chatting, but as an overall percentage of the meeting it’s very small.

        2. Observer*

          Kind of sounds like pot-stirring

          Yes, that was the first thing I thought of. What it really concerning is that the LW seems to be a bit of a pot stirrer themself. Like noting that if others knew about this supposedly sinister meeting, they would would feel that the pair is conniving. And the only apparent reason that I can see for that it that LW already feels that way.

          But why would that even be an issue? If the others find out about it because the planners are talking about it openly, it’s going to be hard to play this as “behind people’s backs” and thus “conniving”. Or is the LW going to tell everyone else about this “very concerning thing” that this pair of admins are doing? Sure, that could create this kind of negativity, but why on earth would the LW do this?

          2. Meep*

            Something tells me that LW might feel like they are doing a bad job at managing if their employees need to get together to manage themselves.

        3. sparkle emoji*

          Yeah, none of the actual meeting agenda items sound like they’re aimed at workplace takeover. Maybe there is something in their behavior that wasn’t in the letter but as is, it seems strange that this meeting and the participants are being characterized as manipulative and conniving.

        4. StressedButOkay*

          I wonder if OP is concerned that if they’re not made aware of meetings/didn’t initiate them, that something is going on. However, OP, it sounds like your team is doing things on their own initiative to better their work in ways that work for them – that’s fantastic! It means that there’s a culture where they aren’t afraid to do that.

          As for the one who has it marked private, most – if almost not all – of the people I work with, including those I manage, don’t have their Outlook set to show the names of the meetings/appointments. So many people add personal appointments so that people won’t schedule over that time that I wouldn’t be worried about it.

      2. Carol*

        This is what this sounds like. People doing it for their own accountability. I think 1.5 hrs is a lot but these people are doing it because they find it helpful. No issue with that.

        1. Meep*

          As someone who has chatty coworkers (engineers, I tell you!), I wonder if that extra 30 minutes is just a buffer in case it goes over and those meetings aren’t actually lasting 90 minutes.

      3. MassMatt*

        1 1/2hours a week seems like a lot but really these agenda items read like the sort of things a manager should be doing with their team members regularly. Maybe LW should consider addressing some of these topics with their staff rather than assuming these two employees are engaged in some sort of plot.

      4. Pita Chips*

        I love feeling supported by my colleagues. My only concern is that the meetings takes 90 minutes–that feels like a lot to me. My check-ins with my direct reports and my manager usually take 30 minutes. That said, it doesn’t sound like they’re being Mean People or plotting.

        While accountability historically is a word used between manager and direct report, but it’s also become a word used with peers. I have friends that ask other friends to hold them accountable for chores, nutrition, exercise. I wouldn’t worry too much about it.

        1. iglwif*

          I agree 90min every week sounds like a lot … but I also wonder whether they block off 90 minutes just in case, but don’t always use that much time?

          A couple of years ago a friend and I who both really needed to be better at taking our iron supplements agreed to send each other a “vitamin selfie” every day to make creating that habit more fun. We got very creative with the daily photos, brought our spouses and kids into the game … and now we don’t usually take or send pics anymore, but we made it fun for long enough that the habit has stuck and now we both have better iron levels!

          1. New Jack Karyn*

            Yeah, maybe a chunk of that 90 minutes is, “Let’s each crank out that task we hate and have been putting off.” That’s how I would use that time!

            1. iglwif*

              Yes! I did that a lot with one of my colleagues a couple of jobs ago. Sit there on a Zoom or Teams meeting, both working independently on something annoying, occasionally commenting. Very effective for some of us!

              2. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

                When I was finishing up my PhD dissertation, I regularly got together with other people in the same boat on Saturdays because it kept me going.

            2. MigraineMonth*

              I’d use the time to ask for help brainstorming/hammering out the details for a solution to whatever I’m currently stuck on. Or helping my partner with whatever they’re stuck on.

          2. Nachum*

            I would also say, there are many studies showing in most office environments being on site for 40 hours can’t do 40 hours of work and that 40 hour workweeks are inherently inefficient in many environments. So it’s possible that the 1.5 is a fine use of time, especially if it leaves both parties feeling recharged and energized!

      5. Analyst*

        As a manager, I’d be concerned that this is taking 1.5 hours, which seems excessive (and is likely why their co-workers see this as gossipy). 30 minutes should cover this, and the length kind of feels like it’s being used as social time. that said…if they’re exempt and getting their work done and available for other meetings, let it go

        1. some person in asia*

          None of their coworkers see it as gossipy, only one person who doesn’t work there anymore and LW, and LW only after the one person complained.

      6. Nina*

        I’m a different kind of ND and something I find helpful (and started doing after that letter) is setting up my own private ‘1-on-1 meetings’ with myself (and sometimes a stuffed animal) to systematically go through wins, blockers, and next steps. I book them on my calendar and set a phone alarm for them. I’m going to start including the points LW’s reports are using because I saw that and was like ‘yes! this is great!’

    3. Dread Pirate Roberts*

      When I was freelancing full-time I did this with a friend who was also self-employed. It’s a great tool not just to boost motivation and accountability but to feel like you have an ally in work.

      1. Reebee*

        Meanwhile, OP, I agree that the main point is whether the two co-workers are roaming off the range viz. their meetings. Also, it’s seems to be a weird derivation of group work in higher education, whereby peers evaluate one anothers’ work, despite everyone still learning, despite the presence of faculty (who themselves are still learning by way of their research, but who also have earned professional credentials for evaluating assigned work).

        Just as in that situation, places of work typically have higher-level credentialed channels of accountability. Why complicate things with yet another channel, uncredentialed, that really has no bearing on the outcomes of actual accountability, like raises, bonuses, better benefits, etc.?

        So yeah, OP, I hear you; in my opinion, your misgivings are not something to ignore. (And now, here come the “Well, I had a manager who didn’t do ‘x’…” and “I had a professor once and I knew more than she did about…” replies, as though anecdote is data).

        1. PlantProf*

          Doesn’t sound to me like the questions they’re discussing are ones they need feedback from a manager on—more like it’s a good time for reflection on their week, and presumably both find it more productive to do that together than on their own. Not everyone would rather do that together, but some people would. I’d have loved to have a weekly meeting like that when I was in grad school and occasionally floundering.

          In fact, since you mentioned higher ed, that kind of reflection is a tool that I use on my students frequently, although more often individually, because it helps them learn how to evaluate their own performance and learning, which is a really key skill. (As far as group work, I’m sure it varies by classroom, but for me and the people I know, peer feedback doesn’t replace instructor feedback; half the point of it is for students to practice evaluating similar work so they get better at evaluating their own).

        2. lemon*

          I think you’re perhaps misunderstanding the point of higher-education group work. I’ve usually only encountered it when students are studying professional fields that require a lot of collaboration. In that case, the group work is supposed to be practice for the type of teamwork you’d be expected to do in a real-world setting. Therefore, the finished deliverable (a paper, a presentation, etc) isn’t the only thing that needs to be evaluated. How the team worked together needs to be evaluated as well. Faculty can’t really evaluate the group on how well they worked together, because they weren’t in the group.

          Also, faculty usually don’t receive all that much training in evaluating assigned work. Unless you’re studying education, most PhD programs don’t teach candidates how to teach. If you want that kind of training, it’s usually something to pursue outside of your official coursework requirements.

          Similarly, I’m not sure how many “higher-level credentialed channels of accountability” actually exist in the workplace. So many people get into management without any kind of management training or certification.

          And in this case, the kind of accountability these two coworkers are participating in doesn’t sound like the type you have in mind, regarding bonuses, benefits, and promotions. It sounds like for them, it’s about personal accountability and finding motivation to do well at your job. It doesn’t sound all that different than sharing your successes with a friend at happy hour or something and enjoying the sense of pride/accomplishment that comes from that.

        3. Florence Reece*

          It doesn’t seem like this letter is related to higher education at all so I’m kinda confused about your angle here? In my industry and team, peer review is super common, even the expectation at most companies. Not “well I had a manager who didn’t do ‘x'” — every project that every team in my department does requires peer review from others on their level. We’re highly independent, trained professionals, and our boss, frankly, doesn’t do the in-the-weeds work that we do every day. We don’t know more than him in general, but we know more than him about how our work functions because it’s…ours.

          We have no idea if the EAs here are “complicating” things with “yet another channel” because we have no idea of the structure of this team.

    5. Also-ADHD*

      The questions sound like ones a manager/report would discuss in 1:1 meetings (good ones) though peer meetings could also support similarly. I don’t understand why LW didn’t recognize those as good discussion questions. Obviously we don’t know all the context but nothing LW shared suggests what they’re “plotting” besides good work and self improvement.

      1. jasmine*

        The thing I’m reading in OP’s letter is that there is a sense/culture of distrust on the team. This is a pretty big problem, whether the distrust is founded or not.

        1. iglwif*

          Except, if all the distrust is coming from someone who left, I’m not sure why OP would be giving more credit to their account than to what she’s observing from the 2 people who are still there.

          1. Lana Kane*

            I thought the wording of “these 2” that the LW used was telling. I think something else is going on that’s driving the LW’s mistrust (valid or not, no way to tell from just this letter).

          2. jasmine*

            But the fact that the OP is giving weight the old employee’s opinion makes me think this isn’t a one person problem. If it was just the old employee and OP ignored her, I’d assume something was off with the old coworker. Or if it was just OP, I’d think maybe OP isn’t doing good management and the team at large is fine. But the fact that an old coworker said this and OP is wondering if it makes sense, makes me think its a wider issue.

            1. Jennifer Strange*

              Except the OP says they haven’t heard anything about it from other employees, so they ARE just basing their reaction on one employee’s comment.

        2. MigraineMonth*

          Yeah, something is definitely rotten, but I don’t think it’s the weekly peer-motivation meetings. I have never heard “conniving” used in any of my workplaces, and I hope never to do so.

          1. MotherofaPickle*

            I have done plenty of “conniving” in my day. The root cause was Bad Management and I am the type of person that if I hate The Way Things Are Done, I have the compulsion to take over and Run Things Right (I recognize it as a strength and a weakness). I am very much a malicious compliance/give them enough rope kind of person, though.

            I get the impression that LW’s workplace is bordering on toxic and they are the frog in the hot water, so to speak.

      2. yay*

        It sounds a lot like my regular meetings with my supervisor! Except more organized and longer. I really don’t see anything nefarious about doing that with a peer instead (I admire the initiative it shows) my only concern is that they are doing this because they are NOT being supported that way by their managers. My guess is that it’s longer because a) they’re discussing both person’s issues rather than just one, and b) they are friends and there is some healthy socializing. I can imagine how demoralized I’d be if I was one of the employees and told not to do this.

        1. Erin*

          I definitely can see the concern about whether they’re not being supported by their manager(s), but I will say my near-peer and I have a regular check-in where we often relay what we spoke to our mutual manager about in our respective 1:1. Our manager is INCREDIBLY supportive and wonderful, but he’s so swamped that it’s often helpful for my colleague and I to talk through our projects and figure out how we can support each other.

    6. NaN*

      I’m curious if we should really be taking their meeting agenda at face value. It sounds like the OP read the calendar invite description but hasn’t actually talked to either of them about it.

      I had a weekly meeting with one of my coworkers at my last job. We were both high performers at a company that was stingy with raises and promotions. We were working on a couple of initiatives together, and we used the time to plot our advancement (by means of getting stuff done and being good at our jobs, but still). Part of the meeting was always dedicated to gossiping/venting/complaining about the company. It was not at anyone else’s expense, and we also looked for ways to elevate the team as a whole, but it was definitely as much social as it was professional.

      If they aren’t as well-intentioned, I can see why it would make other people on the team feel insecure, uncomfortable, or jealous. I think it’s fair to ask some questions about what actually goes on at these 90-minute meetings (agenda notwithstanding) and ask them to reign it in a little.

      1. PotsPansTeapots*

        Well, it’s worth asking, how would you have felt if your manager at your last job acted like OP2? Would you have thought they were just doing due diligence? Or would you have thought that this was another example of an unsupportive company that didn’t respect your work?

        If the gossiping and social aspect really is harmful, there will almost certainly be other signs that OP2 notices.

      2. Butterfly Counter*

        Something similar happened in my department a few years ago.

        Back then, we had one faculty member in particular who would literally filibuster departmental meetings to keep things from changing from the way he personally liked to do things. He would keep talking and arguing until the rest of us were tired or late to something else, so the subjects would be tabled and not changed.

        So a couple of my coworkers started meeting during the week (open to all who were available at the time) to talk about our goals for the department and keeping up with the current changes in our work. Basically, they/we built an agreed-upon consensus about the future of our department so that we could be ready with research and our own arguments against the coworker who was resistant to change.

        Was it conniving and manipulative? I guess so. But no more than the coworker who was having a metaphorical tantrum in meetings in order to get his way.

        It sounds like these people are meeting to put in the work to help steer the department/company in ways that will be potentially beneficial to most. It would probably be great to hear a lot of their takeaways from these meetings, IMO. I’m sure they’re relevant to more than just these two coworkers.

        1. In the provinces*

          Couldn’t someone have formulated a motion and then called the question at your department meetings? My own past experience suggests this is a very effective method of ending the sort of academic filibuster you are talking about.

          1. Butterfly Counter*

            At ours, we allow for discussion before calling the question. For a while, he was relying on trying to convince those of us who liked the idea of change that it could be a disaster if we moved forward. It took a more united front from the majority of faculty (and an honest-to-God time limit for individual discussion) for him to back down. Then he would abstain from voting on the issue.

    7. Midwestern Communicator*

      Honestly, it’s amazing! I do this with someone who used to be on my team, but still works at my company, and we have a word document we each fill out. It’s good to make sure I align with my yearly goals, and that I’m showing my manager what I’m working on.

      It’s been a game changer for my self-review, and has actually increased my satisfaction at work. Ours are only like 20 minutes check-in every Friday morning, but I find it so helpful.

      1. YetAnotherAnalyst*

        It’s a really interesting idea. Currently my annual review usually takes me about a week to prep for and write up, and I usually find there’s a bunch of goals I wrote into last year’s review that I had entirely forgotten about and bunch of tasks I ended up working on that I didn’t remember were this year (by November, February may as well have been last century…). 90 minutes a week would actually save me a little time over the course of the year. If it made me feel like my team’s goals were meaningful and made my annual review feel productive? That does sound like a game-changer!

    8. Seeking Second Childhood*

      The one thing I need to ask is: Are these two employees doing well and meeting their deadlines?

      If yes then the meetings are great and Alison’s advice is perfect.

      If no then we need to talk.

    9. Excel Gardener*

      A lot of otherwise talented and accomplished people find even a little external accountability really helpful. Think about non-worker versions of this. You could easily ask “why pay for a personal trainer when you can just do a workout program on your own?” Or “why take a class when you can learn everything from the textbook?”. But of course we recognize that in those situations a little outside pressure is very useful motivator, and it’s the same with this letter.

      1. sparkle emoji*

        Yep, this feels analogous to doing an exercise class with a friend so you have an accountability buddy so you don’t skip too often. Its an accountability structure that is useful some people and not others. If other people want to join, they should be open to that or sharing how they do it, but barring that I think it’s fine.

    10. iglwif*

      Same! I’ve had a few roles where we did this kind of thing less formally among peers, and I found it extremely helpful.

      1. I Have RBF*

        When I had a peer at my current job we would get together pretty regularly to divvy up the work and update each other on where things were. That way, if one of us was out, the other still knew what was going on and could jump in with proper context.

        IMO, peer coordination is very useful. It avoid duplication of effort and matters being dropped because someone thought “other people” were doing it. Yes, theoretically the whole team should do this, but sometimes the functional areas don’t really overlap.

        1. iglwif*

          peer coordination is very useful. It avoid duplication of effort and matters being dropped because someone thought “other people” were doing it.

          Yes, this! And it’s perfect for the kind of role where you’re assigned the “what” but have to figure out the “how” on your own, too.

    11. AnnsBanans*

      It’s not exactly the same, but there’s a coworking website called Focusmate that can function in a similar way. You can have a 30, 60, or 75 minute video call session. You set goals for the work you want to accomplish during the session, they do too, and then at the end you check in and see how each other did. You have the option to share your screen (not at all required though) if you want extra accountability. It’s free for up to 3 sessions per week, or you can pay a monthly fee (I think it’s like $7?) to have unlimited sessions.

    12. Chauncy Gardener*

      I am cynical and I know it (clap your hands!), but I bet this is just a built in 1.5 hour break for those two.

      1. Meep*

        If they need to carve out a 90 minute break once a week then I guarantee that that is a management problem and one that doesn’t allow brain-breaks on a daily basis.

    13. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

      If the topics are accurate it also sounds like they are sharing the brain trust. Where I work we end up with so much institutional knowledge trapped in the brain of individuals and not nearly enough cross training. If they have parallel work this kind of meeting can make them both learn enough to cover when the other is out or if someone leaves.

  2. NurseThis*

    In my 50+ years of working, I don’t think I ever had a meeting as productive sounding as the accountability meeting! Seriously, that would be a very timely and targeted approach to work flow.

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yes, good for them. I’m surprised that so many people – and the OP – are concerned about this and want to investigate them. Normally, commenters advocate for the flexibility to do their work in their own way.

      1. Heidi*

        The OP used the words “manipulating” and “conniving,” but why on earth would they put their conniving meeting on the work calendar? They could have both blocked off the time without saying it was a meeting. Or they could just call each other after work to connive and no one would be the wiser.

        1. Quoth the Raven*

          Yeah, I feel that if I wanted to be conniving or manipulative, I’d know better than to do it during work hours, let alone schedule it in the work calendar.

          1. Awkwardness*

            That was my thought too.
            If I wanted to have time to catch-up with a co-worker over some coffee, I works not set up this type of meeting with this type of agenda. That is too much effort for a lie!
            I really wonder why LW does not trust those two.

          2. hiraeth*

            Yeah, I feel like ‘don’t put the secret evil plan in the shared calendar’ is sneaking 101.

        2. Falling Diphthong*

          I really want someone to turn down a meeting invite this week with “Sorry, I don’t connive at work.”

          1. MigraineMonth*

            If I put “Conniving & Manipulating” on my calendar as a recurring Friday meeting and only invited one colleague, I don’t think my manager would notice or ask about it. They have management work to do that isn’t being paranoid that we’re trying to overthrow them or something.

            Actually, if it would get our current work out of Project Management Purgatory, they would probably endorse a bit of conniving.

        3. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

          The only thing I can think of is that one of them set the meeting to “private.” But in the absence of any other evidence, it’s a bit of a stretch to go from that to concluding that something nefarious is going on.

      2. Sloanicota*

        My sense is that OP (and the coworkers’) concerns come from the closed-door, limited to two element. They also say they suspect they could be working together to benefit their projects at the expense of others, but that seems an odd concern to me (and they could do that just as easily as friends without or without these meetings). I suppose you could say, “why not make this meeting an all-team meeting with the manager there?” or “why not make sure everyone is invited if they want to come some weeks?” but to me that would be unnecessary. I do like the suggestion of having them present to the whole team about it so it’s some not some secret and if anyone else says they want to be a part a meeting like that, encouraging it. I bet the departed coworker just felt left out or resented the time “off.”

        1. Awkwardness*

          I suppose you could say, “why not make this meeting an all-team meeting with the manager there?” or “why not make sure everyone is invited if they want to come some weeks?” but to me that would be unnecessary.

          I suppose this would kill it. It is not sure that presence of a manager would encourage honest answers or presence of all co-workers would help to get through with the agenda in a focused way.
          LW, you do not seem to trust them. But try to assume for once that they do no secret plotting and no talking behind the other team members’ back, but only accountability work among themselves as laid out in the agenda. What do you assume will be their take away if you ask them through authority of your position to drop the meetings or to open up the meeting for everybody?

        2. sparkle emoji*

          I wonder if it’s secret or if they’re just the only 2 that find value in it. The invitation is public on one of their calendars. Does the OP know if they spoke to other people on the team before making it a 2 person thing? I’d be cautious to believe the perception of the person who left the company, they sound like they already have other gripes with these 2 team members.

        3. Also-ADHD*

          An accountability partner or peer mentoring serves a different purpose and need than a manager or team meeting/check in though, so converting it doesn’t make sense (nor does suggesting people can’t engage in personal mentorship or support with colleagues, unless it’s intruding in some other way, like they’re unavailable for key work, not getting work done, etc.)

        4. Unstable marshmallow*

          There are plenty of reasons why they could want to limit it to just the two of them. In my case, my coworker and I specifically do it to keep our ADHD in check. We were comfortable disclosing to each other after working together well for a while, but wouldn’t necessarily want to share that information with our other coworkers or supervisors. I don’t think the meetings would be as effective if we couldn’t talk freely about the challenges we’ve faced in a given week, including from within our own brains.

          That’s unlikely to be the main factor behind the LW’s employees’ meetings, but it’s one example of a situation where a same-level 1-on-1 is preferable to meeting with a supervisor or the whole team. Just wanted to make that clear before the accusations of comment fanfic come rolling in.

        5. MigraineMonth*

          It seems bizarre to me that having a meeting with one other person would be inherently suspicious. I have a lot of one-on-one meetings with a colleague who is also a friend. We work in the same area, so even when we aren’t working the same project, it’s important to coordinate our work and give each other feedback.

          We don’t spend a ton of time gossiping about our coworkers, though.

      3. My Useless Two Cents*

        My biggest concern would be that others on the team would feel excluded. I get that adding too many people to the meeting would spoil the accountability and productivity they are trying to manage. But I can also see how two out of five people on the team pairing up and excluding the others could lead to suspicion and resentment from the other three. If I were the manager of the team, I would be concerned and really want to understand team dynamics and how the meeting could be effecting them.

        1. sparkle emoji*

          If others wanted to try it, I think it’d be fine to ask these 2 to share a sample agenda and a little about what a typical meeting looks like. Maybe if it’s just one person they could join but I agree that there’s probably only so many people you can add to the meeting before it’s no longer productive.

    2. The Prettiest Curse*

      90 minutes weekly sounds a bit much, but otherwise if it helps the employees who are meeting to work more effectively, then leave it be. I wonder if this team is remote and the employees who are meeting would otherwise find themselves slacking off.

      1. Anon for this*

        I wonder if it’s really 90 minutes a week. In the last few years I’ve experienced the calendar overload. So for some recurring meetings like this it might be understood we use the time to prepare and organise and do a check in as needed – a meeting might be 30 minutes really, or not happen at all. I’ve had a few where there’s been 5 minutes of ‘anything we need to discuss this week’ and then it’s over and I have the time to catch up with other things.

        I also experienced how destructive it can be when a manager assumes meeting to discuss something with a colleague can only be for nefarious purposes. Regular interactions with peer colleagues can help with workflow. When I was over a business activity, I met with others over other business activities. At some point someone suggested we would have no reason to meet unless we were up to something. In reality all of our business activities were affected by covid, and we were sharing good practice in how we addressed them. I can’t begin to express how utterly demoralising it was to be accused like that. Even if we hadn’t had this shared concern, meeting with peer colleagues is important for your development.

        All this to say that if the OP has reasons to question their work that might be one thing, but assuming the only reason people meet is for manipulation will likely be very destructive. Especially if people are working hard to do a good job!

    3. DannyG*

      Accountability groups are a part of Traditional Methodist faith practice. Serve, Flourish and Challenge would be some of the typical areas of conversation and discussion. Sounds like they are using a similar approach applied to their work life.

      1. a clockwork lemon*

        I wouldn’t assume that this is a faith-based thing at all. My (small) team has a similar meeting in place at the start of every week. We use it to brainstorm stuff we’re working on, figure out places where it makes sense to combine efforts on similar projects, and proactively identify issues and patterns that we need to escalate. Sometimes it’s big stuff, but most of the time it’s more basic, like you’re having issues getting information from A someone else on the team has a meeting with A tomorrow so will bring it up in-person on your behalf.

        We find it a useful and effective way to check in and make sure everyone is on track, and it’s proven helpful in mitigating burnout because it allows us to shift workloads in real-time instead of scrambling at the last minute.

        1. PhyllisB*

          She didn’t say this was a faith based meeting, she just said the Methodists have a group like this and this could be a work group using a similar style.

      2. Arrietty*

        It’s a traditional I-have-ADHD practice too! It’s a great idea, and they may well not spend 90 minutes discussing the questions between them, but reflecting and working independently to organise their workload. Having an appointment with someone else is the best way to get stuff done when your brain refuses to prioritise internal commitments.

        1. I Have RBF*

          This. It helps set and follow up on priorities if you have another person who knows what those priorities are. IMO, meetings like that are great teamwork, but they don’t work for everyone. So let the people that they work for use them.

      3. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        That’s a huge leap. This is a completely standard check-in with an odd name. There’s zero reason to assume any religious connection.

      4. Garblesnark*

        Some religious groups use accountability meetings for various religious purposes, but this meeting is very obvious being used for work.

        1. jasmine*

          I don’t think DannyG implied otherwise. They’re just saying that the approach they’re taking reminds them of an approach taken by a certain Christian denomination

          1. Observer*

            And that can very much make sense. I don’t know anything about this denomination, but there are many religious practices that are very relevant to the rest of life / the secular / mundane world.

            So I could see someone in a community that uses such a tactic saying “Hey this works well to accomplish these goals. Why not try it with other goals in the rest of my life?”

            In other words it is absolutely possible that someone picked up this idea in a religious context and is repurposing it in a totally non-religious way for purely secular purposes. Which means that ultimately it doesn’t matter where they picked up the idea.

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

        Yeah I don’t think it has anything to do with religion. There is are webistes and stuff where you can video chat with ramdom people for accountability. I can’t remember the name but I saw it used once. Basically you give each other a time limit, like 45 mintues and in then you talk to each other and say what you are working on then, keeping your camera on you work for the designated time. When time is up then you say what you got done.

        One of my first thoughts was Gretchen Rubin’s the 4 tendencies which divides people into different categories. One of the tendencies often needs external accountability. I can totally see 2 people who may have read her book or listened to her podcast coming up with this as a way to hold themselves accountable and get their work done.

        1. The Valeyard*

          I love the four tendencies framework and that’s one of the reasons I do this as well- external accountability. Also, look up body doubling for ADHD. I do this with a co-worker friend for an hour a week and we save our sticky problems or stuff we have been procrastinating to work on together and talk through. It has been hugely helpful. Not for everyone (or all the time!) but I love it. I also work with a coach, which is similar but one-sided.

    4. Tiger Snake*

      It reminds me of how SCRUM meetings are meant to go, in agile IT.

      …note that I said meant. While LW2 could certainly make it a whole of team meeting, it becomes really critical for LW2 to keep that on track and focused, or else people just start listing off every task they’ve got going on and then it’s not really providing any of the useful content you want from this.

      Having an accountability buddy so that’s its 1:1 is what makes this actually seem like something you get something out of. I can see why expanding it to the rest of the team defeats the whole purpose.

  3. tabloidtainted*

    #2: A similar team at my company has a similar meeting, but it’s all four members, and not just two to the exclusion of the rest. I wonder how the two employees in the letter began having the meeting and why no one else on their team was invited.

    1. samwise*

      Because they work well together. Because they’ve been supportive and collegial before they started the meetings (=they knew the meetings would be productive)

      Possibly: because the others on the team are not supportive or collegial. Maybe even actively obnoxious, undercutting, disruptive, unfocused, digressive…

      Or even, because this sort of thing works really well with just two people, and takes a lot more time with more people.

      I’ve had accountability partners. Very helpful. Once it’s a group, though, it’s less useful because there’s less time spent really focusing on each person. And because a lot of people are digressive, unfocused, come to the meeting unprepared, aren’t willing or able to talk about their own areas that need development, are uselessly positive about others or unrelentingly negative. In my experience.

      1. Awkwardness*

        Yes, I really do not understand what kind of “plot” LW is expecting. To have a productive meeting on those question, you need to be focused and trust the other meeting attendees, especially when reflecting failings or areas of growth.
        The fact that this meeting agenda get forwarded to the boss by a person no longer working in the company, labeling it as manipulating, might be exactly the difference in work attitude to make this person not be invited.

        LW, what exactly would be wrong if they plan on their own to push items forward? Isn’t an independent working style a good thing?

        1. Garblesnark*

          That also doesn’t feel significantly different, to me, than one employee casually saying to another, “I’ve been thinking maybe the goat corral could be more effective if it had a gate. Do you think so too? Yes? Will you agree with me if I mention it in the team meeting?” Which is just normal collaboration.

        2. Specks*

          This. I can see how maybe this would be better as a short managerial meeting, but given that the LW2 responded to his staff helping each other managing their time and workload, I’m not holding my breath.

          LW2, you saw your staff collaborating, and your first thoughts were not “oh wow, what great questions — I wonder if I should be doing similar but shorter check ins with everyone or if helping others on staff find a planning buddy if they want one would be good” or even a calm “I’m a bit concerned that this is not a great use of their time, let me speak to them about it and make sure”… instead you jumped straight to “conniving” and “manipulating”. That tells me something on your team — and likely with your leadership — is deeply rotten. Either you have grave concerns about these two staffers that you seem not to mention or have done anything about, or they are just fine, and you have some serious paranoia and toxicity on your team and in your head to have the departing member coach their concerns in this way and have you go down that path immediately as well. So, which is it? Either one requires you to stop being mentally stuck in a soap opera (not a good work environment for you or your staff), let go of the drama, and start managing.

      3. MassMatt*

        Given the level of snark, sarcasm, suspicious, and outright hostility many commentators (and the LW) have expressed at the very idea of this meeting I think we have a very good example of why it’s not team-wide.

        90 minutes IS a lot of time every week, I haven’t had many jobs where two people could block off time like this on a regular basis without a manager wondering what is up and making sure the widgets were getting made, the phones answered, patients seen, etc. But if the time itself isn’t the issue I don’t see the problem.

      4. Argiope Aurantia*

        It’s odd how the OP goes straight to nefarious reasons instead of normal ones, like trust.

        I am currently a department of one, but at my prior company there were 21 people in the department and five of us at my level.

        I would have welcomed accountability meetings with one of them — and I’m kicking myself for not thinking of it when I was there — but the other three? No way. One was prone to drama and feeling offended for slights that literally never happened; one was a know-it-all who talked over everyone else; and the third was constantly gathering negative intel about the other four of us so that he could build a case for why he should be promoted and not any of us. [BTW, it worked. And it’s one of the reasons I quit.]

        In my current company, I hold weekly check-ins with the one other person whose job is similar to mine. It’s part accountability meeting and part “Let’s make sure we’re both in the loop on all things that could affect us.”

      5. MaryWinchester1967*

        Yep – this. Team dynamics could very well explain why only two co-workers are doing this. I was on a team that had a bad manager as well as a number of people who did not try very hard. The few of us who were stronger at our jobs would bounce things off of each other, but not involve the rest of the team. We couldn’t trust them to understand even if we used simple words. We were not plotting against anyone. We simply wanted to do a good job and learn from each other.

    2. Nodramalama*

      It could be because it sounds like someone in the team has gone into a meeting invite for a meeting they weren’t invited to, copied the agenda and has shared it because they think its conniving and manipulating…

      1. Also-ADHD*

        It sounded to me like LW heard feedback (?) or a comment from a member who left the team and that no one on the team was complaining or possibly even noticing this meeting but LW can see it on the calendar of the employee who didn’t mark it private because they can see the calendar details of their direct reports unless marked private (a fairly common default setting for orgs with Outlook calendars).

        1. Nodramalama*

          You can’t just see the agenda of someone else’s meeting just because you can see the meeting. You have to go into the meeting derails. Which is still weird

          1. Butter and Lollipops*

            I don’t think that part is so weird. As a manager sometimes I’m curious about a meeting in a team members calendar. Not to snoop but more as in “Hey I see you have the meeting with XYZ corp on Tuesday – let me know if I can help” etc..

    3. allathian*

      Yeah, me too. It doesn’t say so in the letter, but it’s certainly possible that those two are work friends.

    4. metadata minion*

      Maybe those two find this kind of meeting especially helpful and the others don’t? Also as samwise comments, this can get unwieldy in a big group and it might make more sense for the other team members to pair off rather than joining the existing pair if they want an accountability partner.

    5. Hiring Mgr*

      We don’t know if anyone else was invited or not. Could just be some of the employees said hey we should have a team meeting and these were the only two interested

    6. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      Too many people and the meeting becomes unwieldy. 2 people sounds about right, maybe 3.

      As long as they aren’t becoming a clique that carries over the exclusivity outside these meetings, leave them be.

      I like the idea of presenting the concept to the rest of the team so they can set up their own groups if they so choose. If they are conniving, and that’s a big if, they will be reluctant to teach others. If they are like, oh great, that might make everyone’s work life better, that is a good outcome.

    7. Jenny*

      One thing could be that a manager encouraged it. I could see if someone was having trouble in areas that one of the things I would recommend was a ‘mentor’ type situation with another employee.

    8. Deborah Vance, Vance Refrigeration*

      We don’t have all the background (I believe even OP doesn’t have it), but my guess is one of the employees asked the other one for help as some sort of mentorship. If they organically developed this kind of relationship, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
      If, and that’s a big if, one of them is being pressured to attend, and/or the employees are using this time to push their own agenda, that’s a different problem.

      1. Great Frogs of Literature*

        Or even something less formal than mentorship. One of the people mentions to the other, “Ugh, I’m really struggling to get all the details in place for this bovine conference coming up — I know everything that needs to happen, but the list is really long and it doesn’t feel like I’m making progress on it or know what to tackle next,” and the other says, “Would it help if we had a meeting once a week where we celebrate the stuff you got done and figure out what you should prioritize in the coming week?” and maybe mentions a project where having that would be similarly helpful to them.

        Some folks have mentioned the hour and a half, and that does seem longer than I would want for such a meeting, but if there’s any aspect where they show each other how to do some finicky aspect of their jobs (something complicated in the database, or a little-used Excel feature, or…) that could easily fill up the time at least sometimes. Or maybe they’re both remote and the actual meeting is 45 minutes or an hour and then they chitchat and this is their social time, I don’t see anything wrong with that.

        I also wonder if some of it might literally be a “working meeting,” where they talk for half an hour and then each bring the tasks they’re most procrastinating on, and the body doubling helps both of them. I’ve done that with a peer, where I knew there was a thing she needed to do and was avoiding, “Hey, I know you’ve been struggling to sit down and actually write the plan for that project, would it help if I stayed on after we finish this call, and you do it with me on the line?” She asked a question or two, consulting about wording or approach, but mostly she worked on the project plan, and I figured that if I was telling her to do the work she’d been putting off, I should take my own medicine and work on the project I’d been putting off, so we both companionably worked with the zoom call in the background, and an hour later we were both done and didn’t have that hanging over our heads anymore.

        1. Bird names*

          All good points, especially the body doubling, which was honestly my first guess when I read the letter.

    9. AvonLady Barksdale*

      Eh, I sometimes schedule check-ins with one of my teammates, just us two, because we’re good colleagues and peers. We also worked together for several years before joining this company and we’ve been friends since then. Sometimes we need time to check in with each other, blow off a little steam, talk about work stuff (she’s still getting her footing), and we schedule it so we can have specific, set time to look forward to.

      Come to think of it, when we worked together, we used to hang out in one of our offices venting for an hour or so every week. We never invited the other guy.

    10. Person from the Resume*

      I read it as two peers decided they wanted to be accountability buddies.

      This kind of meeting is not for everyone, but these two both discovered they appreciate being held accountable so implemented it for themselves.

      I’ve heard of places online that set you up with a random person on a short term basis. You tell this internet stranger you are going to work on X for the next X hours; they do the same; and at the end you check in. This is basically the same thing.

      90 minutes seems a bit long so maybe they are chatty and social too but it seems like it is something work related and not devious.

  4. nnn*

    I don’t think it changes Alison’s answer, but I find myself wondering #3’s gender. I can imagine a variety of different dynamics between #3 and their father, and some of them change with gender.

    Also curious whether LW’s father dyes his hair (although, again, it doesn’t change Alison’s answer)

    1. No use for a name*

      I’ve seen it happen A LOT that female employees looking for advancement face ageism. So looking younger/prettier/more fit can sadly play into those decisions. I have not seen this nearly as much for male counterparts. I’m sure company culture and size play a part. Look at your executive level employees for both representation and signs of ageism. It’s usually telling.

      1. LateRiser*

        My father started dying his hair specifically for job-hunting (IT project manager) once he was in his 50s. He claims it made a huge difference, but of course that’s anecdotal.

        1. LateRiser*

          That was not the comment I intended to reply to, but at least it’s close, I guess *facepalm*

        2. Also-ADHD*

          In IT and tech related context, there’s a particular bias towards youth but also experience. No one seems to do the math, but they want you to look/appear young yet have 20 YOE with tech that’s been around 10 years.

            1. I Have RBF*

              Seriously. It’s a trope in tech to want 10 years in-depth experience with software that has only existed for 5 years. That and expecting keyboard jockeys to “lift 50 pounds” (a good way to discriminate against older people, women and the disabled.) It’s just ridiculous. The companies with ads like that then go on to say “There are no ‘qualified’ Americans applying for this job, so let me hire an H1b with a puffed up resume for half of what it would cost for a citizen.” The whole this is shameless.

              But yes, if I’m interviewing I dye my hair purple. I’m 63, working in tech.

        3. Alpacas Are Not Dairy Animals*

          Yeah, it would be a mistake to believe this doesn’t affect men, especially in tech (and, I think not coincidentally, in public-facing roles like sales). My dude partner doesn’t dye his hair but he does keep his face clean-shaven when job hunting because his beard went gray much sooner and more obviously than his head. My female partner, on the other hand, is a tenured professor and only started dying her gray hair when she realized how much she liked it purple.

      2. DJ Abbott*

        I think LW can look around her area and field and see what other women are doing and whether having gray hair seems to hold them back. It probably varies by region and field. I have partly gray hair and got a good job two years ago at a government office. At the time, the managers who hired me were around my age.
        It seems like a few years ago it was a trend for young women to dye their hair gray or partly gray. Is that still a thing? Around three years ago a woman at a social event asked how I got the color in my hair and didn’t believe me when I told her it was natural. :)
        Also, I have read here more than once about younger women putting dry shampoo in their hair to make it look gray streaked so they will be taken more seriously. So I think LW has a few things to look at and consider how they’ll affect her situation.

        1. Elizabeth West*

          Yes, but it’s so obviously artificial (to me, anyway) that it doesn’t really make them look “older.” It tends to be an all-over color rather than natural streaks and scattering.

          Though nowadays, more young women who start to go grey are embracing it. Good for them. Ageism is still a thing. I continue to dye my hair (medium golden blonde–the light brown parts stay dark and the grey looks like highlights) because I don’t like the way the grey looks on me and when I was job hunting, I didn’t want it to be a consideration.

        2. Laura*

          Gray/silver hair is still trendy, my 11 year old asked me if we could try it with his. But as another poster said, when I’ve seen it it’s always very obvious that they aren’t naturally gray.

          1. Meep*

            +1 My husband started graying shortly after he met me (same with my father, actually… I wonder if there is a pattern…) at the ripe old age of eighteen. It looks good on him because he hasn’t dyed his entire head.

            His brother decided to hop on the gray trend (because Geralt the Witcher) and oh boy does he look stupid AF.

      3. Uranus Wars*

        Can we just say being a female in the workplace is still just HARD. There is no sweet spot.

        I would also say females experience ageism on the other side too. I am 44 year old, attractive, fit female with no children. People generally assume I am between 32-35. I finally learned to wear a fake wedding ring so people wouldn’t make assumptions about me. In my department I am well respected and sought out. Others make wild speculations about me based on age, until they get to know me but still question my knowledge/experience.

        Just last month someone (another female) remarked about my lack of work experience and that we need more tenured people in leadership. Turns out that person thought when I started 10 years ago I was just out of college and not already 12-13 years into a career. This happens at conferences and meetings too, where people think I’m not old enough to be speaking from experience.

        1. Feeling Feline*

          For real. I’m femme, nearly 40, Asian so I look about 25 to non-Asians, and the way people are patronising toward me is pretty wild. I frequently wonder if they behave this way toward a youngish masc person.

        2. Moo*

          I recently found myself wondering if I should let my hair go grey (or stop dying) because people sometimes think I’m younger than I am – for face roundness reasons. You’re right – there’s no sweet spot!

        3. iglwif*

          I am 50 and am regularly told I don’t look my age. (The first time I remember this happening, I was in my early 20s, visiting family in the US, and eating in a restaurant; the server asked my teenage cousin if she would like a cocktail, but did not ask me.) I haven’t been carded at the liquor store since my mid-30s, but over the past ~15 years I have had people
          * do comical double-takes when they discover how old my child is (not because I had her at a young age! I was 28)
          * appear genuinely astonished when I mention something like when I got my bachelor’s degree or how long I’ve been in the workforce
          * tell me they thought I was anywhere from 5 to 15 years younger than my actual age at the time
          * ask me to share my skincare routine (my skincare routine is “wash my face most days, sometimes remember sunscreen”)

          I am not sure what all gives me this impression of youth, but now that I am firmly middle-aged I think one factor is definitely my still very small amount of grey hair. Most of the time I’m just amused by it, but as you say, there is definitely a potential disadvantage when you need co-workers to take you seriously! Many time I have cheerfully informed (especially older, especially male) colleagues that I do in fact remember floppy disks, ZIP drives, dial-up modems, VanDyke proofs, and the DOS command line — all of which were a regular part of my workday at the beginning of my career — because they were acting like I just got off the bus from my university convocation.

      4. Texan In Exile*

        My uncle, who was gray at 40, was a pilot for Delta. He said the passengers liked seeing a pilot who looked old!

        1. Orv*

          I’m at that point where those pilots look younger every year. But Delta’s airplanes definitely have a lot of experience. ;)

    2. Myrin*

      Oooh, this is such a huge pet peeve of mine and something I regularly get annoyed at.
      I never see older men with dyed hair and also basically never see older women with non-dyed hair (up to a certain point, that is; but that point is, like, 80 or so).
      It’s so fucked up and regularly makes me hugely aggressive and it’s the main reason – other than that I really, truly don’t care for it – I will not ever dye my hair (although the joke is probably on me here since I’m a redhead and the only two options for those that I’ve seen in my family are: red hair becomes pure white – super exciting! – or, more commonly, red hair stays red until sixties; I’m quite looking forward to seeing how it will be for me).

      1. Lizzie (with the deaf cat)*

        My vet dyes his hair now and clearly pays a lot for it because it looks very natural. But I remember when it was getting a lot of grey! I expect there’s a lot more upkeep cost, due to regrowth being visible faster on a short cut.
        Lots of male politicians dye their hair of course, with a more or less convincing end result. I don’t know if elderly Italian men in Italy dye their hair jet black, but that’s commonplace here in South Australia.

        1. Also-ADHD*

          Why clearly pays a lot for it? Every standard salon can dye most hair to look natural, and even plenty of people can do that with at home dyes these days. I dye my hair (not necessarily all about age—I have for a long time because dye makes my particular hair follicle more malleable to what I want, and I like making it a slightly different color for my skin tone). It’s not really a huge expense.

          1. Texan In Exile*

            Speaking only for myself – but the difference between a home dye job and a good salon job is over $100. :) I can spot most home jobs pretty easily.

            1. Also-ADHD*

              How would you know you’re spotting most of them? Do you ask people? And even a salon dye job for male hair (if short) is usually not $100 a month and that’s not expensive (on a vet income). I guess it depends on what expensive is, but honestly I’ve had salons assume my hair was salon dyed mainly because I use salon quality dye (which isn’t much more expensive than the box kits but you have to buy through a salon supply). I haven’t noticed a difference with salon dyeing except when changing colors more dramatically. If you’re just converting gray, that’s not an issue.

              1. Texan In Exile*

                Good point! Yes, I can spot bad home jobs (the color is flat, there’s dye on the skin), but if it’s a good home job, I wouldn’t know, would I?

                Or maybe they are bad salon dye jobs? Except my stylist would never have let me walk out with a bad dye job. It’s her reputation, after all.

                And no, a salon dye is not $100 a month, but where I am, it’s $100 a time (or was, years ago when I was still coloring my hair). That’s still a lot to spend on hair.

                1. Elizabeth West*

                  My dye jobs back in OldCity were about $125 every six weeks, but that included a blow-dry and style, which I always let my stylist do because I had very long hair and had gone full blonde and we had a running joke that I was her toy Barbie head. Of course, then I had to go shopping so everyone could see it, so it ended up costing more, lol. But I was job hunting so it was worth it to have nice (not grey) hair.

                  I can’t get it cut for less than $80 here unless I go to Supercuts. The humidity has exaggerated the texture alarmingly. I cut it shorter and most days I look like a dandelion. -_-

          2. Lizzie (with the deaf cat)*

            Seeing his hair up really close, the vet’s ‘natural’ overall brown was made up of many subtle colours, it looked expensive! And it was very glossy.

      2. Emmy Noether*

        Wait, you don’t remember the Gerhard Schröder hair dying scandal? :-D I think a lot of men in politics or the public sphere in general do dye their hair (and virtually all the women in a certain age bracket, so, you do have a point…).

        Also, a lot more men have hairloss in addition to graying hair, so that complicates it for them. They have to get a toupet or implants in addition to dying their hair if they want to maintain the full illusion of youthful hair.

        Of course you’re right that a man with salt-and-pepper hair is called “distinguished”, and a man that doesn’t (appear to) care about his appearance is “focused on work”, while a woman is “slovenly”, so I completely understand you’re peeved.

        1. Myrin*

          Dear god, I’d forgotten all about that! But still, I don’t count politicians or celebrities as “people I see” but really just those I encounter personally in day-to-day-life and it’s definitely true that I basically never meet older men with not-grey hair.

          It’s not even that I’ve ever really encountered the “slovenly” vs. “distinguished” attitude (although I’m sure there are plenty of people in whose mind it exists) but just… I hate that this is normalised. I hate that I have to wonder “Okay but do you actually want to dye your hair or do you feel like you have to?”.
          Nevermind that often it looks incredibly artificial and makes the person ironically actually look older – I’ve seen that a lot, where a person had beautiful grey or white hair and it looked fuller and healthier, but it’s like in the general consciousness it’s “coloured” = “young” (= “good”) which… ugh, you can see, I have a lot of thoughts on the matter!

          1. KayDeeAye*

            Ooh, I’ve known lots of older men who clearly dye their hair. Some I know for a fact (e.g., I knew them when they were grayer) and some I just make a really good guess at. It may be more common than you think.

      3. bamcheeks*

        I see a lot of women in their forties who don’t dye their hair now (myself half-included- the lower half of my hair is blue, but the top half is natural and that includes grey! So technically I do dye my hair but not to cover grey.) There’s definitely a bit more of a movement to keep your natural colour in my circles, but I don’t know if it’s a widespread trend yet.

        I have definitely felt in a few places that blonde women with more conventional business style were more likely to get favoured and promoted that people with mildly alternative / queer styles like mine. But on the other hand, there are more of them than there are of me, so I’m not sure whether this is conclusive.

        1. Great Frogs of Literature*

          My wife occasionally dyes her gray hairs… exciting colors. I think she looks distinguished with them natural, but she has them in a few decent-sized streaks, so it’s also fun when they’re green or blue or red, particularly against her dark hair. It looks like an effect she went to a lot of effort to get a salon to produce for her, when nope, we literally just dumped some manic panic on it.

          1. I Have RBF*

            When I dye mine, I don’t bleach it first, so I get lighter purple where the grey was, and darker purple on the darker hair. It looks better than “uniform” purple.

            1. Laura*

              I just did this and it is very subtle on my dark brown hair. My kids didn’t even notice until I pointed it out and nobody at work has commented. Clearly I need more of my hair to turn grey.

              1. PhyllisB*

                I used to put red on my hair, not to cover gray, but because I’m a blonde whose hair turned into mousy dishwater. I got tired of highlights so decided to try red. well, during covid I couldn’t get to a salon so I bought a color enhancer to perk it up. It turned my hair pink. The grands thought that was really cool, but…no. That’s when I realized how underlying gray there was.
                I left it grow off and decided to try using shampoo formulated for gray hair even though I wasn’t fully gray yet, thought it would make it shine. It turned my hair lavender. Once again not the look I was going for.
                Now it’s come out enough to look fairly nice so I just embrace it.

      4. Mockingjay*

        I stopped dyeing my hair a decade ago when I began reacting to the chemicals in it. Now I sport a snow-white mane.

        The only place I had problems with my appearance is ExToxicJob. Been at CurrentJob for 8 years now; appearance is not a factor in how our performance is evaluated. I haven’t been job hunting recently, so I don’t know if my hair would be a factor. (Honestly, I think my asking salary would be more of a barrier; I’m at the end of a long career and most positions in my field can be filled by someone with 10 years less experience.) As Alison notes, there are so many factors in hiring. Could ageism in terms of appearance be one of those? Possibly a slight chance, but if you present a groomed image and are prepared for the interview, I don’t see hair color as a problem.

        1. Freelance Historian*

          I stopped dyeing mine at the beginning of the pandemic. I always wanted to see if I inherited my grandmother’s silver hair (I did! Huzzah!) and my hair was becoming more and more resistant to the dyeing process. My mother was horrified and gave me the spiel about the workplace. I decided that this a hill I wanted to die on. During my professional life, I have seen paid maternal leave become more commonplace (still needs a long way to go), it become more common for women to wear pants (a lot of my attorney friends were told at the beginning of their careers that they had to wear skirts), and other rights come in. I wanted to normalize the right to age however one chooses, dyed hair or no. It’s a small salvo on my part, but one that I believe in.

      5. Jeanine*

        I used to dye my hair for fun when I was younger. Now I’m almost 60 and I haven’t dyed my hair in years and it’s a pretty mix of lighter and darker grey. I will never dye my hair for a job interview. Women really need to stand up and stop giving in to pressure to look a certain way, it’s ridiculous. Why do we have to torture ourselves with working on hair, wearing uncomfortable shoes and clothes and makeup? NO.

        1. Random Biter*

          I’m entering my 7th decade. Whew….just typing that made me feel creaky. Still working cause my dog likes to eat and I’d lose my mind if I had to watch daytime tv. I *do* dye my hair…..indigo. Have done it for years and plan on continuing to do so. I used to go to a salon, but my hairdresser told me the dyes nowadays are as good as what you can get at the salon so I just cut out the middle man. She did give me a good tip….rub some vaseline along your hairline and on your ears keep from dye staining. I do enjoy it when someone asks me if I dye my hair, I just tell them no, it’s natural.

      6. Meep*

        Funny enough, our founder is 70 and dyes his hair. Usually it is dark, but when it is blond is kinda startling. At least, he let me dye my hair blueberry and magenta at times as a result.

      7. Girasol*

        I’m with you. I never dyed. I went quickly from looking younger than my age to having naturally white hair. I love it. But from about age 50 I had to put up with comments at work about being old, dotty, forgetful, unable to learn new things, just marking time for the rocking chair – you know the drill. I might have missed career opportunities for not trying to look younger but I feel so strongly that it is not my job to be a workplace decoration that I didn’t mind. Still, I can attest to the fact that the sight of uncolored gray does bring out the ageism in a lot of people.

      1. Michigander*

        I did too. It seems more likely that a woman with grey hair would be discriminated against in hiring than a man with grey hair, though obviously anything is possible.

        1. Ellis Bell*

          It was more than I struggle to see a father saying this to a son. Most men don’t die their own gray hair, so why would they tell a son to do it. Also, there’s no mention from OP about his own hair choices and whether they’ve worked for him, which is where you would go mentally if you were the same gender. It could be OP simply hasn’t mentioned that aspect, but it felt like “advice more beneficial for you, than me”.

          1. SelinaKyle*

            I’m thinking of embracing my grey as it’s hard to keep up with my white roots and dyed orange.
            However I think it’s more socially acceptable for men to be grey, you never hear silver fox being used for women, (although I guess they’d be vixen).

            1. Hair Today*

              Whatever complimentary version of this for women would apply to Emmy Lou Harris (just as one example). She grayed young, never dyed, and has always looked stunning. I’m enjoying my remaining red that sometimes curls around the white parts– candy canes!– I kind of love it.

          2. Meep*

            That’s fair. I was thinking it was so out of touch that a father would tell his daughter to dye her hair and for her to think that is a good idea. (Plus the peacocking on how they got compliments for being gray…) I just kind of assumed it was a guy from that.

            But at the same time, with the Witcher being so popular, so many men are trying the “silver fox” look when they really shouldn’t.

        2. Orv*

          In tech older men are definitely discriminated against. And by “older” I mean “over 40.”

          1. Girasol*

            Pet peeve: In employment, and especially in IT, “old” is anything over 40, and in social security “old” is no younger than 66.

      2. WellRed*

        Yes it never would occur to the OP wasn’t female for this question. I think she should look around her company or industry or region to make a decision. (I don’t have a lot of gray but have long colored my hair and will continue do so for the near future).

    4. Old Old Man*

      After a severe industrial accident my beard turned white at the age of 26 and also my hair started growing in grey. It was weird as people would assume I was old at first glance then realised I was obviously a lot younger.
      I worked in Finance software for many years and I think it was actually an advantage, people want solid, reliable people to install software and train people on stuff, so there I was a greybeard in suit and tie talking about Balance Sheets.
      However it has been a pain being thought of as old for the past 30 years and you do get lots of questions about retirement – like mate, its still 10 years away!

    5. HailRobonia*

      On the flip side I know a woman professor who jokingly said she was thankful she was going grey because finally people started to respect her. She looks young for her age and that, coupled with sexism, meant that many people in her field thought she was a grad student or postdoc not a tenured professor.

      1. Panhandlerann*

        I am also one who always looked much younger than I was and used to welcome some signs of aging for the same reason. (Alas, time has caught up with me now.)

      2. Garblesnark*

        Yeah, I started getting white hair in my mid-20’s thanks to cancer and no one’s doubted since that I am an Old. (I am, in fact, pretty young.)

      3. CommanderBanana*

        Yup, I believe every woman has a single day in her life where she is Just The Right Age. Before that you are Too Young and after that you are Too Old, but for that 24 hours, it’s magical.

        1. Not One of the Bronte Sisters*

          There’s a line in a Toby Keith song: “Ask yourself how old would you be if you didn’t know the day you were born.” I love that so much. I think chronological age doesn’t mean anything, although I do look a lot younger than I am.

      4. giraffecat*

        Yep. I am on this flip side. I started going gray when I was 16. I dyed my hair for years because of bullying and dyed it all through college. Then, when I entered the work world, I stopped dying it and people started to take me more seriously, thinking I was older. I’ve since gone back and forth with dying it or letting it be naturally gray. When I have gray hair people stop constantly questioning my experience. Having gray hair has it’s ups and downs.

    6. SheLooksFamiliar*

      I believe there’s still a gender-specific bias in the workplace – better than it used to be, but still there. When it comes to aging workers, things even up a bit but, still, women are judged more harshly. Or maybe directly.

      I’m over 60 and have dyed my hair since my 20s; I started going gray very early in life. I use sunscreen every single day, and don’t have deep wrinkles. Even so, a new and younger colleague and I were getting to know each other at work recently. She asked how long I’ve been doing what I do, and I told her it was over 40 years. Her response? ‘Wow, I never would have guessed. You don’t sound that old at all!’ Not a word about my hair or skin.

      There’s always something to wonder about…

    7. Been There*

      The thing I would ask the poster is what field they’re in, and if they look polished and contemporary. I’m in a creative field, and there was a moment when I realized every executive was younger than I am. I can’t do anything about my age, but I can make sure I look “up to speed” in hairstyle, fashion, etc. It’s easier for guys who just need a decent haircut and to update their khakis every decade or so. I have a colleague who hasn’t updated her look in decades, and it absolutely affects people’s confidence. It’s not fair, but our job is to apply the latest thing in the marketplace to our products. We can’t appear to be out of touch. And believe me, there are a million other things I’d rather spend my energy on, but I’ve found a low-effort way to deal – I just plop myself in my stylist’s chair every month with the instruction to make me look cool (which usually involves color that’s beyond hiding gray), and I order my clothes from one of those personal shopper companies so I know what I’m wearing is in style.

      1. I Have RBF*

        Oooof. Sounds like a nuisance.

        In my field, which is very much back office, they only care that your clothing is present, clean, and not scruffy. I once worked for a company where the CEO wore denim almost exclusively. “Dressed up” was high business casual (polo, khakis and a sport coat.)

        1. Argiope Aurantia*

          My prior company was all about appearances, at least at the corporate office. Women execs wore skirts and high heels; male execs wore business suits (but tended to leave the jacket on the back of their chairs). Lower down the food chain, you’d see women in pants and flats, and men in khakis and a more casual version of a button-down shirt. I wore a blazer over a blouse, slacks, and painfully uncomfortable flats every day. [Never could find “business appropriate” flats that didn’t hurt my feet.

          At my current company, the CEOs (both the global one and the local one) wear t-shirts and jeans. When my co-workers turn on their cameras, they’re all in t-shirts in the summer and hoodies in the winter. And that’s across the board: accounting, finance, marketing, operations, sales, IT, etc.

          And I no longer live with crippling foot pain because I wear sneakers now, not flats. It’s freaking wonderful.

          As for hair, I’m in my late 50’s and the streaks of gray are increasing. I’ve never dyed my hair and I hope I never have to. For now, the streaks look more like paid-for highlights in a sea of chocolate brown hair.

      2. PhyllisB*

        That’s the thing with graying hair, you have to keep it immaculately groomed or it does look dowdy. I get a lot of compliments on mine and people asking me if it’s natural, but if I didn’t keep it up I would just look like an old lady. Well, I AM an old lady (73) and proud of it, but I still want to present an attractive image.

    8. Meep*

      I thought the same. I assumed LW#3 was male to even consider it and be kind of proud of their grey hair. For women, it would be an absolute no.

    1. ScruffyInternHerder*

      My brain went to “we know there’s a problem but if everything is getting done we can’t do a thing about the problem….so let things not get done so we can sort out the problem!”

      1. Personal Best in Consecutive Days Lived*

        This was my first thought as well. It could be that the goofing off employee is on a PIP and they’re giving them the opportunity to succed or fail with their share of the workload.

    2. BetsyTacy*

      #1, I am not your manager, but I was in a VERY similar situation. Basically, I had one member of the team who we knew just wasn’t pulling their weight. Bad team member was also getting paid the most because of seniority and it was actually infuriating. The rest of the team was great but was basically having to pick up slack (and we didn’t want that) but at the same time the rest of the team is great and aren’t just going to leave work done.

      What the rest of the team couldn’t know is that we were actively managing/coaching problem employee and the employee was very defensive. He stated that basically, clearly he was doing his job because the full workload (shared) was getting done. He claimed that he was always available but the work wasn’t there and then we had to basically call his bluff in a similar way, by telling the team NOT to be going above and beyond. It wasn’t fair to them that we couldn’t explain more; however, because we were actively moving towards termination we couldn’t say anything beyond ‘this is no reflection on your work, we think you’re doing a great job, there are other things we’re looking at.’

    3. Phantom*

      We know the reasoning behind the request. The extra wrinkle to the story is that a ticket got missed for a day, which caused us to all get pulled into a meeting asking why the ticket got missed. The supervisor asked us one by one why we didn’t take the ticket. The answer between my coworker and I was clear: You told us to slow down on the tickets. So, we did. Now, look at what it got you.

      The resulting meeting with the supervisor and HR was immediately after that meeting because I raised a stink over it. I was essentially told that I was being over-emotional and had no idea what was really going on behind the scenes. My reasoning was that, if you call us all into a meeting to individually call us out in the group as to why we as individuals didn’t take a ticket, that’s really too much, especially when you asked us as a group to let this third individual take all the loose tickets.

      1. MassMatt*

        Management of this group sounds terrible. They are holding meetings for collective punishment while one group member is goofing off watching YouTube and ignoring work? And their response is “you do know everything that’s going on”? It sounds as though the manager doesn’t know what going on.

        With that said, it sounds as though they don’t think you have any standing to address any of this. Do your work, follow their directives, and let the other person (eventually) fail.

      2. Great Frogs of Literature*

        Okay, THAT is context that didn’t come across at all in your letter. It’s one thing to be told to slow down and let a coworker take some work — it’s another to do so and then get scolded for not being on top of the work.

        If I were in this situation, I’d probably try for an approach like, “After our conversation last month, I’ve been taking X many tickets [or however you do it] and leaving the rest for Jane. But then we were reprimanded because ticket #999 didn’t meet our SLAs [if that’s true]. Given that we’re supposed to leave tickets for Jane to pick up, how do you want us to handle it if a ticket we’re leaving for her isn’t getting addressed?”

        1. umami*

          I’m … not sure they were being scolded? It sounds like the ticket was missed, and each of them was asked for their reason why. Two of them had a reason (you told us to not take all the tickets) and one of them presumably did not because he was NOT told to stop taking tickets. I get the sense that OP is overreacting because they are so diligent about their work and assume they are the ones in trouble so they escalated the issue to HR, but I don’t really think that is the case. Not that I believe this has been the best handling of the situation, but it doesn’t serve OP to make a bigger deal of it when they are being told that they aren’t privy to some things behind the scenes. OP, juts hang in there and let it play out, and I think you will find that you are not the target here.

          1. Cobol*

            Alison essentially gives this as the second reason. All the evidence is there; manager (and LW) are new, so quite possibly an underachieving team where the previous manager was pushed out, making sure there are tickets for YouTubing coworker so they can’t claim there’s no work to do, and finally a meeting to document that said coworker isn’t doing work.

            That behind the scenes comment isn’t incidental. I think LW is taking this personally when it’s not Scott then.

          2. Hell in a Handbasket*

            If they were specifically told not to take all the tickets, it’s not really reasonable for their managers to then come back and ask why they didn’t take the ticket.

            1. umami*

              It is reasonable when you think about the need for documentation. If a ticket gets missed, and there is an expectation that 1 of 3 employees is going to address it, then it stands to reason that you would ask all 3 why it was missed. You can’t only ask because then they would be singled out. It doesn’t sound like the execution in this case was effective, but the reasoning behind being able to document that 2 of 3 could articulate a reason it was missed and 1 did not is sound on its surface.

          3. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

            > “… which caused us to all get pulled into a meeting asking why the ticket got missed. The supervisor asked us one by one why we didn’t take the ticket.”

            They were each asked individually, in front of the group. Maybe not scolding, but it surely does sound like the manager didn’t stop and think about cause and effect before calling this meeting.

      3. Slow Gin Lizz*

        What on earth? This place sounds full of bees and like it’s managed by three-year-olds. I hope you’re pursuing other employment because it doesn’t sound like you can possibly succeed in this place.

      4. Helen Waite*

        Ooof. That’s harsh. I had a laundry list of reasons that came up in my own ticket-based job history, and they don’t all apply to your situation.

        Work does need to get done, so I’d pick up one ticket at a time and take your time on it. Let the next one sit for a few minutes and then pick it up. That should be plenty of time to give the slacker a chance at it.

      5. spiriferida*

        It does seem counterintuitive to have them tell you to slow down and also let things slip through the cracks, but I can see why management would be frustrated that a ticket seems to be falling through entirely, if the request was not to leave particular tickets to your coworker. They’re still communicating it badly, but I can see the self-serving rationale. Could you maybe ask your management to come up with a system for assigning things, so it’s clearer whose work isn’t being done properly?

        In the meantime your position I’d probably make an agreement with your non-slacker coworker that you wait x amount of time, an hour or two maybe, to pick up any ticket. That’s probably enough time to let your slacker coworker incriminate themself by not picking up tickets, but also gives you and your coworker a chance to keep from leaving a ticket long enough for management to complain at you.

        1. spiriferida*

          ETA: It looks like in another comment you mentioned that your coworker isn’t following through on the tickets they’ve started? If that’s the case, if/when a meeting like this happens again, you don’t have to say that you were told to slow down, you can just make it clear that the ticket wasn’t your responsibility because slacker coworker had claimed it.

      6. Chriama*

        I’m a bit confused about who the involved parties are. Someone (a) told you to work slower on tickets. Someone (b) then called you into a meeting to ask why a ticket was missed. Your supervisor and HR (c) then called a third meeting to explain that you don’t know everything going on behind the scenes.

        Are a, b, and c all the same people? If so then I agree that I’d want to make it clear that asking you to work more slowly means less work will be done overall. But it’s possible they had the meeting because they wanted some record to compare working speeds between you guys and your slacker coworker. In which case they’re mishandling the communication to you but are likely not nefarious.

        If this communication is coming from different people then I’d want to try and get one unified directive, or at least keep written records to cover yourself. You don’t want to get caught in the crossfire of any workplace shenanigans.

      7. A Person*

        Ah, that’s a bit weird in a way that didn’t come across in the original letter.

        I don’t think the request to leave some tickets itself is necessarily unreasonable – it might be that they’ve caught the slacker watching YouTube and he’s been like “Look, there are no tickets for me to do!” – so they’re trying to get clear evidence of the issue. Or they might want to set aside a package of work they can allocate to the guy, so they can see if the problem is “doesn’t want to” or “doesn’t know how to”. But if that’s the case it sounds like they didn’t handle it well with the other team members.

    4. Chriama*

      My assumption is they want to give that employee enough rope to hang himself, or justification to hire another employee (and maybe fire the slacker). Asking the others to *less* work is the opposite of having them pick up the slack.

  6. Pink Sprite*

    Re: letter 2: I wonder if the OP’s uneasiness stems from not quite believing that the meeting her employees are having are really used for the agenda she saw. I might wonder if that’s really what they’re working on.
    The OP could pop in to one of their meetings to observe to see if it would be beneficial for the rest of the team thus seeing what’s really happening.
    Or ask for minutes/notes/goals/objectives from a few weeks of their meetings.
    The manager could ask those two women to let others observe and/or model one of their agenda items.
    Agree with Alison – if they’re doing what they say they’re doing: great! But I think the OP’s spidey sense is tingling just a bit.

    1. Nodramalama*

      I think it would be kind of odd to pop in on a meeting you’re not invited to, to basically snoop.

    2. Stoli*

      Manager should ask to sit on one of the calls It sounds suspicious to me, in a time wasting way.

      1. Ariaflame*

        It doesn’t at all sound suspicious to me. It looks like some people who know what they need for help in motivation have worked out a solution that benefits them both and the company.

        1. holdonloosely*

          Yeah, it sounds great and frankly, the way OP2 has leapt to the conclusion that “manipulating” or “conniving” might be going on, without any evidence or inquiry whatsoever, makes me question their fitness as a manager.

          2. Falling Diphthong*

            It makes me wonder about the workplace, and whether it’s a crab bucket and this is the two employees’ means of escaping that and trying to develop professionally.

          3. Meep*

            Yeah… If employees have to do this on their own, that is a yellow flag for me towards the manager. If the manager automatically thinks it is suspicious, that is a red flag that the manager is the one not stepping up…

        1. Sloanicota*

          This. If these two are good, productive employees getting their work done, there’s no point fretting about the “wasted” 90 minutes. If they’re using the meeting to chat while work piles up, talk about that.

      3. nnn*

        It’s fascinating that last week we had people argue that someone using their WFH day to do housework should be allowed if they were meeting deadlines but somehow this meeting, which is actually about work, is an egregious abuse of company time.

        1. KateM*

          I think what you missed was that people who argued FOR housework were the ones who did so five minutes a time – those who take an hour and half to just find enough laundry to put in machine argued AGAINST it.

          (I agree that this meeting sounds totally about work.)

        2. Miracle*

          So funny and true. Its like a supervisor coming to an advice column to work through whether an approach is over stepping or appropriate always has a bad intention.

      4. Jessica*

        Hard to see how that will help. I mean, if coworker and I claim to have a standing meeting for Discussing Important Work Stuff, but we’re secretly just getting together to watch Desperate Housewives of Beverly Hills, do you think when the boss asks to join one of our meetings we’re not going to pivot to work stuff for that one and try to fake like that’s what we always do? I don’t think these employees are conniving and nefarious but even for those who do, let’s not assume they’re also complete idiots.

        1. Arrietty*

          And surely if you wanted to just watch TV and slack off, you wouldn’t need a fake meeting to do it!

      5. Nodramalama*

        Im not sure why you think this a very convuluted way to waste time when they could easily waste time in thousands of ways and not do this much work to create fake meetings with fake agendas

      6. Allonge*

        Eh, look, this accountability thing does not work for me personally and having to share a ‘highlight of my week’ makes me twitch just thinking about it. But that does not mean it’s not useful for others – overall, I think do spend an hour or so / week on things that achieve the same result, it’s just not in this format.

        I assume also that if the agenda does not take an hour and a half, they will stop the meeting and go back to whatever is next on their to-do list.

        This is a very elaborate way to waste working time, is all I am saying. There are much easier ways to do that.

      7. Also-ADHD*

        Is there any concern about the time management of these employees? Even if the meeting wasn’t as productive as that agenda suggests and they talked about Real Housewives for 90 minutes, if that supports overall productivity, should managers care? Social time could make people more productive. Though the topic of the meeting sounds plenty productive to me and like the concern is they’re too productive usually, which is then seen as “plotting”.

      8. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

        If they’re getting their work done, the manager shouldn’t micromanage whether they think this meeting is useful enough or not.

      9. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        It’s fascinating to me how many people here are 100% in favor of unstructured conversations at work and would think nothing of two teammates spending 15 minutes a day chatting about work, but attach an agenda and put it all at once and they view it as wasting time.

      10. Helen Waite*

        That’s not a bad idea. Some workplaces I’ve worked had extra team meetings in which co-workers went over a weekly “Thing We Assume Every Knows But It’s Easy to Get Missed in Training” process. I always looked forward to these, as I was new to the group, and much of this was news to me. Three cheers to the group lead who started these.

        Later on, the manager started attending them, and had some brief news about upcoming projects and challenges, as well as periodic requests for the next Assumtion of the Week. It was obvious to all that management not only approved, but supported, these extra meetings.

        If these team meetings are exactly what they say they are, you’ll know, and if not, the reaction to your request will make that obvious.

    3. RCB*

      This is one of those guns you get to fire once, and you can’t be wrong because you’re going to lose big.

      If you insist on figuring out what the meetings are for and find out that they are just gabbing and plotting then okay, you were right, and that shot paid off (though I’d argue 1.5 hours a week isn’t really a waste of time).

      But if they ARE doing what they agenda says they are doing then you’ve just shown them that you don’t trust them to act independently and take initiative, so from now one they will put in the bare minimum effort and you’ll get nothing extra out of them again.

      Save your powder, this is not the hill you die on.

      1. Ask a Manager* Post author

        Yep. Most likely scenario, these are two people taking the initiative to be more invested in and engaged in their jobs. That’s a good thing. Unless there’s some specific reason it’s causing problems, like that the work that needs to get done is being neglected, the manager should default to supporting that, not stamping it out or taking it over.

      3. Brain the Brian*

        Even if they are just “meeting” to gossip and chat… an hour and a half per week isn’t a huge deal, IMO, and unless there’s a workflow issue (e.g. someone’s not answering the phones and needs to be), I’d still let it lie. At least these two are blocking off time for their chit-chat; most people I know spend way more time than that chatting with coworkers interspersed throughout the week. Didn’t we have a letter a few months ago about an office where Friday afternoons were solely dedicated to drinking and decompressing? This, at least, seems better than that even if they are just chatting and aren’t truly “keeping each other accountable.”

        1. MK*

          Most people don’t go to the trouble of setting a meeting to chat with their coworkers for that amount of time. They just…do it?

          1. Irish Teacher.*

            And making out an agenda and list of questions to discuss? That sounds like a lot of trouble to go to, to cover up the fact that you are taking an hour and a half just to chat.

          2. Mockingjay*

            I love a meeting agenda, even for informal or team-only meetings. I work best with lists to stay focused and help me remember. I leave Notepad open all day to type quick reminders, q’s, and info snippets, which I paste into emails, reports, and meeting agendas.

            A meeting like this is also good for problem solving, such as issues you aren’t quite sure whether to escalate and need a second opinion, or if you want a coworker’s help to brainstorm improvement ideas.

            If this kind of structure isn’t useful or needed by you, that’s fine. But it can be very useful for a lot of workers.

        2. SimonTheGreyWarden*

          Yeah, it averages to roughly 20 minutes a day which…I don’t know, I can waste that much time walking down the hall to get my mail and saying hi to everyone I pass.

          1. Lurker*

            It’s actually double that because there are two people in the meeting, who are each using 90 minutes a week.

        3. MassMatt*

          Interesting, it really depends on the job because many places I have worked blocking off 1 1/2 hrs per week would just not fly. Retail–you need to be on the floor. Sales–1 2/2 hr is $$$ you are not making. I worked in a call center (granted, infamous for scrutinizing the least amount of time off) and inquiries would be launched and management involved within minutes of not taking a call. Yes, minutes.

          But it doesn’t sound as though the time aspect is a factor in this letter, it’s purely a matter of wondering what they are doing and are they Up to No Good?

          1. Brain the Brian*

            Yeah, that’s my read of it, too. And executive assistants pretty much by the nature of their jobs are just not going to be on a sales floor otherwise directly involved in revenue-generating / billable work. So much of the work that an EA does is knowing how to smooth things over with difficult people and keep tabs on tons of different people’s priorities. A meeting like this that straddles the line between work tasks and personal stories from around the office is probably very helpful to a pair of EAs. The others on this team should try it, too!

        4. I Have RBF*

          This.

          Plus, they have a productivity oriented agenda for their meeting! Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. A 90 minute meeting between two peers for accountability and body doubling is perfectly reasonable, and should be encouraged. Even if all they did was vent about problems and try to develop workarounds, it would still be useful.

    4. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      I would consider that to be nosy micromanaging and I’d be pretty offended at this clear sign hat my manager doesn’t trust me.

    5. Allonge*

      Or, how about, if OP really wants to do something about it*: ask these two what the meetings are about, what need they satisfy and how, if at all, that could be done for the whole team. Come at this from the ‘I saw this in your calendar, sounds great, how does it work’ angle, not the conspiracy one that OP seems to have now.

      From the info we have, these two arranged something between them on a topic that is very often the responsibility of the manager. OP, are you giving these people what they need?

      *I don’t think OP needs to do anything.

      1. General von Klinkerhoffen*

        Exactly this: it sounds as though they are providing for each other the kind of support they would ideally get from the wider team and particularly their direct manager.

        It could be that this is simply a working styles thing, that this pair are effectively body doubling for each other to help with time management, and that everything is fine. But I’m not sure I like what I’m inferring about the wider team dynamics.

        1. Butter and Lollipops*

          I don’t know that there’s really anything to infer. Even in teams with great support and open communication it’s totally fine for teammates to meet without their manager.

          1. sparkle emoji*

            I’d agree, but the conspiratorial lens LW2 is interpreting things through is concerning. A healthy workplace wouldn’t consider this “manipulative” or “conniving”.

      2. Olive*

        While I realize that the OP is in their rights to ask about it and request some kind of demo from the employees, if I were the one of the employees, having to share the process from my 1-1 peer accountability meeting would really put me off taking initiative unless there was some kind of clear reward involved (and being put in charge of accountability for the whole team would be the opposite of a reward). OTOH, if I was one of the non-meeting employees, being pushed to do my own accountability meeting would also make me run screaming.

        More concerning: While it might help two like-minded employees to organize their week together by going into more detail, if the entire team isn’t aware of their collective priorities, challenges, and successes, the manager isn’t doing their job.

        1. PotsPansTeapots*

          Yep, just because a manager has the authority to do something does not mean it’s a wise or helpful thing to do.

        2. Allonge*

          I think this is one of those things where if you are used to working with reasonable-to-good managers and reasonable-to-good teams, with reasonable compensation – getting asked to share your good practices and your manager wanting to learn from you is normal, very very normal.

          If all you see is bad management and bad teams and suspicion and competition, then your somewhat antagonistic reaction makes sense. To be honest, OP’s reaction to this does not fill me with a lot of confidence that they are helping to create the reasonable-to-good environment I described above.

          Basically, I just wanted to flag that ‘I don’t want to tell my boss how I organise my work to do better’ may be reasonable but please also know there are lots of places where you would be legitimately considered weird for it. And those are the good places to work.

          1. Also-ADHD*

            It’s normal for a good manager to suggest or ask but not require it be shared. There’s a lot of reasons sharing doesn’t make sense too and a lot of folks who wouldn’t want to share.

          2. Olive*

            I find organizational work techniques to be very personal – not in an emotional sense, but what works for one person drives another person crazy. Nothing kills my productivity more than a bunch of meetings about how individual time management needs to be everyone’s good practice. To me, a good place to work is one that recognizes that.

            This is different from a manager realizing that someone is struggling with time management and working with them to find a strategy that works for them.

          3. New Jack Karyn*

            This makes a lot of sense! All of these things can be true: supervisor/manager is supportive and reasonable; workplace is generally healthy; some folks benefit from this kind of 1:1 peer interaction; manager wants to hear more about it to see if it would help other folks.

            I don’t know that they’re all true HERE.

    6. TheBunny*

      Egads. This screams micromanager to me.

      It’s 90 minutes, not 3 days per week. If the employees are productive, with string output and are functional members of the team, no reason to investigate.

      1. Insufficient Sausage Explainer*

        Your mention of string output struck a cord with me. There’s no need for the LW to get tied up in knots over this.

        Apologies for the ropey puns in this thread. I’ll bow out now.

    7. nnn*

      I feel like if the agenda were fake, it would be shorter. Or there wouldn’t be an agenda at all, and it would just be marked as “accountability meeting”, or “check-in meeting”, or nothing at all.

      Although, also, there’s the fact that employees are allowed to have private conversations, and employees often need to be able to talk to each other candidly about work-related matters without their conversation being reportable to a manager.

      1. TheBunny*

        Absolutely. I hope my team meet without me. Heck I hope they talk about me when they meet! It’s healthy. I’m their manager, I’m 100% certain something I’ve asked one of them to do has seemed silly, or pointless, or annoying and I hope they talk to one another about it…and come to me if it really is silly, or whatever.

        I certainly hope my team feels free to meet.

        1. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

          Same; my team members meet without me (albeit with my leads, who have both been with this team longer than I have) once a month. I have gotten some good feedback out of it over the years.

      2. Observer*

        Although, also, there’s the fact that employees are allowed to have private conversations, and employees often need to be able to talk to each other candidly about work-related matters without their conversation being reportable to a manager.

        I’m so glad you said this. I was thinking the same thing, and wondering if I was really so off base on that.

    8. Yellow rainbow*

      Except things like this only work in an environment of trust.

      I have regular check ins with peers. They are helpful for me. If my boss turned up the meeting would end.

      Frankly I think the staff need to lock down their calendars – they got colleagues/boss that snoop on meetings that have nothing to do with them. Why would you look through the agenda of a meeting that had nothing to do with you?

      1. Never Knew I was a Dancer*

        It doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that a manager would want or need to take a look at their reports’ calendars to stay aware of their schedule.

        1. Allonge*

          Yes, looking at the calendar is not the issue here. Sharing (some) calendar info within the team is a great way to let everyone kn0w what you are working on and so on.

          The issue is that in their current mindset, OP would most likely find a recurring meeting that is marked private on both sides just as disturbing. OP needs to develop trust in their team, not give reasons for less sharing of info.

      2. Reebee*

        Bosses are responsible for their employees. As such, all meetings have “to do with” bosses, regardless of whether Boss is actually present.

        Everything an employee does while in the workplace has to do with Boss. How do some people not know that?

        1. Observer*

          Up to a point. The boss, for instance, does not have a right to listen in on what happens in the bathroom. And there is even case law that indicates that if people develop a reasonable expectation of privacy around their *work* email, the employer is going to have a much higher bar to clear in order to breach that expectation. Which is why many employers make their employees sign a policy statement that includes the explicit notification that email belongs to the employer and can be searched at any time without permission or notice to the staff person.

          And the ability to have private conversations is fairly protected in law. For instance, by and large, employers may not record conversations without permission of the people being recorded. And any conversation about “working conditions” (ie pretty much anything about the job) is protected by the NLRA.

  7. Nodramalama*

    I feel like I’m missing info for both letters 1 and 2

    Lw1- im a bit confused why it’s so annoying to be asked to answer fewer tickets. Is it tied to a quota or something? Is it really that bad to ease off and let someone else answer some tickets?

    Lw2 – I’m confused how LW and their coworkers know the content of the meeting. Is someone going into the details of someone’s else’s meeting, snooping, and then raising issues with the agenda? That’s so weird. Unless I just skimmed over the letter and missed something, which I am happy to be corrected on

    1. Computer-Man*

      #1 – I didn’t actually think this far ahead, but too many places *do* tie ticket counts to KPIs. If that’s the case, I can see he might be upset.

      1. coffee*

        If that is the case, LW1 can ask for an updated KPI in writing. That, plus the original direction to take less tickets, will cover them in the future.

      2. Ellie*

        If that’s the case, I’d just ask for the new directive in writing to cover yourself. But OP doesn’t mention if they’re being asked to take on fewer tickets overall, or just to leave these specific tickets alone. If it’s the latter, then my guess is their co-worker is on a PIP, and they need to evaluate if they’re even capable of doing the work at all. I have done the same thing in the past – reserved a couple of very easy, entry level tickets for someone to do as part of a PIP, and then let them go when they showed that they couldn’t complete them. The PIP is likely to be the thing that’s going on in the background that OP isn’t privy to. Right now, OP is covering for the coworker by being too efficient. Its hard to let someone go when the team overall is meeting its KPIs.

      3. Phantom*

        We don’t have written KPIs at the moment. We just require that every ticket be answered within a specific time frame. To Nodramalama’s question, it’s annoying to be asked to take less tickets because I already get in trouble for doing things other than work while at work. So, why give me LESS work to do and then punish me for it? Why not give me more work?

        In addition, we’re being asked to leave tickets for this guy to take, which he doesn’t take, which causes meetings, asking each of us why we didn’t take the ticket. Essentially, we’re being asked to leave work to a third person, then being asked why we didn’t step in and do the work for him when he clearly didn’t want to do the work. That’s why I’m frustrated.

        1. Slow Gin Lizz*

          That’s ridiculous, Phantom. Are they purposefully trying to set you up for failure? Or just totally incompetent?

          1. Phantom*

            I’m not 100% sure. In a lot of ways, I feel like my coworker and I are being set up for failure. What doesn’t make sense is why. I could see it in my case because they’d probably want to replace me with someone who costs less (I’ve been there 8 years). At the same time, they are paying AT LEAST my pay level for this guy who’s sitting there watching YouTube all day. I’m not sure of their rationale for having him on the team anymore. It made sense when I was on medical leave, but not so much anymore.

        2. Irish Teacher.*

          The fact that they are punishing you for not doing work when it wasn’t assigned to you/you were asked not to do it sounds like a way bigger issue than their asking you not to do more work.

          Those meetings sound annoying and like bad management one way or the other, but is it possible that they are looking for a very convoluted and awkward way to catch this guy out? My guess would be that they want you to say “we left it for Mr. Lazy Youtube Watcher and he didn’t do it,” so they can “catch him out.” Which sounds like they are pretty much outsourcing management and want you to make the criticism of him so they don’t have to.

          But yeah, it sounds like bad management in general and like the “don’t make up for the work he isn’t doing” is about the only halfway sensible decision here, which they are undermining with all the ridiculous ones they are making.

        3. Observer*

          it’s annoying to be asked to take less tickets because I already get in trouble for doing things other than work while at work. So, why give me LESS work to do and then punish me for it? Why not give me more work?

          I could think of a lot of reasons for that. Which goes back to the statement that you don’t know what is going on in the background.

          Essentially, we’re being asked to leave work to a third person, then being asked why we didn’t step in and do the work for him when he clearly didn’t want to do the work

          So just answer the question. It sounds to me like someone is trying to deal with an issue and needs to tread very carefully. Having to attend a stupid meeting where you say “I’m doing exactly what you asked me to” does not sound like you are being punished.

          Now if you wind up having a review down the road where you get dinged for this, that would be a different story. But right now it sounds like you are being asked to participate in what seems like a bit of workplace theater. It’s not that big of a deal, it seems to me.

          1. New Jack Karyn*

            I think it depends on the tone used in the meeting. Was it pro forma, “Why didn’t you take the ticket?” “You told me to take fewer tickets.” “OK, thank you.”

            Or was it: “Why didn’t you take the ticket?” “You told me to take fewer tickets.” “That ticket was left for more than 24 hours, we need to have faster turnaround, why didn’t you take the ticket? It’s your job to take tickets!”

        4. I Have RBF*

          The best way to handle finding out if someone is not pulling their weight is not to tell their peers not to pick up tickets, but instead go to a “push” model, where a lead or manager assigns tickets as they come in, in a rotation. Then if Mr YouTubeWatcher doesn’t do the tickets he is assigned, it will show, and no one else gets in trouble for not doing their tickets. But your manager and/or lead need to be more involved. After the problem is solved, one way or another, you can return to the old way of grabbing tickets.

        5. biobotb*

          Meetings, plural, or just the one meeting in which they asked everyone individually why they hadn’t taken the ticket? How did your boss respond to your answer to that?

        6. Ellie*

          I think you need to get the directive in writing so that you can refer to it when you’re pulled into these meetings. Copy in the people who are chewing you out. Maybe the right hand isn’t talking to the left hand.

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

        If KPI is the problem than the OP must be meeting the minimum if they are being asked to do less and that there are not enough for the other coworker. I have a feeling that the OP is one of those people who treats everything as urgent, needs to be done NOW. And/or ties their work personality to how many tickets they can get done. Ultimately its a superiority complex because they are getting more tickets done, so they feel better.

        1. Allonge*

          Whoa. Being good at your job does not mean you have a superiority complex.

          This is independent of OP needing to do as told, by the way.

          1. Star Trek Nutcase*

            I don’t have a superiority complex, and like OP I really crank out work. I’ve had supervisors tell me to do less because the disparity between my high quality & quantity and my coworkers poor quality & quantity is problematic. Yeah, no! Go ahead right me up for it.

            The only way I motivate myself to go to work (preference is anything else) is to work hard to make the 8 hrs pass faster. This includes competing against myself to do more while maintaining quality. (And it isn’t about disliking a particular job or workplace. It is about boredom and distraction.)

            1. Hroethvitnir*

              1000% this. It probably is a weakness that I’m not great at working slowly, but I want to get a lot done and compete with myself because I enjoy it, and if forced to not have enough work I’d lose my mind. (And yes, this includes being fast *and* good/precise.)

        2. Phantom*

          OP1 here. Yes, I tend to treat everything as a “pants on fire” problem unless proven otherwise. I do take great pride in my ability to work large volumes of tickets in a short amount of time, but I wouldn’t say so much that what I have is a superiority complex. It’s more of a PTSD response to being told that I’m missing the mark when I’m clearly not.

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

            I think I may have been clouded on this letter, and I’m sorry if it came out harsh, especially after I saw your other comments about you being scolded for not taking tickets after you were told to.

            I understand the pants on fire thing I’ve dealt with this myself. The only solution I found was a completely different career.

    2. some person in asia*

      Re LW2

      It sounds like they snooped into their calendars to see the agenda in the event details. Notice they say one person has it as private but the other doesn’t.

      They purposefully looked for this info.

      1. Despachito*

        They are their manager, I wouldn’t call this snooping.

        I also think that OP2 does not fully believe they are really focusing on the agenda they say they are, and to be honest, my spidey senses would go off for that one as well. It is a good chunk of time they are paid for by the employer, it is only natural that their boss is interested what is going on.

        What kind of employees are they otherwise? Is it believable that they are indeed holding that meeting regularly (as in: are they diligent, not prone to gossip/plotting)? Does their other work suffer?

        1. some person in asia*

          I mean, only one person complained and it’s someone who doesn’t work there anymore. How come no one else has brought it up?

          The words that were used by OP and the former colleague were “conniving” and “manipulating.” Those are really strong words for people who have in their calendars, “What needs to happen to make next week a success?”

        2. Nodramalama*

          I think its still weird at best and snooping at worst if it’s the manager to go into someone’s meeting they’re not invited to to find out what it’s about,

          1. Reebee*

            Managers have every right to know how their direct reports are spending their paid time while in the workplace.

            1. Jennifer Strange*

              Sure, but micromanaging for no reason other than a former employee said they might be plotting something is going to drive away employees.

        3. Miette*

          Agree it’s not snooping–these are work resources, and OP is their manager. Also agree about something being off here. If both had the meeting listed as public, I’d be less dubious; but one of them has it listed as private, which means they don’t want anyone to see who it’s with and what else may be in the appointment details. If it were for just 30 minutes: same. But something is off here, and I’d at least try to suss out what the other two employees know/feel about these two.

          1. Nodramalama*

            It can still be snooping. Being a manager doesn’t necessarily change the behaviour. If LW walked past a closed door meeting with their employees and they stuck their ear to the door to hear them, thats eavesdropping and snooping.

          2. The Unionizer Bunny*

            one of them has it listed as private, which means

            Eh . . . I’m hesitant to assign any significance to this. Isn’t the default on calendars to be private? Maybe the other employee makes a point of marking all their meetings Public, or perhaps they both leave meetings Private by default and the other employee only made it Public because they were the one who set up the meeting to begin with, and they wanted everyone else to be able to see it as an implicit invite?

          3. sparkle emoji*

            I’d really push back against making any assumptions on intent based on calendar settings. It seems like there are letters here at least once a month that involve conflicting work calendar opinions. Everyone has a different way and assumes their way is The Right Way. Maybe the private one just marks everything private as a default. If they really wanted to keep it secret, they probably wouldn’t have it visible on the calendar at all.

          4. I Have RBF*

            Naaah. Some people have their calendars set to be private. IIRC, you have to deliberately set it to public, otherwise it defaults to private.

        4. Busy Middle Manager*

          Yeah the story is lacking in details, but my guess is the OP things something is off, meaning the length and frequency of the meetings isn’t matching the quantity and intensity of the work.
          I could see this being a concern. For example, if an employee does pretty routine work but had constant meetings where they’re discussing how to do it, I’d be wondering why they couldn’t figure out things on their own or whether they were over-complicating parts

            1. sparkle emoji*

              Yeah, I’m really confused at where you’re seeing entitlement here Reebee? Most of the pushback I’m seeing is just telling the LW this would be an overreaction to intervene if the meetings are what the calendar agenda described. If LW2 thinks the meetings are causing an issue like the 2 meeters not getting work done, then address that. However, a *former* employee griping about the meetings after they quit isn’t enough.

    3. Allonge*

      Is it really that bad to ease off and let someone else answer some tickets?

      Not if they do get answered. But from what LW1 is describing, the following could be happening: LW1 and colleague working at usual speed, while underperforming coworker slower (at the same time obviously doing non-work things). So if LW1 drops a ticket, it will not be resolved in the usual timeframe. In my experience, at this stage you start getting phonecalls from people with unanswered tickets. If management does not share that there is an issue in performance and answer times might be slower, you are getting pressure from both sides.

      PLus, yes, if tickets/hour is a performance indicator, your performance is dropping.

      Which is not to say LW1 should not do as told by management. But ‘work slower so that this person (who looks like they are not working well) can catch up’ is an instuction that needs a lot more background communicated for it to make sense.

      1. Myrin*

        “If management does not share that there is an issue in performance”
        That’s it, though – it sounds like management definitely shares the opinion that there’s a performance issue.

        I think that’s at the heart of what confuses me about this letter – it wouldn’t make any sense for management to put pressure on OP regarding unanswered tickets because they themselves instigated the whole thing (although, of course, logic isn’t always everyone’s strong suit), and in fact it doesn’t sound like there have been any negative outcomes for OP from management.

        I agree that there should’ve been better and clearer communication upfront – and not just after OP specifically asked about it! – but now that she knows, if there are angry calls, she can just forward those to management.

        1. Allonge*

          Oh, I totally agree it’s confusing overall – most likely because OP is confused themselves, by what sounds like inept management communication.

          My personal perspective is coloured by something that is happening to me right now: I am getting questions on why I am not letting my manager fail (more obviously than she is). And the reason is that she is doing everything she can to fail herself, and I am not going to risk my reputation and do bad work in my field so that higher management can fire her, when they have all the reasons to do so already.

          I totally understand that this is a different situation though, just to share where I am coming from, because in a way it sounds similar.

          1. Engineery*

            IME, when management tells me “not to worry” and “you’re not responsible” it pretty much always means “we don’t want to waste your time fixing a trivial design fault. Instead, we’re going to wait six months for it to develop into a roaring dumpster fire, and THEN we’ll make you responsible for it.”

            I dislike not getting credit for quietly fixing things, but I do like not having to work weekends any longer.

      2. Awkwardness*

        If management does not share that there is an issue in performance and answer times might be slower, you are getting pressure from both sides.

        In our company, I have no idea how many people at the helpdesk are actually available. There might be people on vacation, out sick or traveling and others taking their tickets – this is not communicated and I, as a user, have to live with those fluctuations as a part of regular business.

        1. Allonge*

          Sure, same here on not knowing who is on leave etc.

          I still have a general expectation based on experience, e.g. that a non-immediate IT issue like ‘something is glitchy here’ usually gets a response within three days; so I start following up if I don’t hear anything after a week. I don’t yell at people or anything, but now they have the original ticket and the follow-up to deal with.

        2. Cinn*

          Unfortunately, some people are not this understanding about how support teams function. Their issue is always the most urgent and needs dealing with now just because. (I have plenty of real life non-IT examples, and I assume anyone who does work under a ticketing system has plenty of their own stories .)

          1. Phantom*

            ^This. Every caller wants their problem solved yesterday and will gladly throw you under the bus for it not being resolved retroactively (just had a ticket about this sort of thing this morning).

            To Allonge’s point, we do have written SLAs for each ticket severity level. So, for example, most tickets must be answered back within 24 hours, resolved within five business days. When things get sticky is when you’re wedged between meeting the SLA and meeting the thing being asked of you (hold off for person X to get the ticket). It’s like you can never win.

            1. Allonge*

              Honestly, I would ask for this instruction in writing, spelling out that it overwrites the SLA deadlines and including what to do if I get complaints.

              And knowing myself, I would need to flag this email and read it about twice a day, cause, yeah, I don’t really like intentional delays, but ok, that is my problem.

              1. coffee*

                100% this.

                I also wonder if you can allocate tickets to the guy so it’s clear that your portion of tickets is meeting the SLA?

            2. I Have RBF*

              Yep. We have first response SLAs on all of our tickets of 30 minutes “queue time” and 4 hours “first response”. So if someone files a ticket at 5 pm, I get dinged for SLA when I pick it up at 9 am the next day. It’s stupid.

    4. Also-ADHD*

      For 1, I immediately thought of their own review/performance if the metrics factor into their pay, bonus, or review. Frankly also it does suck to be bored at work more than busy for some people (myself included, which is why I love remote work, where I can actually slow down or not feel miserable of work isn’t available). But IT and ticketing made me think “you’re asking people to hurt their own metrics?”

      1. Jay*

        This was my thought, given the letter writers’ tone.
        That they were going to see their compensation in some way negatively affected by doing fewer tickets.
        I get the idea that they think that the easiest (and quickest to complete) tickets are being reserved for this person who already does next to nothing. And views this as rewarding them by giving him work he can sleepwalk through while rest of the team has their compensation impacted because they are loosing all the quick to finish stuff, cutting the number of tickets they can close in a day.
        If that’s the case, and that all the info I had, I would be pissed too.
        Hopefully it really is just a PIP so they can get rid of him in good order.

      2. Phantom*

        IT Tickets. You know, if you have a computer problem and you didn’t log a ticket for it, you didn’t really have a computer problem?

      3. bamcheeks*

        Most helpdesk systems involve people submitting tickets to say things like “it won’t switch on” or “it’s blue and I ordered green” or “llama 16 won’t stand still”. The people working on the helpdesk work through these tickets resolving the problem and then closing the ticket.

      4. lemon*

        In IT, we use tickets for a lot of things. In help desk or support roles, tickets are entered by end-users who either email or call in support requests. In development, tickets are usually used to track work on features and bugs.

        1. Rincewind*

          Oh god, Jira.
          The hours I have lost to meetings telling me how to fill out JIRA tickets properly, filling out tickets, meetings being told we didn’t do our tickets properly and have to re-do them, meetings about how Jira tickets were filled out but not dealt with…ugh.

          1. I Have RBF*

            We use Jira. Our Jira is set up with stupid and improbable SLAs, plus we have some folks who file everything as p1 or even p0. But, as bad as Jira is, there are worse ticketing systems.

  8. FG*

    I have less gray hair than most people my age, but as a woman in IT you better believe I dye it. I do like it better dyed as otherwise I look younger than my age. When I retire though I’ll probably let it go.

    1. Artemesia*

      This is what I did. When I set the retirement day, I started lowlighting and gradually went gray. (I thought it was very graceful, but I have some photographic evidence from the back that that was not so, LOL). People’s perceptions of age are hugely related to hair color especially for women.

      1. allathian*

        Yes, although there are exceptions. I doubt anyone’s questioning the credibility of, say Christine Lagarde, the President of the European Central Bank (ECB). She’s 68 and has had gray hair for at least 10 years and just got appointed for her second 5-year term.

        And after a certain point, dyeing your hair won’t make people think you’re any younger than you are, like a certain former US President.

        That said, some people do retain their natural hair color as they age. My MIL is 79 and her hair is exactly the same shade as it’s on old photos when she was half that age, and I know that she doesn’t dye it because there are never any visible roots and she’s even less vain about her appearance than I am. Her hair is the sort of grayish brown that’s often described as mousey. The advantage of mousey hair is that it probably won’t go gray as early as more vibrant shades might. Or at least all the people I’ve known who neither dye their hair nor go gray have/had mousey hair.

        1. Emmy Noether*

          The thing with mousey hair (looking at my own hair here), is that it’s often already a mixture of colors. If I look at my individual hairs, some are brown of various shades, some are blonde, some are reddish. Together, they make a greyish-brown effect, like mixing all the colors in your watercolor set when you’re a child.

          My first silvers are coming in, but they just mix with all the rest and are barely visible (it’s just a bit more sparkly-mousey). I do expect it will transition to full silver-gray instead of brown-gray at some point though.

        2. Helewise*

          My dad has blond hair and his blond has gradually changed tone over time to be a more ashy than golden blond (he’s 75 now). I don’t see any sign of gray in my own hair (mid-40s) so am expecting the same.

          1. Argiope Aurantia*

            My next-door neighbor has blonde hair. When I first met her 28 years ago, it was a sunny, wheat blond. Now, at age 67, it’s decidedly platinum ash blonde.

      2. Meep*

        lol. One of my grandmothers refused to stop dying her hair until the last grandchild was born (I was 7 at the time), because then she felt like a “real grandmother” and it was “acceptable.” She did the same thing, but rather than photographic evidence, she had my loud mouth. :S

    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      I stopped dying my hair in the last 2 years before retirement and it reverted to its natural light grey. It was actually very useful when I needed accommodation for worsening visual disability. People still respected me but definitely regarded me as older – and more fragile! – than before.

      I definitely would have kept it dyed if I’d wanted promotion or a new job, but Germany is very ageist so YMMV.

    3. Brain the Brian*

      My mother went gray (well, silver, in her case) in her 30s and dyed her hair well into her 60s. Like you, she worked in software and was constantly trying to appear younger than she was to keep on an advancement path — a sad reality. She stopped dyeing her hair after her longtime employer laid her off and she got a new job that she considered “partial retirement” because the work was so much more fun despite much lower pay. Luckily for her, her new employer was far less sexist and ageist, and she rose through the ranks again very quickly despite her age.

      (Disclaimer: I am a man, so my personal experience is limited. Just sharing my mom’s experience of working from the 1970s through the 2020s in case it’s helpful.)

      1. Cat*

        I think it’s much more common now for women to go gray (I think that’s always been the case for men). I’m not saying gray hair might hurt you career wise, but I chose to go gray and I don’t regret it. I also have silver streaks and got compliments. I have quite a few friends and coworkers who also chose to go gray. An issue I have though is that my brown hair is fine and my gray hair is coarse. I sometimes struggle with flyaways, and I think that can cause me to look more unprofessional. Always searching for the right hair products!

        1. DJ Abbott*

          All my hair has always been very frizzy. My stylist taught me to refresh it every morning by spraying water on it and adding a little product. Then I wash it on the weekend.
          I use Oway curly potion and Aubrey chia hair gel for the refreshing. not both at once, one at a time. I also use Oway silk and glow serum when I style it, as well as the other two products. And I put Giovanni hair glue along the part to prevent flyaways and broken hairs from standing up. And Oway precious wax works well on the frizz as needed. For me, it works best on dry hair.

        2. bamcheeks*

          CO-SIGNED. I only have a moderate amount of grey, but my darker hair has also changed texture in my forties so it’s much less shiny now, and I’m much more annoyed about that than I am about the colour!

        3. Texan In Exile*

          I feel like not coloring our gray hair is something we older women can do for younger women – we can normalize gray hair!

          1. Brain the Brian*

            That certainly became my mom’s attitude later in her career! Of course, times had changed by then, too. She let her short brown bob become a long silver braid — and I love her for it.

        4. Butterfly Counter*

          I agree it’s more common.

          I have a young face, but started graying in my early 20s. I always dyed it because youth = beauty in our society. However, the last year or so (24 years after my first gray), my usual hair dresser shut down and I got lazy with the box dye. Then I was just curious to see how the gray would grow in.

          It’s interesting, the people who compliment me most on it are younger. I’ve had more than one early 20-something ask me if I was dyeing my hair gray on purpose because it looked so interesting!

    4. General von Klinkerhoffen*

      By contrast, my techy husband embraced his early greys because they cancelled out his baby face and made him look more plausible for senior roles.

      Life isn’t fair.

      1. nozenfordaddy*

        As a woman in STEM (engineer and project manager) I stopped dyeing my hair for this reason. Also I was tired of dyeing it.

    5. Gudrid the Well Traveled*

      Sigh, I’m trying to get back into software development and have continued to dye my hair to keep some odds in my favor. I took a break from applying and let my hair grow out as an experiment and I’m on the fence about what to do. Ideally I’d get lighter brown highlights, leave some grey, and let my natural color look like lowlights, but that takes money.

    6. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      Woman in IT and I got really lucky with my grey hair as it came in in bilateral streaks that looked awesome on my naturally black hair. If it had come in sporadic I would have dyed it.

      Instead I embraced the Lily Munster comparisons.

  9. Stoli*

    This is the opposite of picking up his slack. I understand your frustration but I’d heed their advice. You’re not privy to their plan.

    1. Myrin*

      I honestly don’t understand the frustration, unless OP actually gets less money if she works on fewer tickets – she seems to have the whole situation backwards and I can’t make head nor tails of it. It’s not favouritism to force someone to do the work they were hired to do, and what the other three have been doing so far has been “picking up coworker’s slack”, but that stops the moment they actually do fewer tickets and coworker has to do the rest himself.

      1. Ellie*

        I can understand it. I hate to be bored, and I hate to leave customers waiting. If you can see your coworker taking ages to work a ticket, and meanwhile the customer is getting angry and can’t get on with their own work, that’s incredibly frustrating to witness. But if you swoop in and save them, they will never get any better.

      2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

        My read on it is: OP doesn’t understand why they are being asked to do this (hence the letter). In fact it is part of a process for demonstrating that this guy is unable/unwilling (unclear which) to pull his weight. OP probably takes pride in the amount of work they and colleague get through and sees it as insulting to be asked to “dial down” their productivity for the sake of this guy. This is probably because OP perceives it as them “showing up” this guy in comparison to OP. Which is true, but OP has got the wrong reason. In fact management etc need this to happen for the reasons stated in the answer, but OP seems to think that it is so that he can be closer in (lower) performance to the rest of the team. I would be frustrated too if the request was phrased to me (it wasn’t, but this is how OP sees it) “you are making Joe look bad, can you stop being so conscientious and productive”. As a professional that is actually quite an insult, if that’s how it is interpreted.

        1. Myrin*

          Oh for sure, that’s actually what I expected the letter to be like from the headline, and in fact, we’ve had at least one featuring exactly this scenario.

          The part that is befuddling to me, though, is this: “OP seems to think that it is so that he can be closer in (lower) performance to the rest of the team.” because, well, she explains right in her letter what management’s reasoning is. Or rather, the fact that they say she is “not privy to everything going on in the background” and the new manager “hasn’t had adequate time to address all the problems” hints pretty strongly at their reasoning, at least.

          I mean, I don’t know, maybe they’re just talking all ~mysteriously~ so that it sounds like something is being done when that isn’t actually the case but as it stands, what they’ve said makes much more sense than assuming it’s actually so that coworker doesn’t look as bad in comparison.

          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            Yeah its pretty clear to us at least that management is trying to get the proof they need this guy isn’t doing his share of the work. It’s not to favor him or allow him to be on youtube all day, its to fire him. But they can’t if the work is being done anyway.

            OP1, you already are picking up the guy’s slack by taking the tickets while he sits on youtube. What management wants is you to stop doing this. So he can fail and they can fire him. Let him fail.

            1. Dust Bunny*

              This.

              We had one of these at Many Jobs Ago and the rest of us were so used to just doing everything that we didn’t really notice any more how little she did (and also it wasn’t our job to supervise her). We were finally given daily task lists and told that we were not to do/help with anything out side of our task list without supervisor approval, which seemed absolutely ridiculous until they finally managed to fire Slacker Employee and replace her with someone who actually did work. But they had to document her not doing and foisting off her task list before they could demonstrate that she wasn’t pulling weight.

            2. Phantom*

              That’s the deal. We did that and we all got called into a group meeting where we were asked individually “Why did you let this ticket sit for 24+ hours?” My answer and my coworker’s answer was “you told us to slow down. So, we did.”

              My frustration isn’t that this hurts my metrics. It’s that it makes the customer wait 24+ hours to get an answer to a problem that could be solved in an hour. Beyond that, my coworker and I are getting called out for not taking the ticket. If they are wanting person #3 to have enough rope to hang themselves, why are we all in nooses?

              1. MassMatt*

                It sounds as though a manager needs to be assigning tickets, or at least, reviewing how many tickets each person is completing. YouTuber might be on a PIP, and/or the new-ish (3 months in isn’t really new, IMO) manager may be having trouble navigating a convoluted process for firing.

              2. Daryush*

                Seems like this meeting was also part of management’s process for the coworker who isn’t picking up his slack though. Both you and your good coworker had a valid excuse. Other coworker did not. I imagine that got documented somewhere.

                1. MassMatt*

                  Maybe, maybe not. I’ve unfortunately had several managers that dealt with individual issues with group meetings and group emails. Everyone for whom X is not an issue resents having their time wasted while the person who actually has X problem never seems to understand that their crappy performance/adherence/etc is the problem.

                  It sounds to me as though LW and other coworkers are being told to take on fewer tickets so Mr YouTube can do some of them, yet got called into a meeting and grilled why did this ticket sit for 24 hours. Managers should already know the answer to this question.

              3. umami*

                It might be worthwhile to get further direction on what is meant by ‘slowing down’. Are there specific tickets they want you to leave alone, but other ones that should always be closed quickly despite the directive to slow down (and therefore they want you to exercise better judgment in determining which tickets to accept and which tickets can wait)? I still want to say that while it might feel like all of you are in trouble, the focus seems to be the 3rd employee, and an urgent ticket that two of you ignored because you were directed to is the best way to highlight that ’employee 3 saw this urgent task, wasn’t busy, and STILL did not work on it’.

              4. Binky*

                I think you’d be very justified in asking for further clarification. When they say take fewer tickets, does that mean stop at a certain number? Does it mean let tickets sit for a certain time period (in which case how long)? Should you document that those tickets are being left to sit per instructions? Are there any types of tickets that shouldn’t get that treatment?

                Better instructions would be something like, you should be averaging 2 tickets an hour, if you’ve finished those and another ticket comes in, leave it for 2 hours for slacker to take, if he doesn’t, then resolve and document. This doesn’t apply to any tickets coming from the C-suite.

              5. Engineery*

                > If they are wanting person #3 to have enough rope to hang themselves, why are we all in nooses?

                That’s a fantastic way of putting it.

                If this were a real and defensible policy, you’d simply reply to new tickets with, “My supervisor has instituted a work slowdown policy, which I am required to follow. During this time, we will delay answering tickets for up to 24 hours. We apologize for the deliberate inconvenience. If you have any questions about this policy, please send them to my supervisor.”

                But instead, you’re expected to violate written policy and follow your supervisor’s unwritten policy, so that your supervisor can force you to bear all the negative consequences of their decisions.

                If my supervisor changes my scope of work, that’s fine, but I need it in writing, and I need to communicate that scope to other people who used to rely on me to provide that work. Under no circumstances will I follow “secret orders” from my supervisor to stop work and mislead others into thinking I’m still doing that work.

                The “unwritten rule” trap is much more common in manufacturing environments, which might be why it registers so strongly with me, and Alison (with a different career background) seems to not ping on it very much. (In this case and with the “project management” letter years ago.)

                In manufacturing, it’s (sadly) not uncommon to be ordered to violate safety rules so as to improve productivity, and then be punished for violating those rules when injured or audited. But the mechanism is the same in office environment: you are being asked to violate written rules until it creates a negative consequence, at which point your boss can say they never told you to do what you did, and (correctly) point out there’s no written evidence to support your claims.

                1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

                  > If this were a real and defensible policy, you’d simply reply to new tickets with, “My supervisor has instituted a work slowdown policy, which I am required to follow. During this time, we will delay answering tickets for up to 24 hours. We apologize for the deliberate inconvenience. If you have any questions about this policy, please send them to my supervisor.”

                  Writing this in a response to a ticket would be a fast-track way to get yourself disciplined in any company I’ve ever worked in. Situations like this are internal to the team and should not be broadcast ‘externally’ (even to internal customers).

                2. Observer*

                  If this were a real and defensible policy, you’d simply reply to new tickets with, “My supervisor has instituted a work slowdown policy, which I am required to follow. During this time, we will delay answering tickets for up to 24 hours. We apologize for the deliberate inconvenience. If you have any questions about this policy, please send them to my supervisor.”

                  Seriously? That would be a firing offense on its own.

                  It’s also not the case. The policy here is not to deliberately delay tickets, and claiming that it is does not help anyone.

                  There are a lot of better ways for the LW to cover themself, if the issue is that they are actually being penalized for doing fewer tickets, rather than just being asked about it in a meeting. Such as the thing that a lot of other posters mention, ie ask for this instruction in writing.

                3. Engineery*

                  I should clarify, I would expect the supervisor making the decision to slowdown work to craft the language necessary to manage expectations.

                  It is not appropriate for the supervisor to ask their employees to reduce their quality of service, and then hide like a coward when people outside the team react negatively to that reduction of quality.

                  I understand the situation – giving their reports language to manage expectations would produce business records that would support the soon-to-be-fired employee’s subsequent EEOC lawsuit. I just feel, from personal experience, that if you’re ever in a situation where you feel you shouldn’t write something down, the only ethical solution is to stop doing the thing that you’re too afraid to write down.

                4. sparkle emoji*

                  Engineery- I don’t think this is being done to hide things from the YouTube Slacker, but setting up some kind of message that tells people ticket responses will be slow for “reasons” will be transparent to anyone familiar with the team and embarrassing to the slacker. Keeping this process need-to-know isn’t unethical. If it’s a PIP, Slacker knows about it, he’s not being kept in the dark. LW1 can document what the manager is asking for in an email to them, but they don’t need to share that with everyone who submits an IT ticket.

              6. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

                But you aren’t in a noose. And really, this kind of imagery is part of your problem. I hear you are frustrated, but you are making things worse for yourself by thinking like this.

                At first I thought they were being crappy with their “too emotional” comment, but I see that it’s true. You are being too emotional about this and taking it as an insult to you when it’s not about you.

                Fact based question: Why did you let this sit? Fact based answer: You told us to. Unless you are leaving out a consequence, nothing happened here. You were not punished, or hanged, or injured in any way.

                I get that they already knew the answer to the question (from you), but that doesn’t change the answer. If slacking coworker was in this meeting, what did he say? Because now he knows you were asked to slow down, which does seem ineffective. And the meeting does sound like a little theater piece. But it’s not about you.

                Wouldn’t you like to see this coworker fired and replaced by someone who does their job? This is how to make that happen – a little frustration now for a bigger relief.

                2. Orv*

                  I suspect LW comes from a background where Getting A Talking To is considered demeaning and a form of punishment. I know I always feel like if my manager has to remind me about something, I’ve already failed in their eyes.

                3. fhqwhgads*

                  I mean, they’re being treated like they are a little? If the point of LW and 2nd coworker not taking all the tickets was so third guy could put up or shut up, then when that ticket didn’t get picked up, mgmt would only being asking third guy: why didn’t you pick it up? No reason to bring the first two into it. They already know that they TOLD them to leave for third guy. So hauling them all into a meeting and demanding an explanation – even if they take the first two’s explanations as valid – is already making it seem like they did something wrong. Unless it’s somehow completely different managers who told them to leave it for third guy and who were upset it sat for 24h. It makes no sense.

                4. Florence Reece*

                  Although I agree that this is what needs to happen for the other coworker to be fired, the manager is handling it terribly and I think it’s okay to respond emotionally when your manager gives conflicting direction. The slacking employee said he didn’t see the ticket when asked, but I don’t see any indication that the boss responded by reinforcing that “I didn’t see my work” is not an acceptable excuse, or separating that excuse from the two valid ‘excuses’ that the other coworkers gave. Much like implementing a blanket policy to cut down on one person behaving badly, if you don’t call out bad explanations as bad and unacceptable, those people will continue believing they’re allowed to do it…and so will everyone else on the team that doesn’t hear you say that. The coworkers shouldn’t be privy to the performance issues behind the scenes, but if poor behavior is accepted in team meetings, the team is reasonably going to internalize that the poor behavior is fine by the manager.

                  Idk, I had to manage someone out and had to be a lot stricter about metrics with 2 excellent employees on a team of 3. I had to balance not singling out that employee inappropriately (she was…very sensitive to perceived unfairness) with not letting the other employees think that I didn’t have their backs and see their good work. A huge part of that was hearing unacceptable excuses and saying *in that meeting, for everyone* that those were unacceptable, and that the expectation is for all staff to share the tasks. It doesn’t sound like Phantom’s manager is doing that, and that sucks.

              7. Pastor Petty Labelle*

                This is very important context. Yeah they are trying to nail the non-productive employee. But putting you on the spot where you to, in front of the employee say, you told us to do this, is bad handling.

                They know why you and your co-worker didn’t take the ticket. The way to handle it was to schedule 1:1 meetings with each of you. For you and your coworker it would just be a catch up, how are things going now that you’ve been told to slow down. For the youtuber watcher it would have been why did this ticket sit for 24 hours.

                1. lemon*

                  I’m wondering if they’re handling it this way to prove that they’re handling things fairly and treating all employees equally, so that Slacker can’t claim that they were unfairly singled out. So supervisor can say, “I held everyone equally accountable for tickets.” And/or maybe it is to make Slacker aware of the impact they have on the team, so they can see that their coworkers are expecting them to answer tickets and by not doing so, they causing the team to violate their SLAs.

                  It sounds like they’re trying to deal with Slacker’s performance issues, but are fumbling a bit in the process.

                2. Observer*

                  His response was that he simply didn’t see the ticket.

                  ~~Snort~~

                  It sounds like he’s doing exactly what they expected. Like, how did he not see that ticket?

                  You had a good reason, he didn’t.

                3. The Unionizer Bunny*

                  Nesting . . . [does a double-take] at this rate, my next reply will use one of Phantom’s comments to address one of the comments below it.

                  His response was that he simply didn’t see the ticket.

                  That sounds like a simple problem to fix. How long can it take a tech expert to make a program to watch the queue until a ticket appears there, pause whatever video he’s watching, and put the ticket app in front of the video app?

                  Management is doing this either because they are not good at coming up with solutions, or they don’t want to solve this particular problem (likely because they want to fire this employee for a different reason), but what I’m curious about is whether you tried addressing the problem. Have you just been keeping your head down, doing your own work, and letting each other employee worry about themselves? Or did you try to “be a team player” until your supervisor told you to butt out because it wasn’t your place to be prompting others to work? Did your coworker tell you to buzz off?

                  From where I’m sitting this is a great opportunity to turn a poor performer into an adequate performer: tell him what seems to be happening, and offer commiseration about how difficult it is to remember to check the queue when a video is playing. Then show him the app that you have to make sure you don’t miss a new ticket when you are “engaged to wait”. (You might not actually use this app very much, or at all, but that doesn’t need to be a part of the conversation. What matters is that you’re showing him common ground, to build solidarity.) Also say that you can give him reminders, when you see more than one ticket in the queue (since you know you can only pick one of them and there will still be another even if you immediately take one), but don’t pressure him, just offer. If his performance doesn’t improve, well, he’s unlikely to think less of you for trying to save him from being fired. And if it does improve, he’ll remember you as having helped, and be more likely to stand with you the next time you want to take a stand against management being stupid about things.

                  Management might not like you taking a direct hand in this, but since they’ve made a point of being cagey about what’s going on, they can’t really complain about you disobeying orders when they never gave you orders to keep anything to yourself! And if they do discipline you for engaging in concerted activity for the purpose of mutual aid and protection, joining together with another employee to advance your interests as employees . . . well, it becomes harder for them to discipline your coworker, too. Not something they’d be happy about if the coworker didn’t respond with improved performance, and in that case you wouldn’t be happy either, so it’d be understandable if you decided against risking it. My own impulses go towards “help this guy do his job since management apparently won’t”, but you might prefer the “keep your head down and focus on your own work” lifestyle.

              9. Observer*

                It’s that it makes the customer wait 24+ hours to get an answer to a problem that could be solved in an hour.

                Yes, but your employer is telling you that this is not your problem on the one hand, and on the other there are other things going on that you simply don’t know about.

                Beyond that, my coworker and I are getting called out for not taking the ticket

                You got asked. And you answered. What happened after that? Were you penalized in any way, other than this stupid meeting? Because it sounds like this meeting was planned, and gave management exactly what they are looking for.

      3. Saberise*

        They said in a comment when they leave tickets for the slacker he doesn’t do them and than they are get called in one by one and reamed for the tickets not being done in a timely manner.

        1. Jennifer Strange*

          They didn’t say they get called in one by one and reamed, they said they get called into a meeting together and asked about the ticket. Those are two very different things.

    2. GythaOgden*

      Yeah, particularly if it’s disciplinary based, there’s privacy issues at play here.

      I’ve totally been there and it roundly sucks because I’m the kind of person who jumps on incoming work often as just something to do having worked very boring jobs in the past. But I could see that there’s something going on behind the scenes and they need someone else to demonstrate what they can do, for better or worse.

  10. Computer-Man*

    #1 – I’m going to guess that Alison is right, that it’s to give him the rope, especially with the comments from higher up.

    It sounds like they *know* he’s not doing work, but because you two are grabbing the tickets all the time, he’s just going “Oh yeah, I’d love to do more work, but as you can see, there’s no unassigned tickets for me to do…”

    Take it from me, I get the dauntingness of an open queue and tickets not being closed off, but I’d definitely take this as the opposite of a problem for you specifically.

    1. Newman*

      I agree.
      Also – this isn’t the point at all of course and Alison’s answer is spot on I think, but the idiom ‘enough rope to hang himself with’ is kind of awful :/

      2. Phantom*

        Alison is right on. The only issue I have is that meeting where we were collectively called in as a group to answer as individuals why we let a ticket fester for 24+ hours. The general consensus between my coworker and me was, “Hey, this is what you asked for.” I hate having to explain why I made a choice to avoid work when I’ve been specifically told not to take the work. I think this is a trigger for me because I’ve been called out at work for doing the wrong type of work, etc, only to be proven that I did what was asked.

        1. Observer*

          I hate having to explain why I made a choice to avoid work when I’ve been specifically told not to take the work

          I sympathize with this. But ultimately, that’s a “you” problem, not a punishment from management.

          Of course, if management were rude about it, or tried to penalize you that would be different. But just asking the question is not a grave offense, much less an indicator of favoritism.

        2. Orv*

          This is rough because the line between doing what they’re asking and malicious compliance is very, very fine. You may need to see if they can clarify more exactly what they expect you to do.

          1. sparkle emoji*

            Yep, if you and good coworker could get a timeline like “leave ticket for 4 hours then claim if Slacker doesn’t move on it” from management would that help?

          2. MaryWinchester1967*

            If someone had told me to slow down back when I did work support, I would have left the lazy co-worker with all of the types of problems that I hated dealing with. So, yeah, there probably does need to be some clarification. Also, if it’s a critical time (such as month end close) there needs to be guidance about how to “slow down” without leaving people in a massive bind.

        3. I Have RBF*

          I think your management needs to be assigning tickets, rather than saying “slow down” then grilling you on why you didn’t pick up a ticket. Assuming everyone has the same skills, the manager or lead should just be assigning stuff to the next person as it comes in. Then if Mr. YouTubeWatcher doesn’t do his assigned work, he can be canned. Yes, it’s more work for management, but the way it is now isn’t working.

  11. WS*

    LW1: it’s quite possible that they *do* know the teammate is slacking, but when all the tickets are getting done they don’t have an easy way forward to address the issue with him. The fact that they spoke to the other three of you while he wasn’t there indicates this, too. Especially if this is a very big business with strict procedures that relies on that kind of statistic to start putting people on PIPs or firing them.

    I think you should do as you’re asked and see what happens. If you do end up having to cover his slack anyway, you’ve got something immediate to address with the manager.

    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      Yes, sounds like they want him to be allowed to fail, for evidence to put him on a PIP, or maybe even to have to either work or fail to fulfill the PIP he’s already on.

      1. Theon, Theon, it rhymes with neon*

        Everything about this situation says “PIP” to me, and I say this as someone who spent the first half of 2024 managing someone on a PIP. I did have to ask the person’s teammate not to do things he would normally do, and I had to be coy about why, because I couldn’t say, “I need to document that your coworker can’t do his own work if I want to replace him with someone who can.”

        I also say this as someone who’s been told something very like “You don’t know everything that’s going on in the background” to mean, “This is the closest I can come to revealing the confidential information that your coworker is on a PIP; please work with me here if you want this solved,” and also, with a different coworker, “Please stop doing work your coworker should be doing, because I can’t address issues that are being masked.”

        I hope we get an update to see if we were right!

        1. Phantom*

          I get that. I understand why they can’t say if someone is on a PIP or not. Still, it’s frustrating to be called out in a meeting (I was called out first, BTW) as to why a ticket sat there for 24+ hours. We were doing our best to not name the individual we were all speaking about while all in the same meeting, but it became painfully obvious as to what was going on.

          1. Theon, Theon, it rhymes with neon*

            It is incredibly frustrating! And it’s entirely likely that your management could be handling it better. But it’s possible that, at the same time as they could be handling it better, they’re also on your side and the problem is being addressed and is going to go away in the nearish future. I hope so!

          2. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

            Again, I don’t think you were called out. It was a round robin where they asked the same question to everybody, ending with Slacker. You should be saying, “Well, gosh, I left it because I knew Slacker had said we weren’t leaving enough for him to do.” Instead of “WTF you secretly TOLD me not to do work so you could yell at Slacker and now you’re yelling at me.”

            Help your management team here!

          3. Irish Teacher.*

            I’m guessing they called you out first because they wanted you to give them information about him. It would make sense that they would want him last when they already had your word and that of your coworker that this had been left to him and he hadn’t done it.

          4. Lola*

            And when you and the other coworker said that the ticket was waiting for 24h because you were told to slow down, what was the reaction from management? Were they okay with it, or were you reamed out, or something in between?
            Many commenters have said that, but you’re implying a level of criticism of your work that, from what you objectively told us, doesn’t seem to be there. Maybe it could be handled with more finesse from management, sure! But I think you’re being sensitive of anything that might get near to criticism territory, but in this case it’s not at you!

          5. Chriama*

            It sounds like you felt put on the spot in that meeting, but the objective was actually to call out the slacker coworker. Do you genuinely feel you’re at risk here? Or is it an emotional response based on previous negative experiences?

            If the situation comes up again, you might feel better by proactively emailing your manager. Something like “in keeping with your previous directive, [productive coworker] and I are each on track to address 1/3 of the ticket queue today. However, there are x tickets in the queue that have not been addressed and are in danger of violating the SLA. Please let me know if you’d like me to do something about them”.

            You could even just focus on reporting your own work and leave both coworkers out of it. Just make it clear you’re doing your fair share of work and hopefully save you the farce of these meetings where you all have to pretend you don’t notice the YouTube-watching elephant in the room.

  12. Prefer pets*

    Grey Hair…
    This really seems like a “know your office & your field” thing to me. I had the opposite problem in my 30s…I got a lot of respect for my contributions for everything done by email/phone with staff at satellite offices but really struggled to get anyone at the main office I had transferred to recently to listen to my contributions on subjects they had specifically hired me for my expertise in. Almost a year in, and when I had basically given up & was already job hunting again, somehow our ages came up in conversation with a couple of the worst offenders. They were shocked…thought I was a decade younger than I was. I stopped dyeing my hair & let the full grey come back (I started greying at 19). As soon as there was the noticeable grey grow out line, my contributions were magically respected in the local office.
    Still pissed me off!

    1. Ellie*

      I get the same thing. People magically start listening to me and taking me seriously when I mention my children. You can see their brains catching up as they realise I’m not as young as they think I am. Then they invariably ask how old my children are and their expression does a full loop. And magically, I’m suddenly included in all the right meetings and being asked for my input.

      OP should have a think about their field and their dad’s respective field before making any changes. Assumptions can work both ways.

      1. I'm the Phoebe in any Group*

        It didn’t really impact how people treated me, but when I mentioned my baby/toddler/preschooler, people assumed I was much younger than I really was. My offspring was born when I was in my mid-40s. My field is very collaborative, internally and externally, so I talked to a lot of “new to me” people on the phone. As we spoke, people would infer from our conversations that I was much older than they originally assumed and comment on it in a humurous way. It wasn’t me throwing out my number, but references to my experience or a cultural reference our maybe a level of critical thinking that comes with age and experience. So I would tell them my spawn was born when I was 44, so I was 46 with a 2 year old. I was pretty amused when I was 50 and my daughter was in kindergarten.

        1. Anon in Aotearoa*

          As a 50 year old with a 7 year old kid, I hear you. Especially as a woman. I’ve grown out my grey hair to make it a bit clearer that I’m not actually in my 30s despite having small kids, and I do have enough experience to be worth listening to (I hope!).

        2. bamcheeks*

          People generally guess I’m about 10-15 years younger than I am and I throw in a “where I was on 9/11” (in my first job) or “voted in the 1997 election” now and then. I was talking to a new graduate a few weeks ago who was deeply confused that I’d heard of the Enron scandal even though I hadn’t studied accounting.

          1. londonedit*

            Yes, same. It was useful when I turned 40, because my boss sent a 40th birthday card round the office for me and that was a good bouncing-off point for a few ‘I never would have said you were 40!’ conversations. Nowadays I tend to throw a few ’20-odd years ago when I was starting out…’ comments in, or refer to things from the news or culture that make my age a bit more obvious. I’m doing a job that theoretically could be done by someone 10 years younger (I’ve chosen to become an expert at what I do, rather than climbing the ladder into commissioning books and/or running a department) which I think also feeds into people initially assuming I’m younger, so it definitely helps to chuck in a few things that let people know I’m actually approaching my mid-40s.

        3. Turquoisecow*

          I’m about to turn 43 and my kid will turn 4 a few weeks after that. I am constantly referred to as a “young mom.” I’ve also always looked younger than I am. Most of the time it doesn’t bother me but when people treat me like I’m 22 and don’t know how the world works, it’s annoying!

    2. Jopestus*

      Thats pretty much how I see it as well. Okay, my experience is in industrial field in Finland, but to me it seems like graying is a good thing if you want to be taken more seriously.

      Especially if you are a man. A bit of gray in beard and hair -> instant respect.

      1. Orv*

        It depends a lot on the field. In IT, at least in the US, age discrimination is rampant. People are seen as essentially used up at 40.

    3. Irish Teacher.*

      Yeah, I’m nearly 44 and I am just reaching a point where I don’t have older members of staff talk to me like I need a bit of additional support since I’m still young and inexperienced. I’m not sure what effect, if any, grey hair would have, but definitely, being under 35 or 40 has you seen as well…being a bit young for promotions and so on. Our school does have people in their 30s in roles of responsibility, but well, that’s still a bit noteworthy.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Haha I’m really struggling with this, I feel like I’m going to seem “too young” for leadership right until the year the age discrimination kicks in and I’m too old to employ :P

    4. RVA Cat*

      This post is so timely. I’m in my late 40s about to job hunt again and have gray streaks. A lot of us at that Gen-X/Millennial cusp are graying while having less sun damage so we’re more baby-faced for our age.

      1. Zee*

        This is a good point! When you look at old-timey pictures, people looked so old even when they were 25. I wonder if that affects older generations who are still working, when they see someone who at 40 looks like they or their parents did at 25 because we wear sunscreen (and spend more time indoors) and don’t smoke.

  13. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP1 (asked to do less work) – management have said as much as they can really, “things are going on that you aren’t privy to”, which actually tells us without saying it that there’s a formal process or at least Serious Discussions happening in the background.

    I’m pretty sure the situation is: new manager has come in, spotted that he’s slacking off. Maybe it was favouritism by the previous boss or maybe they didn’t notice, didn’t care, didn’t like conflict or didn’t know what to do about it… whatever the case was, right now he has been picked up on this, and has said in his defence “there’s never any tickets left in the queue as OP and colleague always blast through all of them”. Manager/HR doesn’t believe this and thinks it is bs, which it is, but they can’t prove it. So now they are taking away his ability to lean on this factor to see how he responds.

    The unfortunate side of all of this, which I struggled with a lot before finally learning, is that when you have someone underperforming or slacking etc – in order to resolve the problem, the person needs to be allowed to ‘fail’ and create consequences. It goes against every instinct of “but the project must succeed, stakeholders must get their ticket answered promptly, etc” to let consequences happen.

    I expect his next move will be that OP and colleague are “cherry picking” easy tickets and that’s why they are more productive…

    1. yvve*

      For what its worth– I was once in this situation, on the other side of it. We had a mix of long-term and daily tasks– I preferred to work slowly through both types, while my coworker would grab the new tasks as soon as they came in and complete them immediately, and so ended up doing more than their share of the daily tasks. It was frustrating for both of us, I felt like I was being needlessly rushed, and they felt overworked. Our manager split the work into half (I take one, you take one, I take one, etc. This wasnt stuff that was super urgent, so its fine if I had a queue for a few hours) And it worked out great! I was able to complete my half of the work just fine, I was just doing it at a different pace

    2. AnotherLibrarian*

      When you’re a conscientious and engaged employee who wants things to succeed, its darn hard to let things fail even when that is what has to happen. A hard lesson to learn to be sure.

    3. londonedit*

      Yes, definitely. The OP needs to look at it not as a comment on their work, but as something the bosses need to happen so that they can prove the other employee is indeed slacking off. I’m sure he’s using ‘well I don’t have a chance to pick up as many tickets as I should, because OP’s team are always stealing them all’ as an excuse, and that’s why the bosses need the OP’s team to start leaving the tickets that the other employee should be working on.

      I agree that if you’re a diligent employee then it’s hard to let things drop like that, but it sounds like it’s the only way for the bosses to prove that the slacker employee isn’t doing his fair share.

    4. Allonge*

      The part that does not make sense is that they may be willing to lower overall output to get rid of a known underperformer instead of:
      1. telling the underperformer that they need to be in the position to ‘grab’ tickets as often as LW and other coworker (redefine what success means) or
      2. estabishing a sytem for a fair sharing of tickets otherwise (yvve commenting here mentioned having a system that was fair and accommodated different preferences on longer-term and shorter-term tasks).
      Telling OP to work less may be in the direction of 2., but it really needs to be spelled out on the whys and hows – generally speaking, annoying people who work well to address underperformance in someone else is not a great idea. Information helps.

      1. Theon, Theon, it rhymes with neon*

        Unfortunately, HR and Legal often have very specific requirements for what constitutes sufficient documentation to fire someone. Redefining success as “you need to be in a position to grab tickets” was the exact kind of thing I as a manager thought should be obvious, but wasn’t allowed to do. And yes, my boss and I were absolutely frustrated that we not only had to lower the team’s productivity, but also make the high performer unhappy, in order to get the documentation we needed to fire someone who was obviously underperforming. We kept raising awareness of the risks this approach was exposing us to. And we kept being told that to the business, productivity and morale were less important than protecting the company in the event of a lawsuit. So we tried to shield the high performer as much as possible, but sometimes we had to do things that didn’t make sense, under protest. Because the alternative was that the high performer was going to keep having to carry the whole weight of the workload indefinitely. Once the low performer was fired, we were able to tell his coworker, “All the crazy things we did in the last 5 months had reasons. Now we’re going to hire someone who can do their own share, so you won’t be as overwhelmed.” The high performer is much happier now.

        1. Phantom*

          I felt like invoking Linkin Park in the middle of the meeting: “…Opposite of lazy, far from a punk. Ya’ll oughta stop talking. Start trying to catch up…” It’s frustrating because the individual in question watches YouTube religiously while the rest of us get heated emails if we do so much as read school materials while at work. I understand that they have specific guidelines they have to follow, but frequent issues with tickets not being touched after they are picked up, missing on-call pages, etc, should point to the fact that this individual isn’t doing what they signed up to do.

          1. Theon, Theon, it rhymes with neon*

            Mutatis mutandis, this is what I said when I was trying to manage a guy out for not getting work done! I wrote a lengthy treatise to HR on why I shouldn’t have had to manage the PIP the way I had to manage the PIP. You and I are on the same page and I feel your frustration. (My boss also feels your frustration.) Unfortunately, in my case, the lawyers said that [insert stupid-sounding thing here] was what we were required to do to protect the company. “It’s blindingly obvious that he’s not doing his job and we already have hundreds of pages documenting that” wasn’t good enough, we had to jump through very specific hoops before Legal would sign off. And HR wouldn’t sign off until Legal signed off.

            I’m sorry you’re going through this, I really hope it is a PIP and that you have a new coworker who carries their own weight soon. And from other comments you’ve posted, it does sound like your managers could be handling this better. I suspect the round robin was one of those phenonema I talked about in a communication presentation at work recently, in whcih the manager has a very good reason for what they’re doing and isn’t intending to stress out their employees, so they underestimate how much the *situation* is primed to cause stress, regardless of intentions. I agree with other commenters that there’s a very good chance the round robin wasn’t calling you out, it was management systematically documenting a performance failure by crossing all the t’s and dotting all the i’s…but to a good employee, being asked by a manager why work isn’t done *feels* the same as being called out!

            I also agree with other commenters that the best approach is probably assuming management wants you to meet them halfway to give them the evidence they need, and help them out by providing the information they need in a neutral, non-accusatory way. You: “I did not pick up the ticket because I’ve been asked to limit the number of tickets I work per day to 7, and I had already done my 7.” Your other coworker: “I did not pick up the ticket because I’ve been asked to limit the number of tickets I work per day to 7, and I had already done my 7.” Your boss: “So there were tickets in the queue that needed to be worked, and Sansa and Arya had each done 7. Joffrey, how many tickets had you worked when this ticket came in?” Joffrey: “Uhhhh…” Your boss: *takes notes*

            …is probably how this conversation is supposed to go. I’d at least give it a chance!

        2. Engineery*

          It’s baffling, isn’t it?

          Not Legal:

          Identifying an employee you’d like to fire, then firing them based on KPIs present at the time you decided to fire them.

          Legal:

          Identifying an employee you (the business) would like to fire, restructuring business operations to produce KPIs that negatively affect that employee alone, firing that employee based on the KPIs you created after the decision to fire them (and which have no business purpose – in fact, all agree the policies are intentionally harmful to the business, and serve no purpose except to manufacture reasons to fire the employee), then returning to normal business operations afterward.

          Assuming the issue was one of protected class, that’s pretty much the definition of disparate treatment. The employee has a pretty good argument that you (the business) made a personal project out of her, sparing no expense to create a work environment where she could not perform, without regard to the cost to the business, and producing numerous witnesses and off-the-record meetings in the process. It turns a potential EEOC violation into an absolutely egregious end-run around the EEOC.

          I understand that the lawyers involved know what they’re doing, and make sure they have mountains of unimpeachable evidence prior to firing this person. But if I were on a jury, I’d be pretty receptive to the claim that the evidence for cause needs to be weighed against the amount of time and individually directed effort it took to produce that evidence.

          1. Theon, Theon, it rhymes with neon*

            You guessed it: there was a protected class involved, and we absolutely did have to invent KPIs that made NO sense (and I documented in my protest why they made no sense) in order to document that the one employee couldn’t meet them. The one thing that possibly protects us (? IANAL) is that these were KPIs based on the *employee’s* requests for objective performance measurements, ideas he came up with as he fought the firing all the way. But the KPIs made no sense and were completely contrary to the way we actually work, so I pushed back against implementing them across the whole team, because I didn’t want to lose my entire team. If the employee about to be fired wanted these KPIs for himself, he could have them, and on his own head be it if he was shooting himself in the foot.

            But the employee with the most overlap in job responsibilities with the guy on the PIP definitely noticed his coworker doing unusual things, and silently wondered, “Am I supposed to be doing these things too? I’d like to ask, but that might be the trigger that leads to being told yes, and so I’m just going to not poke the bear.” And at least once I had to actively ask the high performer to do something himself that made NO sense. The saving grace was that when I did, I said, “I can’t explain why, except to say that this is something that the business has asked us to do. I think we both know corporate business logic does not always equal engineer logic. I’m willing to do this nonsensical thing once to buy our team some capital, but I promise that I don’t think it makes sense either, I promise that it’s not my new idea for how to manage the team, and I promise to push back if we get asked to keep doing this. But as a one-time thing, if it only costs us one day of work, let’s just do it.”

            After the termination, the high performer said he’d seen a bunch of things that in hindsight were trees, but he hadn’t added them up to a forest. But when I explained that the crazy things were all part of a concerted effort to get him a coworker who could help him with the workload he was carrying alone, not his bosses suddenly going crazy, he said everything made sense and that he was impressed with the effort my boss and I put into considering the impact on him.

            But yeah. It was not great, and my boss, who had to be in more of the meetings than I was, is correspondingly even more furious at the lawyers and HR than I am.

    5. I Have RBF*

      I expect his next move will be that OP and colleague are “cherry picking” easy tickets and that’s why they are more productive…

      The solution to that is to have a manager or a lead assign tickets by rotation as they come in. Ticket 12345 gets assigned to Worker A, Ticket 12368 gets assigned to worker B, etc. (Tickets are seldom sequential, but always an increasing number, IME.)

      Tickets come in to the queue, unassigned, and rather than everyone picking up tickets, they are assigned in rotation. That’s the only real way to get proof on the slacker: 30 tickets came in, and were assigned in order between three people. 22 tickets were completed, person A did ten, person B did ten, person C did two.

      Their management is lazy if they aren’t doing this when they have a slacker.

  14. Artemesia*

    In. a big organization where the hiring manager is not familiar with the details of the candidates work then absolutely check references. I dodged a bullet doing that years ago when I was considering hiring someone who had done considerable work in another department and seemed to be just what we were looking for, I talked to a couple of his managers who basically described him as exactly the things we were trying to avoid.

    1. Brain the Brian*

      It doesn’t even really need to be a huge company, if you’re dispersed / siloed enough that people don’t see much of other teams. My organization has a total full-time headcount around 300 (not huge, not tiny), but we’re spread out between 20-odd facilities in multiple countries. If someone in one country is looking at a position in another, I would definitely expect their potential new manager to do a full reference check with their current manager since it’s likely they really have not worked together at all before.

    2. Michigander*

      I work at a large university and we do check references for internal hires. There is a lot of internal movement and often new hires will move from like the art college to the astronomy department, and there’s no way that you’d be familiar with their work without a reference check.

      1. JustaTech*

        When I worked at an academic lab we had one scientist that had come from another lab where he had worked with our lab manager.
        This scientist was beyond frustrating to work with (made a mess, wasted reagents, didn’t plan his experiments properly) and one day Lab Boss was complaining about him to the lab manager.
        Lab Manager had already had a heck of a day cleaning up this scientist’s mess, so she kind of blew up at Lab Boss and said “If you had checked with a single one of his references you would have known he was always like this!”
        (There was a culture in that department of passing off difficult scientists to new PIs who didn’t already know their reputations and didn’t think to check references.)

    3. Snow Globe*

      The difference is that for internal hires, the hiring manager doesn’t need to ask the employee to provide references (the OP said that they weren’t asked for their references). With internal hires, the manager can just look up the current manager’s name and then pick up the phone and call them. No need to ask for references.

      1. Clisby*

        Yeah, that’s what I thought. I absolutely would expect the new hiring manager to talk to people this internal candidate has worked with at that company. I just wouldn’t expect them to go back and check references from earlier jobs outside the company.

    4. Antilles*

      I think this is just terminology. It seems like the OP and AAM are talking about a “reference check” in the traditional external hire sense: Candidate is asked to self-provide a written list of 3-5 people from previous jobs, which is self-selected by the candidate to put them in the best light and usually includes someone who hasn’t managed you for a couple years. Then the company cold-calls these people and asks their opinion.
      That’s not a fantastic way of getting information, but with external candidates, it’s the standard because it’s usually the best you can do. But for an internal transfer, you can get much better information because you actually *can* can contact their current boss, talk to their current colleagues, get copies of their annual reviews from your systems if you wish, etc.
      So is it really useful to do a traditional reference check and ask the opinion of the candidate’s ex-manager from a previous job three years ago for an internal candidate when you have other (presumably better) information already available? I don’t think it is.

  15. some person in asia*

    In my opinion, I think LW2 is wrong for feeling like they’re conniving behind everyone’s backs. It sounds like two people who work together well wanting to make sure they’re both doing okay and meeting their goals.

    Because one person (who doesn’t even work there anymore!) thinks they’re plotting behind the backs of everyone else is enough for the manager to feel uncomfortable? Even after reading the questions they have in their agenda, which are really innocent but productive questions?

    I think it’s great they’re getting together to talk about the successes and failures of the week and finding ways to improve themselves to do better next time.

    I’m actually going to borrow this idea myself.

  16. Goody*

    For #1, I would probably ask for management to document the request (not necessarily the reason why, just that LW and team were instructed to reduce their productivity in this manner) so that their backs are covered in case SHTF.

    For #2, I can think of several completely non-nefarious reasons for these two to be holding these sessions. As long as it’s not negatively impacting their productivity, I would just watch. Specifically, I would be interested to see how they hold up when one of the pair is on vacation. Does one become more productive? Does one slump? If THAT happens, then it’s possibly time for a discussion.

  17. TheBunny*

    LW#1

    I would comply with the request. I’ve never been asked by a boss specifically to stop doing extra, but I have seen it as a way to figure out productivity. It sounds like you are meeting and exceeding your goals and your coworker isn’t…but it’s hard to tell because everything is getting done. So…I say let this play out and see what happens.

  18. Roland*

    > whether he might be sort of telling on himself with this particular opinion.

    I guess he could be, but really there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging real biases. We all have biases, and truly thinking “wow it’s so silly to prefer people eho are younger/male/white” doesn’t actually make the biases go away.

    1. Sloanicota*

      To me part of this question is, if OP is female, would her father have said the same thing if she was male, or is this a “women are supposed to be decorative and pleasing for me to look at” attitude, which is not one we just all need to accept in my opinion.

    2. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

      Yeah, ageism is real, and it really doesn’t matter if LW’s dad shares the problematic views consciously or unconsciously.

    3. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

      But he might not be acknowledging “real” bias, as in the bias of strangers. Dad might think it is true, but that might actually be his own bias. OP’s industry may not have that bias at all, it’s just Dad projecting. Hence the comment about telling on himself.

      1. Roland*

        Older women face discrimination, I’m sorry but that’s a fact. No amount of commenters saying “I’ve never had issues getting a job” changes that because that’s not what unconscious biases mean.

  19. TheBunny*

    LW#2

    I can *sort of* see how a 3rd person could see this as them getting together to plot the demise of… something. But I think framing it like that is a real stretch. People often value feedback from their peers and talking to someone IN your job is just different than talking to a boss.

    I don’t see an issue with this…as long as you aren’t seeing an inability of these 2 to work with the rest of the team and provided their at work behavior doesn’t remind you of plots by Boris and Natasha of Rocky and Bullwinkle fame.

    1. Ellis Bell*

      All those items on the agenda are so overwhelmingly positive that I genuinely struggle to see how such a negative conclusion could have been jumped to. The fact that there’s just two of them could be seen as a bit cliquey maybe, (in an office of geek social fallacies), but where is the suggestion of manipulation coming from? I have to wonder if OP buried the lede about them being manipulative or conniving on other occasions, because otherwise this conclusion makes no sense.

      1. TheBunny*

        I think the 3rd person (who is no longer even there) put the question into LW’s mind and now it’s all they see…but I don’t see it.

        Like you, I see a fairly harmless and constructive sounding meeting. I did once have a boss who would eavesdrop on any conversations I had with a coworker and come sweeping out of her office if she thought she heard something off who absolutely would have had issues with this meeting series…but she was incredibly insecure and actually also told me if I had any issues or concerns about my job, her, or anything about the company I was to talk only to her and absolutely no one else… so we’re not exactly going to use her as a role model.

        1. Sloanicota*

          I get how the third person could be made nervous. Look many people don’t want their colleagues to become superstars and “make them look bad” and a lot of people are paranoid their coworkers will try to muscle them out / manipulate the workplace against them. But OP should have a better view of how the work flow actually needs to happen and shouldn’t get drawn into the competitiveness of their own staff.

      2. Nodramalama*

        I think their workplace is just weird. I cannot fathom going to someone else’s calendar, clicking into a meeting I’m not invited to (manager or not) pull out the agenda, and then assess the agenda to see if I think they’re being conniving. It’s such a weird chain of events.

        1. TheBunny*

          Agreed. I try not to look at the agendas of meetings I’m part of (ok kidding but it was fun to say) and can’t imagine looking at the agendas of meetings I’m not included in.

        3. Sloanicota*

          I do agree with that sentiment; it seemed a little off to me. I assume the third coworker flagged it for OP and OP started digging around, but that’s pretty office-culture-dependent. In my office, we all look at each other’s calendars because my boss does that every morning and then asks us what all the appointments are. I don’t love it, but that’s what she does. Sometimes she’s trying to decide if she should be in the meeting, other times she’s just trying to get a sense of our workflow.

          1. Nodramalama*

            I look at my coworkers calendars or juniors’ meetings. Thars not weird. I don’t click into them to see the details of each meeting and read agendas of meetings I’m not invited to. If I want to know what a meeting my junior has that I don’t know about, I say “hey, what’s this meeting?”

      3. Also-ADHD*

        I feel like those are very positive items but thinking about the job (EA) and how people might view the job, those items show engagement and ambition with their own career in a way that might be threatening to some personalities in EA and management and some people hate the ideas of ambitious, strategic, and capable EAs who are pigeon holed into “helper” type molds (even though the role can be tactical or strategic in some orgs and even though people obviously can build skills in EA and move to other roles etc.) I wondered frankly if the idea of two ambitious, high performing EAs intimidated and bothered the former team member and perhaps the manager.

    2. Garblesnark*

      This whole thing reminds me of research from the Workplace Bullying Institute which indicates that most workplace bullying stems from workers who are intimidated by competence in others. I wonder whether these two EAs are doing great work and therefore someone at the org is (or perhaps was) looking for reasons to discredit them, simply because that person doesn’t feel they’re also doing great work.

  20. Mutually supportive*

    I would absolutely love to have a peer that I could have this type of accountability meeting with! I have a role where I don’t have much involvement/oversight from others in my company, and I have really struggled with getting distracted and “zoning out” for blocks of time, sometimes a whole working day. It’s worst in winter. It’s not that I’m slacking off and doing something else, it’s just that my head isn’t there. It’s dissatisfying and also stressful because then the workload piles up more, which only makes it all worse!

    90 minutes every week is quite a lot, but for me, if that time investment helped to keep me focused for the rest of the week, it would be well worth it.

    1. Plate of Wings*

      I could have written your comment, I want to try this! It seems like it would fit my working style. I am seriously thinking about how I would identify someone in a similar position on another team that might be like me and you.

      Due to the nature of my regulated industry, I couldn’t talk about any of my projects or specific goals with someone outside of the company. But I’d love to try this.

  21. Michigander*

    I get the feeling that LW2 maybe doesn’t really like the two employees in question, and that’s why they assume that this meeting must be about plotting and conniving. If you felt positive or even neutral towards two employees, I can’t see any reason why a weekly meeting like this would make you suspicious.

  22. Kai*

    LW#2

    I think i know why the employees are meeting without their manager: they don’t trust her, & aren’t getting what they need from her.
    Any manager that think her employees are conniving, that think this way about people who report to her? That’s pretty bad, imo.

    Manager: TEAM WORK!!

    Team: works together to support each other in a way both enjoy, find motivating, & helpful

    Manager: NOT LIKE THAT!

    Makes one wonder how some get promoted to manage others.

  23. Vimto*

    LW2, do you have regular reviews/ check-ins with your team individually? If so, why not just ask? “What are you getting out of this”/”how do you think it improves your work” would be where I would start. If it’s just vague, probably it’s just gossip and you can decide if that’s a problem or not. If it sounds like they’re actually getting use out of it – great! One of them can explain it to the wider team in your next meeting, and maybe other people can join/ set up their own meetings.

    Worth noting as well that one person’s “manipulating/ conniving” is another person’s “sense-checking an idea before trying to get it on the wider agenda” – how come you assumed such a negative intent?

  24. Ganymede II*

    The meeting LW2 describes sound like what a colleague offered to do with me when I struggled a bit. It genuinely helped my performance, and it helped that colleague develop coaching and leadership skills. We didn’t use 90 minutes, but it looks like maybe they’re doing this as a mutual support, so it’s not surprising that it takes 90 minutes then.

    If it seems like a lot of time, think about the time that may be saved by someone having a weekly opportunity to sort through their work, prioritize better, have a sounding board for problem they might struggle solving… and the suddenly 90 minutes seem very well invested.

  25. Anon today*

    #3–definitely variable, but I have a friend who’s now retired from pharma and at one company the women actually had a slogan: “You don’t go gray at J&J.”

    1. El l*

      True. Plus, to OP, consider the source. There’s a very old stereotype of salespeople trying to look perfect- so perfect everyone else finds them fake. That may play here.b

      2. JustaTech*

        One of my mom’s friends changed career later in life to textbook sales and one of the first things she did was dye her hair and get Lasik, because grey hair and reading glasses were seen as the death knell in sales.

  26. Harper the Other One*

    OP2: my colleague and I, who are both part of a new hiring stream at my workplace for CPA students, have a similar weekly meeting. We’re in a difficult professional education program while rotating through divisions (so constantly learning new areas of work). We talk about what’s going on in our lives, and how we’re feeling about our studies; we share exam tips, stress and time management suggestions, etc. Often we have these meetings as walk and talks on our waterfront because both of us have found that exercise/being outdoors helps us manage our stress.

    This has been one of the most valuable things we established! We come back feeling energized and encouraged, and we’ve both picked up good tips from one another. We also feel refreshed and productive when we come back.

    Rather than look at this from a suspicious point of view, I’d strongly encourage you to talk to these employees about how this benefits them and see if there are ways you can encourage other staff members to incorporate a similar practice (solo or in small groups.)

  27. Hiring Mgr*

    It’s really normal and common for a team to meet without their manager. My teams have done that in the past and I encourage it 100%. You should be glad they care enough about the job to even do this in the first place – it’s a good thing

  28. o_gal*

    LW5 – You only need to be burned once before you start checking internal refs for every candidate. As a team lead, I got stuck with the most worthless employee, because we only talked to his current manager before the transfer. The manager who was looking to dump him off to whoever would take him.

    1. umami*

      I also think it’s likely they are being checked, but the employee doesn’t need to be asked for the references and just doesn’t know it’s happening because the hiring manager already knows who to ask.

      1. zolk*

        LW5 here – in the 5-year gap case, the hiring manager told me openly she would not bother checking references because she knows and has worked with me in the past. (Again, five+ years ago!)

    2. zolk*

      LW5 here – that was my thinking! I suspect sometimes desperation (“We need someone NOW, and we know so and so is great”) plays into it.

  29. El l*

    OP2:
    Tell us – because it’s not mentioned in your letter – the specific pattern of behavior not based on a regular meeting from them that leads to the words “manipulation” and “agendas.” Do they regularly lie? Hijack meetings? What?

    Because if not, questioning your and former colleagues judgment here. There’s such a thing as too cynical.

  30. Gustavo*

    #1-so they are asking you NOT to pick up this persons slack and you are complaining about picking up this persons slack? They want you to allow this employee to do the work so they can either get it together or they will weed themselves out. Stop complaining about having work dumped on you that you were directed to stop doing.

    #2-you sound like an insufferable controlling micromanager! You have 2 employees who are using their resources to stay accountable and grow as employees and you are actually upset about this? It’s because you don’t want them to grow, you just want them to grow ONLY what you allow and can take credit for. Grow up. I would be so thrilled to have two employees that did something like this because it will only help them, the team, and you. Honestly they probably feel the need to do this because you won’t give them the type of support to grow in their roles, so they use each other.

    1. Phantom*

      I’m complaining about being called out in a group meeting about not picking up this guy’s slack when we’ve been told specifically not to. I’m being called out for doing what I’ve been asked to do, which makes no sense. The work eventually ends up being dumped on me or my coworker because we’re the only ones willing to do it. By the time we get to it, the customer is pissed because their ticket has been sitting there all day with no answer. So, we’ve gotta deal with that.

      1. Lola*

        Are you the Letter Writer, or someone else in a similar situation? Cause that information changes the situation quite a bit.

        1. Lola*

          Phantom/LW1, I hadn’t seen the other thread where you explain more of the situation when I wrote this. Sorry if it sounded brusque!

  31. Baela Targaryen*

    I’m an EA and I would weep with joy if my coworkers did a week accountability meeting so I didn’t always have to chase them for things. Weep. With. Joy.

    1. Garblesnark*

      Relatable. There are a few execs I wouldn’t mind attending these meetings as well.

  32. anonymous for this*

    I’d like to suggest avoiding language like “enough rope to hang himself with” in future. There are ways to make the same point without referencing suicide unecessarily.

    2. anon for that too*

      While we’re at, maybe everyone should consider not saying “bullet dodged” on a daily basis.

    3. Nonprofit Unicorn*

      Agreed. Reading that this morning was rather upsetting. I’ve lost a few loved ones to suicide (one only a couple of weeks ago). I hope someone sees your comment and makes a change to the text.

  33. Irish Teacher.*

    LW1, the comment about you “not knowing what is going on behind the scenes” gives me the impression the team member in question is either on a PIP or management are otherwise monitoring his work and they want you to “give him the opportunity to fail” so they can deal with it. This is the opposite of expecting you to pick up the slack while they allow him to watch videos all day. Expecting the rest of the team to work harder and pick up for him would be expecting you to pick up the slack. It sounds like they are explicitly telling you all not to pick up the slack.

    It doesn’t sounds like favouritism to me. It sounds like they are holding him accountable and expecting him to take responsibility for his own work and stop relying on the rest of you to do it for him.

    LW2, I really don’t see any reason to think that other team members might feel they were “conniving together.” That is a pretty big accusation and not something people would generally assume without some reason for suspicion (and meeting regularly is not that). I mean, something like that they always support each other in staff disagreements or for promotions or…well, some indication that they are doing something to advance each other at the expense of everybody else.

    I think you are jumping a number of steps ahead here, wondering about what other members of the team might think and how that might lead to problems and yeah, it’s good to be prepared for various possibilities, but this strikes me as a pretty unlikely one. I doubt most members of the team would even care that they were meeting regularly, unless there were other signs they were doing something nefarious.

    I wonder if you being somewhat influenced by the information from the former team member. Which I can easily imagine doing myself, looking at everything a little differently, in light of that. But it is quite possible that person just had a grudge against those two or was jealous of them or was simply mistaken, so I wouldn’t put too much store on that.

    And this meeting sounds entirely innocent. You’ve seen the agenda and it sounds like it is completely focussed on themselves and ensuring they have completed their work for the week. I am guessing one or both of them found that they worked better when they have to “answer to” somebody, so they set this up. Some people are like that. I know a couple of other teachers who say they could never correct the State exams because they wouldn’t be able to keep themselves motivated, working from home and with only checks every 100 papers.

    Yeah, it is possible they talk about other team members during these meetings but…probably no more than any of the rest of your staff talk about other team members in passing when they are alone together. It’s unlikely to be anything nefarious, just general chitchat before getting down to the actual discussion about their own work.

    Obviously, you know these two team members and the rest of us don’t, but unless you have other reasons for concern, I wouldn’t be worried by this. And I definitely wouldn;t worry that other team members might be worried by it.

  34. Can’t think of anything clever*

    Re L1…I worked in police/fire/EMS dispatching. Night shift, especially after everyone’s home from the bars and before people were getting up in the morning, was much slower so we tried to avoid training then. If we had more than a certain number of good candidates we would put a few on nights. The last few weeks of training everyone else would go out of the call routing system unless it was unusually busy so they were experiencing a more consistent call volume. I don’t think it’s unusual in any industry to ask people to modify their work volume for a variety of reasons, including if they think someone’s a slacker!

  35. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

    I’m going to disagree with Alison on whether ageism is the exception rather than the rule and say it’s totally field dependent. Tech? 100% normal and absolutely the rule, to the extent that LW wouldn’t have written in because she’d have known the answer.

    1. learnedthehardway*

      From a recruiting perspective, it’s pretty universal. It’s not always agism per se – there ARE valid reasons for hiring people who are at the right career stage (eg. succession planning, not over-hiring someone who will get bored and leave, etc.) But it’s something I fight every day in my recruitment work.

    2. ExCon(sultant)*

      I stopped coloring my hair during the pandemic and just got my first job as a silver/salt-n-pepper-haired lady. But I’m an attorney for the federal government, where gravitas is valued and fashion is not expected!

  36. umami*

    For #1, it really sounds like the manager knows/suspects there is an issue with the other team member not doing his fair share and wants you to ratchet back so she can see if he steps up or continues to underperform. Sometimes a manager needs to be able to prove that someone is not performing to standard in order to take steps to improve their performance, and it sounds like what is happening here.

  37. Trout 'Waver*

    In regards to #1, I can see a manager wanting to use a slow season for training in preparation for a busy season. Who knows if that’s what’s going on here, though.

    For example, if you know you get 100 tickets/day during the school year and 50 tickets/day during the summer, and you expect a trained employee to handle 60 tickets/day, you need two people. But you’ll have some slack built into the system during the summer. It’d make sense to direct each employee to handle 25 tickets/day so neither gets rusty or resentful.

  38. Miette*

    LW4: Sound advice here, but I think I’d add an angle. But first a question, because it’s not clear from the letter: Are you/your friend asking for social media engagement from each other ON BEHALF OF your respective employers, or personally? If the former, there could be a reason they cannot interact with your posts, and it is because they can’t. Most large brands will have specific rules about how/with whom they interact on their socials, and it may not be possible for your friend to do so. It’s crappy that they haven’t explained that, if it’s the case, and it’s also disingenuous of them to ask you to do something they cannot/do not reciprocate. In either case, the advice is the same: they’re not being reciprocal, and they are taking advantage of your friendship when they ask you to do something like this.

    1. Grass_Is_Greener*

      Hi, thank you for replying to this LW. Everything is sent via our personal accounts, not business or company accounts. Yes, I have refrained from engaging in their content as they haven’t done the same.

      We both don’t request engagement on behalf of the company, just personally to get traction going.

  39. WantonSeedStitch*

    I wonder if with LW#1’s situation, management is actually trying to build a case to push an underperformer out. Lazybones is underperforming, but the work is still getting done thanks to LW and the rest of the team, so the boss’s bosses are just like *shrug emoji*. But if LW and the rest of the team limit themselves to what amounts to an equal share of the work, and the last share, which should be done by Lazybones, doesn’t get accomplished, this causes problems and might light a fire underneath the upper management to do something about it. Of course, it’s likely upper management will then say “if LW and the rest of the team can get all this work done on their own, we don’t need to replace Lazybones after we fire him.”

  40. Accountability format*

    For folks that like the idea of the accountability meeting, in the software Dev world we call it a ‘retrospective’ and there’s a TON of really great pre-made formats for it out there. Mine were every 2 weeks for an hour, but any regular cadence can work.

    My team’s favorite was one that started with Anchors and Engines, for a discussion on what held us back from going as fast as we wanted, and then what let us move faster than expected.

    ‘Agile retro’ or ‘Scrum retro’ will get you a ton of ideas.

    1. fhqwhgads*

      Retros are team wide, not just two people, and not weekly.
      I’m not anti the meeting mentioned in the letter, and I think the LW is wrong in their concerns about it. BUT I do think it’s probably an excessive amount of time on it for just the two of them.
      If the manager wants to have retros, have retros, but the two people’s agenda mentioned in the letter sounds sort of like a really really long, way more in depth than usual standup with some retroish vibes thrown in.

  41. Garblesnark*

    LW2, I can’t say enough good things in support of this accountability meeting. I love this concept to the point where when I started a small business, one of the first things I did was hire someone to have meetings like this with me. I knew how to do my job and I knew I was great at it, but knowing someone else would meet with me and ask what I accomplished and sit with me while I thought strategically about my goals and plans was invaluable and helped me to grow faster and more sustainably.

    1. TheBunny*

      Exactly.

      It’s like working out with a friend. There are days you show up at the gym not because you want to but because you are meeting someone there.

  42. Alan*

    Re $5, “Theoretically I could have changed and become a less useful employee”, it’s always seemed to me that the usefulness of an employee was largely their psychology/character, and that’s really unlikely to change. That is, do you take ownership of problems, are you pleasant to work with, etc. Technical skills can be taught. Work ethic really can’t, and it’s those non-technical skills that have always seemed to me to be most important, and yes, generally enduring.

  43. JP*

    One of our higher ups went to a training where the presenter really harped on dyeing one’s hair to appear more professional. The higher up showed up to work next week with dyed hair, and it was startling in a bad way. There was some gossip about it.

    I have very dark hair that’s going grey, and I’m very aware that it ages me, also that it probably makes me look less polished to certain people. That said, I know myself, my budget, and my hair, and decided that keeping my natural hair was the best option for myself.

    1. Alan*

      I went to see my doctor once and was startled to see that his gray hair had gone jet black. It looked very unnatural against his wrinkles (and beer gut). That said, my wife faced the same issue you’re describing and got her hair highlighted. It blends the gray into her natural brown and honestly looks terrific. No it’s not the brown that she used to have, but it’s a very attractive compromise.

  44. Busy Middle Manager*

    As per the gray hair. The job market right now is horrible. The job reports on Thurs confirmed it, new jobs created was only 114K way less than the 175K expected and way less than the 200K-250K numbers we had been seeing some months last year. Unemployment rate is now up to 4.3% triggering the SAHM rule which predicts recessions (when rolling 3 month avg of unemployment goes up .5% from its low). For those who think 4.3% unemployment is low, recessions aren’t about absolutes but about the rate of change.

    This reports showed a decrease of -20K in “information services” jobs, whatever that is exactly I don’t know but the report is clear that white collar work is on trending down.

    Long way to say, a lot of people have been asking why they don’t get interviews and jobs. MAY NOT BE YOU

  45. CommanderBanana*

    LW#1, my guess is that they are trying to build a case to get your coworker on a PIP or terminated, but they need documentation to do that, such as tickets being available that he/she isn’t taking / closing out / whatever.

    Yes, it’s super frustrating, but you’ve been asked directly to do that, so you should do that.

  46. Somehow I Manage*

    The only part of the second letter that makes me remotely question the accountability meetings is the length. Spending 90 minutes weekly is a pretty solid chunk of time. I’m not sure there’s a fix that is needed, though, because I would like to believe that the LW would have mentioned the meetings getting in the way of work being done if they were. Unless there’s something like that happening, shutting down the meetings or even requesting that time be shortened will come across heavy handed.

    The idea of a standing accountability meeting is not one I’d be interested in, but if it helps these two and there’s no sense that there’s anything underhanded going on, let it continue. The point raised in the advice about showing others how to do it effectively is good too. It is harder to be jealous of or concerned about something if you’re shown how to do it yourself and shown the benefits of doing so.

    1. TheBunny*

      It looks like it goes both ways so really it’s 45 minutes for each person. It’s really not that long

      1. fhqwhgads*

        Feels long to me too. We have these kinds of meetings. They’re once a month, for a team of 6-8 people, and take an hour.

    2. Alan*

      I was also struck by the length of time involved, but honestly, I see large chunks of time get wasted all the time in pointless meetings, people struggling to get back into work mode Monday morning, people leaving early Friday afternoon, long lunches, etc. And these are generally productive people! At least the time cited by the LW is going to something useful.

    3. PotsPansTeapots*

      It could also be a situation where the meetings started out as 90 minutes and have gotten shorter, but no one’s changed the time. Or that the meeting is more like an hour, but both employees like having a cushion so they’re not in back-to-back meetings. Depending on the job, 90 minutes away from one’s desk in one go could still be an issue, but I don’t think the time is crazy in and of itself.

    4. TeapotNinja*

      I have multiple meetings every day that don’t take the full scheduled time.

      It doesn’t mean anything.

  47. Tradd*

    Years ago, I had a job where all the employees on my level (about 6) met for about a half hour every other week, organized by the most senior. Manager never wanted to do meetings and didn’t want to come when invited. She thought we were plotting against her and demanded we stop the meetings. We had to, as she was threatening jobs. She left sooner than later.

  48. James M*

    @LW3, two thoughts. a) It’s heavily context-dependent as to whether gray hurts your career, is career-neutral or potentially even helps. For me, i’ve worked in all three contexts – startup culture where it’s much better to seem young; established company where it was probably neutral and nobody really cared; and my current context, a developer where I need to get people to quickly trust me, and I joke that my gray beard (i’m 44 and beard is almost fully gray; hair is salt and pepper) is ‘part of my work uniform’.
    b) as Allison says, “it’s ok to turn down money if you don’t like what you’d have to do to get it”. if coloring your hair is a requirement to promotion, or marginally helpful to promotion, and you simply don’t want to do it, and are happy with the tradeoff, then there’s no problem here. If you decide it’s holding you back in a way that you don’t like, and there’s no work around, you may consider a shift but at the moment it sounds like trouble is being invented where it doesn’t exist.

  49. Anonynonybooboo*

    LW#1 – I have made a similar request of my team before, and while I can’t speak to why YOUR manager did so, I can tell you why I did.

    1) I needed a specific person to get more practice at the things coming into the ticketing system. It took this person longer to solve things (but still well within a range I’d set for resolution), so they’d miss the next thing I really needed them to also practice when Quick Draw McGraw was grabbing things as soon as they came in.

    2) I needed the folks I was asking to let things age in the system to do other things. If they always grab “the thing that just came in”, they aren’t working on the higher level stuff I have assigned them. It’s great when someone can do 10 fast things – but I do need someone working on the 2 “hard to solve” items as well.

    3) Frankly, the folks grabbing all the tickets were complaining about being busy but they were creating their own problems by not allowing the work load to spread as I was instructing.

    1. Phantom*

      This all makes sense, but I have to say that the lazy person is our “Tier 2” escalation point. He’s where all the hard stuff goes when my coworker and I can’t figure it out. He’s also supposed to take up tickets, just like we do, as they come in. I can see his queue. He’s not overloaded with stuff. On top of that, he’s busy either chatting up other people in the office or watching YouTube. Just last week, he was 25+ minutes late because he was chatting up someone in HR about stuff that had nothing to do with work. I know this because I walked by him while he was doing it. When I came back from the restroom, he was still chatting her up and several minutes after I had a seat again, he was still there. Right after he did that, he clocked in, then started getting food ready in the kitchen. It’s almost like the ticket queue didn’t matter.

      1. Festively Dressed Earl*

        Are there any Youtube tutorials that could teach you what you’d need to handle the tier 2 tickets? Technically, it’s professional development. (So is schoolwork but probably your employer sees it as not benefiting them.) I’m not being sarcastic and I realize that’s a long shot. If you’re not already completely fed up with your employer and brushing up your resume, and if they’re really trying to get this guy out the door in an incredibly inept fashion, you might as well put yourself into a position to do slackerdude’s job right. For an appropriate salary increase, of course.

  50. JelloStapler*

    #1 – that actually seems like a breath of fresh air- telling you all not to do his work for him so his lapse shows. Most places would be happy others were doing the work and be satisfied.

  51. Sneaky Squirrel*

    #1 – Management is probably not asking your team to hold back out of the kindness of letting your lazy colleague look better. They are aware there’s an inequity. It’s likely that they suspect that your colleague is slow to grab tickets because your colleague needs more training opportunities, or they’re gathering demonstrable information for a PIP.

  52. Raisin Walking to the Moon*

    I think commenter Phantom is identifying themselves as OP1 LW 1 #1, but the context here makes the story kind of the opposite from what’s described in the letter. So now I have even more questions that before.

    Phantom, it might be a good idea to reflect on why you’re getting feedback about being “overly emotional” and why you’d characterize your response as “raising a stink.” Ideally, you’d be laying out problems in a calm and clear way, so it’s the content of your words that’s the focus.

    1. umami*

      Yes, I agree. From the manager side, I would say the meeting where the ticket was discussed was designed to expose the fact that employee #3 had no reason to not work on the ticket, and the other two did. But OP took it personally and escalated their concerns when they are not the one who is the target (as far as I can tell, although there was a comment about them getting in trouble for doing non work-related things during work, so there could be some other issues going on as well). It’s definitely fair to ask for clarification: essentially pointing out that they were told to stop grabbing tickets so quickly, so what does that look like to the manager?

    2. Lady Lessa*

      I wonder if it could be gender related. A woman is often considered emotional whereas a man can say the same thing, in the same tone and not be.

      1. GythaOgden*

        There is plenty of overlap. I’ve been the woman who was also objectively over-emotional. Dismissing it as gendered here is actually going to do the OP a disservice because from what she’s saying herself, she’s actually yes, being over-emotional, and you do have to learn to rein it in.

    3. Phantom*

      Sorry, I forgot to mention that I’m OP1. I classified my comments as “raising a stink” because I mentioned that I had been called out for having school materials (not work-related) on my computer screen while at work, told to work less (thereby giving me MORE reason to look at my school materials), and was called out in a meeting as to why *I* let a ticket go more than 24 hours untouched. My response was, “I don’t know where I belong in this company because I feel like I’m being ultra-scrutinized, but individuals who are clearly slacking are allowed to get away with it.”

      1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        My response was, “I don’t know where I belong in this company because I feel like I’m being ultra-scrutinized, but individuals who are clearly slacking are allowed to get away with it.”

        Yea, that’s a nonstarter.

        You can point out you let the ticket age due to Management instructions and request clarification, but that reponse (true or not) is 100% buck passing, passive-aggressive, and self-pitying. It’s not going to take you anywhere you want to go.

      2. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        Wow. You do not have “more” reason to look at school materials. You’ve been told not to, so don’t. (That was fair, btw.) If you don’t know what to do with your free time at work, you should definitely be asking your manager about what else you could be doing instead of doing the one thing you’ve been told not to do and then pretending that’s their fault.

        You are making everything about this harder than it needs to be. And you are making it about you when it is about Slacker. You are being very unprofessional and you are getting in the way of your manager trying to deal with Slacker. He is literally *not* being allowed to get away with it.

        1. Phantom*

          Maybe I worded that a little off… I know what they are asking is fair. I’m just asking it to be fair across the board. If we’re asking me to not do anything but ticket work (while asking me to do LESS ticket work than usual), why do we have the guy who is on YouTube 6-8 hours a day complaining that there’s not enough work to do? Why are we not monitoring his use of work computers as much as my use is being looked at? I’m asking for fairness.

          I’m not 100% sure of what you consider to be unprofessional here. Maybe my comment about school materials? Fair. I don’t think it’s unprofessional to call out the manager for asking us for personal responsibility on why a ticket got missed when we were asked specifically to leave that ticket out for that third individual.

          1. lemon*

            why do we have the guy who is on YouTube 6-8 hours a day complaining that there’s not enough work to do? Why are we not monitoring his use of work computers as much as my use is being looked at? I’m asking for fairness.

            You don’t know whether management is monitoring his use of work computers or not. The fact that they told you that there’s more going on in the background is a professional way of indicating that they probably are looking into this but can’t you tell you this directly to protect Slacker’s privacy.

            I don’t think it’s unprofessional to call out the manager for asking us for personal responsibility on why a ticket got missed when we were asked specifically to leave that ticket out for that third individual.

            There are more professional ways to say this, though. When asked why you didn’t get to the ticket, you could have said something like, “I didn’t get to it because I was instructed by management to not work on as many tickets.” Just keep it factual.

            1. GythaOgden*

              It’s almost never professional to ‘call out’ a manager in the way you did, Phantom. You’re not in their position, you don’t have all the information and you are muddying their waters with borderline insubordination, both on the way you reacted and the way you’re pulling the ‘he’s doing this, why can’t I?’ card on them.

              I’d tread really carefully from here on out because the /absolute last thing you need here/ is to also be seen to be avoiding management direction and making their job getting rid of this guy harder. Really, truly, I’ve seen this with an colleague whose response to working with her team on a similar programme (an audit of people’s right to work in the UK, i.e. immigration status within the public sector organisation with a ticket-based system) was uncomfortably close to what you’re saying here and it did NOT end well.

              Just a heads up that you might find yourself having to undergo a similar process if you keep up the way you’ve been interacting with this process.

          2. Nancy*

            It’s not about you. The meeting was to specifically YouTube person that there is work to do, and most likely to provide documentation to HR that they are not doing job. YouTube person can’t use the excuse that they thought you took it, or that none were left for them to take, because you are stating in the meeting in front of them that you were told not to take as many, or to take only X number or whatever.

      3. Ellis Bell*

        The trick is not to respond emotionally even if you feel emotional, or even if you feel “called out”. You want to give the impression that you’re happy to answer questions about your workflow and that you have reasonable, factual answers to give. I’ve definitely felt scrutinized and mistrusted by negligent managers, but those feelings and those words are only for people at home to hear, or to be muttered aloud during your job search. Don’t say them at your job! Also, they’re clearly trying to pin down the slacker behind the scenes, or they’re at least trying to get them to work more. Maybe they’re taking too long to do it, but you’re not doing their work anymore anyway.

      4. Observer*

        My response was, “I don’t know where I belong in this company because I feel like I’m being ultra-scrutinized, but individuals who are clearly slacking are allowed to get away with it.”

        That’s an extremely unhelpful response. Not to your management, and most importantly, not to you.

        You got asked why you didn’t pick up the ticket. What you should have stuck to was “You told me to do less work.”

        A conversation about your school work might have been reasonable, separately and not in that meeting. As it is, you are making it harder to get rid of your slacker.

      5. musical chairs*

        I’m gonna tell you what your manager shouldn’t. That response was nuts. As another manager (not your manager), I would have to work extra hard to take you seriously in future conversations. And I’d only do that cause it’s literally my job to treat you fairly.

        You can’t talk like that in a team and expect people to listen to you. What you know right now, with maybe 75% certainty, is that your leadership is looking for documentation/backup to let go of someone on your team. If you wanna keep this job (and I legitimately cannot tell from your responses if you do), you need to learn how to talk to people who are giving you pretty clear instructions on what they’re looking for, especially instructions that do not obstruct your work. If you’re asked another question about the consequences of the direction you were given, answer the question directly (“I was told by X on this date to [exactly what they told you to do].”), and without the snark.

        Don’t buy into a trap of thinking that they are somehow setting you up to fail by enticing you to be off task with more time. Someone right now is under fire for being off task. Even if this was some kind of mind trick, don’t follow their footsteps off a cliff. You have all the information you need to know what’s expected of you. You’re in control of what you do next.

        Your instincts on what professional communication looks like are not going to lead you to success. You need to get good at expressing frustration in a clear and non-passive-aggressive manner before you can rely on these instincts again. Try to learn from someone who you see in your organization or team who communicates in a way that gets them what they want. That way you stayin control of what you do next.

  53. sofar*

    LW 5, fwiw, I’ve noticed that checking references for even external hires seems to be falling by the wayside in some industries. My former employer stopped doing it about a year ago. Instead, they check employment history and just ask if the person (if they no longer worked there) was eligible for rehire. My husband didn’t undergo a reference check for either of the engineer jobs he got hired for. And I was surprised to not be asked for references for my new-ish job (apparently they contacted former employers and asked for my rehire eligibility status?).

    It’s really interesting to me. A friend of mine (who got fired from her last two jobs and burned bridges) is panicking over this because she can’t give her usual reference list of 3 mentors she worked for over 10 years ago, who will give her glowing references and will instead have potential employers reach out to her more recent jobs who will say she’s not eligible for rehire.

    1. CommanderBanana*

      Also, the whole “eligible for rehire” thing is a bit misleading. I remember an earlier question this month from someone who was telling all reference calls that people weren’t eligible for rehire because it was an internship program or something, but didn’t realize that “not eligible for rehire” is corporate-speak for “we fired this person.”

      I mean, I’m sure I’m not eligible for rehire at my last organization, because I resigned after being retaliated against for reporting being sexually assaulted by a member of the association I worked for at an event I was staffing, but I wasn’t fired.

      1. zolk*

        LW5 here – tbf, if I weren’t eligible for rehire I would have a big red flag in my file and union notes or something (this is an incredibly large, complex, unionized environment). But yeah I dislike the phrasing of “eligible for rehire” for reasons lining up with the letter earlier this month.

        1. CommanderBanana*

          Right? The words “eligible for rehire” don’t mean “they were fired” but a lot of places use that to mean someone was fired, but that isn’t what is being asked.

      2. sofar*

        I didn’t even think of that! I’ve also heard of folks who are about to quit, negotiate with their employer to ensure “eligible for rehire” is added to their file in exchange of them going quietly into the night because they suspect that resigning after retaliation will likely get the dreaded “not eligible for rehire” added.

        The whole process is fraught. It’s one of the reasons I’m actually happy when I’m asked to do a timed skills test (which I realize are also not perfect either), because I have so little control over who employers might be contacting.

    2. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      Good riddance. The reference system can’t go the way of the dodo fast enough.

    3. Pizza Rat*

      It’s going to depend on who they talk to and what they’re permitted to say. Some jobs I’ve had always get references referred to HR who gives dates and rehire eligibility. Others, managers are only allowed to say the same.

      I once got burned by a company checking my references. I gave them a colleague, who gave me a good reference, but then they asked to speak to one of the managers who didn’t really know me. He said there had been complaints about my work (which I never knew about) and I didn’t get the job.

      1. zolk*

        LW5 here – internally we have a strongly standardized/formal reference checking process because the org is so large and complex (10k+ employees, many divisions, etc). I’ve given internal references before, which is part of why I was surprised neither of these people wanted to talk to any of mine.

        I’m sorry you got burned that time!

    4. zolk*

      LW5 here – this scares me! I will say for context (and without giving too much away) I work in a VERY large org, well over 10k employees. When you’re transferring between divisions, there is a formal and standardized reference check process you go through. (I’ve been a reference for some juniors and it’s always the same.) Divisions often have zero contact with each other simply because of how large this org is.

      For the two roles I talked about in my letter, they were within a single division, but even then if you work on different teams or product lines chances are you almost never speak to people outside that area, so I think the risk is high enough to warrant reference checks. But I’ve seen some good points above in the comments like that your character is unlikely to change and that’s a key factor for the hiring manager.

  54. Pizza Rat*

    “not privy to everything going on in the background,” could be many things, though I agree with several others that this is likely some kind of improvement plan, whether informal pre-PIP or a PIP in itself. The colleague can’t demonstrate their what they can do if there are not tickets to work on.

    If there’s down time, I’d use it reading industry articles or seeing if there is online education that can be taken.

    1. Phantom*

      Fun thing about that… I go to college for something outside of my industry. I almost got written up for having those college materials on my screen while at work. I have since studied industry-related materials while at work, but I’m waiting to get called out on that, too. The supervisor made it clear that she doesn’t want anything on my screen that isn’t “work-related.” The person I’ve been writing about is in a closed-off area that has a doorway prior to the area where he sits, and his computer screen faces away from the door. So, he gets plenty of warning to change screens before someone can catch him on YouTube. The only difference is that my coworker and I both see him doing this and it enrages us to no end because we’re being asked to not let tickets sit, but also to let tickets sit, all so he can play on YouTube all day.

      1. Dawn*

        It honestly sounds to me like maybe the best option here is that you start looking for a new job. Your work – whatever is going on there – shouldn’t actively enrage you, and it sounds like you might otherwise be damaging your reputation there, which isn’t the way you want to go out.

        I know that “find a new job” is easier said and done, but you’ve already been there 8 years, and that’s around the time you want to start thinking about moving on already. With a little luck, you can find something else to do while you finish college (good luck!) that doesn’t mind you doing your schoolwork in your downtime; IT support is pretty much always in demand, at least in my area.

        3. Freddy-Jason-Pennywise*

          Yeah I kind of have to agree with Dawn here. It just seems like there’s way too much drama with this job and Phantom/LW 1 is letting themselves get way too personally involved. They’d be better off moving on from the situation entirely for their own peace of mind (and career).

  55. TX_Trucker*

    #5. My company has about 10,000 employees. We don’t check references for internal hires. But after a selection has been made, but before an offer is extended, HR will make the employee’s personnel file available to the hiring manager.

    1. zolk*

      LW5 here – we also have 10k+ employees, but there’s a standardized/formal internal reference checking system! I’ve given references for internals moving divisions before and it follows a script over a short call with HR.

  56. Midwest Manager too!*

    LW #5: My org is so fixated on reference checking for all candidates that I almost had to do one in the mirror! The candidate was someone currently working for me, applying for a different role on my team. The HR team wanted me to contact the current or last supervisor before me, and the person had worked for me for more than 5 years. I did reference checks when I originally hired them. HR doubled down, until I pointed out that the most valuable check would be done with me, by me, in a mirror. They finally relented and let me just hire the person into the role.

    Alison is right though – unless the org is huge, reference checks aren’t common for internal transfers.

    1. Dawn*

      That’s amazing. When HR are good, they’re good, but when they’re not, they’re horrid.

      When I was laid off from my last job, they offered me almost nothing more than what they were legally-mandated to in severance (I live somewhere that that’s a thing,) couldn’t tell me when asked what my legal entitlement actually was, and were utterly shocked when I declined their “generous offer” of nothing.

      This same person was promoted to our parent company, while I was the one laid off. Go figure. Some folks don’t have the sense they’re born with; of course I’m not taking your offer and signing your very restrictive release if you aren’t offering me anything substantial for doing so.

    2. Observer*

      until I pointed out that the most valuable check would be done with me, by me, in a mirror.

      LOL!

      @Dawn is right. Good HR is wonderful. When they aren’t? Oy vey!

  57. Ginger Cat Lady*

    OP1 – it’s never a good idea to respond to direction from your bosses with “too damn bad” so maybe consider your attitude as something to work on while letting someone else pick up tickets.

    1. Phantom*

      OP1 here. My attitude is that way because we’re being “called to the carpet” for letting a ticket sit for 24+ hours while being told at the same time that we’re to leave tickets out for this individual to pick up. This individual is our escalation point and gets paid at least as much as I do while putting in very little of the work (I have 8 years tenure, this guy has 3). I can see your point as to why my attitude might seem like it’s off, but I assure you, it’s not because of petty things.

      1. Ginger Cat Lady*

        Still need to fix it, and that’s your issue. Still not okay, even if you feel justified.

      2. anon who can't pick a handle*

        It might help to reframe your thinking here. I totally get your frustration. Did you “get called out” in the meeting in a way that was aggressive? I don’t think a group meeting would be the best way to make it clear to Slacker that he is the problem, but I could sort of see a convoluted way of thinking the awkwardness would underscore the problem for Slacker if 1-1s haven’t been getting it across. That doesn’t take into account how the awkwardness for YOU and your responsible coworker is a morale killer.

        More importantly, I think you need to internalize the fact that this process is intended to fix the problem with Slacker. He Has Been getting away with the slacking and you were frustrated before this process started. And you were already filling some time with a non-work thing and you interpret this slow down directive as more reason to do the non-work thing (it’s not), so you’re primed to be irritated about that too. But I think that’s keeping you from seeing whatever process is going on as a sucky part of the the solution instead of more of the same problem. This is so the sucky problem only continues for a short time instead of indefinitely. You also can’t be entirely sure that the manager isn’t coming down on the youtube thing as well as they did on your school work. Absent any really horrible language or tone in the meeting you mention, I agree that you’re taking this more personally than you need to. Get out of your own way.

        I also agree with other commenters that you a) may need to look for a new job that’s a better fit, b) need to communicate politely even when you are frustrated, c) still need to follow the directions you’re been given, d) your management sucks

      3. Cmdrshprd*

        “OP1 here. My attitude is that way because we’re being “called to the carpet” for letting a ticket sit for 24+ hours while being told at the same time that we’re to leave tickets out for this individual to pick up.”

        I really think you are taking being brought into the meeting really personally. I don’t think they were really trying to call you out, but maybe trying to call out slacker without directly trying to call out slacker and make it seem like they are targeting them.

        I strongly suspect they are trying to build a case to let them go, and are trying to cover their bases so instead of just calling in slacker they call everyone in. That way when slacker is fired for missing the ticket that fell through the cracks, they can say “Ticket 123 was missed and not picked up by everyone, we investigated and talked to everyone on the team and workers A & B were occupied with other tickets, but worker C (slacker) was not. ”
        or wanting to build a strong case if it happens again.

  58. Parenthesis Guy*

    LW #1: I’ve been in the same spot where I’ve been told that instead of answering questions right away that I needed to wait until the process got to me. This would mean that a question that could be answered in five minutes waited for two days especially when a question that should have been assigned to me was assigned to someone else who wasn’t able to answer the question. Frustrating, but such is life. I think I would try the following.

    The first is to try and find assignments that aren’t related to tickets that you can do. If they don’t think you’re doing enough work as is with your tickets, maybe you can work on a different project or find a training you can do. If this doesn’t happen, then you need to slow down anyway to make sure that you’re using all of your time covering tickets.

    You also want to have a conversation with management about how you feel they’re not satisfied with your performance. I’m a bit hesitant to suggest this though. It sounds like they think you’re being emotional as is, and I’m not sure that saying you feel attacked by the current process is going to help with that.

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

    #1 did you and I used to work together because I was in a similar situation to your coworker once and it really hurt. In my case I was not yet fully trained on all the product lines so I could only do the tickets that came for what I was trained on, and I had a later shift so the others would always complete email tickets before I was even clocked in. These 2 were notorious for taking work away from others, working on 2 accounts at the same time (which was not allowed in our job) and had to be told by team leads and our manager to allow others to work. I honestly don’t see why you think it is favoritism to allow your coworker to work their fair share. Look at it this way, your boss is trying to allow you to not burn your self out and allow another teammate to take on work.

    1. Phantom*

      I feel your pain on that one. Sadly, that’s not the situation here. Person in question (#3) is our escalation point. He’s not overloaded with tickets (none of us are at the moment). He’s been on this service desk for at least 3 years. So, he’s had plenty of time to figure out how things work here. My favoritism issue is that I feel called out for not taking tickets on time when I’ve been specifically asked not to take said tickets. Person #3 is being allowed to chat up random people in the office rather than clocking in on time, take extra-long lunches, watch YouTube for hours… it all screams of the same situation we had with the person hired before him, who would vape at his desk while watching YouTube all day.

      If it were a situation where he was in training or had something he was dealing with that made it difficult to pick up tickets, I would understand, but that’s not the case here.

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

        Oh I am sorry that you are getting called out for not taking tickets. Is the same person who asked you to take less the same one who called you out. If this happens again can you ask them how they would like you to proceed. Like if the ticket is not taken by the other staff members within X hours then its up to you?

        I don’t know what system you use but is there a way for tickets to be assigned automatically in a round robin type of way. Otherwise maybe your supervisor should be assigning tickets.

  60. Crencestre*

    OP2: One point stands out immediately to me: these meetings’ questions focus SOLELY on work and the workplace – just as they should! No demands or expectations that the participants bare their souls by writing heart-wrenching poetry, reveal past or present traumas, use publicly-posted sticker charts to rate their daily moods, celebrate religious holidays that weren’t part of their own spiritual traditions, reveal their dietary habits or personal finances and have both revised and overseen by management, or any one of the innumerable, outrageous intrusions into employees’ private lives with which readers of AAM are all too familiar.

    The questions described in that letter were workplace-appropriate, the participation voluntary, and the participants evidently found the meetings helpful. Sounds like the kind of initiative that most managers would be delighted to see their subordinates take!

  61. another academic librarian*

    Letter #1
    Yes, this sounds like his excuse is that he “would” be doing more work but his co-workers are grabbing them before he has the chance.
    AND if I was the manager, this would be when I would be ‘micro-managing’ and assigning tickets with an expectations of x number completed per day or a log of work.

    1. Phantom*

      We had that exact thing for exactly a week. Our manager assigned all the tickets (about 60 in a week, all total) as she willed, then just stopped doing it… I honestly wish she’d go back to doing that because it would bring out why things get ignored the way they do.

  62. Knope Knope Knope*

    LW #4 – I hear Alison’s point about skewing the data, but when it comes to social media velocity is a thing. If a lot of people engage with a piece of content shortly after it’s posted, many algorithms will reward that with greater reach and a more opportunity to reach a wider audience. I am guessing you know this based on your field, but I bring it up because it’s possible an important piece of content is getting posted and your friend is just spamming a bunch of people to start liking it so it gets launched into the algorithm and not even paying attention to who is doing what. I would say just stop engaging with her posts for a little. If she notices, she may start liking the next posts you send because she’ll want to give you a reason to reciprocate. If she doesn’t notice and continues to ignore your posts, just feel free to keep ignoring hers and assume she’s playing a numbers game. If she asks you why you didn’t respond (unlikely), just say you were busy and meant to circle back to it later and forgot…. then keep sending your stuff and do the same to her!

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

      I’m wondering, is the other person even asking or expecting a reaction from the OP or are the just sharing it because they think they might be interested. Or maybe the OP gave the other person the idea that they would like to see these posts.

  63. Yoli*

    #2: As someone who’s trained lots of new teachers, we have a term for this: accountabilibuddy. The structure is not mandatory, but it’s recommended so folks have someone in a similar situation to check in with about credentialing requirements, learning how to teach, and (for many) getting acclimated to the area since we’re in a part of the country with a lot of transplants. I’ve also personally used a version of this structure, (albeit less formal) to get support and make connections when:
    – there was only one other Black woman on the team
    – I was the only bilingual teacher in my grade
    – I was a new admin

  64. BikeWalkBarb*

    On LW5, I have to disagree with Alison’s advice. As a hiring manager I’d never skip reference checks on an internal candidate.

    For starters I’m in a very large agency so I actually *won’t* necessarily know them, or I may not have direct experience of their work knowledge, skills and abilities and what they’re like as a day-to-day colleague.

    Any external references will also give me perspective their colleagues simply won’t have.

    Most importantly, to run an equitable hiring process I need to apply the same process for every candidate. If I bypass reference checks on internal candidates I haven’t done that. They’re getting the insider deal and that doesn’t automatically mean I’m hiring the best person for the position. I’m committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion on our team and in the processes that have built our team, and bypassing reference checks for some candidates perpetuates the old boys’ system.

    If you’re thinking that you want that internal leg up, I figure if you’re really awesome at what you do that will show up in the reference checks. If you’re not, I hope my colleagues will be as honest as they can within the bounds of what our HR lets us do on reference checks. Not saying much can speak volumes.

  65. BlueWolf*

    LW1: We have a shared distribution list for “tickets” (we don’t really have a formal ticket system like for IT though, it’s just email requests) and it does kind of cause the same issue where it’s never going to be evenly distributed because there’s almost 30 people in the list and certain people are always quickest to jump in. They talked about going to an assigned ticket system or scheduling system where certain people are assigned certain days (responding to this D-List is not our primary job function), but they still haven’t implemented it. Is there a reason your team doesn’t just have a ticketing assignment system or a rotation or something?

    1. Phantom*

      They have the potential for implementing a system, but have not because it is agnostic as to whether people are on vacation, out for a doctor’s visit, etc. It’ll route the tickets evenly, even when members are unavailable. So, management has decided not to implement it at this time.

  66. Spicy Tuna*

    #3, if you’re in sales, it’s probably critical to cover your gray. If you work in another industry, it may be helpful, but it’s going to depend on the field and the company (and even the hiring manager).

    Separately, I work in finance. I have very curly blonde hair. I just got tired of it and I died it dark brown and started blowing it out. I got a big promotion not long after. I was doing the same work I always do, the only change was my hair. YMMV

    1. learnedthehardway*

      Agreed – unfortunately. I started dyeing my hair when I was in my early 30s, because my industry can have a real image focus, and I was going white quite early.

      It’s ridiculous that men can have silver hair and be considered “experienced/distinguished” in my industry, and yet women invariably have to dye their hair to not look “old”.

      That said, I’m not going to die (dye – pun intended) on this hill to try to change things – I have to make a living. Me trying to set a trend here isn’t going to affect anyone but me. So my hair stays dyed.

    2. Zee*

      Ugh at the curly hair thing. I have curly hair that I refuse to straighten, but I do usually put it up in a bun for interviews and meetings with VIPs. My sister recently quit her job to be a SAHM and was like “yay! now I don’t have to straighten my hair anymore!”

      1. Spicy Tuna*

        Yep, I’m 50 and I’ve given up trying to force people to take curly hair seriously.

  67. learnedthehardway*

    OP#5 – they may not do formal references for internal hires, but you can bet that there are informal references done. For one thing, your manager has to be informed that you are being offered a role, so they’re going to get that person’s perspective.

    I do recruitment work for a company, and a good proportion of candidates are internal, as the company has a strong focus on promoting from within. Part of my interview process it to make certain the internal candidate has informed their manager that they are considering a move in the company, because the hiring manager WILL reach out to their current manager to get perspective on them, once I submit the candidate.

    While you can argue that this violates privacy, the reality is that there is nothing I can do to prevent this, so the policy is that candidates have to inform their managers before they can be considered for internal jobs. This gives the candidate a chance to discuss the situation with their manager or to tell me if they think their manager might be biased against them and to offer other internal references. It also means the current manager has some time to come to terms with the fact that their direct report is moving on.

    1. zolk*

      LW5 here – we do actually do references for internal hires normally! There is a standard/formal process (I’ve been a reference before for someone else). So this is a departure that happened twice and that’s what was weird about it for me.

  68. learnedthehardway*

    OP#1 – I suspect that you have been told to divvy the work up and leave 1/3 of it to do by your co-worker, so that it can become very clear that your coworker is not pulling their weight.

    Right now, you and your other hardworking colleague are ensuring that all the work gets done, and your manager – who is probably trying very hard to get your slacker colleague to either do their job or get them fired – is unable to make the point that slacker colleague is not doing their job, because the work is getting done.

    You need to let slacker colleague fail. Your manager needs to be able to go to her manager and say, “Listen, it’s not fair that my two hard-working reports are doing all the work. They’re going to burn out. I’ve told them to do their fair share and let slacker colleague do his share. He’s not doing it. I’m not going to overwork 2/3 of the team because 1/3 is on YouTube all day. I want to fire him.”

  69. BellyButton*

    Leadership/People Development here… #2, study after study has shown that the most effective development is not mentoring, it is peer to peer coaching. What they are doing is on a smaller scale to what I do company wide. I have people in peer to peer cohorts, I guide them with a topic, possibly a tedtalk, or a podcast episode. I am there only to help keep the conversation going with prompts of — what does this look like in real life, have you experienced that before- what was the outcome, what are you struggling this week. I don’t answer or mentor, I let them talk it out.

    I strongly encourage people do this, even if they don’t have someone guiding them and putting it together.

    I would encourage to look at why it bothers you.

    2. Peanut Hamper*

      I have mentored new people at my company, but that’s just for getting them up to speed. I’ve seen a lot more growth when they get to the point where we see each other as peers and can share (and commiserate as needed) and that is what keeps us all going.

      You make an excellent point.

  70. Pancake*

    #5 – I applied for a transfer/promotion a few years back to a new team – not even a different department – and I had to supply FIVE references. They use one of those automated reference systems that sends and email to your references and then harasses them until they complete the form. Its not even a huge company, we have about 1300 employees and our department has less than 40. I had worked there 5 years so it wasn’t like the hiring committee didn’t know me. I know this was an HR requirement and I’d be willing to bet the hiring manager hardly looked at the results. I was trying to keep things a little quiet and didn’t want to use my direct superiors since our culture is weird about things like that and I worried they would act like I betrayed them by seeking a new role (even though that is the only way to get a promotion or raise in this company) so most of my references were a bit stale or irrelevant. One of them couldn’t be reached (she was on a 4 weeks backpacking tour!) and HR made me dig up a SIXTH reference. It was very annoying. But I got the job.

  71. H.Regalis*

    LW1, from what you wrote, it sounds like they’re asking you NOT to pick up your coworker’s slack. I’ve read your letter multiple times and I don’t see any interpretation other than that. I don’t see where you’re getting favoritism from. It really sounds like your manager is trying to catch coworker #3 out and prove that they’re not doing any work, and if you keep grabbing all of the tickets, you’re hamstringing that.

  72. all the bagels*

    “When I brought this up to management and HR, they said that I’m not privy to everything going on in the background, plus my current manager has only been in her position for the past three months and she hasn’t had adequate time to address all the problems.”

    I mean, I feel like LW 1’s management and HR kind of answered their question? They’re not privy to everything going on in the background, the manager is new, *probably* what is happening is that the powers that be are gathering hard evidence of slacking so they can establish a paper trail for a PIP or actual firing. None of which a good manager or HR would actually share with anyone outside management or HR because duh.

    Unless LW 1 is concerned about blowback from them not picking up extra tickets (like it’s tied to bonuses or performance reviews or whatever), then I kind of don’t see what the problem is. And if they are concerned about the former, then that’s a separate conversation to have, without necessarily dragging in your lazy coworker.

  73. Moira Alexis Rose*

    For OP from #1: I am guessing that management is very well aware of the issue with the slacker, and are closely monitoring his performance, and asking you to leave those tickets for him is a way to get around his excuses about there not being enough work available or something like that. They’re making sure there’s work available for him to do so they can monitor and call it out when it doesn’t get done. Either way, there is no reason (unless there’s more context you haven’t shared) to say no to doing LESS work! They’re taking work off your plate, not putting it on. This is a great opportunity to let someone else fail, if they choose to do so.

  74. creative username*

    While I agree that LW2 shouldn’t say anything about the two coworkers and their meeting, I was also surprised that so many people seemed to consider 60 to 90 minutes per week spent like this to be no big deal.

    Is that a culture thing, maybe? I work in a fairly intense environment – high workload, frequently on deadline, as part of middle management. And I could *maybe* see my boss being okay with this two of us having such a meeting if it was a weekly 15 minute check-in, 30 minutes max. But beyond that, the expectation would be that we are professionals and able to hold ourselves accountable without help from coworkers, because that’s what we get paid for.

    Could some of you for whom the extent of the meeting described by LW2 seems appropriate maybe give a rough idea of what sector you work in? I’m really wondering if my perspective is skewed.

    1. Observer*

      I was also surprised that so many people seemed to consider 60 to 90 minutes per week spent like this to be no big deal.

      It’s a big deal if they are not getting their work done. But the LW’s letter indicates that they *are* in fact getting their work done. And are even “plotting” to push work forward! Because if there were any actual performance issue, I would expect to hear about that, rather than vague accusations of “manipulation” and “feeling” that it’s devious, and that other staff might feel bad if they knew about it.

      1. Rain*

        You don’t have to agree with the op, but it’s not particularly nice to make fun of them for having written in with what is, to them, a legitimate concern.

        1. Observer**

          I’m not making fun of them. I’m pointing out that what they see as a legitimate concern is not based in anything close to baseline adequate management.

  75. TeapotNinja*

    LW1: are any of your performance metrics and/or compensation tied to number of tickets you resolve? If so, I’d have a pretty serious conversation with people requesting you do less work and get something in WRITING stating leaving tickets on the table will not negatively impact your metrics / compensation.

    If not, I’d say “thanks, boss!” and enjoy getting paid the same with employer approved slack time.

  76. Unions Are Good, Actually*

    LW #1, you’re actually being asked to STOP picking up your coworker’s slack. You’re not giving him a chance to actually do his job (or fail to do it) as he was hired to do.

  77. TeapotNinja*

    LW4: I’m going to play devil’s advocate.

    Are you sure your company’s social media posts were something other people would like to put their stamp of approval?

    I don’t get asked to promote other people’s work that often, but even then I’ve had people send me the most cringeworthy things I would never publicly endorse even if asked by a friend.

    Additionally my current employer has a very strict policy of not endorsing other businesses to avoid things like reputational risk, accusations of favoritism/bias, etc.

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

      Oh good point! Especially the part about not endorsing other businesses. Even if it is on the other person’s personal social media they may not want to be linked to something. Either they may not find it relevant/ agree with it or it could be done badly that they don’t want to be linked to it . Also, if they are looking for work elsewhere they may not want to alienate other potential employers.

      Another thought is that this person just gets so many requests that they have a blanket rule not to promote anyone.

  78. Raida*

    4. My friend asks me to help them professionally but won’t return the favor

    It doesn’t sound like it’s professionally, it sounds like they… just aren’t the kind of friend you need. You are helpful, they request help, they accept help, expect help. They are not helpful, you request help and you expect it and you don’t get it.

    That’s a fundamental misalignment – they take, you give is fine if both parties agree. You ask for help and they just… don’t? Well it sounds like it’s time to put in the effort to try new hobbies and find new friends so you don’t notice this crappy one when they are doing stuff online.

  79. Semi-retired admin*

    Re: Letter 2, would this even be an issue if it were two managers instead of two executive assistants? (Haven’t read all the comments so I don’t know if that’s been addressed here already). It just feels a little off that the immediate thought was to go to conniving, manipulating, and gossiping when in all likelihood the two assistants in question are women.

  80. BikeWalkBarb*

    LW #2, if you have questions about that use of time you’re their manager and you can ask them about it without being creepy or suspicious because you should be having 1/1 meetings with them on a regular basis. “I notice you and Juanita have a weekly accountability meeting on your calendars. That sounds really interesting. Can you tell me what you gain from that? Is it something the other assistants would also benefit from if they paired up in a similar way?” After those responses, you may hear or may need to ask, “And is there anything I’m not doing as your manager that you’d like me to change?” (and *mean it* in terms of being open to feedback). If you heard they were troubleshooting something you should have dealt with, say that. “Sounds like that impossible deadline from XYZ was really hard to deal with and you got each other through it. If you get that kind of crunch request again you can come to me and I’ll have your back on establishing a more realistic time frame.”

    Accountability peer to peer is a very different space than with their manager, to whom they likely wouldn’t want to say “This part of my job sucks! Help me push through it.” Don’t assume it’s nefarious. Find out what value it has and whether it’s a model to be praised and extended to others.

    If you think 90 minutes is long (and it sounds long to me, but the body doubling others mentioned could be part of the answer), you’ve let them know that you noticed the time block on their calendar. If you have a concern about them not being available for that long because they need to be responsive in real time (although you didn’t mention this as an issue), you could ask how they manage requests for quick turnaround items that come in during that time block.

    You want daylight, not a laser gun, and definitely not a laser gun primed and loaded for you by someone else.

  81. Mama J*

    Regarding gray hair. When I was in my late thirties/early forties and trying to obtain senior level roles, I allowed some of my gray to show since we are all still judged subconsciously and my dark hair made me look very young.

  82. K8T*

    Re: Gray Hair – I think what may actually be the issue is the fact that you’re letting your roots “go”. I’m a woman in Sales and work with a mix of people who definitely dye their hair later in life and people who are completely gray/silver but they’re fully one or the other.

    Having a lot of root growth is usually seen as being unkempt. Fair? Probably not. So for now, coloring your roots back to your older natural color to match is probably the easiest and most cost-effective at this point (a full silver card can easily be over $1K depending on how much needs to be done). The drugstore sprays and kits can do a good job.

  83. Apple maker*

    LW #1: I work in IT. We have a guy on our team that takes a majority of the tickets, despite being asked not to. It’s difficult for new people to get up to speed because this guy takes all the simple tickets and the remaining tickets are way above the new people’s level. The result is that the new people don’t learn as quickly because they don’t have anything to do.

    Might be a totally different situation, but this is my experience.

  84. McS*

    LW1 – they are probably trying to fire your lazy coworker and need clear evidence of his inadequate work product.

  85. Anonymous For Now*

    A lot of people seem to be taking that agenda at face value. While I doubt they are planning a palace coup, I do think these 2 employees may have connived their way into being able to chit chat for an hour and a half every week while everyone else is working.

    It sounds like Happy Hour minus the alcohol.

Comments are closed.