group member won’t stop talking, snack bar is in a coworker’s work area, and more

by Alison Green on October 8, 2024

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

1. Writing group member won’t stop talking and we can’t get any work done

I work at an academic institution, and am a member of a writing group that includes people across different departments. We meet every few weeks to write as a way of carving out time for this work, and to hold each other accountable. We usually talk a bit right at the beginning of each session, take a break in the middle, and then chat briefly before leaving.

One member, however, loves to monologue, mostly about their own work, which is in a fairly arcane field, and which the rest of us do not fully understand. This member will often come in late, when the rest of us have started working, and start talking. This is fine, but they will not. Stop. Talking. They talk at everyone else, with little in the way of response, often for 30-45 minutes at a time. Aside from it being extremely draining having to be at the receiving end of this, my time is limited, and I really look forward to being able to write during these sessions, not listen to the nuances of the other person’s work. Any time they reach what I think is the end of what they want to say, I try to turn back to my writing or say, “Okay, time to write now,” but they continue talking. This person has a strong personality, which is why I think other members have neglected to try to stop them as well. It has gotten to the point where, as much as I enjoy the group otherwise, I would rather plan some time to work myself then lose so much to this rambling.

The members would all like to meet again in a few weeks, and I am struggling with how to say that I am happy to meet again, but I really need to buckle down and work. Such a statement would clearly be directed at one person, and I don’t want to start any drama. Beyond that, this person and I had a minor argument over an unrelated manner the last time we met, and I don’t want them to think I am trying to isolate them because of that instance. I don’t have any problem with this person otherwise, I just want my writing group to function as a writing group!

In the discussion about setting up the next meeting, why not say, “I’d love to set up the next meeting, but I really need quiet time to write. We’ve had lots of talking at the last meetings, which makes it tough for me to focus. If some of the group wants to talk and some wants quiet writing time, could we split into two groups so everyone gets what they need from the time?”

And then if the monologuer shows up for the “quiet” group session, you’ll be on solid ground saying, “Like we talked about, I really need quiet writing time. Can we save conversation for the end?”

2. Boss gave me mixed feedback on a task, then framed an interview question for a new hire around that exact task

I have been struggling lately with how my manager, Carrie, communicates with me, and I’m trying to figure out if this is something I should swallow or if it’s worth raising with her, and if so, how best to do that.

A few weeks ago, Carrie asked if I would join her at a meeting with two senior leaders she reports to, to provide an update on a project I’ve been working on but that she is officially responsible for. Later, Carrie decided the meeting agenda was too packed for me to join, so she asked me to prepare two PowerPoint slides to share with them instead.

The project has been to track progress on a high-level organization-wide plan and to document the status of 40 recommendations across four work areas. This is not information that can be meaningfully condensed into two slides. Wondering if she had something specific in mind for how she wanted me to present it, I asked for more guidance on what she wanted me to share. She said, “Just a recap on how things are going – what’s stalled, what’s moving, what hasn’t started, etc.”

I made the call to present the information in five slides – an overall summary, and one each for the four work areas and the recommendations for each. I shared the slides with Carrie and she said over instant message, “Although you went waaaayyyy over 1 to 2 slides, I understand why you did based on the info you provided! Thanks for this — it looks great and I like how you’ve provided the context for each work area diplomatically.”

If Carrie liked what I did and understood why I chose the approach I did, even if it wasn’t within the parameters she initially set out, why belabor the point? It felt unnecessarily petty, and a poor way to give feedback – especially in a written format where any lighthearted tone she may have intended was completely lost.

Then, later in the week, she asked me to review and comment on a draft of interview questions for a new hire for our team. When I reviewed it, I saw one is a scenario-based question framed around exactly the task she asked me to do: “How would you approach creating three slides for a presentation your manager needs to give on a project you’ve been working on but they provided minimal guidance on the content they want?” The qualities the question is intended to explore are “initiative and ability to work with minimal direction, while ensuring the content aligns with project goals. Look for creativity, organization, and proactive communication with their manager.”

Asking this question feels like a dig at me, somehow, given the feedback she gave me on how I handled this exact task. At minimum, she seems wildly unaware of how asking this question in an interview I am participating in would make me feel. How should I handle this? Is it worth talking to her about it? Or should I just let it go?

I think you’re reading too much into it. First, Carrie’s feedback doesn’t sound that mixed; it sounds positive. She noted you produced more than she asked for but also said she realized why, and she said it was great. That’s positive. If anything, though, she might have appreciated an earlier heads-up when you first decided to do additional slides so that she’d have a chance to say, “That won’t work since I already have too many. Can you condense it into three?” It’s always smart to alert your boss in advance when you don’t think you can do something within the constraints they assigned.

The timing of the interview question is, admittedly, a little weird. But I wouldn’t interpret that so negatively either. For all we know, Carrie appreciated what you did and it spurred her to screen for someone who would similar take initiative to problem-solve — or, sure, maybe the mention of “proactive communication” instead is getting at the point above. But it’s also possible that the question has nothing to do with what just happened (especially if she asks for slides a lot).

If it’s bugging you, you can always ask her: “I saw the interview question on X and wondered it stemmed from how I handled the slides the other day. Is that something you’d want me to do differently in the future?”

But I’d bet it’s no big deal at all.

3. Coworkers’ snack bar is in another coworker’s work area

I’ve got a low-stakes question for you. My coworkers have decided to start bringing in different kinds of snacks for people to snack on throughout the day (on their own dollar, which I really don’t think they should be doing on principle, but hey whatever makes them happy). The snacks have been moved around to a couple of different spots, but eventually the snack bar coworkers moved everything next to the mini-fridge in our area. The problem with that is it’s encroaching into someone else’s desk space! (We’re in an open office space. The mini-fridge is in a corner, and someone’s desk is right next to it. They’ve lined up the containers along the windows behind the fridge, but the windows go into this person’s desk space.)

It’s not my desk space, so I don’t really have the grounds to say something. Do I say something to my coworker whose space is being used? She’s relatively new, so she might not want to rock the boat about this. I just feel like this is extremely rude! There are other places to set up these snacks, why are you choosing one that’s already being used?

(Note: the snacks are all either still in their sealed packaging or are in sealable tupperware-type containers. No one’s said anything about any possible issues of just leaving food out and about for weeks at a time, and I don’t think it’s serious enough to raise to anyone.)

Eh. It’s minor enough that it would be completely fine to leave it alone or to say something. If the coworker whose space is being used weren’t new or were known to be reasonably assertive, I’d stay out of it. But since she’s new, it would be considerate to either (a) say, “Hey, can we move these somewhere where they’re not encroaching on Jane’s desk space?” or (b) ask Jane, “Does it bother you that these are being kept here? I can suggest they move them if it does.”

4. What’s up with the term “grandboss”?

I keep seeing the term “grandboss” on your site, and elsewhere. I have an immediate, nearly physical reaction of disgust to this term. The idea that your boss or your workplace is your family makes my skin crawl, and the idea of my boss’s boss specifically being my “granddaddy” somehow crosses the line even more to the point that it feels really yucky.

I’m confused. Why do you use this term? Why do others use it? I genuinely want to understand, because I can’t even begin to fathom accepting this as a normal thing, it just feels beyond gross and creepy to me.

I love your blog and I nearly always agree with your takes and enjoy your responses, so the use of this term and general acceptance of its use from others really throws me.

It’s just because “boss’s boss” or “boss’s boss’s boss” is unwieldy” and “grandboss” captures the hierarchy quickly in a way that’s easy to intuit.

No one actually thinks of their boss’s boss as a grandparent figure; it’s just easy shorthand. (I would fully agree with your disgust if anyone was actually using “granddaddy,” “grandma,” etc., but no one is using those — they’ve just borrowed “grand.”)

5. Can managers ever really get anonymous feedback?

We are a small team (fewer than 10 employees) at a large hi-tech company. There are plenty of avenues for team leaders and managers to give feedback to their reports, but nothing official in place for employees to give feedback to their higher ups.

My relatively new team leader (a little over a year) wants to institute a way for our team to give him feedback anonymously but doesn’t know how to go about it. When he brought it up at a recent meeting, one of my coworkers pointed out that it wouldn’t be truly anonymous as we are a very small team and it would be easy to figure it out, especially as some issues only apply to one person. Is there a way to ask for and receive truly anonymous feedback from your reports?

If you have a very large team, yes. Although even then, a lot of people will worry the feedback isn’t really anonymous (sometimes it’s really not) and won’t be candid. But on a small team, it’s often very easy to figure out who said what (and even more so if the survey includes any sort of job function or demographics).

It’s better for managers to create an environment where people feel safe giving feedback, even if it’s not anonymous (and which ideally would include cultivating good relationships between the team and the manager’s own boss, so there’s another path for feedback if something is really significant).

Related:
why do managers say they want feedback and then get annoyed when they get it?
how to get your staff to be more honest with you

You may also like:
{ 47 comments }

{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Marshmallow*

    I wouldn’t say no one is using grandma and grandpa in a work setting for describing work relationships. It’s very odd… and I don’t care for it, but there’s a small handful of people where I work that refer to your boss as your mom/dad, your colleagues as brother/sister and so on… usually brother/sister is the most confusing cuz it could be a number of people. The other ones are usually more obvious.

    Anyway, I will admit it is rare but I have run into it… I’m still totally fine with grand boss and great grand boss. I agree it’s utilitarian.

    Reply ↓
    1. Joron Twiner*

      I think that “work mom/dad” and “work wife/husband” are more loaded terms that I understand viscerally rejecting.

      Some cultures use familial terms like brother/sister, aunt/uncle, cousin, and so on more broadly. They’re not as heavy, in my experience.

      I’ve heard “grand” to mean “skip level” in other contexts too. For example in a program where new workers inherit a position one after another, we’d use “predecessor” and “grand-pred” (one friend used “nextie” for the successor). I think the prefix is pretty convenient, and isn’t always limited to family (though I agree companies should not act like families).

      Reply ↓
    2. GammaGirl1908*

      It never occurred to me to be bothered by this just because familial terms come up so often in innocuous cases. Think parent organization, sister cities, fraternity brothers, twin towers.

      I often note that two similar but slightly different things are “cousins, not twins.” My eyebrow lady is always telling me that they are “sisters, not twins” (so I don’t overpluck the second one trying to make it match the first). Et cetera. This to me is just an extension of that.

      Reply ↓
  2. JSPA*

    LW1, would doing a remote option serve the purpose of carving out the time (and as a side benefit , let more people participate who can’t currently participate in person) while also allowing you to mute? I know a lot of people don’t ever want to do remote meetings again, But some of us still find them useful.

    If the chatty person were talking about things unrelated to writing I’d say you should just shut it down!

    But as they’re searching for feedback on something subtle that they’re trying to do with their writing? That’s an extremely normal thing thing that happens in any random writer’s support gathering–even if it’s not what your gathering has traditionally been focused on.

    There are any number of apps and non writer-specific groups that will match you with folks who are trying to carve out time to concentrate on something important to them. It strikes me that if you’re not primarily there for feedback from other writers and discussion about writing, you might even get as much or more support and validation from a set-up that’s not focused specifically on writers???

    Reply ↓
    1. Port*

      I’m not sure why LW needs to change up her routine or group membership or get an app when it’s the talking colleague who is misusing the space.

      Reply ↓
    2. Academic who should be writing*

      Writing groups for academics are generally not focused on support and validation; they are focused on butts in seats to write. (No teaching prep, no email answering, no committee work!) As the LW describes it, in their group, people make small talk about their work around the writing (before and after), but it is generally a fairly unsociable practice. Only the one chatter is trying to talk about their work during the silent writing time. This group is not a venue for feedback or auditioning ideas or working through problems. (Not that academics don’t do those things! But that’s different.) It is a group to do the physical process of writing.

      Reply ↓
    3. KeinName*

      You could propose a schedule from a writing book. The schedule our researchers use is arriving on time, going around to share their goal today which is recorded on a pad, and then writing for 45 min, then a 15 min break, then another 45 min writing.
      I would be very pissed off if one member spent 45 min talking because it completely negates the purpose of the meeting.

      Reply ↓
  3. Nodramalama*

    The visceral response to grandboss is a bit odd to me. It’s just a more convenient term than boss’ boss. For one thing, you don’t have to worry about figuring out the apostrophes. I don’t think anyone who uses grandboss thinks of the boss one level above them as a grandparent.

    Reply ↓
    1. allathian*

      Yeah, I agree. It’s just a convenient way to state the organizational relationship. The LW would probably benefit from investigating why they have such a visceral reaction to a completely innocuous term.

      That said, there are a few nicks for coworkers that I’d be happy to do away with, especially work wife/work husband and office mom. They imply the sort of familial relationships that I’m not comfortable with in a work context.

      Reply ↓
      1. The Prettiest Curse*

        I don’t love the “work wife/husband” terminology too, but somehow I had never thought of the “grand” in “grandboss” being the same as the “grand” in “grandparent”. I thought of it
        as a more formal way of saying “big boss” – even though in most cases, people’s grandbosses aren’t the boss of the entire organisation.

        Reply ↓
    2. Spooky*

      Yeah, it’s visualizing it way too literally. It’s not that deep; no one is using it with that connotation.

      Reply ↓
      1. Ellis Bell*

        Yeah if people were trying to express that connotation, they’d use the whole word instead of just the prefix.

        Reply ↓
      2. Nodramalama*

        Yeah I also think it’s particuarly useful as a descriptor in a forum like this. Like, I do not actually call my grandboss that at work. They’re my director. But if you don’t work at my organisation, you do not know what that is

        Reply ↓
    3. Myrin*

      I think what’s odd is the very strong familial association OP has with the term – although of course that’s where the idea originated, in the sense that your “grand” [something] is one step above your [something] – but a visceral response to certain words/expressions doesn’t seem unusual to me. I have several of those and sometimes I can explain why that is and sometimes it’s just that the term/usage/imagery annoys the heck out of me.

      Reply ↓
      1. Spooky*

        Yeah it’s a metaphor. Your grandfather is literally your grandfather; your grandboss metaphorically org chart/family trees in the same spot in relation to you.

        Reply ↓
      2. Nodramalama*

        Well yes, I’m sure everyone has a weird personal reaction to some phrases or things. But we know it’s irrational and don’t write in asking why people think it’s acceptable to use the word moist.

        Reply ↓
    4. RC*

      I’ve heard/used grandboss, or grandadvisor (your advisor’s advisor) in academia too.

      I’ve also heard boss^2 (and boss^3).

      Reply ↓
  4. postdooc*

    For #1, can you enlist another member of the writing group to help back up your desire for a productive and quiet writing session?

    Reply ↓
    1. KeinName*

      Yes! The group should agree on rules! Here‘s a book that proposes a schedule: Ch. 4 from Silvia, P. J. 2007: How to write a lot. A practical guide to productive academic writing, American Psychological Association.

      Reply ↓
  5. Bambue*

    I think Ask A Manager started using “grandboss” before I regularly started hearing “skip manager” in my workplace for the same concept. At least in tech adjacent in Seattle, people know the skip terminology and don’t know the grad versions.

    Reply ↓
    1. SALC*

      Yeah I’ve always heard ‘skip level’ coming from a tech company in Seattle

      I still knew immediately what was meant by grandboss but I would feel weird actually referring to somebody that way heh

      Reply ↓
    2. TechWorker*

      Yea I definitely wouldn’t use the term ‘grandboss’ at work but tbh we don’t use the term ‘boss’ either! We do use for eg ‘2nd line manager’, which I suppose would extend to ‘3rd line’ etc though for that you’re more likely to start using job titles (director, VP, or whatever it is…)

      Reply ↓
    3. SkipToMyLou*

      Is that what skip boss means? I’ve never heard it before except every so often in the comments here. I thought it was a particular position, not grand boss (which has been in common use here in Boston for at least 30 years).

      Reply ↓
  6. EA*

    On #2, I don’t think your boss was being petty. I remember struggling with condensing info that I felt was really important and feeling miffed when my then-boss cut info from presentations, but this is a know your audience issue – the fact is that the senior leaders don’t need a full rundown of all four areas. They just needed one slide flagging any major issues. This is definitely something it took me some time to learn, though, so I understand how you feel.

    Reply ↓
    1. Nodramalama*

      I agree. It’s not clear to me that boss was actually unhappy, but if they were i don’t think it’s a petty critique at all. I’ve been asked to summarise some of my work for exec in two lines. It doesn’t matter that I might feel like two likes isn’t enough to demonstrate the complexities of the issue. It needs to be a digestible snapshot, so two lines it is.

      Reply ↓
    2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      I have to do a lot of powerpoint-type things and I agree it’s really important to be able to condense info. From the letter I would have done it in 2 slides like this; slide 1 overall starus, highlights, issues, eetc.- slide 2 table showing status of the actions by area and overall red/amber/green status if used: Area 1 10 actions completed, 1 in progress, 2 pending etc.

      I think what does come off as petty and passive-aggressive is conspicuously inserting this into an interview rubric for OP to read rather than, you know, having a conversation about it. It is a pretty common phenomenon though that recent or notable events loom large in the mind of interviewers who then just focus on that.

      Reply ↓
      1. Ellis Bell*

        I think it’s your last sentence, rather than a passive aggressive dig. The boss liked the work done, and wondered if someone else would take the same approach.

        Reply ↓
        1. Allonge*

          Yes – interviews are high-enough stakes that any otherwise reasonable manager will not want to mess with one just to mess with an employee.

          And the question (if the person would regularly need to create presentations) is a good one – it covers a lot of things like seeking advice elsewhere, preferences on the detail of instructions and so on.

          Reply ↓
    3. niknik*

      Also a really good skill to have, reducing complex data into something short and intuitive. I might be in the middle of it all, where all the details matter, but not so much for management, stakeholders, etc.

      Reply ↓
  7. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP3 (snack bar) – I think the issue here will turn out to be not the use of space as such, but the fact that the snack bar will become a bit of a congregation and social point and the desk neighbour will be disturbed many times a day by people going “ooooo, who brought these in? nice”, “how many calories do you think this has in??” etc etc. This happened to me when my desk was next to the spot where people would bring in stuff (food, books they were giving away, etc).

    Reply ↓
    1. Nodramalama*

      Surely the solution as Alison is suggested is to ask Jane if she’s bothered though? I know plenty of people who aren’t bothered by/like people socially dropping by to chat as they get snacks, especially if they’re new and trying to get to know their coworkers

      Reply ↓
      1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

        Maybe, but as OP suggested, she’s new and “may not want to rock the boat”. Often when asking someone variations of “is this ok” the person does feel like they are expected to give the ‘right’ answer rather than the true one. Especially as she’s new it may be quite difficult to say, in effect, “this established social club is bothering me and needs to move”.

        Reply ↓
        1. Nodramalama*

          Or she’s new and doesn’t care, slash actually enjoys having people stop by. I don’t see any reason to proceed on an assumption that Jane is unhappy based on what our personal preferences might be. Imo it’s ok to treat her as an adult and ask her, rather than assume that she must be bothered even if she tells you she’s not.

          Reply ↓
        2. Emmy Noether*

          Agreed. I can see myself getting into a situation where I’m new, so I reflexively say it’s ok because I want to be perceived as easygoing. And then it starts to be a problem over time but it’s awkward to go back on that.

          But it may also genuinely not bother her – the two aren’t that easy to distinguish (unless you’ve already noticed that she speaks up easily and frequently when things bother her – then it’s all good).

          It can also come across as overstepping to speak up on her behalf. I think I would leave it alone for now, but keep an eye on how she deals with it. For example, does she enthousiastically get involved in conversations? Or does she roll her chair to the far side of the desk while frantically searching for her headphones?

          Reply ↓
  9. Luna*

    I think I’d just be honest with the chatter box that the constant monologuing is distracting to the group and takes the focus off the writing.

    Reply ↓
  10. Maths and bosses*

    In France, we use N+1 to refer to our direct boss, N+2 for boss’ boss, N+3 for boss’ boss’ boss… and we can go as many levels as needed, which I find really convenient!

    Reply ↓
  11. Beth**

    Welcome back Alison!

    My husband has been using the phrase “uber boss” since long before the ride hailing app stole the term. He uses “uber uber boss” for his boss’s boss’s boss. Everyone always seems to understand what he means by the term, so I’m throwing it out there as an alternative to grandboss for anyone who needs one.

    Reply ↓
  12. Beth**

    Re #5, we have a theoretically anonymous 360 feedback process (normally administered by an external company) but I can usually tell which of my (3-8 person) team wrote which comment based on our previous interactions, my knowledge of their writing style etc.

    Reply ↓
  13. WritingGroups*

    OP1, are you sure the talker understands that your writing group is actually a place to write? Every writer group I’ve ever been part of or heard others talk about was actually a group where folks could either get advice about their writing (which in an academic setting would mean their research) or get it critiqued. I wouldn’t think it out of line to talk about my esoteric research should I have any, and I have sat through some weird discussions driven by other people’s passion. Monopolizing the time would likely still be a social miscue, but one I can definitely see a socially inept person making if no one else were “taking advantage” of the time.

    I’m not saying this is what’s happening, but it seems very possible to me. In my younger, more academic days I might have done this and been oblivious to some of the missed social cues.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS