politely avoiding sitting by a loud coworker, colleague asked me to lead a project and then went silent, and more

by Alison Green on January 14, 2025

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

1. Is there a polite way to avoid sitting by a loud coworker?

I’ve recently transferred to a new team at work and so far am really enjoying it. The only real snag is that I have trouble sitting nearby one of my teammates, Chris. To be clear, I really like him as a coworker, I don’t have a bad thing to say about the guy! But he has some minor quirks that, without armchair diagnosing, are what you’d generally expect of someone on the spectrum; he rocks in his chair pretty constantly, talks to himself under his breath and makes little humming noises, and taps or scratches at his desk when he’s not typing. It’s pretty subdued and I’d say nondisruptive, except that I am (also) on the spectrum and his particular stimming habits drive me up the wall, and he keeps sitting right next to me when he comes in. (Not because of me specifically, we just have limited seating and both arrive later than most of our team, so we tend to be taking the last two empty seats in our section.)

I’m not sure if there’s a way to deal with this beyond gritting my teeth and putting in headphones, or if there’s a polite way to switch desks when someone else leaves for the afternoon without it seeming like I’m snubbing the guy. I don’t want it to come across like that, our work habits are just incompatible and I can’t really focus when I’m near him.

Try just naming it matter-of-factly and without judgment! For example: “You tend to talk to yourself while you work and I am weirdly sensitive to sound (or “incredibly easily distracted” or whatever you’re comfortable saying) so I’m going to move to that desk over there. It’s not personal, carry on!”

If you say it warmly — and especially if you make a point of being warm to him in other ways/in other situations — it should be fine!

2. HR said we couldn’t consider candidate’s reluctance to meet our in-office requirement

I have decades of experience in state and local government at a high level and have participated in dozens of recruitment and hiring efforts, but something that happened today has baffled me. I’m serving on a hiring committee for a large national professional association. One step in the process is an interview done by a consultant, who then briefs the search committee.

One candidate told the consultant that they retired after a 20+ year career due to a child’s high level, demanding sports commitments and the desire to participate in those events. They also inquired closely about requirements around in-office work and possible hybrid schedules, even though the job ad clearly stated that in-office work and residence in a particular city was required.

Here’s the part that threw me: the HR staffer organizing the search instructed the committee that we were to disregard this information, and should only consider objective qualifications for the position, and that it is never appropriate to consider any personal information offered by a candidate. I would love your take on this viewpoint, as most of us on the committee were surprised at this statement. When we pushed back, we were told that if outside activities interfere with job performance, it can be dealt with at that point. Sure seems crazy to me to ignore relevant data during the interview process, only to perhaps invite problems down the road!

Yeah, that’s ridiculous, and it’s a particularly classic brand of incompetence that you sometimes see with bad HR people, where they have (correctly) absorbed that there are some bits of personal info that shouldn’t be considered in hiring but then utterly fail to apply any nuance or distinguish between what’s legally allowable to be considered (and is relevant) and what isn’t.

It’s true that you shouldn’t consider irrelevant personal information, like if the candidate mentioned church membership or their love of The X-Files. It is categorically not true that you shouldn’t consider someone heavily implying that they might not want to work the schedule required by the job. It would be far more defensible if the HR person had said, “Let’s not try to guess at what they meant and instead let’s restate the in-office requirements for the job and ask them outright if they can comply with those” … but to say you shouldn’t engage with it at all and just deal with it after they’re hired if it becomes a problem rather than clarifying it earlier? Ludicrous.

3. Senior coworker wanted me to lead a project and then went silent

I recently had a senior llama groomer, Betty, reach out, tell me she’s been very pleased with my work, and ask if I’d like to take swing at leading a small group of junior groomers in an upcoming project. (These are fake job titles for anonymity, obviously.) After some hesitation, and probably being very awkward about the praise (I blame my puritan roots) I said yes! Most of the hesitation was based on the fact that my background is in llama herding, so I wasn’t sure if leading groomers was a great fit. But Betty assured me that it would work out, and that she’d be supporting me through it.

So, we continue along with some preliminary proposal work, and end up getting awarded the full llama grooming contract. At this point, Betty went into radio silence. Eventually I messaged to check in on the status of the project, and she suggested that maybe I could help out with restocking the grooming supply cabinet. No mention of leading anything or contributing substantively. Ever since, I’ve been reading her messages as being pretty short/cold, but I might be projecting.

So what happened?! I figure one of the following: (1) Betty just kind of forgot. (2) Betty realized that a herder just doesn’t have the technical expertise to successfully lead a group of groomers, and felt too awkward to directly address the leadership offer. Or (3) I’ve done something wrong, and now Betty is unhappy with me but won’t address the problem for whatever reason. For what it’s worth, I tend to agree with the thought process in (2).

So what might I have done wrong, and what do I do now? Because of the skills mismatch, I’m relieved to be off the hook with this role. But I’d love to work with Betty again, if a better fit came along. Any scripts I could use to address it? Or should I just pretend it never happened and hope for a future opportunity for collaboration? I feel like it’s this huge elephant in the room, but maybe Betty hasn’t given it another thought!

It’s possible that you did something wrong that I don’t know about — like you messed up a high-stakes project for Betty and so she rethought the initial offer, or who knows what — but assuming nothing like that happened, I suspect you’re right that it’s #2.

You could say this to her: “I know we’d talked a bit about my leading the X work and you ended up going in a different direction for that — which makes a lot of sense to me since my background is in herding. But I’d love to work with you again if something that’s a better fit comes along.”

That way, if she is feeling awkward about it, you’ll be smoothing it over, and either way you’re being gracious and reiterating your interest in future projects.

4. Do I have to say where I’m going when I quit?

I just got a new job and gave my two weeks. It’s the first time in my career where I’ve found a job while having a job. Our HR person shared with the whole staff what my last day is (that’s typical). When I told my manager, she was super happy for me and then asked where I was headed. I told her I wasn’t currently sharing the place but shared how it’s vaguely related to current work. I have other coworkers who I’m closer with who are also asking me.

I’m feeling uncomfortable sharing with people because I didn’t have a good experience with my current manager. There was a lack of trust and I didn’t think she truly had my best interests in mind. Let me clear, she was a bad manager. For that reason it’s hard to trust that any of my coworkers wouldn’t end up sharing and then it would get back to her somehow. I’m feeling protective of this new job, especially because I didn’t feel supported or fully valued at this current job. Any advice? I want to share with closest colleagues but also don’t want everyone to know right away and I worry about the word getting around.

You don’t need to share where you’re going if you don’t want to. It’s definitely more common than not for people to share it — so it’s not odd or intrusive that people are asking — but it’s perfectly fine to say, “I’m not announcing it publicly yet, but I’ll let you know when I do.” Just don’t be awkwardly coy about it, which will seem strange and raise additional questions in people’s minds; it’s better to just come out and say you’re not ready to share yet.

5. I never heard from the hiring manager after I withdrew from the interview process

I am relatively new to the corporate world. I recently interviewed for a job at a Fortune 50. The job posting was a little vague on some details of the position, but it was worth a shot, so I tossed in a resume and forgot about it.

I was surprised that the first response I had from the company was an invitation to four hours of interviews with the hiring manager and others I’d be working with. I immediately started more research on the position. I discovered the hiring manager had attended my same school, and we had many mutual acquaintances. I asked around about the manager’s reputation. People had uniformly positive feedback. I didn’t ask anyone to recommend or introduce me to the hiring manager as I had already been invited to interview.

I had a pleasant experience interviewing and felt I came across all right. However, I also learned the job was not what I had thought it was. I was overqualified on paper but would be in a position of needing to learn a lot in the job, which sounded politically painful, and I wasn’t interested in trying to move into that area of expertise.

I sent a thank-you note to each interviewee immediately after the interview. Then, a few days later, I sent a note to the HR contact thanking them for a pleasant interview experience and the opportunity to be considered, but saying that new opportunities in my current role had come up that were a better fit for my skills. The HR person responded with a polite note.

I never heard anything back from the hiring manager and feel somehow nervous about that, given how warm he was in the time we spoke. I had emailed HR to withdraw, not him, because as elaborate as the interview was, we had only ever spoken for 30 minutes in our lives, and it was still technically the first interview. I guess I expected a short reply to my thank-you note or a LinkedIn message along the lines of, “I heard you withdrew, sorry it didn’t work out, but nice to meet you!” But maybe he had expected the same from me.

All in all, I felt a bit love-bombed by the whole process and was confused on whether this was the first or the last interview. Did I make a faux pas by not reaching out to the hiring manager instead of or in addition to HR?

Nope, everyone here behaved appropriately! You thanked people after the interview, then let an appropriate person know you were withdrawing. It would have been appropriate to email either HR or the hiring manager; you chose HR, and they responded. That’s the end of it! It’s not surprising that the hiring manager didn’t contact you personally after you withdrew. It wouldn’t have been odd if he had sent you a short note, but it’s not odd that he didn’t. The loop had already been closed, and he likely was busy with other things.

I think you’re feeling strange about it because it felt like the two of you connected when you met, and there hasn’t been any acknowledgement between the two of you that you then dropped out. But this happens all the time, and there doesn’t need to be an additional message between you. However, it would also be fine to email him directly if you want to! You could say you enjoyed talking with him, decided to withdraw because of X, and hope your paths might cross again in the future. But it’s not in his court to make that happen; if you want to do it, you should initiate it from your side!

You may also like:
{ 196 comments }

{ 196 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. nnn*

    Another possible script for #1 is simply “I’m going to go over there where it’s quieter now that some people have left.” That sort of gives more of a connotation of it’s quieter because there are fewer people around, rather than explicitly stating that it’s the one particular co-worker who’s making things loud.

    (Do make sure to keep the matter-of-fact and non-judgmental aspects present in your tone though, so you don’t come across as passive-aggressively hinting that co-worker is being loud. Simply, matter-of-factly, fewer people = less noise)

    Reply ↓
    1. allathian*

      I’m not sure that’s either necessary or productive. Sure, if a team that usually occupies that cubicle pod all leave at the same time, say for a late afternoon meeting, that would work. But if it’s one person who leaves for the day and there’s one desk free that the LW switches to, that’s going to seem disingenuous.

      I far prefer Alison’s way of putting it. The LW is blaming their inability to cope with the noise as a reason to switch seats rather than trying to get the coworker to change his behavior. I also don’t think there’s anything wrong in letting him know that you find his work habits distracting if you can do so without implying that he’s a horrible person.

      In hotdesking environments most people tend to gravitate towards the same desks or at least the same part of the office, and it may require a conscious effort to change that.

      Reply ↓
      1. Cmdrshprd*

        “I also don’t think there’s anything wrong in letting him know that you find his work habits distracting if you can do so without implying that he’s a horrible person.”

        As someone who briefly thought this letter was about me, the coworker likely knows this about themselves already. It is something that I try to minimize, and I stop when I catch myself, but when it does happen it is involuntary. I would not be surprised/offended if someone moved to get further away. Luckily right now I don’t sit directly next to anyone.

        But the suggestion to just be honest depends on what you know about the coworker, are they reasonable, understanding, and conscientious, if so then just be honest and kind about it, like Alison suggested.

        If they are not reasonable and you think they would be upset then I agree it could try to frame it as being about something else, “oh this spot gets good sun, I am going to move over there” or this spot is better because its warmer/colder etc… Sometimes unreasonable people will accept something if they have slight plausible deniability, even if they likely think/suspect it is about them.

        Reply ↓
        1. Targaryen*

          “As someone who briefly thought this letter was about me, the coworker likely knows this about themselves already.”

          Bold assumption to make about a person who seems to be autistic (or, at least, reads autistic to my autistic self)

          Reply ↓
    2. Peanut Hamper*

      No, this is just avoiding the problem all together. What happens when annoying-habits-coworker says “Yeah, it is quieter over there. I’ll go with you.”?

      The advice given was correct, as it basically amounts to “we have incompatible characteristics that make it difficult for me to get work done”. There’s nothing judgmental in that. It’s just a simple statement of the facts, which is generally the best way to deal with situations at work.

      Reply ↓
      1. Observer*

        as it basically amounts to “we have incompatible characteristics that make it difficult for me to get work done”.

        Exactly. And from what the LW says, it sounds like this would be a correct expression of what they actually think. They say “our work habits are just incompatible” which sounds factual and totally non-judgemental.

        Reply ↓
    3. WellRed*

      My understanding from a former roommate as well as, I think, comments from this blog, is that people on spectrum often prefer very direct communication.

      Reply ↓
    4. LaminarFlow*

      This seems passive-aggressive to me. And, it doesn’t feel like the co-worker would take the hint. They might just think the LW is leaving for a quiet pasture, cool. Or, they might follow LW to the quiet pasture, which isn’t so cool.

      Either address it kindly & matter of factly, or think about arriving earlier to choose a desk that is in a different location from where this co-worker typically sits.

      Reply ↓
        1. A. Lab Rabbit*

          That’s not what “passive-aggressive” means, though. It refers to being aggressive while actually giving the appearance of being quite passive. Someone who is passive-aggressive is not actually physically or verbally aggressive.

          Reply ↓
          1. Saturday*

            Right, “it refers to being aggressive while actually giving the appearance of being quite passive.” I was just commenting that I don’t see the aggression here (passive or otherwise). Just the passivity.

            Reply ↓
        2. MigraineMonth*

          I agree, it’s more avoidant than passive aggressive. Neither seem necessary in this case, though.

          I am overly amused that one of the suggested links today is “my coworker stabs office furniture with a knife and no one thinks it’s a big deal”, which really puts other coworker annoying habits into perspective.

          Reply ↓
    5. Jaina Solo*

      I also think this is tricky since LW is new. I’ve switched desks for preference or health reasons but I knew the people in the equation and who could handle what info. I’d suggest LW ask their boss if there’s a conference room or other quiet area that can be worked from when they need less noise/stimuli. That’s totally reasonable and puts it back on LW as saying “here’s how I work best” and not “coworker’s habit overstimulate me.” I’ve had to relocate mid client call because they could pick up a loud coworker near me and complained. Sometimes those places are formal (with a sign up sheet) or sometimes informal (Jane isn’t in on Tuesdays and Thursdays and doesn’t care if we use her office).

      Reply ↓
  2. Bilateralrope*

    For #2, it’s not clear that there will be a problem if you go with this candidate. Maybe they will meet the requirements and are just checking how firm they really are.

    So the most I can justify is explaining that they are not negotiable. Then assuming it won’t be a problem if they don’t withdraw.

    Reply ↓
    1. yvve*

      even if this specific case desn’t end up being a problem, its very reasonable to take into account someone indicating that they won’t be happy about a significant aspect of the job (like the schedule). If I had a choice between two similar candidates I’d be a lot more confident going with the one who hasn’t indicated that they are likely to to be looking for a WFH job or trying to negotiate changes in schedule soon down the road

      Reply ↓
      1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

        Exactly. If you have otherwise similar candidates then go for one who hasn’t shown signs of possible future problems.
        This candidate is an example of a “poor fit” to the job for reasons other than technical qualifications.

        Reply ↓
        1. Falling Diphthong*

          And it’s not even unreasonable to go into an interview and check if the stated thing might be flexible. Or to feel out if the thing they are saying is flexible really is. You’re supposed to learn about each other in the process of a two-way interview for fit, and this is what happened.

          Some job requirements are “Must be a notary public, not just notary public adjacent,” which has one answer, and some are “Must appear to have the combination of skills and experience that indicate you could learn this aspect of the job quickly,” which has many answers.

          Reply ↓
      2. Green great dragon*

        I’d be uncomfortable taking the fact they asked the questions as a sign they needed a particular answer, rather than just making sure they understood exactly the requirements so they could make a good choice about whether to take the job.

        I wish the interviewer had followed up more.

        Reply ↓
    2. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      This is where an interviewer should ask additional questions to clarify expectations for both parties, e.g.
      “This job has mandatory requirements to work fully in-office and to reside in the city. Are you able to fulfill these job requirements?”

      Followup:
      “If you were to be given this position, we would expect you to have a city residence when you start, which would mean shorterm arrangements such as living with a friend or in a hotel until you can sign a lease or buy a property. Are you able to commit to this?”

      Reply ↓
      1. Falling Diphthong*

        I feel like we’re entering a period where employers are like “This is fully remote, by which we mean hybrid or possibly just in office” and employees are countering with “When you say in office, I’ll bet that could mean hybrid in practice.”

        Reply ↓
        1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

          It’s basically a Prisoners’ Dilemma where both employers and employees have decided the dominant strategy is lying.

          Reply ↓
          1. MigraineMonth*

            You’re so right! We’re at the point in a repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma where both sides have lost faith and are just trying to screw each other over.

            Reply ↓
        2. MassMatt*

          I put a bit more blame on employers given how many jobs have been described as remote or hybrid only to be revealed as in-office after hire, but yes it is happening on both sides.

          Most employees want hybrid and flexibility. Many employers are too rigid and lack the ability to manage people remotely but were forced to allow it during the pandemic and are trying to force a return to office whether it makes sense or not, in some cases without even having the office space for them anymore.

          Reply ↓
          1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

            I put a bit more blame on employers given how many jobs have been described as remote or hybrid only to be revealed as in-office after hire, but yes it is happening on both sides.

            We also get coached to apply anyway if we meet even 20% of the employer’s fantasy requirements, so it’s kind of natural that butt-location could plausibly be in that other 80%.

            Reply ↓
        3. Tradd*

          Or how about the reverse – jobs are posted as fully in office and candidates come into interviews thinking they can change a position to fully remote just by asking. I’ve had multiple people be shocked that a position really is fully in office.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dust Bunny*

            Yeah, we had one of those applicants. In archives. Where the material does not leave the building.

            No, the position cannot be primarily remote. It just can’t. It can be occasionally remote if you’re waiting for a repairman or whatever, but it cannot be primarily remote. Yes, the requirement was clearly stated in the listing.

            Reply ↓
            1. Tradd*

              My favorite in this situation is the friend who runs an insurance office with a lot of customers coming in, so they need someone to be in the office. So, public facing. She couldn’t find someone for the job, as all applicants wanted remote. For a job dealing with the public, in person.

              Reply ↓
            2. Myrin*

              As an archivist, I naïvely thought that surely there can’t be people in this profession who think like that but I stand corrected. Truly wild.

              Reply ↓
    3. LaminarFlow*

      I just can’t understand the point of not taking this info into consideration. Since HR knows that there isn’t much flexibility in the work location, they could save everyone time & energy by confirming the candidate’s wishes with the candidate, and letting the candidate know that there isn’t flexibility on in-office/WFH. The candidate can decide to move forward or not from that point.

      Otherwise, this role will seem like a bait & switch, and the candidate will leave quickly, which brings HR back to the search.

      I guess this routine is good job security for HR though.

      Reply ↓
      1. Mockingjay*

        I’m perplexed too. In this case, it’s not personal info at all. It’s “can you meet this job requirement listed in the description?”

        The candidate was feeling out whether work in the office is a hard requirement or whether the company could provide flexibility. Considering that most job descriptions are a laundry list of needs, wants, and fantasy, I can see why a candidate would ask or hint about a job condition that might be a personal deal-breaker. It’s a hard requirement here, so now both sides know. That’s…the point of the interview, to suss out these things.

        OP 2, if it’s in your purview, have a word with HR or management. You can’t assess candidates without being able to discuss meeting job requirements.

        Reply ↓
        1. Venus*

          I think HR made the wrong decision because the candidate listed their children as the reason for wanting flexibility. It’s true that the hiring group can’t be influenced by whether or not someone has children, yet if the person is unable to meet the basic requirements of the job then that’s vital to consider.

          I suspect that if the candidate had simply said “I need a flexible schedule and can’t go in person very often” then HR’s response would have been different. Instead, when they said “Due to my children, I need a flexible schedule and can’t go in person very often”, HR focused on the first bit and thought that they couldn’t acknowledge the second half.

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

        I don’t understand it either. If I was the candidate, and I had told someone that I was looking for more flexibility, went through the entire interview process with no questions about it, and then was hired or given an offer with the stipulation that it be in office. I would be annoyed that the hiring committee never asked or brought it up.

        Reply ↓
    4. el l*

      It’s fine for candidate to ask if there’s WFH flexibility. It’s 2025, common question.
      It’s fine for hiring side to hear that, think, and say, “Yes, we need the following availability in person from you, that’s firm”, and communicate that to candidate.
      It’s fine for candidate to decide between (a) Backing out and say “poor fit” if that doesn’t fit their needs, and (b) Taking a deep breath and doing what it takes to be there in person.

      What isn’t fine is punting this conversation till after an offer letter has been signed. Nobody wins from that.

      Reply ↓
    5. PurpleShark*

      The candidate gave the reason why they left the last job. This reason may no longer exist because kids grow up and move on past high school, making them more accessible to work in the office. I wouldn’t overlook it as interviewer but I wouldn’t assume that this is still a problem without inquiring if it is.

      Reply ↓
      1. Myrin*

        Oh! I thought the child was an adult child en route to become a professional athlete! I hadn’t considered that this might be a high school sports team thing but you could be totally right.

        Reply ↓
    6. Artemesia*

      The kind of incompetent HR that thinks an applicant not being able to agree to the work conditions should not be considered will be the same incompetent who won’t move to dismiss them when they fail to deliver or conform to the work expectations.

      This is one to take above the HR department or to the head of that department if they might be more competent.

      Reply ↓
    7. I Have RBF*

      Yeah, no. They’ve already given the indication that they won’t meet a core requirement: Being in the office. They probably think that once they have the job they can weasel around to do what they want.

      Reply ↓
  3. Ashley Armbruster*

    OP 3 – or option (4), Betty is a very hands-off senior leader who provides no help and expects junior level employees to sink or swim on their own? Or she might not understand the difference between a herder and groomer, and doesn’t want to help you because she doesn’t know in the first place?

    Reply ↓
    1. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

      #3 Likely (2) – that Betty has decided there are more suitable candidates but either avoids difficult conversations such as informing the OP of this, or cba to take the time to do this, i.e. like the common ghosting so many pp have experienced when applying to external jobs

      Reply ↓
    2. TechWorker*

      Yea I don’t know the situation but I did wonder if there was a possibility Betty expected the LW to step up and start leading things with the information they had, so the coldness came from ‘well I gave you an opportunity and you did nothing’.

      Reply ↓
    3. umami*

      My thought was that the project just didn’t come to fruition/wasn’t approved, and Betty doesn’t know how to communicate that she jumped the gun in talking to OP about it.

      Reply ↓
      1. LW3*

        Nope! It did get funded. After helping with some proposal work, I had to ask Betty if they had heard back to discover that it was moving forward.

        Reply ↓
    4. Alfalfa Alfredo*

      LW #3… is it possible that you meet a certain demographic that would make your company a more diverse firm? Be more marketable? I see this happen all the time.

      Consider that you may have unfortunately been a token representative solely for the purpose of earning the contract. It sucks, but it might be the case here.

      Reply ↓
      1. LW3*

        Possible, but not likely in my estimation. I helped with proposal work, but I didn’t pitch and I don’t think I was named as a key person in the written proposal.

        Reply ↓
  4. Joana*

    If it were academia instead of a company, I would think that 5 was related to the letter a while back from the mom who was baffled about her daughter not being contacted by a university for a job, only for it to come out in the comments that she’d withdrawn her candidacy. Given how little experience I have with this, is it actually at all common to get someone contacting you after you drop out of the race? It seems like unless it’s a place you have a personal connection with, telling them you’re no longer interested in the job would be the end of it.

    Reply ↓
    1. nonee*

      I withdrew from a process recently and didn’t even get an acknowledgement from the internal recruiter who’d been my main liaison. I thought that was a bit rude, but I don’t think it’s unusual. I’d never expect to hear from a hiring manager.

      Reply ↓
      1. Joana*

        A recruiter I could see possibly hearing back from, yeah. HR or hiring manager or anyone else in the company contacting after you withdraw would seem too hard sell-ish to me unless, again, you had a personal connection with them prior to the interview process.

        Reply ↓
        1. MassMatt*

          Unless there’s a strong possibility that the candidate is a good match for a different job in future, contacting someone who has dropped out seems like a time waster. Some candidates would probably even find it annoying.

          The LW seems to think otherwise because they hit it off during the interview. Maybe so, but it was in the context of trying to fill a job. Similarly, just because the waitress is friendly doesn’t mean she wants to date you.

          Reply ↓
          1. Joana*

            Ugh, as a food service worker, I feel that comparison in my soul. It’s both heartening (because at least we’re not the only ones who deal with it) and disheartening to know that sort of ‘they’re friendly so they’re my friend’ attitude is out there even in the professional world.

            Reply ↓
      2. Nebula*

        Yes, a couple of years ago I dropped out of a hiring process by emailing the HR person I’d been in touch with – no acknowledgement, after a while I checked my application on their online job portal, just to see if they had got my email, and saw my candidacy status had been changed to ‘Withdrawn’. So that’s my baseline for this, LW at least got a response from HR and that’s all good.

        Reply ↓
      3. JustMyImagination*

        I withdrew from a process after the initial screening call with HR as the travel requirement was just too much. I emailed him to let him know and thank him for his time. I got an email about a month later thanking me for my interest but they had moved forward with candidates who were a stronger match.

        Reply ↓
      4. softcastle*

        This just happened to me, too! The recruiter’s communication was really challenging and as a result, the multiple interview rounds had been dragging out way too long and I accepted a competing offer. I sent a really cordial, grateful withdrawal thanking him + everyone for their time, and…crickets, except for the automated “withdrawn from candidacy” email at 4am.

        It was a pretty in-depth interview process with many rounds so I was a bit surprised to not even hear back, but I suppose recruiters ghost people all the time.

        Reply ↓
        1. Salsa Verde*

          This is interesting, because if I sent a withdrawal, I would expect to never hear back again, unless they had another job they wanted me to apply for. I would not consider this ghosting at all – you told them you were withdrawing, we’re done here.

          Reply ↓
          1. softcastle*

            I think it’s perhaps it was a jarring change from the previous day, where he called my cell phone no less than 6 times to check on whether or not I’d accept the offer. He blew me up so much that I guess I just kind of expected to hear back from him!

            Reply ↓
    2. LadyAmalthea*

      When I was involved in hiring in my last job, if someone dropped out via email, I would generally write back with something short along the lines of “Thank you for letting us know.”

      It took less than a minute, and if it were someone we might be interested in working with if their situation changed, left open the possibility that they might want to work with us at a different point in time.

      Reply ↓
      1. Michigander*

        It sounds like she contacted HR to withdraw, and HR responded to her. I think she was expecting the hiring manager to also reach out to her once they found out she was withdrawing, which I wouldn’t really expect.

        Reply ↓
        1. Totally Minnie*

          Exactly. I would expect to get a short and polite response from the person I contacted, but I wouldn’t expect to hear from anyone else.

          Reply ↓
          1. Joana*

            Yeah, a response back from the person you spoke to in order to withdraw your application makes sense (though plenty of companies won’t even do that, or possibly just an auto-reply). Getting contacted later by someone else is what’s got me questioning things.

            Reply ↓
    3. umami*

      I agree. I have received withdrawals from candidates and responded back, but if I don’t receive it directly, I’m not reaching back out to the candidate.

      Reply ↓
    4. DE*

      I would think it was really weird if an employer continued to contact me after I withdrew. That’s not how this is supposed to work. Our interaction is done.

      Reply ↓
      1. Saturday*

        Yeah, I think the hiring manager would actually avoid contacting the candidate in this situation. OP already heard from HR, getting another note from the hiring manager would feel like a lot after withdrawing.

        Reply ↓
    5. Pickles*

      Candidates forget that a hiring manager is likely juggling 100 applicants, 6-10 staff in the selection process and their real jobs.

      Reply ↓
      1. House On The Rock*

        Yep. When friends ask me for advice about their job searches from my perspective of a hiring manager, I start with “as much as you wish it were not so, your personal candidacy, even if very strong, is likely not the first or even second or third thing on their mind in a given day”.

        Reply ↓
    6. Salty Caramel*

      I withdrew my candidacy for a job a while back. I sent my email to the person who interviewed me, not HR like the OP did. I got a brief acknowledgement, and I got nothing from HR.

      If I had sent the email to HR, I would have expected, if I heard anything back, that it would come from HR. I don’t think expecting a response from the hiring manager is reasonable here, that’s not who the OP’s withdrawal email went to.

      Reply ↓
    7. Sneaky Squirrel*

      I would wager that the likelihood of receiving a response is dependent on how far someone made it in the process and how demand their skills were. An entry level candidate who is one of 100 qualified applicants? Not likely to get much acknowledgement. A person with a unique skillset who is considered the top applicant for the role? Far more likely to receive a response especially if they’d like to keep a good relationship for other opportunities.

      Reply ↓
  5. duinath*

    …I would not suggest telling the person in L1 that you prefer not to sit with them, if I am reading it right and you two show up last and then sit in the seats that are left.

    That is putting a lot on them! If I were you, I would either show up earlier and sit between two other people, or get noise cancelling headphones.

    I was going to suggest you ask to take someone else’s spot, but that feels like a lot, so I’m not sure I can recommend it, but that is still better than essentially asking your noisy coworker to do exactly that.

    If I am reading the letter right. If I am not, and there are other seats available that you could take, the script could work, but so could quietly moving to that seat yourself and making a point to be sociable with noisy at lunch etc.

    Reply ↓
    1. allathian*

      I’m not sure they’d find anyone willing to sit next to the noisy coworker, TBH. The noise sounds incredibly annoying.

      I hate the fact that I’ve lost my superpowers of concentration that I had as a kid. My first elementary school was a literal one-room school with about a dozen students in total where the teacher taught three grades at the same time, the first grade would be doing math, the second grade would be learning our primary language and the third would be doing something else again (older students went to a larger school in the next town). Everyone did non-academic classes like PE, crafts, visual arts, and music at the same time. You got used to focusing on your own thing while the teacher was instructing the other classes.

      Now, especially after 5 years of working mostly remotely, I’m very easily distracted and the sort of noises that the LW is describing would make me want to avoid sitting next to that coworker and tell them exactly why if they ever questioned it.

      Noise canceling headphones may be the only way to go.

      It sounds like this is some sort of a hotdesking environment where the team sits in one corner of the office but people can pick whichever desk they want, and because they come in later, they have to pick the desks that are left.

      Reply ↓
      1. KateM*

        Oh, I have only read of such kind of classrooms, how interesting! Any idea why the three grades would each be doing a different subject instead of all doing math but at different levels?

        Reply ↓
        1. Oolie*

          Not the previous poster, but I spent a summer teaching in a one-room schoolhouse. It was easiest to split my time teaching different subjects to each level because I could have the English students read something while I taught a math concept, then have the math students work on problems while I discussed what the English class had just read. Also, I only had one chalkboard so it would have been hard to fit three math lessons on it at once. Logistically, teaching three different subjects at the same time was much more manageable in a number of ways.

          Reply ↓
        2. BethDH*

          There’s one near me that a friend’s kid attends and once the kid mentioned having had a hard day concentrating because the teacher had been teaching math to the class below while kid was supposed to be working on their own math.
          Thinking about my own concentration, I can imagine it being harder to tune out when you keep hearing things that seem sort of relevant.

          Reply ↓
          1. MigraineMonth*

            My working memory for numbers is terrible, so I really struggled with addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. Mental arithmetic? Not even a chance.

            I cannot imagine how much worse I would have been if a teacher was teaching a different group of students long division and *saying random numbers out loud* while I was doing my worksheets. I’m feeling panicky just thinking about it.

            Reply ↓
        3. londonedit*

          My (UK) primary school was slightly bigger than one room, but it was still pretty tiny, so we had two or three academic years per classroom. It was totally normal to me (and quite a long time ago) so I don’t remember anything odd or difficult about it, but I seem to remember we’d all do the same subject at the same time. So we’d be doing maths in the morning, but Year 4 would be working through their Year 4 Maths textbooks and Year 5 would have their Year 5 Maths textbooks, etc. Each year would be grouped together in their own area of the classroom (there were eight children in my year, for example, so even with three years in the same room you’d be below or around the maximum of 30 children per class). You just got on with it, really, and the teacher would come round to each table and check how everyone was getting on (in UK primary schools there’s less teaching where the teacher stands at the front of the class and gives instructions throughout, it’s more like ‘OK everyone get your maths books out and let’s start on chapter 3, put your hand up if you need help’ and then the teacher goes round to each child and checks how they’re doing).

          Reply ↓
          1. kalli*

            I was in a class like this but it was two grades in the same room, and there were two classes like this – one did the lower year work and one did the higher year work, so effectively, we were in streams. Then some people were further accelerated and had their own textbook to work from, but were expected to listen and participate when there was teaching to the whole classroom.

            In some subjects, small groups of students moved between classrooms – those who were accelerated in one room switched with those who were needing extra help in the other room. (Which, yes, did involve switching schools when it came to that level.)

            Just goes to show there are many styles and methods to managing classrooms across learning goals.

            Reply ↓
    2. nnn*

      The OP isn’t saying they want to ask the coworker to move. They asked for a “polite way to switch desks when someone else leaves for the afternoon.”

      Reply ↓
    3. Pastor Petty Labelle*

      I agree. The simple solution is unless there is a valid reason why you show up amongst the last ones (childcare or similar) then just show up earlier. that way you get your choice of desks.

      Reply ↓
      1. Venus*

        It’s possible that everyone else is always going to arrive early enough that they don’t have to sit next to the noisy guy, so OP needs a line to explain why they are moving in the afternoon.

        In my experience, if someone is noisy or otherwise problematic then it isn’t a coincidence that the seat next to that person is left open. I once had to sit next to someone who wasn’t very nice, and at first I thought it was a random seat assignment until a while later I found out that everyone else on the team had completely refused to sit next to them and I was the only one who had merely politely requested to be further away.

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

        I took it to be that they have a slightly later schedule than others, so they wouldn’t be able to start earlier. For example, I once worked in an office where some people started at 7, 8, or 9.

        If they both have the schedule of 9-6 then the OP doesn’t have the ability to come in earlier.

        Reply ↓
    4. Dust Bunny*

      Noise-cancelling headphones aren’t a cure-all. One, a lot of people on the spectrum have physical sensitivities that can make headphones particularly uncomfortable (I hate having anything on my head. I will go outside with wet hair in below-freezing temperatures before I’ll wear a hat). Two, some of us do need to hear our surroundings. Three, they don’t mitigate the problem of visible or feel-able movement on the part of the other person.

      I think it’s very reasonable to explain that the LW needs a workspace with less going on. I’m on the spectrum but don’t have a lot of stimming behaviors and would find this level of stimming on the part of someone else pretty agonizing. But obviously my needs don’t get priority over theirs (nor theirs, though, over mine), so I think I would just have to suck it up and >>nicely<< tell them I needed a quieter environment.

      Reply ↓
  6. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    I suspect (3) – that Betty has decided there are more suitable candidates but either avoids difficult conversations such as informing the OP of this, or cba to take the time to do this, i.e. like the common ghosting when applying to external jobs

    Reply ↓
    2. londonedit*

      I tend to agree…I think either Betty realised the OP didn’t actually have the skills she was looking for, or maybe even someone else ended up coming into the mix who did have the skills, and Betty wasn’t sure how to deal with the ‘Er…you know I said you could lead that project…well…the CEO suggested we could bring in Sally to lead it, and she has so much experience, so…thanks anyway’ conversation. Of course, if she’s in a senior role then Betty absolutely should be up to having that conversation. But so many people don’t know how to deal with that sort of thing.

      I’ve had similar situations with freelancers – you think you’re going to hire someone to do some work, so you go down the road with them and brief them and talk about deadlines and budget and all the rest of it, and then the author comes along and says ‘Oh, hey, by the way my friend is a copy-editor, so I’ve asked her if she’ll do the editing for my book’. And then you have to go back to your copy-editor and say ‘Oops, sorry, I know I told you this work was coming up but the author’s just pulled the rug from under our feet’. And that is awkward. But you have to have the conversation, you can’t just ghost the person.

      Reply ↓
  7. Varthema*

    I think I’d actually just go with “I need to focus for a bit so I’m going to pop over there. see you later!”

    Reply ↓
    1. yes, and*

      I like this phrasing Varthema suggested. I think it’s best to use this option (switching seats after someone else leaves) on occasions where you are feeling especially distracted, not on a daily basis.

      It sounds like you haven’t experimented yet with headphones, is that right? I hope you try a couple different kinds to see if you can find something comfortable and effective.

      After all, you need to be able to work for the first few hours you’re there each day, not just after some other coworker leaves in the afternoon!

      Reply ↓
    3. Peanut Hamper*

      No, you need to name the problem in a very non-accusatory way. There’s nothing wrong with the advice given, as long as you are saying it warmly.

      It would actually be a kindness to this worker to let them know what the actual issue is. LW isn’t blaming them for anything; it’s more a matter of incompatible personalities.

      Reply ↓
    4. Ellis Bell*

      I really like this because it puts no onus at all on the colleague and is a sociable way of saying ‘I’m just going to switch gears and focus by moving away from people’. It works perfectly if OP is moving to an empty corner, but it might read strangely if OP is squeezing themselves into a more-populated but quieter area, especially if the colleague isn’t aware they make noise. In the latter case it might be better to say more directly that you notice tiny noises and get easily distracted etc.

      Reply ↓
  8. Spooz*

    “. (These are fake job titles for anonymity, obviously.)”

    I just love it (genuinely!) when people clarify this in their letters, as if one day a real llama groomer or teapot designer is going to write in and the nature of their work is going to be absolutely critical in answering the question. It gives me warm fuzzies all over when LWs are so diligent to make sure there is no misunderstanding on this.

    Reply ↓
      1. Another Hiring Manager*

        I doubt it. People with the same title but at different companies could have huge differences in their responsibilities.

        There’s also the potential for the wrong people figuring out who the LW is if actual titles are being used.

        Reply ↓
  9. Michigander*

    I think LW5 is just overthinking things a bit. It’s not really surprising for your first contact with a company to be an invitation to interview, and it doesn’t seem odd to me that the hiring manager didn’t reach out after HR accepted your withdrawal. As you say, you only spoke to them for 30 minutes, so there wasn’t really a personal connection there encouraging him to follow up with you himself.

    I’m a bit confused by the love-bombing comment. Is it because they invited you to a full interview off the bat without asking you to go through phone or video interviews first? If so, that’s not love-bombing. That’s just a company who maybe doesn’t believe in doing excessive rounds of interviews (which personally I appreciate).

    Reply ↓
    1. Sara*

      Yeah the use of “love-bombing” felt a bit over the top – like how people use “gaslighting” pretty casually now.

      Reply ↓
      1. Ellis Bell*

        I just took that to mean it seemed like a really exciting and perfect fit on both sides and now it hasn’t worked out, OP feels oddly deflated.

        Reply ↓
      2. MassMatt*

        I don’t think I’ve ever heard the term “love bombing” outside of talk about abusive/manipulative relationships, so it did seem out of place.

        Reply ↓
    2. BethDH*

      And even if was about the friendliness level at the interview, that also seems reasonable. It’s like how work friends aren’t the same as non-work friends. You can be friendly for years at work and then have sparse to no contact once they leave and it’s not a sign of insincerity.

      Reply ↓
    3. Connected well*

      I think AAM put it very well into words: “because it felt like the two of you connected when you met”
      I had that happen too, so I get where OP is coming from. But this is an interview, a business meeting, and OP withdrew. There is no need for the hiring manager to spend one more minute thinking about OP because they have to focus on the remaining candidates instead. But that does not make their meeting insincere.

      I would recommend OP to keep this as a fond memory and as a reminder for what to look out for during interviews.

      Reply ↓
      1. Michigander*

        I think the fact that she mentions she’s new to the corporate world may also mean that she’s just not used to business norms yet. It may seem odd to have a really good interview with someone and then they don’t reach out after you withdraw your candidacy, but that’s actually very normal and will probably seem less odd to her as the years go by.

        Reply ↓
    4. ecnaseener*

      The love-bombing comment confused me too. I wonder if LW picked up on some kind of danger signals (accurately or not) during the interview but can’t put their finger on what felt wrong, and that’s why they’re fixated on this email non-issue?

      Reply ↓
    5. Qwerty*

      I find love-bombing a very weird take on any interview process, so kinda get when people use it for when the company is actively recruiting you, doing the hard sell, and jumping through hoops to get you to start / stay in the interview process.

      Using it to describe this situation is so off base that OP5 may want to reconsider how they are approaching the interview process. It is like they are searching for a way to be offended, when the reality is just disappointment that a role wasn’t a good fit.

      Reply ↓
      1. MigraineMonth*

        I agree that this interview process sounded normal, but “love-bombing” can sometimes happen in interviewing/professional relationships. I worked for a CEO who engaged in some pretty textbook manipulation including love bombing during the interview process/first few months and then pivoting to verbal abuse and threatening me with lawsuits when I asked to be paid for my work.

        Reply ↓
  10. Turingtested*

    LW 2, I had a similar baffling experience. I interviewed a candidate who mentioned their children in every single answer and question. It was obvious that their mind wasn’t on work (had it been baseball or weightlifting I would’ve had the same reaction). When I didn’t want to move forward, HR decided I was discriminating because they were a parent and insisted I give a second interview.

    In turn, I insisted HR be present at the second interview. Their reaction: Wow it seems like candidate really doesn’t want to work and doesn’t care about our company.

    I get that HR is there to protect the company but it’s not always handled well.

    Reply ↓
  11. JSPA*

    #3, is it possible they used your CV and demographics and the promise of supporting you / developing you to get the grant, intending to redirect the money? I’d investigate gently, if so. Someone who’d do that may also be happy to leave you flailing or throw you to the wolves, if anyone from the funding agency comes sniffing around.

    Reply ↓
  12. Kat*

    LW4

    when I quit a toxic job I was advised by a friend who had quit previously to not advise where I was going. apparently the owner of the company I was at had a habit of threatening to sue.. and sometimes actually trying to, people who left for supposedly breaking a non compete that we had signed

    so when I left I just said “I’m not saying where I’m going. I’m afraid I’ll jinx it if I do. but it’s outside of the scope of this job”

    and since I’d already built up a reputation of being superstitious it worked well for me. people just dropped it as soon as I said that. I did tell a couple close friends who I knew wouldn’t say a thing.

    Reply ↓
    1. MassMatt*

      Since we’ve seen so many letters where toxic bosses interfere with employees that move on, I think if you have any doubts about your manager I would keep all new job info on a need-to-know basis only. Pay attention to what happens when other people move on. Likewise giving notice; if the boss is nasty and vindictive when people give notice, guess who’s not getting any notice?

      Reply ↓
      1. Grimey*

        Somebody gave me that advice when I moved on from my last job to my current one, and I did keep everything on a need-to-know basis at the old job. The policy of HR at old job was not to give out any information about employees except title and dates of employment, but I found out later that Old Job HR Contact and New Job HR Contact were old friends. Old HR “officially” gave the minimal information and then invited New HR to catch up over coffee. New HR told me later that Old HR filled her in on my toxic boss. Telling me about that might have been a violation of something, but it did prepare New HR for when Old Boss found out where I was and called to tell her about what an incompetent, lying traitor I was. I’d built up a couple of weeks of goodwill by then, and I’ve been at this job for many years. It took a couple more years before Old Job finally had had enough and encouraged Old Boss into early retirement.

        Reply ↓
        1. Observer*

          New HR told me later that Old HR filled her in on my toxic boss.

          At least it sounds like Old HR was a decent person in a less than stellar company trying to do the right thing.

          Reply ↓
    2. BW*

      I’ve had a lot of co-irkers quit, and then tell me it was considered bad luck to say where they were going. It’s only bad luck if you think someone at the company you’re quitting is going to be an ass. So, you don’t need to tell anywhere where you are going if someone asks. “No,” is a complete sentence. You don’t have to add any other explanation.

      Reply ↓
      1. Happy meal with extra happy*

        I always find the “No is a complete sentence” advice in this context so odd because that’s not how it’s supposed to be used. Yes, you could just say “no” but in almost every workplace, it’ll be seen weird and rude and off putting. If you don’t mind that, great, but most people would not want to give that impression.

        Reply ↓
        1. Elizabeth West*

          Yeah, it’s a bit abrupt. I have to work to not be blunt, so I often inject humor into things. The only time I’ve ever done flat noes was in jest. Like *coworker approaches my desk wanting something* “Hey Elizabeth–” Me: “No.” Then I laughed so it was clear I was kidding.

          I like the I’m-afraid-to-jinx-it approach. Or you could just say, “Ooh, I’d rather not make any announcements until I officially start.”

          Reply ↓
        2. MassMatt*

          It would be an abrupt response to a coworker, but it’s usually a suggestion for dealing with someone who doesn’t understand or respect boundaries; it cuts off the possibility of the boundary-stomper latching on to whatever excuse was given for not telling you/not dating you/not doing you the favor/whatever and getting into a lengthy argument.

          Reply ↓
        3. Observer*

          I agree with you *so much*.

          There are obviously exceptions. But in almost every workplace interaction having some sort of “excuse” is far preferable. I put “excuse” in quotes, because it’s doesn’t actually need to contain any information, just *sound* like it’s an actual response. The less information with nothing to “discuss” or argue about, the better. Because it makes it easier to act like a broken record with minimal energy and without sounding like an argumentative person.

          Reply ↓
      2. AMH*

        It’s perfectly fine, as you say, to not tell someone where you are going, but it’s also perfectly fine to use a harmless excuse to act as a social buffer. A person may not want their last impression with their coworkers, liked or not, to be a cold refusal. No may be a complete sentence, but in a work environment it’s often not the best one.

        Reply ↓
        1. Saturday*

          Yeah, sounds like the LW is asking because she wants to maintain a good relationship with her coworkers, so she needs something more than just No.

          Reply ↓
  13. I should really pick a name*

    #5
    I don’t think “love-bombing” is a useful way to frame the interview process, and it may be contributing to you feeling like they behaved rudely.

    They front-loaded their interview process instead of having you come back multiple times to see different people. Presumably they did that with all of their applicants. They weren’t trying to guilt you into taking the job by showering you with attention.

    Once you withdrew from the process and this was acknowledged, there was no need for further contact.

    Reply ↓
    1. umami*

      Right? It seems odd that OP withdrew without telling the interviewer, but is now wondering why the interviewer didn’t reach out personally after OP essentially said ‘I am no longer interested.’ That … doesn’t really make sense. If you didn’t tell the person you feel you connected to, why would you expect them to do the heavy lifting of reaching out?

      Reply ↓
  14. Ohio Duck*

    #3/LW3, do you know for sure that the project is moving ahead without you? I wouldn’t use wording like “I realize you decided to go a different direction with that” unless you know for a fact that she did move ahead with someone else.

    A couple years ago, my team was offered a project that we accepted. Then the professor in charge stopped replying to us for 6 months and the project completely stalled. They eventually got in touch, and we scaled the project down to something that could be done faster than originally planned.

    It would have sounded really passive aggressive if we’d sent a message like “I see you decided to move forward with a different team” when all that had happened was the professor dropped the ball for a few months.

    My suggestion would be to see her in person and ask what’s going on with the project. You’ll be more likely to get an answer than you would from a text or email.

    Reply ↓
  15. Winters tale*

    “we just have limited seating and both arrive later than most of our team, so we tend to be taking the last two empty seats in our section.”

    Is this something that could be partially addressed by the OP maybe *not* arriving later than most of the team so they have a better choice of seats? It’s not totally clear if they’re describing a hot desk arrangement, seating for an all-hands meeting, etc, so that part confused me a little. And I’m sure there are going to be 500 comments (not even from the OP) about why the mere suggestion of that is a literal war crime and not everyone can eat sandwiches, darn it.

    But as a fellow spectrum person…sometimes you really do miss the more obvious solutions.

    Reply ↓
    1. Cat Tree*

      Not a war crime but weird. It’s one of the things I hate most about hot-desking. “Just re-arrange your entire life schedule” is not practical for most people. It also doesn’t solve the problem, just shifts it over to someone else.

      Reply ↓
      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Yeah, it can be really hard to rearrange your life schedule. It’s like the letter from the mom who wondered if it was unprofessional to carry her toddler’s sippy cup through the office to clean it and some folks were like, just don’t give your kid milk to drink in the car, which wasn’t a viable solution for that mom.

        Hotdesking sounds awful and I wonder if OP could ask the supervisor if they could be assigned a desk in a quiet corner since they are so easily distracted. Sounds like an easy enough accommodation to make, unless all the coworkers who arrive earlier would get upset that OP was the only one to have an assigned desk. (Although I really don’t understand why there’s hotdesking here – if there are exactly the same number of desks as employees, why not just assign them? Isn’t hotdesking more for situations where not everyone is in the office every day and therefore you have fewer desks than employees? Anyway, I digress….) As an ADHDer who is also very easily distracted, this is the solution I would seek out. But also maybe mention to Chris something along the lines of “I enjoy working with you, I just am so easily distracted that I need to be someplace quiet” so he doesn’t take offense, and continue your good working relationship with him.

        Sure, headphones are a solution but it’s really a drag to wear them all day if there’s a better way to achieve quiet. They can make your ears hurt after awhile. I think of them as a stopgap – good for days when there’s leafblowers going nuts for an hour or two but not as a 40-hour-a-week solution, unless you really like wearing them or listening to music as you work.

        Reply ↓
      2. bye*

        But is it a problem for other people? LW believes they’re noticing the noise because they’re neurodivergent. Would their other coworkers be able to tune it out better?

        Reply ↓
      3. A Simple Narwhal*

        I agree that it’s not a war crime to suggest it, but it’s not a perfect solution. In theory yes, if the problem could be circumvented by getting into the office earlier, then that would be an option. And it definitely never hurts to suggest it, especially since sometimes obvious solutions evade even the best of us!

        It just doesn’t work for everyone, and as Cat Tree said it just shifts the problem to someone else. Also (and I fully admit it’s not the best attitude), back when I drove to work, had no commitments, and technically could have just come into work earlier, I wouldn’t have wanted to. I was already selling so much of my time to my employer, I didn’t want to give them any more of it for free. If there was a solution that didn’t require me getting up and in even earlier, I absolutely would have wanted to find it.

        That’s not everyone’s situation of course.

        Reply ↓
    2. bighairnoheart*

      I think this is a reasonable suggestion. At my workplace, most people arrive on the hour, each hour (so 7am, 8am, 9am, etc.), and I used to do the same, but I was always annoyed by how many cars were backed up at the parking garage entrance when I got there. I had to leave 15 minutes earlier once for an early meeting, and found that there was no line at all when I did that, so now I arrive 15 minutes early all the time! If a small change like that could help OP, I’d say, at least consider it.

      Reply ↓
    3. LW1*

      Unfortunately no! I do actually tend to show up a fair bit early, but our team is heavily staggered for full morning and full evening coverage, so showing up at the same time as the morning people would require getting in at 4AM, about 6 hours early.

      Reply ↓
  16. Boss Scaggs*

    For #2, maybe your management is considering waiving the in office and residency requirements for the right candidate. Otherwise it makes no sense

    Reply ↓
    1. Peanut Hamper*

      Given that LW is on the hiring committee, that’s information they should have been given if it were actually true.

      Reply ↓
    2. HonorBox*

      But if that’s the case, you’d think that the hiring committee would be given that information and/or that the HR person would convey the message they did in a more helpful way.

      Reply ↓
  17. Peanut Hamper*

    LW#2: So the HR people want to avoid any chance of bias, so they end up stringing a candidate along and wasting his time? If I were the candidate, I would be sincerely peeved to be strung along like this.

    Also, “not willing to live in the city” and “wants to work a hybrid schedule” are not “outside activities” by any definition. This HR department has some serious issues.

    Reply ↓
    1. Clisby*

      I interpreted the “outside activities” as being heavily involved with kid’s sports program, which sounds like it might involve being on a travel team. I’ve known people whose children were on travel teams, and it’s a HUGE time suck.

      Reply ↓
    2. HonorBox*

      It is almost like someone going to an interview for a police job in a particular city. They might bring up that they’re active in their pacifist church. That isn’t something you could really dig into. But if they also make statements about not wanting to ever carry a gun, you have to follow up and discuss the actual requirements of the job. If you can’t consider, or even clarify, what they mean regarding carrying a weapon, you’re going to waste time and money when you hire a person who can’t do the job.

      And I just want to say that I’m not throwing any shade on someone who doesn’t want to carry a gun. I don’t own a gun, let alone many guns that would necessitate an entire rack.

      Reply ↓
    3. M2*

      Yes. This happens all the time even with salary. I am very clear on the max salary as I know what Hr will allow (and I have gone to bat for more and been told no) yet they will tell a candidate the band is $100k-$140k is on the job description. I am clear that they will only play $115k for the role and say this in any numbers of ways 3 times and when time comes at offer stage they want $140k because Hr said it was in the scale. HR says no that $115k is the max and the person either walks or is angry even though I am CLEAR that is the salary.

      Reply ↓
      1. Cat Tree*

        HR really should not by lying to the candidates about the salary range in the first place. I realize you personally can’t do anything to fix that, but that is really shady and unethical.

        Reply ↓
  18. Happy*

    I wonder if the HR person in #2 also had a background in government and conflated government hiring rules with the law overall.

    Reply ↓
  19. Madame Arcati*

    Maybe I’m missing something but I feel like LW4 is conflating where her new job is, with why she’s leaving. Sure she doesn’t want to say bad things about her outgoing manager that might get back to her but what does that have to do with the specifics of the new place? Unless there is some underlying rivalry between companies which LW hasn’t mentioned, surely you can say, “I’m off to work at Arkwright and Co.” without saying “because I hate Jane with the fire of a thousand suns”?

    Reply ↓
    1. Ellis Bell*

      Yeah it wasn’t spelled out, but when you have a deeply untrustworthy manager, it can be a good idea to have an unbreachable firewall between Toxic Old Job and Shiny New Job. It doesn’t have anything to do with what OP wants to say about the boss, but more about what the boss would say about OP to people at the new job. Ever watch Friends? When Rachel’s promotion was torpedoed by the boss who didn’t want to lose her? If you follow the link Alison put in her answer there’s an example of a boss well known for doing this before employees can leave. Think of those situations where you would never put the boss down as a reference; it also makes sense to make sure the boss can’t proactively speak to your new employer, especially if it is a small industry.

      Reply ↓
      1. honeygrim*

        My assumption is that LW4 is concerned that the manager would retaliate against them for leaving by calling someone at the new job to spread negative information about the LW.

        Reply ↓
        1. MassMatt*

          This. LW says their boss is toxic and untrustworthy. They should trust their instincts. Better to be seen as mildly odd for keeping the details secret than to have a career move torpedoed by a vindictive former boss.

          Reply ↓
    4. Jane Anonsten*

      I got the impression that it’s more OP doesn’t want to run the risk of Bad Manager somehow getting involved — like if Bad Manager has a contact at Arkwright and Co it does not seem like OP would welcome Bad Manager saying “Phineas is the director of engineering at Arkwright and Co, I’ll call him and talk you up” because OP doesn’t trust Bad Manager.

      Reply ↓
    5. Jackalope*

      Some of the other comments have addressed this a bit above, but there are some managers who get so offended at their employees leaving that they try to sabotage them at their new jobs.

      Reply ↓
  20. Delta Delta*

    #2 – it seems like an enormous waste of time to both the company and the candidate if certain information can’t be considered. If the person is saying they can’t be in-person, but the expectation is in-person, both sides should know that they have an irreconcilable issue. It would be annoying to both if it went back and forth for however many rounds of interviews to land on the conclusion this person can’t do the job.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

      I think both parties are assuming the other party is overstating their preference, and will concede quickly when confronted with the sunk cost fallacy of rejecting a job/hire in hand over such a “trivial” issue.

      While we’re in the middle of a realignment, there are parties on both sides that are in denial.

      Reply ↓
    2. MassMatt*

      I think if HR is being dumb, as they are here, it may be easier just to cut them out of the loop rather than argue with them. They don’t need to know you reject candidate A because they won’t work in office, they just need to know you are continuing with candidate B.

      Reply ↓
    3. M2*

      The hiring manager needs to be very clear. We require X days fully in person in the office in X city from 9-5. This is required and non negotiable.

      I find many candidates think when they get to the final stage and are chosen then they can suddenly have the policy changed for them and you can’t. I am very clear and get very annoyed when someone who gets an offer suddenly says they need to WFH or leave everyday at 2:50 PM to pickup their kids and not come back in or asked for 25% higher salary when I have been clear this X is the salary. Maybe it’s because people are used to employers changing their minds but I am so so clear especially because Hr won’t be clear. HR will say the band is $100k-$140k and I know the most for the role is $115k and I will tell HR tell them that as I know that’s the most they will go because of “parity.” HR refuses so then I say in interviews that the most HR and the organization will pay for this role is $115k and that we cannot go up from that even if HR gave a scale of $140k that $140k are for people at X title which this role is not at/ can’t be at/ can’t be changed and I want them to know and decide if they are ok with that. People 9/10
      Say yes then when they get their offer they ask for $130-$140k and it’s so frustrating because I am very clear and I know it doesn’t pay that/ they won’t pay that $ for the role!

      It’s the same for our work schedule but HR somehow doesn’t want to be clear which I think does a disservice to everyone!

      Reply ↓
      1. Bast*

        Honestly, it’s very frustrating to have a company offer a pay band when they are not willing to consider anyone for the top pay. I realize it’s very difficult to walk in and demand top unless you are basically a unicorn, but if even a unicorn couldn’t receive that pay, I fail to see why they offer a random number instead of what they are truly planning on offering. If the top they would offer anyone is 115k, why not just state that?

        If they are going the same thing with WFH/in office, that’s even worse. If an office states they are “flexible” “have flexible hours” “offer hybrid schedule” etc and I discover that isn’t the case, that would be enough to make me withdraw my candidacy. It also makes it harder to determine what is/is not appropriate to apply to. I can see why someone who responds to a “flexible hours” job ad might be blindsided to discover that the employer meant you have the choice to start at 8:30 or 9:00, but nothing beyond that.

        I’m not sure why companies insist on wasting everyone’s time by making things ambiguous and/or straight up lying. What’s worse is then you get the “no one wants to work” type of speech, or companies being angry at the candidates who determine they are no longer interested in the position after the truth comes out.

        Reply ↓
  21. EA*

    I think the problem with the direct script for OP1 is that OP1 will probably still have to sit next to this guy in the mornings. If I were him, I’d feel pretty self conscious after hearing that script.

    I’d recommend keeping it more vague like some other commenters have suggested, without pointing out his specific habits that bug you. And honestly, I’d probably just wear headphones or get in earlier and sit between different people, because it doesn’t seem like something he can control.

    Reply ↓
    1. LW1*

      Honestly that’s partially my thought as well! It doesn’t seem like something he has any control of, if he’s even aware of it, and I don’t want to make him feel bad about it in periods where we ARE sitting together because there’s no other free desks.

      In the time between sending in this letter and it being published, I started timing my lunch break for around the time most of the morning folks leave, and when I come back, I sit down in a different row. We both get very locked in on our projects, so I’m not sure he even notices I’ve left. Seems to be working out.

      Reply ↓
      1. Jennifer Strange*

        Would you feel comfortable mentioning to him that he’s doing it? It doesn’t have to be mean or confrontational, just matter-of-fact. It’s true he may not have any control over it, but it’s possible being aware of it will help him do it a bit less.

        That said, it sounds like you’ve figured out a workaround that helps a bit, which is good!

        Reply ↓
      2. Hlao-roo*

        I started timing my lunch break for around the time most of the morning folks leave, and when I come back, I sit down in a different row.

        I’m glad this is working for you! Sounds like a great solution to get a half-day of (relative) quiet.

        Reply ↓
      3. Cat Lady*

        If noise-canceling headphones are not an issue, I think it’s totally ok to be upfront about it: “hey, I’m going to move over there because I’m sensitive to sounds and mumbling.” It can be a kindness to be direct, rather than beat around the bush and leave the person wondering if (a) they’ve done something wrong, or (b) if they should follow you, too! And what happens if there are eventually enough people working that you or someone else can’t move? If the guy needs to stim, he’s got to work on doing it in ways that are not disruptive to the people around him! You shouldn’t feel bad or rude for pointing out something that it is reasonable to be annoyed about.

        Reply ↓
  22. HonorBox*

    The HR person in Letter 2 is so off base it isn’t even comical. If the role has a residency and in-office aspect to it, they’re doing everyone a disservice by not allowing any sort of follow-up. Maybe the candidate was fishing to see if what was listed as a requirement was negotiable. It would be in everyone’s best interest to be able to clarify that it isn’t. That allows everyone to move forward with the correct information. But the path down which the HR person has led everyone – hiring committee and candidate – is to only judge objective qualifications and job performance. So if this candidate is objectively the best person for the job, they’re going to get an offer, and then have to be let go because they’re not willing to relocate? Would the HR person tell the committee that relocating and in-office requirements not be part of the job offer, too? The candidate is going to be pissed, and the committee will have wasted time and perhaps lost out on the opportunity to hire the “right” person for the job. What a cluster…

    Reply ↓
  23. Blarg*

    My guess on #2 is a conflation of “personal details that implicate legal obligations” and “all personal details.” If the person mentioned they may need flexibility for remote work due to a disability, that would be quite different than flexibility for their kid’s travel baseball team.

    Reply ↓
    1. HonorBox*

      A lot of places might even consider some flexibility for some personal obligations. If the candidate was the best candidate, was willing to relocate, and asked about some hybrid work during travel ball season when they’d be out some Fridays or Mondays, that might be very reasonable. But that’s where an actual conversation would be needed rather than trying to evaluate them when you’ve hired them.

      Reply ↓
    2. ecnaseener*

      Honestly that seems unlikely, given this part: “Most of the hesitation was based on the fact that my background is in llama herding, so I wasn’t sure if leading groomers was a great fit. But Betty assured me that it would work out, and that she’d be supporting me through it.”

      That doesn’t sound like llama herding experience was a plus at all.

      Reply ↓
      1. LW3*

        Can confirm that my expertise is very much not needed to secure the project. Llama herding did end up being useful for the proposal stage, but I would be lost now that they’re grooming full time. Like I mentioned in the letter, I really think it was the right call to not have me leading – it’s just the lack of acknowledgment of the change of plans that’s throwing me for a loop.

        Reply ↓
  26. Miss Fisher*

    Many years ago, I sat by an individual who was on the spectrum and had tourette syndrom. It made concentrating very difficult at times. Unfortunately, we were unable to move anywhere from our assigned cubes. I had to wear headphones all day to drown it out. The company now pipes in white noise and has quiet work rooms since they have moved from cubicles to open floor spaces. Its nice to be able to move around the building to more secluded spots.

    Reply ↓
  27. Sunflower*

    #5 I think you’re taking this personally. We always say not to confuse business with personal life and the boss is not, and should not be, your friend.

    Maybe because you’re new to the workforce. They did not “love bomb” you. The interview went really well because they know how to interview; not just ask dry questions. Then when you withdrew, they acknowledged it and that’s that. They acted professionally. I’d be more weirded out if they kept contacting you asking why you withdrew, please give them another chance, etc.

    Reply ↓
  28. DivergentStitches*

    #1 is why more workplaces need to consider allowing us to work from home. I stim more when I’m nervous or sick or for whatever reason not at 100%. And my stimming can be up to and including sudden arm flailing or whole body jerks. I wouldn’t want to work with me.

    Reply ↓
    1. iglwif*

      +1

      I have worked from home (freelance, then remote employment) since 2017 and while there are MANY things I like about it, one of the things I like most is that I can do whatever I want, no matter how annoying,* as long as I’m doing good work. I can hum or sing or talk to myself. I can swing my chair back and forth or spin it around. I can take breaks to jump up and down or do a little dance. I can crack my knuckles and wave my arms around and slurp loudly through the straw of my insulated tumbler.

      And I don’t do all of those things all the time, of course. But I can do them when I need to, without worrying about irritating the people around me.

      *Obviously there are limits during meetings! But even during meetings, when I’m on mute I can do loud annoying things if they’re not also visually distracting, and I can knit during all-staff meetings without anyone commenting on it, because they can’t tell.

      Reply ↓
      1. A. Lab Rabbit*

        Can we stop with the “not all jobs” response, though? Yes, we know not all jobs can be done remotely. But a lot of in-office jobs can be. Nobody who says workplaces need to consider WFH are talking about McDonald’s employees working the drive-thru window from home or factory workers working from home.

        Reply ↓
  29. kalli*

    Honestly it’s probably just as simple as the contract came with some caveat somewhere about required certifications/experience/please work with this particular person who’s been grooming our llamas since they were knee high to a cria, and Betty feels awkward about not being able to follow through with bringing LW in at that level.

    It’s not personal, don’t make it personal.

    Reply ↓
  30. Boss Scaggs*

    This may have been mentioned already but for #1, can you come in earlier so you have a better choice of seat? You said you typically arrive later but not sure if that’s due to your schedule, or just because

    Reply ↓
    1. LW1*

      Unfortunately because I’m afternoon/evening coverage, if I wanted to beat the morning folks to desks, I’d need to come in about 6 hours early.

      Reply ↓
  31. Stuart Foote*

    The attitude in #2 is far from unique to HR, but it does seem like certain roles attract people who prioritize pointless rules above everything else, and also place very little value on actually getting things done; rather they just add more pointless processes (ie, if the employee can’t fulfill the job obligations, we will deal with it then).

    I once worked for a whole company with that attitude. It was pretty awful.

    Reply ↓
  32. Person from the Resume*

    LW3

    My take is that she used you to help with the proposal (which won the contract) and has decided not to use you or had planned not use you all along. She used your name, demographic, or work effort to make her proposal look good and has now selected someone with more experience for the role she pitched to you.

    It may have been malicious or less planned.

    You can ask for clarity from her or not. But if you really want to know she’s the only possible source (although she could lie to your face). Alison does not know the answer. Take the lesson learned, though, that this person is untrustworthy. She just ghosted you because that was the plan all along or she’s unable to have difficult and uncomfortable conversations.

    Reply ↓
  33. Dinwar*

    “When we pushed back, we were told that if outside activities interfere with job performance, it can be dealt with at that point.”

    Translation: Hire this person, then fire them for not being able to do something they told you they would be unable to do. This is inherently dishonest. The whole point of this interview process, after all, is to determine if this person is a good fit for the company (and for them to determine if the company is a good fit for you). The answer here is clearly no, in ways that are actually really normal and nowhere close to being illegal, so why waste everyone’s time?

    I’ve seen similar situations to this happen pretty regularly. For example, I’ve got a friend who always spends two weeks a year at Pensic, it’s non-negotiable. He’s told every potential employer that this is non-optional for him. It means that he’s been turned down for a bunch of jobs, but he’s okay with it; the jobs he has had have been a better fit. Nothing illegal about what happened either; we know because one of the guys he runs with is a lawyer and has experience with employment law.

    And not all personal information is irrelevant to the job. My boss told me once that the reason they hired me was that I spent my summers working with my grandfather on his farm. It meant I knew what working outside was, and was willing to put in the long hours necessary for my field. So the idea that personal information is forbidden bites you coming and going.

    Reply ↓
  34. Person from the Resume*

    LW1, have you at least asked him if he could be more quiet? At least with the talking to himself and humming?

    Reply ↓
  35. Sylvia*

    #3 – Is it possible that Betty mentioned a possible leading role on the project to get you to help with the proposal? I’ve had that happen to me before.

    Reply ↓
    1. LW3*

      I don’t think so! I’ve worked with Betty before, and we work well together – I wouldn’t have said no in any case. And I had already been doing some of the proposal work before the question of leadership came up.

      Reply ↓
  36. Dawn*

    LW1: Do whatever you need to do to come in a little earlier and grab a different desk (preferably one next to a wall.) Problem solved.

    Reply ↓
    1. LW1*

      Unfortunately because I’m afternoon coverage, coming in early enough to beat the morning folks would mean coming in 6 hours early.

      Reply ↓
      1. Dawn*

        Ah, I see. I’m guessing then that this is probably a call centre setting of some sort and you’re not able to use something like noise-cancelling headphones either.

        Although I did used to get away with an earbud in one ear only, but a lot of places won’t let you do it.

        Reply ↓
  37. Observer*

    #2 WFH candidate

    Can you push back on the HR rep? Frame it this way – what you are considering is *not* “they have children” or anything like that. What you *are* considering is a *job requirement* and the candidate’s willingness and ability to meet that *requirement.* Unless HR is saying that in office is actually *not* a requirement, saying that you will deal with inability to work in the office “later” is like saying that you will deal with the lack of a required certification “later” *when* 0 NOT “if”- it interferes with the ability to do the job.

    Basically, HR needs to clarify if residence in the city and work from the office is required. If they say that it is actually required ask them how inability or unwillingness to meet that job requirement is not “objective qualification”? If you had a job requirement for drug testing, would you consider it “personal information” that does not relate to “objective qualifications” if a candidate told you that they don’t believe in drug testing, and are a regular recreational user? How is this any different?

    Put another way: You don’t care what he does on his off time and you don’t care about his child’s sports commitments. You *are* concerned with his stated push back on a *job requirement.” I might even go further. If he is refusing or pushing back on this requirement, what it inappropriate is to consider *why* he’s doing so, unless there were a specific legal issue at play, such as an ADA accommodation, which he is telling you is not the case. This is not about his “outside activities” and you (and HR) have no business looking at this either now or *when* this turns into a problem. What this *is* about is whether or not he’s going to move and work in the office.

    To not ask him about that would be professional malpractice, in my opinion. Is there someone higher up you can talk to, to get a more sensible response?

    Reply ↓
    1. Person from the Resume*

      At least tell the guy during the interview that in person is a requirement.

      That way he can self-select out. while being annoyed that he wasted his time with the interview is not great, it’s better than being fired or quitting after discovering your new job did not listen to what you told them about not wanting to work in the office.

      But your HR is dumb and stupid. Whatever the personal stuff he told you around it, the applicant said he does not want to comply with a requirement of the job.

      Reply ↓
  38. Gigi*

    LW #1:

    Fellow neurodivergent here (ADHD). I’ve been in my career long enough that I have no effs left to give and come from a place of strong job security. So I’ve made it my mission to weaponize my lack of effs for the common good. With my new staff, I tend to open with “hey, I’m ADHD and have diagnosed anxiety and the short-term memory of a coked up hamster, so this is how you manage up to me.” I’ve never gotten a negative reaction and often it makes other neurodivergents comfortable enough to share with me and feel like they’re in a safe space, and we can strategize on success/coping mechanisms together. Also, any time we can normalize neurodiversity, yes to this. The following advice is 100% contingent on you being in a similar situation of comfort and security, so use what’s useful.

    Is there any part of you that would be comfortable disclosing your diagnosis to this person? As in “hey, I’m sorry, but I’m (insert diagnosis comfortable with sharing here) and I really struggle with sensory issues, so I’m moving over there.” Assuming you’re right about their diagnosis, it’s possible they might feel seen, and now the two of you have someone at work who gets you and can maybe strategize together on how to operate in an office that really doesn’t seem to be setting you up for success with its physical layout. Given how many times people have used “annoying” just in these comments, I’m sure this person is very aware of how other people view them. Showing a bit of vulnerability and matter-of-factness about what you need could be mutually beneficial. Again, want to caveat this: trust your instincts. If you think disclosing to this person or anyone could come back negatively on you, trust your gut and don’t do it. But please think about it. Could be a friend and ally in the making. Good luck!

    Reply ↓
    1. LW1*

      I completely understand where you’re coming from! And I’m glad that approach seems to work out for you – I agree that having visibility for neurodivergence in the workplace is a great thing. I don’t think it’d be a good approach for me – I have a broad policy of never talking about anything personal or medical in the workplace, especially in this particular office environment (Fortune 5 company, absolutely vicious corporate politics). It’s easier just to have some ‘quirky’ working habits than to deal with that being information any of my coworkers know about me. something to consider for the future, though.

      Reply ↓
  39. Aggretsuko*

    I didn’t say where I was going when I quit, because a former bully of mine was still there. It obviously made it awkward for the office when they wanted to say where I was going and I didn’t say, but screw them. If you want to disappear, disappear!

    Reply ↓
  40. Qwerty*

    OP2 – I think HR is concerned because of the information about the candidate’s child / family status is pretty heavily integrated into the conversation about in-office / hybrid schedule.

    What HR is worried about is the hiring committee speculating on whether a candidate will come into the office because of their child, because that veers into making hiring decisions based on family status. It is fair for a candidate to ask about what in-office / hybrid means to your company – it can range from “no wfh ever” to “wfh as needed – varies by team”

    At the end of the day, you have to trust a candidate to make a decision based on the information in front of them. Maybe they’ll turn you down if they want a hybrid role. Or maybe your office is closer to home so they can handle 100% in office even if it isn’t preferred for them. Or maybe with so many companies going back to fully in office they’ll switch their kid from a traveling team to a local one.

    Reply ↓
  41. spcepickle*

    I work in government, I hire often. Something that it took me way to long to figure out – you can ignore HR. My agency has moved mostly to teleworking, but because of the work my offices does (actually in a field) we are mostly in person – so I still conduct in person interviews for in person positions (I will give an online option if it makes the person life easier, but we really do prefer to see you and have you see the office – we only do one interview). HR told me that we need consistency and I need to offer on-line interviews only, I told them thank you for the theory and did in-person interviews. Guess what happen – I got a great candidate for the job and hired them, that is it. I have story after story like this, where HR does not understand the type of work we do and they do not understand the type of person we need to hire. They are also so concerned with equality they forget equity.
    If HR is telling you to ignore something that is fundamental to the job, ignore them. I agree that it is critical to be as clear in your requirements as possible and to give the candidate a chance to understand those requirements before you make a choice. But if you need people in office and living in a given area and they can’t meet those requirements, they are not the right candidate.

    Reply ↓
  42. Merry*

    I wouldn’t last an hour at that original desk – I have misophonia and I tend to be direct, but I’m also afraid I look like a jerk pretty regularly because of it.I’d probably say- I’m so sorry if this seems rude, but I have misophonia and it would feel unfair for me to ask you to change your work habits to accommodate me when there’s an open desk over there. I hope you aren’t offended

    Reply ↓
  43. toolegittoresign*

    #5 — I’ve interviewed people who I really connected with who then dropped out of the process or declined the offer. I didn’t reach out to them myself because I didn’t want to seem like I was trying to “get them back” even after they declined. I always assume if they want to keep in touch, they would let me know.

    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