It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…
1. People complain that I don’t want to be at work social events
I’m in a senior leadership role, and have been for the last six years. I keep running into the same problem and I’d love your advice.
I don’t enjoy social activities at work (Christmas parties, picnics, etc.), and I also don’t like corporate retreats. I’d rather do my tasks, as I’m very busy. I’m very much in the minority.
I always encourage my staff to participate. I do attend, but it’s out of obligation. People notice and then complain to my boss, who keeps talking to me about my participation.
I resent this. To me, attending even though I don’t want to is my way of being a good leader and teammate. But apparently that isn’t enough; I’m supposed to like the activity itself. I’m told I should want to do the thing.
My job isn’t at risk. But it’s causing my boss stress I don’t think is fair. I also can’t abide the idea that I would be inauthentic by being overly enthusiastic. I’ve asked to be told when something is mandatory, but it’s been made clear to me that I shouldn’t need to, and should go to everything.
If people are able to tell that you don’t want to be there to the point that they’re complaining to your boss about it … yeah, you’re in the wrong. Particularly as a senior leader, it’s rude to make it so obvious that you don’t want to be there that people around you can tell (which I’m guessing is what’s happening, because otherwise there would be nothing for people to pick up on, let alone take to your boss). If you didn’t enjoy the activities but went out of obligation and behaved graciously while you were there, this would be fine. You don’t need to be “overly enthusiastic”; you just need to not be obviously unenthusiastic.
Part of being in senior leadership is that you not only show up for this stuff, you do it graciously.
For what it’s worth, there’s plenty else about being in senior leadership that’s “inauthentic” but is still part of the job, like not rolling your eyes when a colleague says something absurd, or implementing a decision that was made above you and isn’t what you would have picked, and on and on.
2. How can we create a schedule that’s fair to people with and without kids?
I work in a small department that has strict customer-facing hours from morning through evening; the team is me and two coworkers.
Our manager used to ask for our scheduling preferences each quarter and would try to make sure everyone was pretty equal (one closing, one opening per week per person, no weird shifts that make taking a lunch impossible). She retired and hasn’t yet been replaced. Big Boss has been having us work out the schedule amongst ourselves, and we’re running into trouble.
We’re trying to collaboratively create a schedule that covers all the hours and works well enough for everyone. But both my coworkers are coming to the table with very limited hours. Both have children and need to come in and leave at very specific times to do dropoff/pickup, but this is leaving difficult gaps of time to fill. I find that my colleagues aren’t being particularly flexible and I understand that they have children, but I don’t want to work every late afternoon or evening, work every day while they get 1-2 days completely off customer-facing work, or have a really irregular schedule (close one night, open the next morning, split shifts) while theirs are more consistent.
How can I approach this? I have no “need” to leave work early or refuse these shifts, and saying I just don’t want to work all the bad shifts doesn’t seem to carry as much weight as family obligations. Are there any solutions? I’m hoping not to bring it to Big Boss if I don’t have to.
Your framing is wrong! It doesn’t matter what your reasons are for not wanting to have the short end of the stick every day, or even the majority of the time. You get to say your time off is important too, and you’re presumably not being paid any kind of extra premium for taking on more scheduling hassle than your coworkers are.
It’s enough to simply say, “I don’t want to work late every afternoon or evening or have a really irregular schedule while everyone else’s is consistent. That won’t work for me, and I propose we handle it the way OldManager used to — for example, (fill in specific proposal).” If they reply with, “Well, I can’t because X,” then you should say, “I can’t either, and I’d like to schedule the way we did under OldManager, which everyone seemed to be able to accommodate then.”
And if an agreement can’t be reached relatively quickly, then do bring in Big Boss — that’s part of what they’re there for, and it’s more likely to solve the problem than having to convince people who have already demonstrated they’re not willing to be fair to you. Sometimes you need someone in authority to step in and resolve things.
Related:
I’m getting stuck with extra work because I don’t have kids
3. I have to log my work on the days I work from home
I’m a third-year attorney, and I started a new, non-private-sector job three months ago. I’ve had some frustrations and trouble adjusting to this place, but I did appreciate that it had a hybrid work option. Today, though, I found out that there’s been an existing requirement (which my supervisor only informed me about today) to send a log every week summarizing the work we did on the days we worked from home. It’s a company requirement, not from my supervisor. She explained that she’s waived the requirement for senior attorneys, but the junior attorneys still need to do it — in other words, I read it as not for billing purposes, but to “prove” that we’re doing work on days we work from home.
I’m furious. The pandemic started during my time in law school, so I’ve had hybrid or remote work since even before I passed the bar. I’ve never had this requirement at any place I’ve worked as an attorney or law clerk — not firms, nonprofits, or the federal judiciary. In law, if you weren’t actually working on your days you worked from home, it would show in your total work product (i.e., not drafting enough briefs or filing enough cases). So this requirement makes me feel that my job doesn’t trust me to manage my time, even though I’ve already done extensive work during the short time I’ve been here and gone far over the 40 hours a week (not due to my speed, but due to the amount of work). Every time I go to fill out the form, I’m furious, even though it only requires a summary for each day. Two questions: (1) am I overthinking this, and (2) regardless, how do I get over this enough to do the log?
Well, first: yes, it’s a bad requirement. And yes, effective managers are able to spot it if people aren’t being productive on their work-from-home days.
But “furious” seems excessive, particularly if you otherwise like the job. Since the requirement is coming from above your manager, it’s likely that this is a firm that wasn’t fully comfortable with remote work (as many aren’t) and this is key to them allowing it. Find it eye-rolly, by all means, but anger is an overreaction. See the log as an investment in keeping hybrid work available to you and others there.
Also, though … is other stuff going on that’s making you unhappy with this job? This is the kind of thing that will grate far more if you’re already not happy for other reasons.
4. Can I ask my old job to take my name off their website?
I left my last job about four months ago after almost six years there. It’s a small business and, for context, there were two other people doing the same job as me, although there should have been four. We’d been looking for another person for at least six months with no results. About two months after I left, one of the two remaining people also left so they now just have one person doing this job and no real leads for anyone else.
Both of us who left are still listed on the business website “meet the team.” I don’t know if this is deliberate in order to make it look like they are still fully staffed, or just the manager not doing her job. Unfortunately, I didn’t leave on the best of terms with my manager — she was a very nice person but did absolutely no actual managing. If you wanted to sit around all day on your phone, no one would say anything. This was made worse when she hired her daughter to be an “assistant.” Anyway, I don’t want to be associated with this business anymore, and I would like my name off the website. Would it be inappropriate for me to email my former manager and ask her to take me off?
It’s not inappropriate to request that. You can’t force them to do it, but you can absolutely ask them to. I would frame it this way: “I noticed the website still lists me as an active employee. Would you please remove my name so that anywhere I apply in the future doesn’t mistakenly think I am still there? Thank you, and I hope you’re doing well.”
5. How do I tell my former boss to stop digging into how I am?
The full context for this situation goes back a couple of years. My department was going through a reorg right as I was going out on parental leave, and I went from having one report to being one of two newly promoted team leads. I came back from leave to a company that had gone through significant change and to a job in which I didn’t really know what was expected from me. Additionally, we went through a serious lull in work and I had no real projects. My counterpart had been leading both teams while I was gone, so I really floundered. I also was dealing with becoming a parent, so I spent my energy trying on that rather than work. Somewhere in there, the powers that be decided they wanted one person in charge of revenue for our area rather than two. I was still trying to get my feet under me and told my boss that I didn’t want that responsibility, so it went to the other lead, but I still had multiple people reporting to me and some other responsibilities.
Fast forward to now and there is another reorg, in part to make more of a triangle reporting structure. The outcome of this is that I have essentially been demoted. I now report to my previous peer, some of the people who were reporting to me now report to him, and all of my higher-level responsibilities are gone. I tried to make a case for moving into a different reporting structure with some different higher level responsibilities but was told no.
I am angry and humiliated. No one in my reporting structure ever said to me that this sucks and isn’t a reflection of my performance. There keep being little reminders of what was taken away that turn the screw a little more (like someone asking me about a standing meeting that I am no longer a part of). Being at work is miserable.
I have worked with my (previous) boss for a long time and have told her quite plainly that I am not happy about this. And every time we meet, she keeps asking how I am. I say I’m fine, but she pushes and I end up crying in front of her. At this point, I just want to be left alone to do the job I am left with. I have a lot of feelings about how this ended up happening, some of which are directed toward my company, some of which are directed inward toward my own decisions, and some of which are directed at the universe toward the horrible timing of the promotion and baby coming together. None of these feelings are my old boss’ business. As far as I know, there are no issues with my performance since the change, and I’m sure my old boss is coming from a good place, but how do I tell her to leave me alone with this? And is it possible to do it without crying in front of her again?
(Yes, I am job searching but my industry is in a tough spot with recent layoffs affecting a lot of candidates I am competing with, so I anticipate it being a long search.)
“I appreciate you checking in on how I’m doing, but it ends up stirring things up that I’m trying to put to rest. In the interests of my being able to move forward with the situation as it stands, I’d be grateful if we can just take it as read that I’m doing okay and talk about about other things instead!”
And then if she does it anyway, be prepared with a subject change to push the conversation to something else.
A reminder: We’ve had a recent increase in trolling here, and you can help me by NOT RESPONDING to it. If you engage, you are ensuring that troll will reappear. Instead, please flag the comment for me (just reply with a link, which will send your comment to moderation so I’ll see it).
A change to previous requests: although I requested it in the past, please don’t reply “reported.” Enough people report these comments that you can trust it will be dealt with. Instead, do not engage at all. Thank you.
LW2 (“I have log my work on the days I work from home”), go back to the office or fill out the forms.
The reason you’re being asked to fill out these forms is because you’re working from home, and the company wants to know that you’re focusing on your duties. If you like work-from-home and are fortunate enough to find a law firm that agrees to it, filling out a short form is easily a reasonable trade-off.
“I’ve never had this requirement at any place I’ve worked as an attorney or law clerk — not firms, nonprofits, or the federal judiciary.”
I’m curious if OP is keeping track of hours for billing purposes still? Most firms usually require tracking billable hours down to every 6 minutes/0.1, working from home or the office. I get how grating it can be if it seems that you only have to report when you are home but not at the office. But usually a lot (majority?) of lawyers have keep track of their hours daily.
I worked in a non-profit law firm that didn’t have any bills hour requirements, or pay based on billable hours, but still required tracking of time for potential fee requests.
Tracking time/work is not unreasonable. I would say even more so if OP works with multiple “senior” attorneys/partners. If you get work streams from multiple people it can be hard for a “supervisor” to accurately get a sense of what you work on.
Yeah, most attorneys are used to tracking their time in six-minute increments, which seems excruciating, but how else are they going to bill?
It is, I think most people get used to it. I hated it, I worked in a paraprof. role that need to track hours. It was a big reason a moved to an admin role that didn’t require tracking my hours.
it wasn’t because I didn’t do enough work, but I just had a hard time keeping track. often I started working on thing A for a few minutes, then while something was loading/processing work on thing B or send email C, then turn back to A for a few more minutes etc…
Now I just clock in/out, I can spin 2-3 plates at a time with out worrying or stop to keep track.
Yes, I rather commend OP for entering time so contemporaneously. Even when I’m entering my time daily, I’m thinking of it as the major tasks of the day, which I then break down into the relevant parts, so I would already have the substance for this form.
That said, I can see the frustration of one. more. form. Law firms and courts are great at developing forms with inputs that no one actually uses, or that are mandatory fields even though they apply in only rare circumstances. If this isn’t just OPM’s 5 bullet points, but for a single work day, that would be annoying, especially as…it’s not billable.
I years ago swore off any job that includes tracking billables. It was simultaneously excruciating and featured much BS.
I’m in architecture and engineering now and at my last two jobs, I’ve had to track ALL my time, not just billable (just entering billable time would frankly be easier — I make the same money regardless of what I’m doing). I’ve gotten used to it, I guess, but ugh. I miss clocking in and out without worrying about downtime or project budgets.
At least my timecard here doesn’t round up. The last one did and it drove me bats. However, it does send you an automatically generated scolding email if you didn’t enter anything for the day before. My team has been calling them “Howlers.”*
*I know JKR sucks, but it fits
Yeah I was confused about this. It seems like any job with billable hours shouldn’t have a problem explaining what they did on remote days. Maybe if the report-out process is more closely tied to that, it’ll be less onerous for OP and won’t arouse so much anger.
I read it more like they are already tracking billable hours, so adding this on top of it is clearly only about distrust, and that’s why they’re so mad?
That’s how I read it as well. I strongly doubt they’re not tracking billing, so they’re upset at having to do a second form of tracking, and that it’s apparently mandatory while also being ignored for 3 months. While furious still seems like an overreaction, I get the annoyance. If LW isn’t hitting their billable targets, then they aren’t doing their job, so WFH is a moot point. If they are hitting their targets, the proof is in the hours they billed, so why duplicate tracking? It’s just to punish people who WFH, and that’s bad management.
I wonder if there’s more to it than just being redundant work though.
Perhaps I’m giving the org too much credit but I could see a law firm wanting to keep track of what was being worked on at home vs. the office for both data and CYA purposes.
Legal advice often boils down to “document everything”. I could see a legal firm wanting to have documentation detailing who worked on what and if it was a WFH day in case there were ever any issues arising about confidentiality or similar.
The smart/simple way to do this would be to have a code or something denoting this in whatever time tracking software they use, but depending on their tools that might not be a realistic suggestion.
That’s not to say this is a good practice, but it might not just be about punishing people who WFH.
I had the same impression, that attorneys do especially minute time tracking, so I was surprised to hear that OP had never done that before!
I was also surprised.
I was a management consultant and not a lawyer but I definitely need to track my both billable hours (though I was often working 100% on one client project) and internal work like sales or mentoring. (Not every six minutes though! Mostly whole hours or 30 minutes.)
We also provided a weekly status update to our clients about what each person had been doing so this doesn’t seem egregious to me.
I track in 15-minute increments and that seems fine, but I also really don’t like tracking time! I’ve switched to retainer-based models for this reason.
I read it as, the LW is submitting billing tracking AND this form, which does make the form seem a bit ridiculous. But still a worthy trade off.
That’s what I think too. Which if they have billable hours, they can see what OP is doing. This form is just a way to make working from home less appealing. It’s also poor management.
I’m on OP’s side, I would find it annoying too. Probably not furious, but annoying. but you don’t have to like it, but you do have to do it. Kinda do a resigned sigh and just do it.
I’ve actually seen a firm model where Juniors aren’t billing in that manner but Seniors/partners are. One thing I wonder is if LW knows if there are any structural differences in the firm like that? That might actually explain why the supervisor can waive the requirement for Senior but not Junior.
I do get the frustration IF only juniors have to track time when they WFH, with no real difference on why, but it’s a minor grievance as Alison says, particularly since lawyers are an industry that commonly tracks time in general. (Unless the form needs completely ridiculous information beyond that. In that case, add the time spent completing the form!) I do think LW should be honest though and show when they’re working the over 40 hours etc (they seem rankled that they’d be asked for this while working extra hours as is a norm in the field) and I don’t see the two as related per se here, but I want to make sure they don’t feel like they’re supposed to “hide” that extra work somehow. No need or reason to. It’s a good practice to be accurate at tracking billable and non billable time in that field, so I’d suggest being dispassionate and not taking it personally.
If it were different field or circumstances, I could see more frustration, and certainly if you were singled out. But I don’t even work in a field with common time tracking and I do so occasionally to help me scope future work better (and require team members to do so on certain projects as well, when it’s a new type with unclear scope so we have data for future to better scope what we take on—I’m very clear on why and what we’re tracking in those cases, but I don’t find it actually adds THAT much time to track).
It likely isn’t time or the form but the feeling of being untrusted that’s bothering LW. I get it but it’s a policy, not about you, and it changes very little about what you do in the end.
This stood out to me too. In jobs where I’ve been billable, tracking my work was pretty much a given, whether I was in the office or not.
LW3, I work as a senior attorney in local government and you can bet I summarize what I do on the days I WFH. Why? Two reasons. First, public employee timesheets are public information and the public might reasonably ask what you’re doing when you WFH. Second, time theft is a real concern in government employment and a summary helps protect YOU should an investigator ever question what you did on WFH days (especially if anyone saw you at the grocery store, etc during normal working hours). So, dial down the fury and try to understand why summarizing your time is a reasonable ask.
I am also in local government (not an attorney but do some legal-adjacent work) and I have been keeping a rough log of what I do each week since the beginning of pandemic WFH. No one asked me to and no one has ever asked for it, but if there is ever a question about my productivity, I can answer.
I combine it with my to-do list so it also helps me prioritize my work and really does not take any extra time.
Good point about self-interest here, Abogado Avocado.
I’ve worked negotiation contracts both as non-attorney titled roles and in attorney-titled roles, all for tech companies. And in some of those places, in on-site roles as well as working remotely before and during the pandemic, I had to keep detailed spread sheets of my time.
For the writer, work to realized that it is both in your self-interest to do the time keeping, and it is really not that uncommon – generally – in non-billable legal jobs.
It seems like the OP should just send in their billing sheets and that should answer the requirement. I can’t imagine they aren’t billing somehow even if it’s a public sector job just because (gestures strangely) Lawyers!
I once worked in house before Covid that instituted this kind of tracking because *waves hands* no one could figure out what attorneys did all day – even though all in house ‘client’ work was tracked for cost center purposes. I just didn’t do it? I think it went away. Can’t say because I left while this particular battle was being waged…
I had the clout to do this because they weren’t going to fire me. In my case, I think it was because there was some very poor management where many people at the org did not work. (As in they just didn’t come in and got paid.) It was the equivalent of the group message that really is about targeting the bad actors.
Anway, I’d just submit the billing sheet. Don’t you have to account for billable and non-billable time anyway?
The OP said they didn’t think it was for billing purposes. And it seems unlikely that it’s for billing since no one told them about it for 3 months.
Right the work from home tracking is not for billing, but the question is isn’t OP already keeping a detailed log of daily work, for billing purposes. with the idea of they already log time very detailed having to provide a general summary report is not much more work.
If they don’t keep track of their detailed billable time, I can understand more the frustration. But overall id say the level of anger/outrage seems like a lot.
Yeah, I don’t think the anger is about the amount of effort it takes. It reads to me like they just find it insulting to be asked. Disproportionate reaction, still.
One caution I would give is if OP complains and makes the, “it is silly to only require this on days I work from home but not when I work in the office.”
The response would likely be “well then either work in the office every day, and/or you can start submitting a report every day even when being in the office.”
I agree that managers should be able to tell if someone is really working from home or not based on their general output, but if a manager is supervising many people it can be harder to really keep a mental track of what was done.
I worked closely with a previous supervisor and mostly did work that was assigned by them and turned in to them, but they also managed other people so I was still asked to submit a rough outline of what I had worked on and what I was going to work on prior to our weekly meetings.
Even if manager has seen every item in their inbox, seeing a weekly/daily summary is much easier to digest and keep track of.
The disproportionate reaction makes me think Alison is on the right track asking “is there other stuff going on with this job”.
My boss is currently having all his reports (direct and one level down) track their activities (weekly as a summary, and daily on a shared calendar), their goals (monthly) and also their hours for specific projects (weekly) and when that last one was introduced two of the people in my group very nearly quit over it.
Like, yes, it’s a pain in the butt (time tracking is not a thing in our industry) but I didn’t think it would be *that* bad, except that it is One More Thing that makes us feel like Upper Management expects us to be dishonest and also doing this hours tracking isn’t going to solve the trust issue.
(The “solution” is that I do the hours estimation for my sort-of report, based on what’s on the shared calendar. For myself I have to track my own hours daily or I will not remember what I actually did on each day.)
So I could understand the LW getting stuck on this additional requirement.
It’s also not unheard of in the public sector if you’re doing work from different funding sources and need to bill certain allocated funds.
Maybe not – it’s a non-private sector job which most likely means a non-profit or a government agency and there are jobs for attorneys in those sectors that don’t involve billing in any form. The non-profit agencies that function as public defenders in my city have contracts where they get a set amount per year – they don’t bill per case.
Yeah, that’s not the hill to die on for a junior employee.
I’ve done this a lot for client facing roles, and never minded, because it was for billing. They are asking her to do this purely because they do not trust her. Your username makes it clear you have a particular view on WFH, but many of us do in fact work productively there.
no, they’re asking her to do it because they do it for juniors. It’s not personal.
I think that is a reasonable way to think about it. Also, if LW successfully tracks their time, and slays whatever projects they are working on, there’s a decent chance that the requirement will go away for them. Besides, this (annoying and tedious) requirement isn’t targeted at the LW – everyone in that level role is doing it. So, don’t take it personally.
I am not an attorney, but most (all?) of my attorney friends have tracked their billable hours at various firms they have worked at. That’s another way of framing the requirement so it is less grating to deal with.
Weekly reporting has always been a requirement for my job, in the office and WFH, in every company I’ve ever worked for. We track hours and project status because we bill to government contracts.
I use my report as a daily task / to-do list. We have a simple MS Word template with each day’s date and a table below for hours, project ID, task, and progress/next steps. I open the doc first thing and record what I work on as I go – it’s 30 seconds max per entry. We submit Friday afternoon.
On Monday mornings, I resave the prior week’s doc with the current week’s name. I remove completed tasks and look for ongoing or delayed items that I need to complete or track down.
Reporting is something you have to do, so try turning the minor annoyance into a tool. I also go back through my reports at evaluation time; it provides an excellent record of what I’ve worked on over the year. It’s an expedient method to record personal notes, progress, and issues.
Beyond that, most lawyers on a billable hours model are required to track their time in six minute increments. Having to fill out one form once a week with a broad outline of stuff you did is not an unreasonable ask in that context.
I don’t even work at a law firm and I’m still expected to do something similar in my role. My version of the form rocks though, because I can go back to it at performance review time and when I update my resume because I can actually see everything that I’ve accomplished in a given timeframe.
I really hate when bosses try to make everyone “work it out among themselves” while also caring about the validity or importance of someone’s reason for wanting time off. I once had a boss try to pull that stunt when I was the only unmarried (but in a long-term, live-in partnership that exists to this day) and childless team member. The others all flatly refused to work anything besides 9–5, even though nights and weekends were quite common. Boss flat out told me it was the whole team’s responsibility, but I was the only one without a good excuse. But then, the others on my team got upset that I was getting two weekdays off when they got none, and claimed it was discrimination (our state protected familial status) for them not to get at least one weekday off. And boss rolled with it…so I was stuck being scheduled for four weekdays, Saturday, on call Sundays and nights, and the on call backup for my one weekday off the for the same salary as my coworkers who worked four days a week with no on-call. Because “fairness”.
Yikes! Your boss sucked.
That’s horrible!! I’ve seen the work it out amongst yourselves model go horribly wrong by all the conscientious people getting stuck with later shifts and the rest of the people simply sitting back and not having to do anything inconvenient. My husband got stuck with late shifts 3 weeks in a row and some team members didn’t have any for months. Thankfully he was promoted and didn’t have to do that anymore, but he always made sure no one was stuck in that situation again
Yeah, I’ll concede that I played into it a bit my first year on that job by being the “conscientious person”, but I also was the newest and accepted that it might take a bit to get a better schedule. The real issues started up the second year, when our workload significantly increased (but pay didn’t), so those weekends and nights were far more common. Even though we had some newer team members, they pulled the same stuff as the others and claimed since they were older than me and married with kids they needed the scheduling that everyone besides me got (I’m virtually certain that one of the existing team members was telling them to do this).
And our boss was useless. He took a purely results focused approach, and would tell me that all he cared about was task XYZ being completed…but Isaac couldn’t do it because he lived 50 miles away and refused to drive in the snow, Garrett was traveling with his husband (which he did literally every weekend), Ivan had his kids on Sundays, and Mia wasn’t answering her phone (even though we had worked it out that this was her Sunday). And he knew I lived right in town and wasn’t religious, so there’s no good reason I couldn’t come over and take care of Mia’s work on my one Sunday off-call for the month…
That’s ridiculous and definitely a management problem!! We have kids and he was brought on at the same time as 2 other people. Having a family didn’t play into it, but the culture of avoiding all the bad shifts and letting people who wanted to prove they were up to the job did. It got him promoted a lot more quickly, but it was at the cost of taking on a lot more work than people with the same title and pay. In some circumstances some team members got away with doing nothing I mean literally nothing while other people were taking it all on because everyone needed to sort it amongst themselves
Oh yes, my manager was awful. Everything finally came to a head when he wouldn’t consider how much extra work I was putting in when it came to raises/promotions. Boss said he wasn’t sure it was fair to look at my overall output because I was working more hours…
Isaac straight up complained that it wasn’t fair that I was making more money when he had been there a year longer than I had, but the only reason I was making more was because we got a small (I’m talking $50 or less) “bonus” each day we got called in. This was the only raise our big boss was even able to get for the year, and Isaac was mad that since he refused any on call or outside assignments beyond his four 9–5 days (for which he was already paid as if working five) he didn’t get a raise that year. Manager really did ask me to split my bonus with Isaac since he was worried he would quit otherwise. I told him to let him quit, and things would be easier without his never taking on-call work plus calling out at least twice a month… and naturally I was told I wasn’t a team player.
“Being a team player” so often goes beyond setting yourself on fire to keep someone else warm. It’s setting yourself on fire so the person cuddled up in the blanket can roast marshmallows.
My very first social media post after I left that job was “if you always ask the same person to take one for the team, you’ve admitted they aren’t actually on the same team.”
Oooh, Mia should get fired for that. Also, Garrett strangely pisses me off too.
But she might have gone to temple at some point that day, and how could boss know when she was actually there? Maybe she stayed all day? And we can’t punish her for practicing her religion, can we?
(Even though she specifically turned down not having Sundays assigned as an offered religious accommodation. She knew exactly what she was doing, and knew that getting assigned a Sunday meant getting a free day off.)
I 100% agree that this is a management issue if it doesn’t work out easily. Sometimes it is nice where one person really wants early starts and the other wants (or doesn’t care) about lates.
If you do have to self-determine I once had a group thing (not work) that worked really well – we were given 100 “points” for the year to spend on selecting our days off and whoever had bid more “points” won the day off (and everyone else who had bid on that day got their points back). It meant that the guy who had a wedding on the 15th of May put all 100 points on that day and he knew that he would lose out on pretty much every other request that clashed. Someone else put 5 points on a bunch of days, they were out bid on a few of the days so they missed out on a couple of the ones they would have liked but got the majority. Also, it meant if you had consistently missed out on your chosen days at the beginning of the year you had a lot of points left by the end of the year so had almost guarantee choices by the December. We never had an issue where we had two “100” priories (but also everyone was reasonable and friends)
I also wondered if they were understaffed, which is contributing to OP’s frustration. Three people for an extra-long coverage window (based on my reading, it’s not just 9-5) 365 days a year seems like it would get back to that issue where nobody can take PTO without causing a huge burden on their peers. That could be causing the employees to disagree with each other as here, where really it could be a management issue.
I was thinking the same thing: could the old way have worked because Former Boss was also picking up shifts? OP doesn’t really share that, but if it was a factor, then they need additional staff.
Yeah, three staff for what sounds like at least two shifts a day is really, really not enough for full coverage – four is the minimum to ensure coverage, and that’s with an expectation that everybody will be working an average of 2.5 nights a week every week. I do really wonder if the previous manager was taking more than their share of evening shifts, if this conflict is new.
LW, if your coworkers claim they can’t work the required hours for the job to have the needed coverage, that is a problem worth taking to the boss.
I also had this early on in my work life when I was the only member of my team who didn’t have either young kids or elderly parents to take care of.
I don’t think I would’ve minded so much if my manager understood what my actual job was and didn’t actively get in the way of me doing it while also fussing that I wasn’t.
We had a system I liked at OldJob. We were in a professional role that required coverage 365 days a year, usually from 9 to 5 but sometimes 8-6 or more extended hours.
We rotated days off every four months, and everyone was guaranteed to have at least one period where they had the “best” days off (Friday/Saturday or Saturday/Sunday) and one period where they had the “worst” days off (Tuesday/Wednesday, for example). They published the schedule for the entire year in October or November of the year prior; sometimes the start/end times would change a bit, but you always knew what days you’d be working.
I asked to be given the “bad” weekends consistently. My manager asked two or three times to make sure I actually wanted it and wasn’t just being influenced by colleagues with kids/partners. Only then did they approve an exception for me, and I happily worked Thursday-Monday for years! I loved commuting when there was no traffic and being free to do appointments (doctor, bank, etc.) without missing work.
This this this, a thousand times this. Weekends are nice but the joy of having a work day free to get stuff done is unparalleled, imo
I would guess a lot of people would prefer a consistent schedule, even if somewhat less-favored, versus rotating / ever changing schedules, TBH! Night shift isn’t nearly as bad as alternating night/day shifts in my opinion.
Physiologically, alternating shifts are much harder on you than consistent night shift (assuming you have a quiet place to sleep during the day).
100%. Rotating or alternating shifts are documentedly bad for your physical and mental health!
Surely the response to people complaining you’re getting two weekdays off when they get none is to tell them they’ll get weekdays off if they start covering weekend shifts? Not just to give them more perks that’ll screw over the person already with the worst shifts?
LW2, I agree with Alison about going to BigBoss and explaining that “figuring it out amongst yourselves” is creating an unfair situation and suggest going back to the OldBoss’ way, since at least that was fair to you all on average. And especially point out that your coworkers managed to make those shifts work for them under that system. So whilst they might prefer not to, they can on some days.
They want their preferred time but they also want LW’s schedule? Um, no.
I would take a look at how Old Boss handled it, and if LW and crew cannot find some agreement, take what they have to New Boss and point out the gaps. Everyone has something – some of my coworkers have their own health needs, long commutes, or are caring for elderly parents. Not having kids doesn’t mean you have unlimited free time or don’t deserve a regular 9-5.
In this case, it seems like Big Boss doesn’t “care” about reasons per se but just is totally hands off, which isn’t working. They need a schedule plan clearly—could start with Old Boss schedules and adjust to needs somewhat (equal trades on days, not fundamentally changing the fairness).
Your boss example sounds worse than what LW is dealing with here. LW needs to go to Big Boss and explain how the schedule was vs what the coworkers are pulling now. Big Boss doesn’t seem aware (should be maybe, but it’s not uncommon to not notice and respect how much work goes into creating a good schedule that works or to avoid a task like that which you used to be able to delegate).
They need to go back to the old schedule. Presumably the people with kids had the same issues regarding pick ups, drops offs etc, but somehow a reasonable schedule was worked out.
Sounds like the colleagues pounced on the chance of a laissez-faire new boss to insist on a change for their benefit. Which does not make me very fond of them.
That totally sucks, and your manager sucked. All of these stories are so beyond my experience as a child-free female in the professional world. I’ve never been the default coverage for holidays, or anything of the sort.
I have always approached any situation where I may be forced to bend my life to others because they have kids, with a kind of indifferent “Oh, I can’t do X, I have my Tuba lesson that starts at 4 that day” or if I don’t feel like giving a reason, something like “That won’t work for me, I have plans every X”. Sometimes, this means that people with kids have to figure out alternative transportation, use PTO, etc., etc. But, that’s their responsibility as parents & employees.
It also seems strange that the former schedule from the old manager that seemed to accommodate everyone’s needs isn’t being championed by the other two people who benefited from the family friendly flexibility. I don’t many jobs that are coverage based that allow folks to leave early to do school pick up.
I’ve *always* been the default coverage, as a single, childless woman. In my case, the boss was the main cause, as she straight up didn’t care what my reasons for not wanting to be left alone in the office every evening and having to work every weekend event were – everyone else’s family got priority over me.
The OP’s coworkers are taking advantage of the situation to get rid of the small inconvenience of trading off that they had under the old system entirely, and dropping it all on OP, because they see OP’s time/life/needs as less important.
How was that not directly familial discrimination *against you*?
You were being made to work longer hours, in less desirable shifts purely because of your family status
It definitely was, but as far as I know the state law had never been tested in that direction. Moreover, it was a very red state with the familial status law specifically written to benefit white male heads of households. Getting a judge or jury to find in my favor would have been less than a sure thing.
Ugh, that’s terrible. Username checks out!
Happened to me, too. Daily newspaper DC buro, and people were kids were given tie away because they had the “good excuse” of having kids. Meanwhile, nothing I did in my single, childless life was considered a “good excuse.” Basically, your life is considered less important/valuable/defensible if you are single. Drove me nuts (I no longer work there). Especially when said newspaper patted itself on the back for being “family-friendly.” Pro tip: “Family friendly” means single people work nights and weekends.
I would be so tempted to tell that boss that if he didn’t find a way to make it fair, that he would go from one person willing to do nights and weekends to none.
LW1: I understand not enjoying work-related social events, but particularly as a higher-level manager, showing that too obviously can make people feel like it’s them you don’t want to be around. One of the “benefits” of these kind of events is to allow people to interact across levels, and you might be giving the impression that interacting with the hoi polloi is beneath you. Even if you’re not, framing your gracious participation as a way of supporting your reports might make you feel better about doing it.
You make a good point.
I think also if the event is “required” for employees it makes it harder to swallow when a senior person is also obviously against it.
This is kinda like parenting, if you are really against something rule/event you need to lobby in private for it to not be a thing, but in front of the kids/public you need to put on a united front.
Yeah, if my manager encouraged me to participate in office events but then was visibly unhappy to be there … I would not be pleased.
You don’t have to want to get involved in the marshmallow fight or whatever it is, but don’t be so visibly unhappy that it’s glaringly obvious!
This is how I see it, too.
I don’t think there’s any need to fake enthusiasm, just to show up, circulate, talk to people (especially your reports), and leave early. Because let’s be honest, if you’re so unenthusiastic that your reports are *complaining to your boss* about it, it’s pretty bad.
LOL its either LW works with incredibly enthusiastic people, or LW is exhibiting something on the level of contempt for being there.
And another way to frame it is: what if your reports enjoy it? And the constant excuse you give for being visibly *insert negative emotion* is that you are Too Busy? What do you think that is saying to everyone there? That this thing is a waste of time and everyone should just be working? I can see the thought patterns now; “And I know he keeps telling us to attend, but his displeasure here is sure saying something else”. This is exactly how I would interpret this behavior from my boss. And if these events are touted as benefits you get from working there, I can see Big Boss being really irritated at LW for this behavior.
I think contempt is the right word. That’s definitely what I was getting from the letter.
This is why I really like Alison’s word “gracious”: it takes the question of faking enthusiasm right out of it! I think it’s a really effective reframing.
Exactly this. If being your authentic self is giving off “ugh, why am I hanging around with these insignificant peons?” energy, then unfortunately you do need to be inauthentic in this scenario. Part of the reason you’re at these events as senior management is specifically so that people can get face time and build a relationship with you in a more relaxed setting where it may be easier to approach you than usual.
As an events planner who is an introvert, I totally understand that not everyone loves people-ing, because I don’t always love it either. (And I don’t want people to come to my events if they genuinely don’t want to be there.) But people-ing is expected if you are senior management at the vast majority of employers, and it clearly is here. A good solution might be to attend for an hour or 90 minutes, then rush off. People generally assume that senior management are busy and important, so they will just assume you have something vital to do even if you don’t.
This I’m not massively keen on corporate events either but part of being in a leadership role in the companies I’ve worked in involves being visible and positive when they occur.
I knew when I took a management job that it was one of the things I had to do so I did it. Would I rather be dancing salsa or at home doing the garden? Yes but atrending events goes with my job.
As long as regular employees are allowed to attend for the same amount of time without it reflecting poorly on them. Their lives aren’t less busy just because they’re paid less.
After all, if you’re senior management (depending on how many levels in the company there are), and you absolutely loathe corporate social events – you have a certain amount of decision-making clout to swing around, you can make it so there are less of them, or at least less of the aspects you hate. Your reports don’t have that power.
I don’t think it has to apply equally to everyone in order to be fair. Where I work, upper level employees often have a high amount of time sensitive work while it is more rare for the rest of us. Their lives aren’t necessarily busier but their work days are. They are also exempt while regular employees are hourly. Leaving early to go back to work seems fair to me in that scenario.
Absolutely this – but I also think that it can support bridging relationships to other teams.
In a few places I’ve worked, the heads of our finance and legal teams have occasionally been some of the nicest/most approachable people at our social events. And while that may just be who they are, it’s also a fairly thoughtful professional approach because for those of us in other teams getting requests from Finance/Legal are regularly viewed as being stern, inflexible, intimidating, etc. So our CFO or head legal counsel being approachable and friendly with folks at these events helps counteract when the reality of their daily position can be seen as a bit stern.
If the inevitable reality of the OP’s team is that the nature of its work makes it seem less flexible, this will inevitably magnify how their behavior is viewed at events. If your Head of Compliance is also seen as unapproachable at an office drinks thing, it can genuinely build an intimidating reputation which genuinely is not helpful.
There’s one person I’ve worked with across few jobs – where she’s always had very senior roles. Her industry reputation is tough but fair. And while it’s clear that office parties and team building is not the area where she thrives in the same way as running compliance, she’s always the person who volunteers to read opening remarks which while written, are usually really thoughtful. Working the room at a cocktail hour will never be her strong suit, but you can also see that she makes an effort in those spaces which helps build that reputation that she is fair and thoughtful, and not just tough.
Seconding this! Our Head of Compliance is the management representative on the office committee for wellbeing at work. They plan staff parties and outings, and HOC’s a great host at these things.
As someone in a senior leadership role, it might help to think of yourself as one of the *hosts* of the event, rather than as a guest. It’s part of the job to be gracious and welcoming, and make other people comfortable.
This is a really good framing.
Oh I really like this framing. I was thinking along the lines of “Can you find 3 things you like about these – even if it’s as small as getting to stand up after sitting down all day – and focus on that for a while?”
But the “hosting” framework is exactly right. Not all of hosting is fun or glamorous or exciting, but it makes people feel good and feel taken care of, and that’s important to do. The OP’s job here isn’t “Attend and enjoy myself” it’s “attend and make sure my employees have what they need to enjoy themselves.”
Yeah, whenever I host a party, I have way less “fun” time than at other people’s parties. I’m making sure everyone else is having a good time. I’m taking out the trash, cleaning up spills, refilling the ice, making sure people have someone to talk to, answering the door, introducing people, getting coats, etc. I often make a drink for myself, set it down to do something and find it again half an hour later.
Yeah, I was going to suggest reframing it not as an alleged benefit that is being offered to you, but rather as a benefit you are participating in offering to staff. You might choose to waive it as a ‘nice thing’ being offered to you, but that’s not what it is any more. It’s part of the work of managing, and something you are doing to help support your team.
Came here to say exactly this.
Be welcoming to your employees. Use this opportunity to get to know them better. If you’re more approachable, this provides an opportunity to find out more about what’s going on in your company from a different angle.
I really like this framing! I work with teens and I’ve had conversations with one recently about job interviews and them not liking interviews because of how “fake” you need to be. And I’ve been trying to convey that it’s better to find the parts that you may enjoy about the job and being enthusiastic, and not trying to convince the interviewer that it’s your life long dream to work part time at Five Below (no it’s not how you’d talk to your friends, but you’re also not becoming a completely different person). Here, the LW doesn’t need to convince everyone that they think these social events are the best thing ever, but as senior leadership they are a part of staff feeling welcomed and comfortable at these events (which presumably they do think is important as part of their job).
Yes, for sure!
I was a people manager for a long time and then briefly a (very junior) member of the executive team, and this is the framing that worked for me at these things — I may not enjoy parties very much, but I definitely know how to host people!
Yes, it boggles the mind to think of how rude LW1 must be coming across for multiple people to be talking to their boss about it. “I’m very busy” Guess what superstar, other people are too! If the disdain in this letter shows up in person…
This rudeness might not be limited to just the events. OP, if you’re this visually contemptuous at these events, where else in the job are you communicating contempt to your team. Part of leading others is to create a pleasant, not unpleasant, working environment. That’s not being “inauthentic”, it’s being a leader.
Yes, exactly this! One thing that I learned when I moved into management is that it’s not “phony” to be diplomatic, polite, warm, and welcoming. It’s actually a huge positive and requires skill. Conversely, the people I’ve worked with in leadership positions who claim they are “authentic” and “straight shooters” tend to be some of the worst leaders because they can’t be bothered to think how they come across to others.
If someone every told my boss that I was coming off as rude or short, especially with my staff or others lower than me on the org chart I’d be horrified, not double down on the behavior.
Yeah, like even if the larger event isn’t your thing, if you can’t find an “authentic” way to demonstrate warmth & at least some minor amount of pleasure when interacting with your colleagues and reports, I’m kinda concerned there are bigger issues here than just the events.
Actually LW1 may be behaving perfectly acceptably at the events and be stuck at a workplace that wants more emotional labor from them or other workers than is reasonable. Or there could be a few employees sensitive to even a mild lack of enthusiasm who have the ear of management.
And if there really are events that are disrupting work because they are excessive or poorly timed that’s a legit concern that merits a response other that “suck it up”.
Yep. If you’re at the point where people can tell you’re unenthusiastic about being there, and at the point where people are complaining to your boss about it, then it’s far, far too obvious. I’d wager very few people actually actively *enjoy* going to work events – in my job we have to go to a fair few book launches, and although I’m a pretty social sort of person it’s never my favourite way to spend an evening. It’s tiring being in ‘work mode’ for an evening and it gets tedious talking to people about their book ideas (everyone has a book idea) and work and processes and all the rest of it. But it’s part of the job, so you show up, you chat to the people you need to chat to, you have a drink, you say congratulations to the author and how wonderful it was working with them (even if it wasn’t), and if you can you stay and help pack up at the end, because that’s the polite thing to do. Would I usually rather be doing something else than drinking a glass of cheap white wine and listening to an author talk about themselves? Of course. But you have to be professional, and you absolutely can’t make it obvious that you don’t want to be there.
Could you think of it as acting, OP? Even if you’ve never acted and have no interest in doing so, there’s probably a performance on TV or in a movie or play that you appreciate. Maybe think of it as your chance to play a role for an hour or two? Don’t go overboard, but at least then it’s a time-limited exercise and you have something specific, your role, to think about rather than how much you hate it.
To the point of how obvious is must be, I do wonder if this has also become the one “very easy to prove” incident that staff looking to express frustration with the OP can cite.
A direct report or another team may be having issues with the OP – and say the primary issue is generically around behavior, tone, or feeling dismissed, ignored, etc. Having examples of that in a meeting that someone else isn’t in can be difficult. However, if someone can then point to very obvious behavior that has been witnessed across multiple larger events and say they experience the same behavior in smaller meetings, it can build up. It may literally just be that more junior staff don’t want to reach out to the OP and push those tasks to their supervisors. And when there are situations where senior staff do acknowledge are happening, it can be supporting evidence to other issues that may be less substantive overall.
I had a boss who really wasn’t a people person and I could tell that it was somewhat of an effort to attend the parties. But the thing is, I appreciateted the effort, because it was sincere. It was not “eugh, I couldn’t care less”, it was more a question of being a bit stiff and awkward. I never minded that. People can tell the difference.
you might be giving the impression that interacting with the hoi polloi is beneath you
I would be shocked if that were not the case. Because it really sounds like they don’t care / recognize the human aspect of employment. They would rather “do their tasks” than spend any time socializing, failing to recognize that socializing *is* one of their tasks.
LW, since you are task focused, understand that the actual taks at hand is not “physical presence” but *socializing with people*. No one is asking you to be best buds with people at work. But you *do* ~~need~~ to recognize and acknowledge people as *humans*. And you do need to be willing to spend time working with people to understand their perspectives, especially around issues that relate to your work and company.
Yeah, like you get paid the big bucks to be the leader, that money is supposed to help compensate for the job tasks that require you to go above the other workers who get paid less than you.
In this case, I’m not actually sure I think “I just do my job and go home” *is* an acceptable attitude to have when you’re in leadership and, from what it sounds like, the rest of your colleagues and reports want & enjoy more personal connection. If everyone on your team can’t wait for the after work social hour then yeah, sorry, I think being the leader means you *do* have to show up and show some enthusiasm. As Harrison Ford says, “that’s what the money is for”.
yeah this is a situation you have to be gracious about. Some people love these things and others think it’s a waste of time, but if you have to go you do have to smile at people and make small talk and all the rest of it.
It’s really hard for me as an introvert, but I take a deep breath and do it. I’m all peopled out at the end and probably need the morning off the next day to recharge, but I’m also usually glad I did it, I often learn stuff that people would never put in an email.
Yup— it does sound like the culture at LW1 org might not be totally for them, but because they’re in Senior Leadership, it’s on them to suck it up more. I say that as someone who fully advocates against mandatory work fun or judging people based on schmooze over performance outcomes. But you have to be careful not to punch down as a leader and if people who are below you in the org structure consistently are upset enough to complain to your boss, you need to be willing to change behavior. You should want to support and create a culture where folks feel supported by Senior Leadership and sometimes that includes dealing with small talk (I hate it too but it’s part of the gig even in my role which is not quite Senior Leadership level). I try and put my servant leadership hat on and it helps me get through it personally, by caring about how others feel and understanding these events aren’t for me but for the IC level first and foremost (making ICs come or even supervisory/lead roles is less acceptable in my view—Senior Leaders have to go and put on at least a decent face about it).
I think OP might want to try to attend *less* events overall, but really focus on seeming pleasant and engaged at the ones they do attend. That would be a reasonable compromise to me, and I would pitch it to my boss that way. They should really be willing to work with you since ‘attend all events and fake it’ isn’t working. Although WTH kind of office is this where coworkers feel empowered to complain about senior leadership to their bosses?
Yes! And, attitudes start from the top. Most people don’t really love company sponsored events – the events that happen outside of working hours cut into personal time, and the events that happen inside of working hours don’t magically erase the work that still needs to get done. Sigh. But, if my top brass is in a negative mood at an event, I would expect that at least a decent percentage of the attendees are also in a negative mood, which isn’t fun or productive for anyone.
Honestly companies need to stop with the mandatory social hour bs. I’m with the OP I would hate going to things like that, they are annoying, plus we still have all kinds of diseases floating around plus the ongoing pandemic. Why do “people in leadership” have to show up and look enthusiastic? It’s asinine. Just let people be.
Based on your comments here I don’t think anyone is jumping up and down for an opportunity to be social with you.
Some people like them and find value in them. It’s fine if you and the LW don’t, but if you choose to take on a leadership role, being able to show up and at least be pleasant is part of the job. If that’s not something the LW is willing to do then they should probably look for a new role.
Right? This is part of the package that comes with a leadership position at this company. If LW doesn’t want it, they can step down from leadership.
Part of the job of senior leadership is to positively impact culture/morale. Making yourself approachable and engaging in some warm chit chat with the staff at the holiday party is a pretty easy piece of that.
Most people enjoy at least some amount of socializing with other human beings, idk what to tell you.
Yep. LW1 is heroically pushing back on compulsory socials for the long term benefit of introverts and curmudgeons.
But what they actually need to is grow a pair and refuse to go rather than turning up and being sour.
“Grow a pair” of what? Is he a gardener?
Gross. Being dismissive of others is not heroic. If he refuses to go, he will likely be fired. This job at this company requires attendance at these events. If he doesn’t like that, he can find a job somewhere else that doesn’t have those requirements. *That* would be the responsible, adult thing to do, not teenage rebellion.
Being rude is not heroic.
I’m an introvert and I love social activities at work. I’d be pretty annoyed if someone decided to be a jerk in an effort to “benefit me”.
Me too, at least those that happen during the workday. These days I’m peopled out by an ordinary day at the office, which is why I’m very happy that RTO isn’t a thing here. But when I do go, I make the most of the socializing.
Being an introvert isn’t the same thing as being antisocial.
Look, anyone who finds interacting pleasantly with people to be beneath them should never try to move into a management or leadership role. They’d just be morale killers who are bad at managing and leading.
We have had ‘diseases floating around’ since the beginning of time, and will as long as the planet exists. Yet most people have always enjoyed interacting with others, even us introverts.
I also like the free food and break from work.
Yes — when I was working in retail, I remember specifically one manager who quite obviously hated all morale-building events. It made it feel wrong to actually relax during a holiday party or take any enjoyment from “mandatory fun”, and actively impeded the team spirit and morale corporate was trying to foster.
It’s also likely that a lower-level person or people from your company are the ones who organized the event. It’s disrespectful to act like it’s a huge, boring, unpleasant chore to attend something they worked hard to make happen, especially when the perceived success of that event affects their livelihood.
Well said. LW1, I think you have what Marshall Goldsmith once described as “an excessive need to be me.” (I won’t link, but if you paste that phrase into a good search engine, it should come right up.) You see your “authentic self” as hard-working and task-focused, but I’ll bet lunch money that you also come across as too good to associate with co-workers and subordinates. That’s not something that will serve you well going forward.
I like AcademiaNut’s suggestion that you try to think of yourself as one of the hosts of these events, rather than as a (reluctant) guest. Volunteer to do something. See anybody you don’t know? Introduce yourself. Make a point to talk with a coworker you don’t regularly interact with.
Do you also believe that small talk is a pointless waste of time? So-called “small talk” is actually how humans who don’t know each other well form and maintain social ties. As an introvert I had to work to learn how to do it, but it is a learnable skill, and one that will serve you well throughout your career.
Short version: Being approachable and likable will get you much farther in the work world than being “authentic.” Think about it.
You remind me of this quote from Pride and Prejudice:
“I certainly have not the talent which some people possess,” said Darcy, “of conversing easily with those I have never seen before. I cannot catch their tone of conversation, or appear interested in their concerns, as I often see done.”
“My fingers,” said Elizabeth, “do not move over this instrument in the masterly manner which I see so many women’s do. They have not the same force or rapidity, and do not produce the same expression. But then I have always supposed it to be my own fault—because I would not take the trouble of practicing. It is not that I do not believe my fingers as capable as any other woman’s of superior execution.”
People skills are something we can develop over time. It’s not a born with it or born without it thing.
I don’t know if it’s the same one, but Marshall Goldsmith was the second baseman on my High school baseball team. I was the shortstop and let me tell you we made a heck of a dp combination
Yes, and if not appearing unkind and rude isn’t enough incentive, being friendly at these kinds of events are incredibly valuable to you OP! You’ll learn about the people who work for you and what they care about and how they interact and engage. You’ll have an opportunity to forge human connections across levels that can percolate good ideas that you might never have heard about, expose challenges with team dynamics and middle management, make it easier for your staff to bring serious issues to you in the future (potentially protecting your company from liability), and humanize YOU so that when you have to make the hard calls and tough decisions, you maybe get just a little slack (which can preserve moral — AKA productivity — and increase retention).
If you can’t bring your best self because its the right thing to do, maybe you can do so because it’s the SMART thing to do.
Re: OP 2 – The new big boss or you and your coworkers need to design the schedule without regard for anyone having children. Leave that fact out of the discussion. Until there is something/someone who can make the schedule fair, equal, reasonable (for all), and transparent, then go back to the schedule your previous boss created.
“The new big boss or you and your coworkers need to design the schedule without regard for anyone having children.”
I think I disagree, people don’t need to pretend that some don’t have kids, but it also can’t be a get out of jail free card.
If someone says I really need to pick up my kid from school on Mondays and Wednesdays and need to leave at 5pm, and can’t work those days, that’s fine, they can’t say I need to pick up my kid everyday and can’t close ever.
But OP also gets to ask for accomodations for their own schedule even without kids, for their own needs.
I think maybe some kind of ranked choice voting or something similar, like 1 jane get to pick 1 shift, jone picks next 2, james pick next 3, then jane picks 4, then jone picks 5.
or everyone selects their preferred shifts and when their are conflicts people have a jousting competition/aka lottery for who gets that shift.
Generally I don’t think removing people’s home needs is the right way to go, they just need to be balanced in a way that is equal fair to everyone.
“Generally I don’t think removing people’s home needs is the right way to go”
I disagree. Because then we are starting to talk about the type of home need. Is “picking up kids” more important than “sports” or “dentist” or “coffee with aunt Elsie”?
I do not want to argue my reason for getting out on time (as long as there is no impression I am taking advantage of that).
Co-workers with kids need flexibility, of course, but it shouldn’t be assumed that this requirement trumps all of their coworkers per se.
“Co-workers with kids need flexibility, of course, but it shouldn’t be assumed that this requirement trumps all of their coworkers per se.”
Right I agree with that, no home need trumps other coworkers.
My point is we don’t need to leave out the reasons why people need flexibility, but everyone should be afforded generally the same flexibility, everyone’s home needs are equally important to them. John’s weekly spin class is equally important to Jake’s weekly early kid pick up. But we don’t need to hide away whey people need flexibility.
But if John already has an adjustment for sports league on Tues., and wants one for spin class on Wed., but Jake wants Wed. for kid pick up, since John already has one adjustment the Wed. one goes to Jake.
I think we both agree that kids/pets don’t/shouldn’t trump other coworkers without those things, and everyone should be afforded flexibility. But I think we can be open about why we need schedule accommodations.
I really like the ranked choice idea! I’ll have to see if we can try that next. We’re into the double-digits on attempts to draw up the newest schedule, so maybe that will solve this finally.
If the process dragged on that long, then I think it’s time to involve your manager.
Even if you can make it work, they should know that it’s been a rough and contentious process.
Really they shouldve gotten involved when the first attempts failed, because this is their job as a manager, and not yours.
Yeah, fully agreed.
My jaw dropped at “double digits”. No. No no no nonononono. Your manager needed to step in after attempt #4 failed. Earlier if it seemed like everyone wasn’t operating in good faith.
From the letter “both my coworkers are coming to the table with very limited hours. Both have children and need to come in and leave at very specific times to do dropoff/pickup”
It sounds as though the problem is more like can never start before 9 or work after 3, and definitely never nights or weekends.
AskAManager deals with this pretty regularly, and the answer is always that people who are not parents have to be allowed to have lives outside work as well. If only so that they too can have the chance to become parents if that’s what they want.
The other option is to pay extra for the unwanted shifts. Traditionally it was time and a quarter outside office hours, plus time and a half on weekends and after 40 hours, also double time on public holidays. But heck, having an auction makes just as much sense. I’ve climbing into a technically empty raw sewage pit before (wearing proper PPE) because the boss was willing to pay me enough to make that worth doing. Lots of problems can be solved with money!
As someone else suggested, you could even do that with “points”, where each person gets 100 pints every week to bid on shifts, and you could even let unused points carry over.
i don’t think thats true, because the previous schedule was working. it sounds less like they can’t, and more they don’t want to.
Yeah, I would start with an old schedule frankly and try and copy/paste it over with small adjustments.
I think this is key, and I do think it’s where they probably need to get management involved. There is a big difference between “Yes I technically could, but it would be a lot easier if I didn’t” and “I absolutely can’t”, but it’s very difficult to tease that difference out as a peer than as a manager, where you’ve got the authority to state that this is a requirement of the job. You might manage it if you can use a robust system like people expressing preferred working times and trying to make sure everyone gets one, but only if everyone agrees that fairness is the goal.
Yeah, my job doesn’t have regular bad shifts, but we do have irregular not-preferred work. Last year we got lucky and our Very! Enthusiastic! new hire was happy to pick up all the terrible work (I did make it clear to him that he did not need to take all of them, but he was like, “No, I don’t have to get up at 4am every Sunday, this is so much better than my last job! And the time in lieu is useful.” and nobody else was going to step in when he was happily scooping them all up.) but this year he’s working from another location and can’t do them.
I’ve wound up somewhat stepping into the gap, because for a variety of reasons (no kids, I live closer, I am a morning person) it’s more convenient for me than for other folks on the team, but it reached a point where we were looking at our forth hideously-early in-person task in less than a month, and I just told my boss, “I don’t want to do this one, too; please find a way to make it be someone else’s problem,” and lo and behold, my boss found a way to make it not my problem. Even though there was no actual reason that I needed to lie in bed until eight that particular weekend. And it was much easier to make my boss sort it out than to pit my “I don’t want to get up early again” against my coworkers’ “It’s an hour drive and it messes up the kids’ schedule.”
““I absolutely can’t”, but it’s very difficult to tease that difference out as a peer than as a manager.”
Unless you clear it in advance, you should not take a job where you can’t take a shift for the core part of the job. I get it scheduled change, when that happens you do everything you can to figure it out. If you absolutely can’t do a certain shift, unless other people are able and willing to cover for you, then you might not be able to do/keep this job anymore.
My job is 9 to 5, I can occasionally ask to leave early at 2 or 3 for dick kid pick up or other things, but I can say my schedule changed and I can’t work after 2pm anymore.
Right, but that’s my point- that conversation needs to be with a manager, not a peer.
Please tell me that you meant “sick kid pick up”.
And Jane needs XXXX off for medical reasons, full stop, and now needs to share that with everyone, and possibly argue with someone who doesn’t care. Schedules need to be set by someone who can reasonably prioritize, be as fair as possible (which is not always 100% fair), and take the heat for it. Because thus is a recipe for oversharing and massive resentment.
I would say with the caveat that they should try to make it consistent week to week for parents in particular, although a consistent schedule benefits everyone! I imagine that if the schedule varies a lot, the parents are currently pushing back because it’s harder to change last minute to arrange to have someone else look after the kids.
Having certain childcare restrictions is fine too, as long as it isn’t treated differently from other commitments. I think it’s fine to say “I can’t work the closing shift on Wednesdays because my spouse’s workplace is open 10-7 instead of 8-5 those days and I need to get the kids” – as long as it’s equally accepted when the coworker without kids says “I have a weekly exercise class on Friday mornings so I can’t work the opening shift that day”
I think the “consistent schedule” or at least “planned in advance and set schedule” is really important for everyone.
At one point my team had a project that involved a bunch of weekend work (could not be helped). Three of the four of us have little kids. We all agreed to take an equal amount of weekend days (not trying to dump it all on the one person with no kids) and we were able to make it work because we could plan in advance to have someone else in charge of said child during that working time.
It would have been a lot harder to swing if it had been a lot of random “we need you here in 30 minutes” type stuff.
Luckily the schedule doesn’t change weekly or even monthly. Ideally it lasts a whole year, but it can change on the quarter if something changes in someone’s availability.
I think my problem has been from feeling like my preferences don’t matter as much as coordinating childcare, so I’ve felt a hard time really advocating for myself.
LW2 (scheduling around families), you are allowed to approach this with the mindset that having kids is not a trump card for scheduling. Their scheduling preferences are not, like, worth an extra 15 points over yours because they have to do with their kids. Their conflicts are important, yes, but your need not to take every hit is important, too. You can put your foot down about that without needing a specific reason not to take a disproportionate number of the undesirable shifts. “I should not have to take a disproportionate number of the undesirable shifts” is more than enough of a reason. You don’t have to back down on that just because someone invokes their children.
If that means that there aren’t enough people to cover the shifts that need to be covered, then the answer is that there need to be more people on the team, not that you have to take every hit. THAT is why you may need to bring in the big boss. That person needs to be aware if there isn’t enough manpower to do what needs to be done.
Yep, all of this, especially your second paragraph. LW#2 shouldn’t need to stretch themself to cover all the gaps in the current schedule.
Re sufficient staffing: I couldn’t tell if the team used to be 4 and was now only 3, or was always 3. I lean towards it always being 3. The problem is that people accepted the old boss’s hard choices where no one wanted certain shifts, but are dumping them on OP now that it’s not coming from a manager, which is why Alison says to make it management’s problem again.
And if it was a team of 4 getting along with only 3, then that makes the scheduling even worse.
It’s been 3 (in previous years it has been only 2!) but multiple people are suggesting that the lack of immediate manager might be what’s driving the coworkers’ inflexibility here. I’m thinking that sounds really likely, so if we need Big Boss to step in, that may be what has to happen to smooth this out.
You’re totally right that I need to see my preferences as just as valid as theirs, it ultimately doesn’t matter why I don’t want to work a terrible shift! Especially since I’m still willing to compromise and take my fair share.
I’ve done a LOT of scheduling (on call techs) and I’ve found it helps to put things down it’s as pure data. That way I know what needs to be done.
And as a happily childless manager I will not tolerate anyone being considered ‘less deserving’ because they don’t have kids. Your personal life and commitments are just as valid btw, and if you keep covering all the work you’ll just burn out and they’ll have to do without your cover anyway.
Basically, rope in senior management if you get pushback.
It may help to think of it not as “They have children” but “They are responsible for picking something up every day at 3”. It makes it easier to see that there are options if the emotional weight of “children!” is taken out of the argument.
Right, but… if someone without kids said they had to pick up something EVERY DAY at 3, that would not go over so well.
I absolutely think we should accommodate parents in the workplace. But people without kids should have their personal lives accommodated to the same degree.
Especially since it’s essentially two against one, kick it back to the big boss with the “we cannot come to a consensus and I cannot do these unreasonable shifts”…
You’re never going to ‘win’ or get anything reasonable when faced with two parents in the mix.
Good luck.
Scheduling is a common part of management jobs, and Scheduling was clearly a big part of Old Boss’ job. We all now see why.
Understand Big Boss trying to get out of it, perhaps out of workload-minimization or some misguided sense of “Not wanting to dictate.” However…
Someone with authority has to make and own the judgment calls about who works when. No getting around that here.
Very good point!
LW5- I’m so sorry for everything you’re going through. If you don’t trust your boss to not hear “I don’t want to keep talking about this” as an invitation to escalate, you can also just lie! “I’m finding my footing”, “I’m finding balance”, “things are coming together”, “I’m cruising along”, whatever breezy platitude that conveys “this conversation is not going beyond surface deep”.
The only true advice I can say is allow yourself to let go of shame and the coulda/woulda/shoulda. You made the best choices you could with the information you had in the situation you were dealt at the time. And having both been in a position of demotion and also having a manger demoted to a peer, unless it was for some egregious event or catastrophic blow up, most people are not going to see this as a “failure” on your part. It honestly doesn’t sound like this reorg was fully communicated (or communicated well) so it may be that folks don’t really know what to say, not that they think anything negative.
“allow yourself to let go of shame and the coulda/woulda/shoulda.”
I second this, there is no shame in taking a step back and/or deciding management is not for me. you also say it is essentially a demotion, but if your title and pay stayed the same I would push back that it is s demotion.
Just because someone a previously junior person is above you know is not commentary on you. Maybe they are really good at managing people, age and skills don’t always correlate. Having a prior report get promoted above you is not a sign of being a bad manager but rather a good a one. Not to take anything away from them, but you likely helped them along in the career and helped the company develop that employee into their current position.
Also I would examine if you truly want to move up and be in supervisory position over lots of people. Society tells us we need to keep moving up and everyone should strive to be a CEO, but that is not true. compAnies need people to be really good individual contributors and or 1st/2nd line managers/supervisors.
If you do want to move up great go for it, but don’t move up just because you feel you should. I’ve known several people who eventually learned to be good great managers but they hated it and would have rather been doing the work.
I managed on an acting basis, decided I hated it and then when back to doing my regular job. I was just exhausted by the end of the day and I didn’t think the raise made up for the large increase in hours I worked. I don’t feel shame for deciding it wasn’t for me, it was making me miserable. I got great performance reviews but was heading towards extreme burnout.
I’m currently in a similar situation. I told my boss almost a year ago I no longer wanted to be in a leadership role. I am anxiously waiting for the right job to pop up to go back to being an individual contributor.
Yeah, it sounds like there’s a mix here of “this isn’t what I want to be doing” and “this feels and/or looks like a referendum on my abilities.” Regarding the latter, seems like the new structure just didn’t benefit from a position with the mix of responsibilities that OP had before, and if there’s only one person on top, it makes sense that it’s the person who’s been doing more of that kind of work. It can personally suck, but still not be personally aimed.
Separating out those feelings (since they likely can’t be entirely quashed, I know,) then it’s a question of whether this role would be a good or tolerable one in a vacuum and whether there’s room to make it better while looking for something else.
It’s a tough situation for sure. It does sound like OP needs a mental re-set – this letter came across as very passive to me. OP could take a bit more agency in their career, starting with these meetings with their boss. Steer the conversation and firmly avoid the line that ends up with you in tears. By your own admission maybe you’ve been hanging back and not engaging in your career. Are there any moves within the company you’d like, and could work towards, even if they seem kind of lateral, but might get you less stuck? Ideally you’d have a new boss and a new team. Can you gain new skills so you can pivot in the field?
Also, based on the timeline of the letter, her child would be 2 or 3 now? So this is a few years of monumental change both personally and professionally, and just an exhausting, very-hands-on period of parenting. I’m stressed out just thinking about it, I imagine this feels like a huge ball of knots that MUST be untied to the LW. I hope they can give themselves time, space, and grace to figure out next steps.
LW5 —
Sorry you feel angry and humiliated, but I agree that ” most people are not going to see this as a “failure” on your part”.
A dear friend once said, “Rejection is God’s protection.”
I would try not to think of it as punishment.
And what to respond?
The best I have ever heard is “Well, I could complain, but I won’t.”
Re your god bit, I don’t think that’s at all a helpful comment to share with strangers. I would be spitting furious if someone said that to me.
LW1 – I find it odd that it’s just such a big deal for people to actually approach your boss about it. Can these busy bodies find something else to concern themselves with?
I disagree with advice given completely. Regardless of being a higher up or not, we don’t owe it to anyone to be super social. The fact that you participate when you can and you encourage your reports to attend should be more than enough!
I disagree: the OP is a senior management, so being social and approachable at such events is an intrinsic part of her job, not a distraction from her job.
The much higher pay at her level goes with much more responsibility and requires a much higher public profile within the organisation, often outside too. There is usually far less sitting at a desk in an office and a lot more getting out and about, social interaction, showing up for events, pressing the flesh etc.
Same. If a lower-level employee shows up and sees one of the big bosses behaving like a petulant toddler for being forced to show up to something – and behaving like this at more than one event – they’re certainly within their lane to ask what the heck is going on. (Perhaps in an effort to not have to do this anymore themselves))
Totally agree. Leaders often don’t realize how much their affect impacts their team. In my first job, I had a direct report let me know my sarcasm sent a negative message. From then on, I cut out all sarcasm with my direct reports. It wasn’t being inauthentic, it was me being a leader.
I’d have thought a perk of being in senior management was to nope out of such events when they wanted to.
I am going to another one of those people who disagree with you. A long time ago, I had a job that included phlebotomy: I had to draw the blood of a human control and experimental subject three times a week. They received a stipend but it was very important not a) scare them or b) hurt them so they wouldn’t come back. We were trained to draw blood pretty painlessly (I was a super control so I was drawn at least once a week) which came in handy since the first few draws I did involved our clinic director’s guest, and two children. Part of the job was to be reassuring and professional. If you can hood it together at a social event, can you expect employees to come to you with problems? For most jobs that are outside of server rooms, a certain ability to act like areal human being is required.
Except it’s part of the job. Big boss is making it quite clear this is part of the job, not a fun extra.
LW is in the wrong job if she wants to say sure doesn’t have to do social with colleagues.
“Regardless of being a higher up or not, we don’t owe it to anyone to be super social.”
The advice wasn’t to be super social, but rather to be pleasant and/or neutral.
You don’t have to go and pretend to be super happy, excited, and over the moon to be at the event, but rather that people should not be able to tell you hate being there and think it’s a waste of time.
But I also disagree, being higher up does mean more responsibility, attending most/all company events and being social or “super social” can be a part of that.
Wanting leaders that are invested or pretend to be in the company and employees is not unreasonable.
There will always be s
parts of your job you don’t enjoy but still need to get done.
They’re not busy bodies. They’re being asked to attend events and their boss is clearly signalling they don’t like it. It’s 1. Unprofessional, 2. Annoying for those people who also don’t want to be there but are being asked to and 3. Probably comes across as rude.
Sort of. It would be indeed odd for people to police people on or below their level for not being hyper-social, but the very fact that people “notice” OP is there “out of obligation” is pretty bad for a senior leader. Leaders are like the hosts, or co hosts of these things. Imagine going to something you’ve been invited to and the hosts act like they’re bored, or don’t want you there, or they are simply going through the motions; you’d push back and say why. It’s about the comfort of the people you manage and signalling to others how to behave. It’s pretty alarming to have OP describe actively participating as “inauthentic” and not part of their core duties. It’s even more alarming for them to describe their boss as “stressed” so flippantly, and while they say their job is okay for now, their read on this is so off that I wonder if they actually know how thin this ice really is. It’s really common for people to be be promoted into management because of their awesome hard skills, or industry knowledge but not because of their management skills (and behaviour at events is a key skill). OP is clearly valued, but, even if this skill is a stretch for them they should take this feedback seriously.
The “it would be inauthentic” part of the LW’s excuse really grates on me. There are a lot of things about working in an office that are inauthentic, and there are a lot of parts of our “authentic” selves that don’t belong in the workplace. To some extent, we’re all doing some level of acting in the workplace, pretending we care about things more than we do in order to make a good impression. That’s just how having a job works a lot of the time, and LW isn’t exempt from that just because they don’t like parties.
Nobody’s asking them to start a conga line, but they need to be civil enough to smile warmly at their staff and coworkers and engage in a polite conversation.
Yeah, LW is striking me as one of those people who use “I’m just being real” as an excuse for being a jerk. There is a middle ground between Spongebob and Squidward.
“There is a middle ground between Spongebob and Squidward.” Excellent, excellent framing!
I don’t think it’s an excuse, as much as genuinely misunderstanding. I think it’s more of an issue with being too strictly literal. I think a lot of people get exasperated and confused by the many unwritten rules of professional socialising, but OP is literally considering socialising as the same way you’d consider actual socialising; “I don’t enjoy it, and you don’t actually need me there, so….no?” OP then turned to the professional part of the description to try to understand what’s required of her; “Okay, so how many of these are mandatory?!” Then is told, “all of them!” without picking up on how important that makes the social requirements of their job. I think they are thoroughly confused about why someone would want to “socialise” with someone who doesn’t genuinely want to, for fun, with all their heart. They might be better reframing it as networking, or making a goal to learn one non work fact about everyone they work with to create better working relationships.
Agreed. I’m really not a fan of this attitude I see in this letter (and the comments here sometimes, honestly) that affording your coworkers the bare minimum of civility and courtesy in social settings is an affront to “authenticity.” We live in a society, y’all, c’mon. Yes, it’s tiring to hitch up your “work persona” sometimes, but I think particularly in senior leadership it’s part of your job duties to not be so openly contemptuous of socializing that your colleagues think you resent having to spend more than the bare minimum of time with them.
This set my teeth on edge as well. I’ve got to give a presentation tomorrow. If I showed up authentically to this presentation, I would sidle into the room, announce that I didn’t want to be there and I wish everyone would just ask my more knowledgeable colleague, and leave immediately. Am I going to do that? No! I’m going to BS that I am confident, approachable and definitely not too frantically busy to hang around taking questions. Because if I don’t do that, the entire presentation becomes pointless. People need to know what I’m going to tell them, they need to be on board with it, and they need to come to me for clarification on any points. No one’s paying me to be authentic, they’re paying me to achieve the above.
Adults don’t get cookies just for showing up when they didn’t want to. If you make it truly obvious that you don’t want to be there, you are negating the point of turning up in the first place.
My authentic self wears sweats and slippers, but here I am wearing jeans, a blouse, and nice shoes.
Generic Name, are you abd I twins? My authentic self is basically a big tee shirt and crocs, but I do occasionally make the effort to wear jeans (ok, mostly in winter cause leggings don’t cut it in Chicago, unless they’re fleece lined, but I find those to be Forbidden Sensation!) or sweats when I’m working. It’s just lucky that as a petsitter, I can do what I want, clothing wise. when I DID work in an office, I’d adjust, but I hated it. Fortunately, most of my work life has been around animals, where people expect workers to either be wearing scrubs, or wearing something somewhat scruffy because seriously, we’re up to our eyeballs in animal… output, shall we call it, so ya gotta wear the thing that suits that.
Maybe this letter writer needs to reconsider her career path to something more suited to her. That might be hard to find, because so many jobs seem to be geared towards sociability, which is frustrating for those of us who find it pretty unpleasant.
To me the fact that employees complained gives OP the whiff of an unreliable narrator a bit here, as I’d think the behavior would have to be pretty egregious for underlings to be reporting on senior leadership to their bosses. Unless I’m not understanding the context, this isn’t just “OP’s smile was a bit stiff and they didn’t really seem to be enjoying themselves” – more like “OP was actively rude to my spouse” or something. I’m getting House MD vibes for some reason here haha.
Yes, it has to be extra bad for lower level employees to care enough to report to OP’s boss. To actually notice, clock it as unusual, then bother to raise it to a higher up means something is really wrong.
Also, what message is the I’m busy so I can’t be bothered to be social sending to her reports? Work is your end and be all, don’t bother to learn the soft skills part of your jobs. Don’t be a human being, just be a robot who only works?
It is not my experience that it has to be “extra bad” for lower level employees to care enough to report it to the OP’s boss. It just take a few people who are even slightly sensitive to any level of lack of enthusiasm who also have the ear of a boss.
We are supposed to take the OP at their word. The OP said that they are being asked to “like” the events. Being expected to “like” the events is going well beyond soft skills and IMO points to an unhealthy work environment.
I think there are two possibilities here. If the LW is really just not being very enthusiastic but is being professional and gracious, then yeah, reporting that is bizarre. And it is possible the LW works for a toxic company that expects everybody to be best friends and get really involved in everything.
But it’s also possible the LW is coming across as more negative than she realises and seems actually resentful about having to be there or hostile to others.
And the truth might well lie in between. The people making the complaints might be particularly sensitive to unfriendliness.
And honestly, even in the first case, it seems like that is the culture and not participating could damage the LW’s reputation, reduce their capital, etc even if their job is not at risk. It might be that this is not the right culture for the LW and they would be better off jobsearching or it might be that this is just one disagreeable duty they can tolerate.
Yeah, I’ve been going back and forth on this just a little bit because I’ve tried imagining what my boss would have to behave like at an event for me to a) notice and b) care and c) care enough to actually report it to someone higher up. That really only leaves me with two possibilites:
1. OP works at a place where multiple people either care exceptionally much about optics and/or Being Enthusiastic and/or think that no deviating from the norm shall be tolerated, ever, OR are just a backstabby, toxic, dysfunctional bunch who delight in getting others in trouble.
2. OP’s behaviour at these events is so over-the-top hostile that basically everyone with working eyes can tell and is uncomfortable with it.
And like you say, Irish, I can actually truly imagine that it’s a mixture of the two. However, if OP’s resentment IRL comes through even half as strongly as in the letter, I, like Alison and most commenters, am definitely leaning more towards the second possibility.
It’s not the first case. Why? Because if the company really expected everybody to be BFFs and get involved in everything and toxic positivity and etc, then OP wouldn’t have risen all the way to senior management. She would have hit a ceiling of “not enthusiastic enough” or “not a team player” well before reaching the C-suite.
As for the “in between” option, the fact that multiple people independently have complained AND it’s happened often enough that the boss keeps talking about it? It feels extremely unlikely that different people at different times are all simultaneously super sensitive to unfriendliness.
The most likely answer here is the simple, second one: OP is coming across far more negatively than she realizes.
I agree. OP is actually coming across negatively in the letter.
Very much so!
I can almost guarantee based on the tone of the letter that they are not being super social, they are more likely being super rude, and yes, it is a part of many people’s jobs at a certain level. It certainly is at mine.
Exactly.
I would even argue that it’s better not to show up to these events than to be there but rude /unapproachable.
There is nothing wrong with not liking them, but, especially as management, once you are there, you are working and need to be somewhere between a polite, neutral baseline and looking like you are enjoying yourself. If that feels inauthentic – well, does every salesperson or front desk person always feel upbeat, warm and welcoming? Are they expected to project such a thing anyway? Same thing here.
Bingo.
I have a meeting coming up with a patron who drives us all nuts. They’re not rude but they’re never prepared, don’t keep track of their own materials, etc. It’s completely ridiculous. I still have to be nice and helpful no matter how much I’d like to tell them to grow up, I am not their wife/secretary/research assistant and if they want that piece of information they’ll have to come in and find it again themselves. Yes, my boss has addressed this and it gets better and then slips again, over and over. This project is supposed to be drawing to a close so we should get a reprieve soon, but augh.
But then if you’re sulking in a corner, you’re basically being unapproachable. Some people might be hoping to discuss something with you, typically float an idea past you to see how you’ll react to it, and if you’re already grumpy-looking they won’t dare do that. Your reports are at a disadvantage because there won’t ever be any situations where you’ll introduce them to other people you might be interested in talking to.
I remember several annual meetings that I attended when I found out all sorts of things about what was going on at head office, that would never have been put in an email. I hated attending but I learned a lot.
What’s wrong with being gracious? I’m all for introverts introverting, I’m one myself, and with Internet introverts can definitely introvert a whole lot more than before. Making it all the more important to be sociable on the few occasions when we have to be.
Honestly I’m trying to picture even complaining to the highest-level boss over OP being in the corner! I think OP might be coming across as rude or negative in their interactions, to warrant that (I’m assuming OP is like a Director and the big boss is CEO – it would take a LOT to complain to the CEO as an employee! Maybe less from other leadership or key partners or something … but I’m guessing OP wouldn’t be a successful leader if they couldn’t manage relationships with other powerful people/decision makers).
I am an introvert to the bone but sometimes we have to do things we don’t love and pretend we don’t hate them while we do them. Apparently that is part of this job. (My supervisor is also an introvert to the bone and I know for a fact that she doesn’t love a lot of the networking and outreach responsibilities of her position but she smiles and does them, anyway, because it’s part of being Head of [Department]. Yes, they are necessary for the nature of our work.)
If people are noticing how much you hate these events, which seem to be an inherent part of the job, it’s a problem.
It is not unreasonable to expect supervisors to be pleasant at social events instead of acting like they rather be “doing their tasks.” Everyone is busy, and part of being a leader is showing up to these events and being social to your employees.
I am the lowest person in the hierarchy at my company but the nature of my job (Receptionist/Office Coordinator) requires me to be super social even when I really don’t want to be.
The senior staff who make six figures can suck it up and make small talk for 45 minutes.
Nah, sorry. Being a leader at the org and knowing your reports enjoy this stuff and seemingly want you there absolutely changes this. You get paid more money than others to, in theory, compensate for your job being harder/having more responsibility. You need to earn that title by showing up and making your reports feel valued. Think about your paycheck if you need to, but no, being a leader should require more from you. If LW’s reports all seemed to hate these events to maybe it’d be different.
What likely happened is that people were pushing back against these nonsensical wastes of time, pointing out that even LW couldn’t pretend to be enthused about them so why are they even happening. Then the boss decided to frame it as multiple people complaining about *LW* instead of *the events* and insisting that the LW pretend to be enthused about them in order to make the rest of the workers less confident about pushing back.
I dunno, tbh I think that’s projection from you.
I know a lot of commenters here refuse to believe it but many people do genuinely enjoy work socializing. The LW here indicated as much in their letter, that they are the odd one out on this front. The majority of their colleagues at all levels seemingly enjoy these events, it is what it is.
I think there has been a lot of projections in the comments on OP1’s situation.
No problem with people enjoying socializing but demanding that other people enjoy it too is not cool. And while it could be true that OP employer’s work culture could be a bad match it could also be true that OP’s work place could just have some over-enthusiastic people who need to bring it down a notch.
OP herself wrote “I’m very much in the minority” re: socializing at work. I’m going solely off of OP’s stated info. The majority of her coworkers seem to like the social atmosphere of OP’s workplace, and OP is seemingly one of the only ones who doesn’t.
Now, does the fact that everyone else likes the retreats and parties mean OP has to? Well, again, it would be different if OP wasn’t in senior leadership, but she is. The extra salary comes with extra responsibility here.
Senior Leadership Position + This is the company culture preferred by the vast majority = OP needs to think about how much opting out or “remaining authentic” (whatever that means) matters to her.
Some jobs do have necessary social aspects, too. If yours doesn’t, great. Mine mostly doesn’t. Higher-level jobs in my discipline have more. That’s how it goes sometimes.
LW1 – There are probably plenty of other people who don’t want to be at these work events also, but they are there and sucking it up, because their job depends on it. To be expected to participate and be a “team player” while watching someone above you not put in the same effort and/or act like it’s beneath them is demoralizing, to say the least. It’s not inauthentic – it’s actually part of the job responsibilities – to act like you care about a client in a meeting with them, to act like you care about what you’re presenting while standing in front of the boardroom, to act like you care about other department head’s needs when they ask your team for support, and yes, to act like you care about encouraging the team of people that work underneath you at required work events. Being pleasant at a certain level is a work responsibility.
Thank you for pointing out that this type of sulking (because that’s what this OP is essentially doing) also has an impact on event staff. I’d never expect senior management to gush about the events that I organise, but it would be a bit demoralising if they were acting like they would sooner be almost anywhere else.
Planning events is skilled, under-paid and under-appreciated work. A lot of the time, we’re working long hours and going above and beyond to put on events and nobody even thanks us. A bit of politeness and being gracious to your hard-working events team costs nothing and goes a very long way, especially coming from senior management.
I always send HR a thank you for the little events they do because I used to be an event planner and as you say, it takes work. The tone of that letter really bothered me. “I’m very busy,” I’m sure other people are busy too LW1.
Also, if OP is there but acting neutral-pleasant, the event will not actually take more time than if they are grumpy. So ‘I am busy’ is not a great excuse for this.
I’d never expect senior management to gush about the events that I organise, but it would be a bit demoralising if they were acting like they would sooner be almost anywhere else.
As an ordinary employee, I often feel a bit cynical when senior management gushes over company events. Like, oh, they’re just putting it on because it’s their job.
But you’ve made me realise that I would be disturbed if they didn’t put on that positive face and grinched instead. Like, it’s literally their job!
I think any extreme can feel insulting. A gush might feel inauthentic or condescending, and a grinch might be – well, a grinch.
But a basic professional pleasantness and a “glad we could do this” or “it’s great to see everyone” is not too much to ask for.
Also – it’s definitely a “know your exec” thing, because sometimes the senior gushing is authentic. Some people are just like that haha.
I’d appreciate their candor if they did that, but I realize that’s probably an outlier opinion.
I’m always amazed at how people manage to get events to work, you definitely have a different kind of brain to me. I get frazzled easily, but I see the woman who organises the annual conference for an NGO I volunteer with, she’s unflappable. She knows that Mary has the key to room 7 but that she’s in room 8 with Jane, she knows where you can find more X and photocopy 10 documents before the end of the AGM, she’ll be organising for somebody to be picked up from the station when their uber driver flakes out on them… I don’t know how she does it.
It really is a personality type, I swear. I do have friends who LOVE to plan parties and events even on their off time, and really thrive in that situation. One even said she’d love to start a party planning business or be a wedding planner. And then there’s me awkwardly stuffing my face in the corner …
Certain personality types do it better but it’s also just a practiced skill, like most things. I hate corporate events, but I can plan, organize, and execute them because, well, I’ve had to! And I can be unflappable in the moment…and then go home and sleep for three days. Sometimes event planners are just the world’s greatest actors.
Yeah, this is what it’s like for me. I can be entirely freaking out about some aspect of an event in my head and still look totally calm. I kind of approach it as a fun mental challenge – likewise having to remember 90 different things at once when you’re running a big registration desk! It’s exhilarating and mentally exhausting at the same time. Having acted a bit when I was young, it’s a very similar feeling and skill set, weirdly enough.
Sometimes I help with planning because otherwise I would prefer to be alone in a corner, and that’s not a good look in my position. I’ve gotten better at social mingling over the years, but it’ll never be my best trait. So I choose the role I’m more comfortable in, because I have to choose one. If I’m directing things or assisting with set up, I don’t have to make small talk about the weather or ‘kids these days’.
Definitely, many years ago when I was much younger I complained to my boss about the pointless awayday and why it was a waste of time and how dreadful it was. My then boss agreed but pointed out that several people had spent a lot of time arranging it, trying to sort out the event and make it run smoothly so it would be grown up of me to be a bit more appreciative of their efforts and the work they put into everything if I wanted to get on.
He was quite direct so I stomped off in a grumpy mood. But then I thought about it and realised he was right so it was a learning experience. Now I always thank the organisers and try and say nice things about their work. Because even if I don’t enjoy the awayday I know it’s hard arranging them and someone has done a lot of work on it.
Yes, completely agree.
LW1, it seems you believe that others genuinely love these work social events, since you say “I”m very much in the minority” about preferring to do other work. That is very unlikely to be true. Most people are moderately entertained at best, but see the benefit of building a warm relationship with colleagues, and probably fake it better than you do.
I am getting the sense that you are very much an introvert, and that this type of socializing feels particularly daunting. Maybe at your seniority level, you can get your company to invest in some executive coaching on these “soft skills”. Even if it doesn’t come naturally to you, this is something you can learn. Just stop believing it’s optional.
Good grief, thank you for writing this.
RE: OP#3 – I understand how this change can make you furious. I have a similar situation that I’m – maybe not furious – but really pissed off about. I love my job, my team, my manager, and the flexibility to be able to go to doctor’s appts, etc. AND get my work done. I’m mad because of what feels like an arbitrary policy change that now makes my wonderful job less wonderful and makes me resent leadership there and respect them less.
There have been rumblings about requiring 3 days/week in the office for a bit over a year. My manager knew that it was really hard for me to get there more than 2 days/week (due to neurodivergence and mental health issues, but I never said that to him specifically), and he said I should come in as much as I can and that he wasn’t worried about it. When I tried to come in 3 days one week, I just couldn’t do it.
This year, it became a new policy. In our monthly company-wide meeting, leadership made it sound like “well all of the other CEOs at the XYZ conference think employees should come back to the office, so we’re going to do that.” Are you kidding me?!
I went in Tue, Wed, & Thu the first week, and I was a wreck for 4 days after that.
So here’s what I’m mad about: This policy feels arbitrary, and it feels like we’re being treated like children who can’t be trusted. Our team was doing really well with each person’s office/home schedules before this change. And since I can’t do 3 days in a row, I’ll be coming in on Fridays (in addition to Tuesdays and Wednesdays), when only 1 other person will be there. So the idea that we can collaborate better because we’re in the office together isn’t the case for Fridays, but I have to come in then anyway so make my 3 days in the office. Plus pay for tolls and parking on a day when I would get more work done if I was at home.
We went from two days to three days and finally to five days starting last month. It does feel arbitrary, since most of us worked flexible schedules for ten or more years—long before Covid.
It might be worth looking into a medical accommodation, Edwina. I know you know your workplace best, so there could be reasons that doesn’t make sense in your context. But, as someone who is also neurodivergent and can’t work in person for multiple days in a row without being a wreck at home, I felt really bad about asking for an accommodation to say that I needed to be fully remote, until my doctor pointed out it is a valid medical need, and while I do go in sometimes for important reasons, I will never be required to be fully in office by my company.
I still sometimes feel like it’s a fake need, because technically nothing is stopping me from going into the office. My commute is short. I don’t have any mobility issues that make being in the office untenable. Everyone finds being in the office more draining than being at home. I used to be in an office daily and was fine* so why can’t I do it anymore?
(*I was, actually, not fine at all, and the office I used to be in was far quieter, calmer, and easier on my neurodivergence than my current workplace is. The current workplace is a nightmare for me.)
But, I do get severe headaches and often migraines from being in the office, I have to sit in a cube so the noise and distraction means I get next to nothing done, I hotel so I can’t get the same spot daily so I have to adjust everything constantly, I often have to sit in a location where people approach me from behind so I end up incredibly tense and on edge all day, I end up so drained I can’t do anything at home for days, etc. I have to remind myself it’s not the same downsides that neurotypical people experience from being in the office. It’s not the same severity of downsides. It’s valid that you can do 1 day but not 2, or you can do 2 days but not 3. It doesn’t need to be something everyone understands or agrees with. I’ve heard from plenty of people who don’t agree with handicapped parking spaces because they want to park that close to a building, but that doesn’t change that those spaces are needed.
It’s encouraging to me that your employer has accepted your Reasonable Accommodation request! Im hoping that my employer will do the same… so far I have a verbal promise that my 5day WFH will be honored, but I have a feeling I’ll need to scrape together medical stuff that I didn’t have to bring up before, because I specifically took a 95% WFH role…
Do you have recommendations on what kind of paperwork or documentation might be needed? I chose a job that was 95% remote and the rumblings of RTO are now real, they’re starting to ask everyone to come in at least 1 day each week (many are in 2-3 times a week already). My grandboss granted me an exception verbally since I spoke up (the 5day wfh was a big part of why I took the job), but I don’t trust that exemption will hold (the upper up leadership has been not-awesome here. Grandboss is cool, but she might not win that battle if it becomes mandate.)
I haven’t had to ask for accommodations for my sleep issues, or for the adhd I’m working to get diagnosed, since WFH (roll out of bed at 8:58 and straight to work at 9!) and using noise canceling headphones (yes, even at home) helped a ton.
Lw1 this kind of seems like part of your job as senior management. You have to do extra stuff outside of your day to day work, like attending corporate retreats.
LW3 I also dont really see the big deal. It seems like a pretty small trade off in order to work from home to me.
OP1, first off, it might help if you started considering these work gatherings as one of your tasks that you need to get done, and to see appearing pleasantly neutral as part of your job performance. Your company has determined that this socializing is in the best interest of its business, which makes it just as important as your normal job responsibilities. Remember, too, that if people who report to you are there and are trying to socialize with you, it has a disproportionate impact for you to be surly or unapproachable towards them, as someone in a leadership role.
If you truly don’t know why you are coming across so strongly as not wanting to be there, consider these things: 1. What is your body language doing when you’re there? Are your arms crossed? Are you slumped in your seat? Are you physically turned away from the central activity? Practice having present and engaged body language, the way you might do during an important meeting.
2. What is your face doing while you’re there? Where are your eyes spending their time? Are you frowning or looking bored? Are you looking at the other people there or off in the distance? Practice a pleasantly neutral face (you don’t have to plaster a smile, just find something that doesn’t look actively unhappy.)
3. When people talk to you, do you engage in conversation or do you keep your answers as short and conversation-ending as possible? If someone makes a joke, are you at least offering a polite smile or chuckle in response? If you find these types of conversations draining or challenging when you’re on the spot, make a list ahead of time of neutral questions you can ask your coworkers if you’re roped into a conversation where you don’t have much to say. People tend to love to talk about themselves and depending on how casual the conversation is, the topic of pets are almost always a quick hack to get people to chatter on with minimal need for additional input.
And if you try all this and it’s too excruciating or doesn’t seem to be working, a last strategy to try: Make yourself a bingo card, and fill each square with something you think might happen at the event. “[Person] makes a joke about X” or “[coworker] complains about the food.” Then make it a game for yourself to pay enough attention that you notice if you get to cross off a box on your bingo card. It’ll make even annoying, frustrating situations more entertaining and keep your focus on the people around you instead of on your boredom.
I really like this very practical approach to socialising. It might feel a bit like “fake it til you make it”, but general politeness and some small talk is a requirement in many jobs.
I personally found socializing like this a lot less stressful once I started seeing these behaviors as sort of like a ritual to perform that increases the likelihood people around you will find you pleasant and easy to be around. Is it the most authentic version of myself? No, but I’m rarely that when I’m at work anyways, and performing the ritual lays the ground work that enables me to be more authentic with specific trusted people later on.
These specific and practical suggestions for behavior to notice and modify make a lot of sense and I bet they will be really helpful to the letter writer, and to other readers.
And I would add a #4: are you (the letter writer) of a marginalized ethnicity or gender, or in some other category where you are demographically unusual at your organization? Because if so, this is a place bias comes in; you don’t get as much of the benefit of the doubt. A facial expression or a conversational response that, from someone else, would be read as “gracious” or “neutral” or “reserved”, from you reads as “unenthusiastic”, “intimidating”, “angry”, “huffy” (I’m thinking of the recent letter https://www.askamanager.org/2025/02/my-employee-gets-huffy-when-we-play-music-in-the-office.html ), or otherwise unbecoming.
If this is the case, you MIGHT be able to talk with your manager and human resources about the double standard, but that’s often risky and effectiveness is chancy. More likely you’ll need to either change your behavior to accommodate the bias, live with the consequences of the bias, or find a different role.
Or alternatively, employ yourself in actively introducing members of your team to others within the organization that might be able to advance the work of your team. Consider it an investment in developing informal working relationships with other teams. And if you’re actively seeking out Fred so you can introduce him to Joanne in accounting who can process your invoices faster, maybe you won’t come across so negatively.
I like this idea because it sets a task for OP, since they are so task-minded. Each event can have 2-3 people-related tasks they set for themselves. Once those are completed, they can leave, and people will have a positive memory of their appearance at the event.
Assuming, of course, that they pleasantly engage the people they speak with, instead of “Have you seen Fred? No? Bye.”
The “take the scheduling unfairness to your manager” only works if your manager actually believes that single/childless people also deserve to get decent schedules.
The worst scheduling I had was because the office manager was the main person who believed her and my other coworkers having kids trumped any possible reason I might have to not want to get stranded alone to close the office every day or work all weekend events, and I never, ever get flex time while everyone else did.
I had that in my first post-college job, where among other things I was ordered to come into the office on Thanksgiving Day to check some server. When I pointed out this wasn’t related to my job and I didn’t know what to look for, boss said “we’ll give you the manual, everyone else has a family.” When I asked why he thought I didn’t have a family, he said scornfully, “Oh, did you suddenly have a baby I don’t know about?” (bonus points for a derisive glance at my belly area). I got out of it by reminding him that he’d already approved my travel and I had nonrefundable plane tickets, but “you don’t have kids, do all the shitwork and weird shifts” was fully ingrained in their culture.
This. Single/ childless people don’t spring fully formed out of nowhere. I want to be able to spend holidays with my elderly parents/ siblings/ cousins/ etc – just because we didn’t marry or give birth to someone doesn’t mean we don’t have family! (or friends/ found family, in some cases!)
I had a manager who was fine about allowing time off/leaving early to deal with kids, but got super weird and passive aggressive when I needed that for dealing with my MIL with health issues/dementia. I found out much, much later that she had all kinds of baggage from dealing with her own mother, which made her weird about anything to do with helping parents.
what the hell job could you possibly have had where you’ve never encountered the concept of billable hours?
I’m in year fourteen of my legal career and have never billed. I’ve worked exclusively in non-profits (who had a contract with a per-case rate) and in government—including my law school internships. I have picked these jobs because I would SUCK at billing, and if I had to pseudo-bill solely because management had an issue with wfh, yes, I would be livid. I’m not paid enough to deal with billable hours.
You get used to it pretty quickly.
You do. Because you enjoy things like food and electricity and the only way to get those things if your job requires billable time is to bill your time.
Sure–but what I’m saying is that my jobs (and presumably OP’s job) don’t require that. Billables are not an immutable fact of lawyer life. And so within a framework where billables aren’t in fact required, and “tell us what you did all day” really is dependent on both WFH and junior status, OP is correctly clocking that this is about a lack of trust, which feels very BS to OP right now bc OP is working plenty.
That said, OP probably has to deal.
interesting, I have a colleague who left and came back because of how much she hated billing. There is also a lot of bemoaning dealing with billables in my lawyer FB groups (lawyer moms and ADHD lady lawyers).
I certainly understand that many attorneys find it fine and deal-with-able. I’m just suggesting that OP is not a whiner snowflake for not being down, especially because it’s not actually necessary for billing.
Honestly, this is where automation and technology really helps, because I turn on my timer and it does the math for me. When I had to do it manually, it was very stressful because I had such a hard time immediately figuring it out in .2 increments.
Eh, not necessarily. I couldn’t do a job with billable hours because of my ADHD- I can’t really work on one project in a sustained fashion, I tend to bounce between projects/get distracted and come back, and all that + time blindness means that at the end of the day the work is done but I genuinely have no idea how much time I spent on it.
I learned this the first and only time I tried to do freelance stuff, realized that pay structure is just really not for me.
That’s why you use task counters to track in real time.
I’m not sure that would work for me, unless the task counter was like a person who followed me around tracking what I did for me. When I bounce between stuff I don’t tend to think about it consciously, I just do a lot of random stuff that ends up amounting to getting things done, but not in timeable chunks. But again, that’s one of the reasons I realized freelancing was not for me- lost a ton of money on a project because I was unable to even begin to estimate my time. Lesson learned!
Honestly the letter reminds me of the “send us 5 bullet points of what you did this week” demand that they are asking of federal workers right now. Maybe I’m just sensitive because I had a micromanager who demanded we send a summary every week of what we did while also giving us her work.
Yeah, I mean the only time I’ve ever had to account for my time was when I worked for an absolutely awful micromanager who demanded we a) copy her in on every single email we sent, b) track everything we worked on in half-hour increments and c) present her with that information at the end of the month. I was freelance – but crucially I was being paid a daily rate rather than an hourly one – and everyone else in the company was salaried, and we weren’t billing clients or anything like that. The boss just wanted a blow-by-blow account of every half-hour of everyone’s day. She’d also routinely prowl round the office looking at what everyone was doing and saying ‘Why are you working on that? Stop that now, I want you to work on [whatever her latest whim was]’. I had to compile the info and add it to my monthly invoice – which she’d then reject every month, because she’d go through line by line and say ‘You shouldn’t have spent so much time working on Z – you should have been working on Y instead’.
I know that law is an industry where usually people do have to track their time and bill by the hour etc, and the bosses need to be able to see that everyone is meeting their targets for hours billed to clients and whatnot. But it doesn’t sound like that’s what’s happening here – it’s just that junior lawyers are being asked to keep a log of what they’re doing all day when they WFH, and senior lawyers are not. Maybe that’s because the senior lawyers are billing clients and the bosses can see how much they’re doing that way. But in any case, if it is just the junior staff, it definitely comes across as ‘we don’t trust you not to slack off when you’re WFH’. Which, sadly, is an attitude that some people in senior management seem to have, even if the pandemic has proved that there are plenty of jobs where WFH is no barrier to productivity.
None of which sounds remotely like what the LW is describing.
For one thing, their boss is absolutely not micromanaging. Even the report that they are being asked to prepare is a daily summary rather than a “blow by blow” description or 6 minute increments.
Also, technically this is meant for *all* staff, but the manager has the capital to waive the requirement for senior staff. Nothing about personally not trusting junior staff or the LW. To be honest that fact that the manager has the sense to at least waive it for senior staff is good sense, because these are people who are hopefully valuable enough and high level productive enough that there is really is a difference. Also you don’t want to waste their time and annoy them, at a higher level than with untested staff.
I had to account for my time in IT (not 6-minute intervals or anything), but in each project it happened in a different way. In one, we had to fill in in a special program, in another, in a shared Excel file. In third (and this was actually my first project so it took me quite a time to clue in that I am in fact accounting for my time) there were daily stand-ups where the project boss asked everyone what have they been doing and if it looked like you had been busy with the same ticket for several days then what was wrong and if some more senior person couldn’t help a bit, etc.
That sounds like a good way to minimize the chaos that is happening right now.
Either that or an incredibly over-the-top reaction to a run of the mill piece of sloppy management.
Not really the case in the legal field. We have billing requirements and have to account for time. I’ve even been in traditional non-billing (plaintiff oriented) firms where we were still required to log a certain amount of hours because some plaintiffs receive bills for work done on their cases.
I get that as a judicial clerk they did not have to, but even when I was a law student working in private practice I had to account for my time – because that’s how the firm billed me! Even during an in-house stint we had some periods where we’d track what we’re doing, mostly to assess department needs. I get the frustration here as it sounds like it’s only junior associates and only during WFH, but major side-eye to the idea that this is “an outrage.” In fact, that we bill our time is the first and best reason attorneys at my firm point to as justification for flexible WFH policies – and we’re RIGHT.
I had the same thought. I got out of law as fast as I could because I was sick of living my work life in six minute intervals, and I was just a clerk who wasn’t scrutinized nearly as badly as the real lawyers were.
LW4 – in the UK you can absolutely demand they remove you from their website. Especially if your name is with your photo.
We have the right to remove any data about ourselves from a space like that. I’m fairly certain that the GDPR laws in the UK give that right.
#3. I think you’re channeling your frustration about more complex issues around work load and hours into this one easier to define target. Reporting like this can be annoying but it’s not unreasonable. Even in situations where they trust their staff and there isn’t billable hours in play there’s lots of reasons they may want to know how you’re using your time. They may want to know if one particular client or task is taking up too much of everyone’s time. They may want to know where particular projects are up to. They may want to identify things people are spending time on that may be better allocated to new/different staff. Basic info about what staff are spending time on is an important management tool, especially in situations like yours where people are working too many hours and they need to reduce that.
Yep. All of this. It’s not inherently bad practice, contrary to what Allison said in her response. If you’re not in the office people can’t just walk over and ask if you can help with something.
My company bills in 15- minute increments and every day we send a list of projects we will touch. This is because our calendars don’t necessarily reflect all the work we’ll be doing. We also may get pulled in to help with something and people need to know who is available versus who has to be head down on a deadline. And absolutely to figuring out what’s behind overwork! This is how you figure out whether pricing and work are aligned well, too.
I’ve had many jobs—including in the office—where I had to fill out daily or weekly updates on what I’m doing. We called them weekly “lowlights”, but we did them. Why? Because it was a normal part of the job.
I agree with others, OP3, that your annoyance may be misplaced. Think of what really bothering you about this job.
Yeah, I have to fill out weekly updates. It’s not that big of a deal as long as you’re not having to do an excruciating amount of nitpicking at it–which may be OP’s issue if they work in law. I have no idea how you document every 6 minutes (also, why SIX minutes?!).
6 min = 10% of an hour, and 10% is a nice easy number to deal with.
That was my thinking. As a senior consulting Manager for major firm it was important to me to know how much times certain things took. Well, I’m not legal, simply knowing that Erin was billing Smith account for 15 hours. Didn’t help me to know what Erin was spending her time on. Was it researching, writing the report analyzing spreadsheets? The next time I did one of those engagements I needed to have an idea as to how much time those things would take.
I agree that something else is really bothering LW3 and this is just the most recent irritation. I do find it odd she was only told about this three months into the job but maybe probationary employees are exempt?
LW1, is it possible that at some point, perhaps in your childhood, you were made to feel like you couldn’t win with regard to showing enthusiasm for activities you didn’t enjoy, told off for “sulking” if you showed any indication you didn’t enjoy it after the adults went to all the trouble of forcing you into it but then, when you did fake enthusiasm, had it used against you, with “see, you enjoyed it really! Now, aren’t you glad I made you do it? Next time you complain you don’t want to do something, I’ll remind you of how much you enjoyed this as an argument as to why you should do what I want instead of what you do and why you should be grateful to me for that”?
I’ve had that happen and yeah, as a child, it did make me determined not to pretend I enjoyed things I didn’t because of how often it got used as an argument that I should spend more time doing stuff I hated.
But that is mostly something that happens to young children who are often assumed to be unable to tell what they want and to be “just being difficult” if they don’t want to do whatever adults think children should enjoy or whatever it is convenient for adults to have them enjoy. It might happen sometimes in adulthood in more social situations, but at work, the assumption is that you are doing it because it’s your job and not because you secretly love it and want to go out more often but just say you don’t because you “like being difficult.” And even if your coworkers did think your enthusiasm meant you wanted to go out with them voluntarily, you could say no. Adults have choice over those things. This isn’t going to be like a child being told the adults have arranged a playdate with the kids who are picking on them at school and they have to be polite and make an effort to get on with them and then, when the do put on a happy face, get told, “see, I knew you liked them really. Aren’t they such nice kids? I don’t know what you were being so stubborn about! We’ll arrange another playdate next week.”
I may be way off here and perhaps your coworkers are being ridiculous, but your comment about being “inauthentic” gives me the impression that at some level, you have to show that you aren’t 100% on board with this and that at some level, you want people to see you are there under duress or at least, that you feel it would be dishonest if they thought you were genuinely enthusiastic. Which probably isn’t the most helpful framing.
LW2, while I do think that people with children or those with caring responsibilities (elderly parents, disabled family members) or other family or other obligations should be accommodated to some extent at work, I don’t think it should mean that those who are generally healthy and without major responsibilities should always draw the short straw.
At some level, people have to be responsible for working out their own obligations and working around them. Asking for accommodation occasionally or on one issue generally seems reasonable to me, but there’s “I need to start late on Mondays and Tuesdays because I have nobody to drop off my kids at school those days, so could you do the early shift on those and you can have first choice for the shifts on the other days” and then there’s “I need to start late Monday to Friday because I have to drop off my kids at school every day and I’ll need an hour off in the afternoons to collect them and bring them to childcare and I can never work Saturdays because I have plans with my kids on those days.” The first is reasonable. The second is not.
I think it would be reasonable to work around your colleagues’ childcare obligations but within a framing like your previous manager did. I mean, everybody does one closing and one opening, but if two people need to schedule childcare and the third person is more open, then the two with childcare needs get first choice as to which day they open. There wouldn’t even be any obligation on you to do this, but it would be nice.
OP1. I quite understand where you’re coming from, I highly dislike socialising as it takes a lot of mental preparation and I find it utterly exhausting.
As a manager though I’ve learnt to put on a very effective mask for events that I absolutely have to go to. You don’t need to be the life of the party and in fact it’s not beneficial for the manager to be a standout in that direction either. Here’s one tip I rely on: people judge you as friendly and approachable if you direct the conversation back to them. Ask them questions, listen (never interrupt with your own anecdote). Being a good listener is a skill you can pick up and can really effect your image.
And make sure you plan downtime after these events. My personal preference is several hours alone playing video games.
Act as if you are glad to see the person you’re conversing with, and do that with every single person at the event, if you can. It doesn’t take much — remembering and asking after something significant about that person, like “Carrie! How’s the apartment hunt?” or “Good to see you, Miranda! Are you planning any art collecting trips this year?”, will earn you extra credit. (Provided you wait and listen to the answer.)
Another idea: Get on the events committee and learn about the goals of events. If you think your organization’s events aren’t meeting those goals, bring your own ideas and organize something you think would be better. Axe-throwing is popular these days, and oh so therapeutic…
#3- You are waaaay over-reacting.
To be clear, it does sound like this is a stupid, unhelpful and minor time waster. (Can you tell that I’m not a fan of this requirement?) But “fury” is an absolutely outsized reaction.
So much so that I’m wondering if the other issues are more significant that you are recognizing. And instead of dealing with those things, you are focusing on this relatively inconsequential issue.
And by the way, it’s not so unreasonable for a company to actually have less trust in the time management of junior / newish staff when the are unobserved that senior level staff who have proven their value and work ethic.
#4 If applicable, you could also mention that this could be confusing to clients (or vendors, or other third parties that company works with), who might still try to reach out to you to get their business with the company done.
Agreed. When a previous employer left my name on their website, a group I freelanced for – and had to stop working with because I moved for a new job – actually sent me a nasty gram accusing me of lying about the job change. I had to send them my new job credentials AND get my old employer to take me off their website in order to get them off my back. Bananapants.
#1…
I may be the odd one out, but there are definite echoes of Nineteen Eighty-Four (the dystopian novel by Orwell) going on here…
(1) OP has been reported to the Thought Police for “face crime” multiple times.
(2) OP now realizes, as Winston Smith did at the end of the novel, that “You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him.”
It’s really not about loving the company though.
OP needs to act and appear civil in a company event where they are part of senior management. Acting like you are not obviously hating the proceedings is primary school-level expectation and part of living in a society.
If this is intolerable, OP is welcome to take a non-management job.
Yes, exactly. And it doesn’t even have to be a management job – I mentioned further up, but in my job in book publishing we are expected, if we’re able to, to attend book launches for our authors, and the occasional other work event (like going to a book fair, or helping to sell books at a show, or whatever). If you go to a book launch then yes, part of you being there means chatting to people, being professional, being polite, engaging in conversation, and making sure the author has a lovely time. You can’t turn up and be sullen. Is it my favourite way of spending an evening? No, of course not. But you turn up and you act the part for a couple of hours. It’s not exactly the worst thing in the world.
VP is possibly referring to this part: “I’m supposed to like the activity itself. I’m told I should want to do the thing.” which, if that’s really how it was presented to OP, is completely unrealistic – one does not simply start to genuinely like something just because someone else told them to – but also not in any way insurmountable; if OP projects reasonably well enough (and possibly simply lies and says “I’m having a good time here!”), nobody will be the wiser.
I would be interested to know whether the boss really thinks “you are supposed to like the activity itself” or whether they mean something more like, “you should see the value in this activity and prioritise doing it well even if it’s not your favourite part of the job”. I wouldn’t judge someone for not liking that kind of social activity, but if I had someone in senior leadership who thought it was a waste of their time and a distraction from “doing their tasks” I’d have questions.
The boss might mean that if OP doesn’t like these activities they might be in the wrong job, because it’s a non-negotiable part of the job and looking surly at events is off-putting, it kills the vibe for others, people hoping to float an idea past OP won’t dare to do it, reports can’t ask OP to introduce them to someone in another department that they hope to work with one day and so on.
Right, that’s what I mean. I think you can do senior leadership socialising without it being your favourite! beloved! part of your job — it’s perfectly OK to have parts of your job which are critical and non-negotiable but which aren’t your favourite thing! But if you’re telling me you don’t enjoy it so you think you should be excused, about any part of your job — well, that’s going to make me question whether we’re really on the same page about what the job is.
Eh… senior management has to carry out what the folks above them want, but they don’t have to agree it’s a correct decision – just execute it.
They have to follow orders, not be “yes men”.
I would be curious to know how this was presented indeed.
In the meanwhile though, here in the real world (as opposed to in 1984), people only know things about what OP thinks based on OP’s behavior.
Visibly projecting ‘I hate this and all of you and I want to go home / back to the office’ is not acceptable.
It’s easier to avoid doing so if one does not think it but still can be manageable – OP could take this on as a work meeting, set a goal of talking to 5 people they normally don’t work with and check in with some of their peers and close coworkers. And then go home.
If you’re going to be in leadership, you should want to lead.
Even if the leadership role is more around technical direction-setting and doesn’t involve daily people wrangling, all leadership ultimately affects the individual employees. If a leader is never willing to meet the people affected by their decisions, they aren’t a good leader. “I want to know the people under me on the org chart who are responsible for implementing my decisions” is a perfectly reasonable expectation for a company to have of senior leadership.
An office event is an efficient way to be quickly visible and accessible to a lot of people at once.
I agree, it’s not about loving the company. In my opinion, part of the work of being a leader involves cheerleading for company initiatives, and that includes social events.
They also help set the tone, and I think leaders have more obligation that others to set a positive tone and control their own negative emotions. In reality, this often works the opposite way – like, watch out for the CEO’s mood today! – but in my opinion, that’s wrong.
One reason I have never wanted to take a management position is that I would rather not have this responsibility. But if you choose to be a leader, part of that is being responsible with your emotions at work.
It’s not 1984 because nobody is asking lw to love every part of their job. But the mistake LW is making is not perceiving it AS part of their job that as senior management, they have an obligation to do, and be professional about it.
I’m trying to think of a version of this where OP is totally in the right – I guess, if in ONE past incident, someone complained about OP’s behavior at an event, perhaps now OP’s boss is hyper-aware of OP’s demeanor and being very critical of any misstep such as not seeming thrilled enough. But usually the bar is pretty low to not have people actively complaining about you, especially for someone known to be generally pretty serious – which makes me think OP might be committing more than just “face crimes” here.
If there are a lot of these events, and a lot of people are unhappy about the expectation that they need to participate in everything, I could maybe see making a stand to change the culture around that. But OP would have to ask themselves if that’s really what they want to spend their capital on.
That’s a good point; part of the argument why OP needs to act happier seems to be “look, we’re all busy and nobody wants to be here, but you need to suck it up and set a good example because you’re in leadership” and if that were true, they definitely need to cut back on the events, lol; even if half the people love them and half the people feel like OP, it sounds like maybe there’s too many. If OP truly doesn’t see a business need for this number of events, they could try to use some of their social capital on that.
Yea, that’s why I’m not a manager. Eventually I’d crack and admit I don’t even want to be at the Spring Fling or whatever and everyone would be super mad. It’s just not a job suited to me.
Same here. Also, I can’t get anyone in my house to take out the garbage when I ask them to. How am I supposed to get Bob to have the Slugworth report on my desk at nine?
But it’s not a tyrannical government, it’s a job. This is something you’re getting paid for. Your face can do whatever you’d like for it to do on your own time.
And one has some choice over one’s job. I know it’s not as easy as just “get another job” if you don’t like it, but given that the LW is senior management, the odds are high that they have options.
Choosing a job and choosing senior management means accepting certain things. In this case, it seems like it includes choosing to be reasonably positive or at least not actively negative about these events.
It’s not the same as the government requiring you to feel a certain way.
This seems excessive. When I show up to meetings and look polite and interested in the proceedings even though I’m actually tired and think this particular meeting is a waste of my time, I’m not obeying the thought police. I’m doing the job that I was hired to do, which includes being civil to my coworkers and putting up with a certain degree of institutional bullshit. If I particularly hate the bullshit at this workplace, I’m free to seek other employment.
As Alison says in her reply, the LW doesn’t have to act like this is the best! most exciting! thing! they’ve ever done; they just need to be polite and engaged enough that multiple people don’t complain that they look like they don’t want to be there. Unless there’s something unusual going on about this workplace, “multiple people complaining that someone in senior management looks resentful” is a pretty high bar. This doesn’t sound like the LW just not being excessively bubbly and gung-ho.
This is certainly an opinion.
It certainly is!
That’s a weird take on this whole issue.
There’s always going to be things that you don’t agree with, like, prefer, or think are a good idea that, as someone in a leadership position, you need to show enthusiasm for. Because it’s not about you. You give up a portion of your autonomy when you join a large organization. You have obligations due to your position, and things are forbidden because of your position. That’s the nature of leadership and has been since humans figured out that having leaders was a good idea. Part of leadership has always been performative, starting back before written records, and it’s not going away any time soon.
If you think it’s 1984 than leadership positions aren’t for you. Which is fine. Not everyone is suited to such roles. Believe me, I get it! But “Don’t act so upset about basic job requirements that multiple people complain to your boss” is hardly an unreasonable bar to clear here.
Further, there are appropriate avenues to enact change in how leadership is performed. Right now the LW is, for all practical purposes, complaining to those lower on the org chart about how much the LW’s job sucks. That’s not a good look. As was said in “Saving Private Ryan”, complaints go UPhill, not down. The proper thing to do is to talk to the boss and figure out a path forward–“I’d rather have a lunch with my team once a month, I’ve got the budget for it and I think it would be a better way to show my appreciation because of X, Y, and Z”, for example. Something that satisfies the performative requirements and which the team likes (remember, the team is the main thing here).
And it’s important to remember that in the end, Winston Smith realised that he did love Big Brother. That was when they shot him.
Wow, dramatic much? Existing as a human in the world sometimes means you need to act pleasant even if you’re not having a grand old time. Existing as a professional in the workplace means you have to do it a bit more conscientiously.
This is an apt take on the issue. Making the higher-level people pretend to enjoy the event adds a layer of pressure against people speaking out about how having to attend this nonsensical extra burden causes the actual work to have to be done with extra time.
lol comparing an oppressive totalitarian regime to slapping on a happy face at a party is not an apt take. It’s a goofy one.
You think someone in a senior leadership position acting happy and approachable will make people LESS comfortable approaching them with problems, and having them act grump enough that people comment to their boss makes them MORE approachable?
Maybe in a few cases. Some fire fighting outfits I’ve worked with operate this way (they run into burning buildings, bad moods are nothing). But in pretty much every other field I can think of the exact opposite is true. People generally tend to be more willing to take complaints to people who they don’t think will chew them out or rip their heads off. People in senior leadership positions that exude resentment tend to be seen as unapproachable. Think about it, would you rather complain about a work event to someone who’s in a good mood or a bad mood? At best, if you approach someone who’s exuding hostility, you can expect a “If I have to be here so do you” sort of answer.
Except from LW’s letter it sounds like their reports do actually like these events and socializing. It’s LW who is out of step with both upper management *and* their reports. Sorry, that does all add up to “you have to suck it up and show some interest or maybe reconsider if this is the job for you”.
Some folks on AAM are convinced that EVERYONE secretly hates any event where people talk to each other about things other than work, even if those same people say otherwise.
Oh absolutely and it’s frustrating.
I also think folks here have a tendency to conceptualize all jobs as primarily comprised of like quiet, focused, highly individualized data work where any chatter is some kind of direct impediment to work. And I do hear you guys on that!
But some of us have jobs where being friendly and socializing *is* the job! At my workplace it would be very weird and concerning if we all adamantly refused to ever utilize those same skills with our colleagues. Also those jobs are a lot easier when staffed by folks who genuinely enjoy chitchat and socializing!
Some of whom *are* introverts, or are too busy to stay for the holiday party, or are having a bad day, etc etc, I’m really not saying anyone has to be full force friendly at all times, but they do kind of need to demonstrate some kind of ability to “turn it on” occasionally in order to be competent at their actual job, and most likely the reason they’re here at this particular job and *not* some kind of cubicley spreadsheet job is because things like after work happy hour and water cooler chitchat *is* fun for them.
As authoritarianism is a reality in the US right now, I’m really put off by your comment. It diminishes the message of 1984. People just don’t want the LW to act like an asshole at events when she’s supposed to be setting a good tone as a leader in the company. This is hardly Big Brother territory.
She should simply focus on being kind to her colleagues, and particularly to the people who are lower than she is on the org chart. That’s actually a message about being a good human, not about denying one’s humanity.
Yes. In this moment particular, comparing being asked not to sulk to fascist totalitarian brainwashing is tone-deaf at best.
No, there isn’t.
Good god, expecting your senior manager to demonstrate the barest amount of social niceties to you at a work event is not 19freaking84, and the fact that we’re entering an age of ACTUAL technofascism makes me all the more disdainful of the suggestion.
LOL that’s quite the reach
Girl…
So attending a company party and being polite to your colleagues is the same as having your head stuck in a box with a rat and physically tortured until you turn on your–oh, wait, no it’s not.
You are being extremely melodramatic and silly. Not to mention casually minimizing actual fascism. You’re 1 step from Godwin’s law.
It’s less “you must love Big Brother” and more “you must not actively disdain Big Brother”.
“I may be the odd one out[…]”
Yes. You are.
Even if the comparison between a paid job and a totalitarian government was apt, in this instance OP is senior management. They are part of the bureaucracy that employs the Thought Police. If they think bad stupid things are going on, they have the power to change it. You can’t complain you’re being forced to have a good time at events you’re hosting and forcing your team members to join.
LW 3. I also have to log my work when WFH. Iniatially we had to make a plan and submit it and then send a report what we actually did. In 2020 when everyone moved WFH we didn’t have to make the plans anymore. But we still have to report our work every day and send it once a month. Going on 5 years now. It still sucks. Everyone still hates it. It won’t get better. I hate the stupid Excel and depending on my mood I fill it up either vaguely or with care.
I have to do detailed timesheets even though we don’t bill hourly, and in some moods, I find them an excellent way to exercise my feelings via malicious compliance, eg, “10m — computer crash requiring multiple restarts to resolve.”
Or, if I were compelled to keep detailed logs of my day, I would include:
“4:30 – 4:38 pm – Filling out this pointless log so my busybody boss can see what I’m doing is productive even though it’s not since I’m filling out this $*@&^%ing pointless log!”
I don’t think I’d survive a week having a job that forced me to do this :-P
We genuinly have a drop-down list of preset option of what we’ve done on the day that the manager has done. It does include “filling out work log”.
Same. Never had to do it before COVID, though.
If complying with this requirement keeps you employed and permitted to work in your preferred environment, I would frame it as “it’s the company’s time that I’m wasting, not my own, because that’s what they want”, and so be it. There is often something asinine you have to suck up at work, and this is yours — it could be much worse.
It keeps me employed. That’s the only positive. Also it is a great joint enemy with the other employees. So it makes us hate our jobs, but does wonders for team spirit.
LW1, there’s a few things here that would make me question whether you’re the right person for a senior leadership role.
You definitely don’t have to love social events or away days: in fact, it is extremely normal to be in senior leadership and find them hard bloody work— but that’s because they are! Yes, some senior leaders enjoy them and find them easy and fun, but that’s true of any work task. Personally, even though I like socialising and I am an extrovert, I find it very hard work doing social events as a (not senior) manager for the same reason I find teaching or running events hard work: because I’m on. It’s not about me, it’s about creating a safe / fun / enjoyable / engaging activity for the people I’m managing, teaching or hosting, and that means I’m performing friendly, welcoming, relaxed, interested etc, whilst also not truly relaxing because people will put extra weight on my words and making sure I’m strictly professional and careful about what I say. That’s bloody hard work, but caring what people who work under you see and think of you is part of the job of senior leadership.
Now, I do think that there are plenty of other ways of being a good leader that don’t require you to be great at in-person socialising events. I’ve worked for some great leaders who built solid, supportive and open relationships with the people through one-to-ones, a really great Slack game, absolute reliability at getting back to people, showing a positive interest in people and their development, or whatever. If they looked awkward and uncomfortable at more unstructured social events, we tended to give them a lot of grace because they’d put the work in to gain our trust and respect through other ways. The fact that people you are responsible for aren’t giving you that grace — and you don’t seem to see that as a problem — would raise concerns that you don’t see building and maintaining those relationships as part of your job.
If your main priorities are “doing your tasks” and “not stressing out your boss” — what exactly do you think the “lead” of senior leadership is, and are you sure it’s really the right track for you?
Well said.
There’s no disgrace in a leadership position being wrong for you. Lots of people would be happier as a technical expert or SME than as a manager or leader of people.
https://www.askamanager.org/2015/01/interview-with-an-incredibly-diplomatic-person-or-how-to-agreeably-disagree.html
had a good section on task-driven vs. relationship-driven people. If you are task-driven, it’s a good thing to know about yourself when you’re looking for a position.
But as long as being social is part of your job, you need to do it with grace.
This is me! I’m 100% the SME/high level IC type, and have only managed people when they were reporting to me for substantive tasks. I’m introverted and task driven, and while I’m certainly polite at work events (I can’t skip), I’m not the “people person” my bosses are. And that’s fine! For the folks who think I’m “stuck” in a non-management role, either because of low ambition or because I’ve failed in these positions — think whatever you want, but please remember not everyone has to follow mainstream conceptions of success based on status.
5: it sounds like you were attempting to cherry pick responsibilities in a promotion and they decided that since you didn’t want some of them you wouldn’t get any of them.
This is a valid management decision. I think once you see it as such, and not any kind of insult towards you personally, your feelings will change.
Unfortunately, it sounds like the LW was struggling and never really did what the role required after their promotion. It sounds like there was a lot of internalized judgement about how that played out but I don’t think this restructuring/demotion is the wrong choice for the company or OP, nor should LW5 be directing their frustrations at them.
I think the LW is still struggling and I think they need to address the internal part of things before looking outside. It sucks but I’m guessing addressing that part will be more help to the OP than allowing themselves to blame the company.
OP1– not to be crass, but to quote Don Draper:
“That’s what the money is for.”
I love this quote. And YES, this.
I can understand not feeling enthusiastic about all the events/obligations, but I do agree this is one of those things you have to suck up as a leader.
I don’t know about feeling inauthentic, but if multiple people are talking to your boss about it to the point that he’s had to mention it several times you probably want to nip that in the bud
Not comparing you to this person, but it somewhat reminded me of the letter from the woman who treated her good looking employee poorly to the point that clients were mentioning it. You might not think what you’re doing is a big deal but if that many people are noticing..
#5, my heart goes out to you, as almost the exact thing happened to me! We had a big reorganization, four positions opened up that would have been promotions for me, I applied but didn’t get a first interview for any of them, and in the new org chart I was a level down and had my direct reports and project stripped from me.
I was at a different life-stage, late in my career, so didn’t have many options to find something else. I also had many, many tears in my first meeting with my new boss. I was sure they had pushed me aside so that I would quit, and got as far as packing up my laptop and other gear so that I’d be ready to walk that very day, but my new boss managed to convince me that I was still a valued member of the team and he believed I had things to contribute. Also, some other colleagues assured me that ending up on the wrong side of a reorg is nothing personal, and not necessarily a reflection of your abilities.
I’m still not over the moon or feeling fulfilled, but in my first annual review with my new boss (who fortunately lives in another country so I don’t see him all the time), they said, “You seem much happier”, and I could just say, “Mm-hm!” and move on. I still don’t have advice for you to feel fulfilled or get through the days, but I can recommend a breezy dismissive answer when your boss asks about your feelings, as something that is working for me.
OP3, a possible reframing: When I worked in house, we actively requested a Monday morning check-in meeting with the whole team. This consisted of a brief summary of what we were working on now, and intended to work on next. It highlighted who had extra projects that could be handed off, and who could take that work on. The boss knew what we’d been assigned, but sometimes the Atkins project went faster than expected while the Boone project bogged down in unexpected complications.
As you describe it, the summary seems more about keeping ahead of who’s doing what and whether it’s moving along, in a context where you aren’t incidentally encountering these people as often. It can be done maliciously or incompetently, like anything else people do, but it can also just reflect that “What are Shadrach, Meschach, and Abendego doing on the Furnace case?” became more opaque when they all moved to being remote.
LW1: I am sympathetic. I’ve never been in any sort of management role officially but I also hate work events, don’t care to socialize with my colleagues, etc. I can see the arguments about how it’s your responsibility, etc. but I really don’t agree that this should be part of work culture at all, although this may vary by your industry.
No advice, because I agree it has likely hurt me (and maybe you but don’t know your situation of course) but I just don’t see the value after being repeatedly passed over for raises, promotions, etc. earlier in my career when I did do this.
Someday I hope we can be in a place where it’s about the work we do and less about whether we show up to social events and who we know but all you have to do is look at the highest levels of government to know we’re pretty far from that. >_<
I’m fully in the same boat. I have no desire to socialize at work; the moment 5 hits, I’m out. I will never go to a holiday party or employee retreat. I just don’t want to waste any more of my life at my day job than I have to.
I’ve also long made my peace with the fact that this means I won’t “advance” in my “career”. I’m happy being a little worker bee with minimal responsibilities and the ability to leave work at work. It’s much, much harder to justify skipping the social events the higher up you get on the corporate ladder. (And of course, some places are just more egregious with mandatory fun than others).
My sympathies fully go out to LW1, but I also think this requires some soul-searching. Is this the right company for you? Is this the right role for you?
Yea I’m definitely sympathetic towards LW1, but as a senior leader, they may also be in a place to shift that culture. I guarantee there are employees who go to these events who don’t want to, but feel they *have* to, and they don’t have the influence to change that. Maybe LW1 does.
This! I don’t enjoy work social events either and I don’t care whether my boss attends them or looks happy enough about attending them. I care about the quality of their work and how they manage and support our team. My boss does enjoy socializing and work social events which leads to everyone outside the team loving her, but she is absolutely terrible at managing and supporting our team, and I’d rather have it the other way around.
One other thing for #1 to consider is this may reflect poorly on your team also. People will be less likely to engage with you, they may see you as unapproachable and in turn that might trickle down to your reports
This might not be ideal advice, but next time you have to go to one of these, have a drink – there’s a reason they call it a social lubricant
LW2: If you go to your boss, bring a schedule that is similar to what the old manager set up and propose it as the solution. Script would be something like, “This is a schedule that is fair to all of us, with each person getting X days opening and no split shifts. Our schedules looked like this until Old Manager left, so everyone has been able to do this in the past.”
If there’s resistance that will shift burdens to you, the answer is “I can’t do that. We need something that shares opening (or customer face time, or whatever) among all of us in order to be fair.” Do not explain why you can’t, it’s just “I can’t do that, let’s try for something that’s more fair.”
Good luck.
I second leaving out the explanation or justification. It doesn’t matter why you or a coworker can’t or won’t work late or on a weekend.
I’ve never been a fan of employee-made schedules, precisely because of the issues OP2 is experiencing. Of course everyone wants convenient hours and will use any excuse to get those hours. Unfortunately my convenient hours conflict with yours.
The reality is that the job requires certain coverages and employees are hired with the expectation that they will work the hours required. Bounce this responsibility straight back to the manager so the schedule is apportioned evenly.
Yes. No explanation or justification is needed. What matters is that shifts are covered equitably by the staff that was hired to cover those shifts. Outside of a special circumstance (“I can’t open on Wednesday the 12th because my son has a doctor appointment first thing” or “I can’t close on Thursday the 13th because I’m receiving a key to the city”) the reasons don’t really matter.
Really good points…I will try just saying something like “that doesn’t work for me” and see where it goes!
OP2, has anything changed since the old manager’s retirement other than them being retired? Were their efforts to keep things fair and equitable mostly working out? If so, I’m confused as to why Big Boss is having your department reinvent the wheel instead of using the same system the old manager did.
Unless I’m missing something in the letter, which is very possible since I’m pretty sleep deprived.
Nothing really changed except we’re kind of on our own until a new manager comes in. He’s asking us to create and submit our schedule for the next year (Old Boss would ask us for our preferences and would ultimately decide the schedule themself). While we could have just left it the same, coworkers are seeking changes to accommodate family needs.
Others have mentioned the coworkers may be capitalizing on the make-your-own-schedule-amongst-yourselves opportunity vs send-me-your-preferences to nudge the scheduling in their favor, which makes sense
LW1: You don’t have to WANT to attend – your feelings and motivations are your own and your employer can’t expect you to feel any particular way. But you have to BEHAVE graciously because you are senior management and stuff like this comes along with all the perks of leadership. This is part of “acting your wage.”
Make a game of it if you have to. Go in with 2-3 “tasks” to accomplish, like personally connecting with each of your team members or meeting 3 new people from different departments, and reward yourself when you get home. It’s not like you have to stay the whole night, just an hour or two to make sure your presence is noticed.
LW1: Coming from a lower-level employee who has been to several work social events, yeah, it doesn’t look on someone in senior leadership when they don’t attend. I’ve been at work events where it’s obvious certain people in leadership are missing, and every time it makes it seem like meeting and thanking their staff is unimportant. I never expect them to be there for the whole event, but even showing up for 20 minutes or so is better than not showing up at all.
Agree with all of this except for 20 minutes being sufficient. My office had a group outing a couple years ago, completely voluntary, most (but not all) of us banded together to buy group-rate tickets in the same section at a sporting event. One of our senior managers attended, but he disappeared maybe 15-30 minutes after the game started – we thought he was going to the concession stand but he never returned. Halfway through the game, one of our coworkers spotted him in an entirely different section on the other end of the venue, sitting by himself. He’d always been a bit of a loner in the office but this really took the cake. We all got the message.
I think senior leaders should stick around for at least an hour. 20 minutes is “blink and you miss it.”
#4 – yeah, definitely just ask! Four months is a long time, but in an organization that doesn’t have a lot of turnover and/or where it isn’t absolutely vital that the staff list be accurate, it’s a length of time I can absolutely see going by without anyone noticing that you’re still on there.
For OP#4 – I would phrase it this way: You’ve moved on in your career. You’re updating your LinkedIn profile and either you (as a consultant) or your new employer are going to be putting out a bio for you on your/their website soon. It is going to look odd for OldEmployer to list you as a current employee when you have clearly moved on.
You’re doing a courtesy to them to give them the heads up so they can remove your profile from their site before anyone asks questions about who really works there.
(If you’re feeling super helpful, you might want to suggest to them that – if there’s nobody to list as staff – that they remove the page until they are staffed up again.)
#4 – definitely ask! But don’t stress about it too much. My old job not only has me still on their website, but under a years-old title (I assume they accidentally rolled back to an earlier version. They’re bad at the website. I always managed the website). It irks me but no one thinks it means anything besides that company is disorganized.
#4 – Definitely ask! That said, I just inherited the head role of an organization where the staff listing still had folks who hadn’t worked there in over six years (and a number of other outdated pieces of information) simply because no one knew HOW to update the website. Sometimes it’s just ineptitude.
LW1 – You need to reframe these events as part of your tasks. If your boss keeps talking to you about this, then you’re failing at one of your job duties, and I get the sense that you would hate to be viewed as failing at something. So figure out what you need to do to be good at these tasks, including appearing to enjoy them, and then do it. You don’t have to like every part of your job, but you still have to do it.
This.
My department is entirely introverts and we’re all happy to do our routine work all the time, but sometimes we have outreach events. The change in routine is fun for about ten minutes and then we’d all rather go hide in our offices.
Except we don’t get to do that because we’re “on” today. Our supervisor probably likes these events more than any of us but she does them, and we do them because a) it’s the job and b) we can all suck it up together.
LW5: I had an analogous situation where I was up for promotion and they went with an external hire. It was really hard and my boss kept asking how I was and saying she felt guilty and that she needed to do more to make me promotable. And at first it was OK because I believed she should feel guilty. But then I realized it was a lot of talk and it wasn’t going anywhere so I cut her off and said “I would like to shift this conversation. If I wasn’t ready for a promotion now then we need to talk about what skills I was lacking and how I develop them.” She never told me she felt guilty again and I was glad for that because I honestly didn’t care how she felt about passing me over for promotion. Maybe your boss is also stuck in a guilty cycle and you can shake her out of it.
Great advice. Sometimes you work with these people for years and it feels like you’re friends. And it’s hard to watch your friend suffer and set up those boundaries. But it’s a professional relationship also.
Personally, I actually like work events. It helps that I like the people I work with, *as people,* and my management is generally good at finding good activities for us to do as part of our retreats, both work-related and fun. But I know there are folks at those events who really don’t care for them, and who would rather not do them–especially the parts that are more social than work-related. Even so, in my office, those people are good-natured about the whole thing and chat with people and make the best of it. They aren’t hyped up and acting like it’s the best day ever, but they’re nice and polite and pleasant. If they can do it, so can you, LW #1.
LW5, sorry you are in this situation. I wonder if it might be a good idea to talk with a therapist a few times? I’m getting the vibe that you are feeling somewhat angry with your past self, which might be making it hard to move forward.
Also making it hard to move forward is your boss! I really dislike it when managers push too hard for emotional connections. Sometimes I don’t want to “bring my whole self to work” because parts of me are not my Best Professional Self.
LW 1: You say “inauthentic” as if it’s a bad thing. Why?
Part of being in a leadership position is performative. Those working under us–and those we work under–have certain expectations for behavior, dress, comportment, diction, etc that we need to comply with whether or not we’re comfortable with it. And it’s always been that way; there’s a whole genre of literature from the Middle Ages (mirror literature) that basically consists of advice for how to accomplish this. While our culture has removed a lot of these requirements, there remain a significant number.
Performative leadership is as much a part of the job as the corner office, or the parking space, the larger paycheck, or whatever other perks you get.
And to be clear, it’s not just leadership positions. The whole reason we have standard operating procedures, employee handbooks, and the like is because we can’t fully be our authentic selves at work. My authentic self is to ignore the pain and blood and get the job done; our safety department has made it VERY clear that this is not acceptable! At the end of the day, it’s just part of the job.
I agree and want to add, the concept of “emotional labor” was invented to describe just this — you have to manufacture and perform certain emotions as part of your job. In many ways its what “leadership” is. My authentic self doesn’t want to do any work ever, but nobody’s life is made better if I express that all the time, including mine. Are they making you do relay races or something, what is such a burden? eating snacks and chit chatting?
Yes! I tried to say this above although I don’t think my comment published — maybe think of it as an acting exercise. Really, (almost) everyone is (almost) always playing a role at work, so just think of this as expanding your repertoire, and remember you’re being paid for it! Even if it’s outside work hours, the reason you have to be there is because you’re senior leadership, (ideally) with the pay check to match.
Also, even as a senior manager, once you stop showing your distaste for these events so obviously, you may have more opportunity to skip the ones you find really appalling. Happy hour/holiday event/team dinner? Go. Relay races/scavenger hunt in 10-degree weather/whitewater rafting? Skip, and/or work on upper management to eliminate.
Really, (almost) everyone is (almost) always playing a role at work
Not just at work; we all play different roles throughout the day. Do I want to watch a Cocomelon video with my daughter for the umpteenth time? God no. But I do it because I’m her mom and I know it brings her joy.
Do I get frustrated with customer service at times and feel like I want to scream? Yup! But I don’t, because I recognize that they are a human and sometimes things happen.
Do I intervene when I see a client getting hot under the collar with one of my staff? You bet! And it’s not because I enjoy getting them to take it out on me, but because I recognize that I’m being paid to take on the harder stuff and keep my cool.
None of these make me “inauthentic” they just make me a varied person who can respond to what is needed at the time.
Yes, thank you! This is what emotional labor is, not all the random stuff that people like to describe as emotional labor since the concept went viral.
I’m autistic and shy with people I don’t know well, and being “on” for a long time without a break is difficult. I used to work in direct service for a DV organization. If I can learn – because it was part of my job – to adjust my prosody with survivors on the phone so that they don’t misread my autistic speech patterns as boredom or hostility, and to sound warm and interested with the people I was speaking to even though I just got off two hard calls in a row and maybe the particular survivor whose turn it is is someone I privately find exasperating to work with, you can learn to put on a pleasant face occasionally and not be so huffy that people can tell. You’re almost certainly getting paid more, with more prestige and organizational power, than I was. By a lot.
If the “pretend you’re acting” approach doesn’t work for you, then pretend like you’re in a show that’s on TV Tropes and identify tropes that come up at the event (I absolutely do this, even when I enjoy events).
Virtually all of us are inauthentic to some degree at work–most of us who aren’t sociopaths moderate our appearances and behavior to better suit our client base and keep things running smoothly with coworkers. Nobody needs 100% authentic me.
LW2, I say this to you as a mom of 2 young kids, in 2 different schools.
Childcare is hard, and there are solutions to the scheduling.
My older daughter’s school day starts at 9am. I start my work day at 8:15am. So I pay $10/day to send her to early morning “daycare” at her school so we are both on time. Her school day ends at 3pm, I work til 4:45pm. Again, I pay $15/day for extended day care. My youngest is still in actual daycare, and the building opens at 6am. So my morning is dropping off little, dropping off big, go to work, pick up big, pick up little, head home.
Do I WANT to pay $125/week for day care for my older daughter? Absolutely not. An extra $500/ month would be game changing for our household. But it’s one of the “costs” of working.
I’m sympathetic to your coworkers; I understand their position fully. But you can’t put the burden on your coworkers to accommodate childcare that isn’t theirs. Until you all can agree on a fair, equitable schedule, I’d use the previous managers schedule as the default.
A voice of reason, ETBRP. I was a senior in college when a woman raised her hand in lecture and told the professor that he needed to bump someone who was already registered in the later class because she was a mom and couldn’t attend the morning class she had to register for (she was an underclassman). He actually was going to do it until someone raised their hand and said that was not fair. Professor backed down and she stood up and said, “wow, thanks a lot everyone”. Since we were a bunch of jerk kids, we replied with an almost concert, “you’re welcome”.
Oof Zona, that’s a real bummer of a story. If there’s any group that’s just too coddled, it’s young single women with children. Glad your class could unite to stop someone from giving her a hand.
What? She was neither single nor young. She was also given a later registration date because she was a second year student vs our fourth year. She could have simply registered for that class when it worked for her. But she cannot command a professor to bump another student because she said so. Maybe if she asked someone for help? But she didn’t ask for help. She commanded compliance.
I’m glad it is working out for you! (Even at the expense you state.) But I will gently put in that not all childcare options have the flexibility yours do, and for many people in many places, childcare options are not widely available. I started putting my daughter on daycare waitlists when she was five months old so she could start at eleven months, and in all that time, she got off one waitlist. The next place called with a spot a year and a half later, when we had moved out of state. I was extremely stuck with her daycare’s hours as they were; the alternative would have more easily involved changing jobs (or quitting altogether) than “just choosing a new daycare with different hours!”
That said, OP, given that your coworkers used to manage their schedules when things were more fair, the burden is on them to keep it fair.
LW1 reminds me of an episode of Deep Space 9, of all things, when Worf, recently exonerated from a false accusation of firing on civilians, is told that there’s going to be a party for the staff to celebrate. Worf doesn’t want to participate, recognizing that while he got lucky this time, his behavior was, in fact, wrong, and he could very easily have done what he had been accused of. Sisko, his commander, reminds him that this party isn’t so much for him but for the crew: that things got tense, and they need a chance to celebrate, and that part of being a leader is knowing when to smile, to “make the troops happy even when it’s the last thing in the world you want to do – because they’re your troops and you have to take care of them.”
Obviously a work party is nowhere near as serious as the military organization depicted in that TV show, but still: LW might look at it in the same way: this party isn’t FOR them, it’s for their team, and part of being a good leader to that team is showing up and being supportive of their activity even if they don’t feel like participating, or see it as fun. At the very least, they shouldn’t be so obviously UNinterested that folks feel the need to complain to their boss about it.
I think it’s a relevant analogy.
LW#4 – So, my company is super super tiny. Super tiny. And I think we still have people on the “Meet the staff” that haven’t worked here in 5 years or more. Mostly because we lost our web consultant and haven’t found a new one yet. And we never look at the page. So, ask for them to update it. They may not even realize that the site is wrong because they haven’t looked any time recently. If it’s a small at it seems, I’d put money on them just not thinking of updating the website more so than trying to lie about the staff size.
#1
Sounds like these social activities aren’t diverting enough if people are watching other people’s faces to determine their level of enjoyment.
And yes, I know people take their tone from the top. Except OP has a boss too, so OP isn’t at that topmost level that the tone comes from.
Plus it seems to be a very relaxed kind of org if people are actually complaining to someone’s boss that that person’s face isn’t showing appropriate gaiety. Like, WTF?
LW, I am sorry you are being pushed into spending more time at work (because let’s face it, that’s what all these things are, regardless of holiday or off-site location).
It should be okay to just want to do the job you’re good at and not also have to give time and energy to all these things that extend one’s time at work.
“It should be okay to just want to do the job you’re good at and not also have to give time and energy to all these things that extend one’s time at work.”
Agreed. This idea that you’re supposed to also sacrifice your time to socialize at work is really toxic. I guarantee many of LW1’s employees feel the same way – maybe LW1 can use what clout they have a senior leadership to shift away from this “mandatory fun” culture.
Idk, I like my coworkers and enjoy talking to them so I appreciate when my office gives me opportunities to do that.
I like my coworkers and enjoy talking to them so I appreciate when my office gives me opportunities to do that during business hours while they are paying me to be there.
The LW doesn’t state that these are outside of their business hours. In fact, they state they don’t attend because they’d rather do their tasks (which implies that these are on company time). Even if they are outside of business hours the LW is in a senior leadership role, so their salary is including their participation in things like this.
And you should absolutely get the OPTIONAL opportunity to do that. Just as those who want to do their job and leave should have the opportunity to do so.
But in this case going to these events is part of the LW’s job as a senior leader. It’s like me choosing to work in fundraising and then saying I don’t want to have to go to donor events. That’s not how it works.
This all may be warranted if you were an individual contributor. A really, really highly-skilled one in a role that’s incredibly difficult to replace, but still.
As someone in a leadership role, it’s nonsense. The most important skill in a leadership role is communication, and that includes non-verbal communication and performative leadership. Being bad at communication and unwilling to do the performative aspects is like a machinist refusing to do welding or use a lathe, or a computer programmer unable to use the programming languages you require. These are basic skills necessary for the job; if you can’t do those skills, you can’t do the job, period. And yeah, leadership requires more of your time, including time that’s traditionally outside work hours. It’s the cost you pay for the perks you get. There are limits, sure, but “Show up to work events and don’t be so upset about it that people comment” is absolutely not an unreasonable expectation.
+1 to all of this
It is interesting to me that so many people forget that part of the compensation package for “senior leadership” is to cover the extra duties expected of senior execs. If they aren’t good at doing the job required of senior leadership, I imagine a demotion or lower level job is always an option? With the pay cut of course.
We don’t know if the events are too many from what the LW provided, but from the narrative it sounds like the company does a good job of letting everyone know they aren’t required, so they are at least somewhat reasonable.
I wonder if LW1 has enough clout to maybe reduce the amount of these activities, or at least make it very clear to other employees that they are optional, because I guarantee plenty of employees don’t enjoy them either but still go because they feel that they have to. These mandatory fun activities are miserable for a lot of people, but they feel obligated to go because too often leadership will look negatively on those who don’t. As a senior leader, maybe you are in a position to change this.
As someone in management, that’s exactly where LW should be focusing that energy, IMO.
Agreed. If they can’t that is one thing, but I think it is key to model appropriate behavior. Not going to all of them, reminding everyone they are optional, speaking up if it seems people are being impacted by not attending – but at minimum they have to not be grumpy enough for people to notice and comment when they do.
LW5:”Thank you for checking in, but I rather not discuss it further. I’ll let you know if something comes up.” It does not need to be that complicated and wordy.
#3 You’re taking a policy that existed before you started at the company awfully personally. It literally has nothing to do with the company’s trust in you because they decided to ask this of all employees before you became an employee. Since you are billable, it should be pretty easy to generate such a list. Maybe add a detail in here and there so it’s not an exact regurgitation of your timesheet. I agree with Alison that maybe your feelings about this policy are a symptom of something bigger going on with your job/company.
#1 As a senior manager myself, I am very sorry to tell you that being too cool for school really doesn’t cut it when you are senior leadership. If you’re a worker bee, sure opt out of everything optional, and don’t bother faking it, but part of what the company pays you to do is to set an example for junior staff. You say your job isn’t at risk, but I would bet getting promoted any further might be off the table since people are complaining about you to your boss. Put yourself in your boss’ shoes. When it’s time to advocate for raises and promotions, how is your boss going to sell getting you those things to their superiors?
LW#1 – I am sorry and agree this stinks. You are making an effort to show up to the thing and then being penalized for not being happy enough/enjoying the thing. That is not acceptable and is a sign of a toxic workplace. Showing up and being supportive is what you are expected to do in senior leadership, unfortunately. But no, you do not have to actively participate joyously in whatever inane event they have come up with.
LW#3 – I would be infuriated too. The message is clear: in-office people are hard workers (even if they spend all day playing Candy Crush on their phones) but new employees working remotely are slackers who cannot be trusted no matter how much through-put they are doing. It is a sign of terrible management.
And to all those comments about billable hours, there are MANY law firms that do not bill hours. It is not like TV, and unless you are at a huge law firm, the chances are pretty good that you are not billing hours as transactional fees and contingency fees are very common. I worked at several small to medium law firms and never had to bill hours and would never accept a job at a law firm where that was the fee model. This has nothing to do with any legitimate business interest, but is a clear sign of the company not trusting its employees and leadership being incapable of tracking metrics. Get out.
Not everything is a sign of a toxic workplace. Asking a *LEADER* to lead by example and actively participate in something the organization has deemed important isn’t that.
That is not acceptable and is a sign of a toxic workplace.
Lol no it’s not. This is a sign that someone being paid good money as a leader is expected to lead by example.
MTE.
Sure, maybe the workplace is toxic for other reasons, but this it not it.
Re LW1: I disagree it’s a toxic workplace. The higher your position, the more visible you are, the more you need to care about optics.
I hate the things too (with the power of a thousand suns) and have had some terrible experience with corporate retreats, but looking obviously unhappy does no one any good.
For the love of God, please get a grip. “Don’t visibly sulk at low-key company gatherings when you’re in a leadership role” is the bare minimum of corporate decorum.
Naw, dude–LW 1 is being asked not to act like a sulky first-grader. They can deal, or they can find a non-lead position somewhere.
So many people in this comment section that apparently think “behaving professionally at work events” is something other than an absolute bare minimum expectation! Wow.
Literally like 2 people?
At least six, lmao, and even two is way too many for something so ludicrous?
Where are you getting that most non-huge law firms don’t bill hours? I work at a firm where there’s maybe a dozen of us–and I work as a paralegal, mind, not even as an actual attorney–and we very much keep track of our billable hours and bill them out to the clients accordingly. This might vary depending on the specific legal field, and I’ll certainly agree that not ALL law firms (or other workplaces for legal professionals) keep track of billing, but saying that billable hours are “like TV” rather than a commonplace reality is wildly off-base.
LW #1: I super sympathize with not wanting to attend in-person events, especially as someone neurodivergent. But from the perspective of a direct report, my old boss used to visibly despise those sorts of gatherings, and I thought it was okay to act the same way. We both lost a lot of capital at that job, and I worry your team might be taking cues from you — especially ones newer to the workforce. Be cautious!
I’ve also seen it happen where a socially-adept subordinate made enough connections at work events that they were seen as more promotable than their more hermit-like boss.
LW2 – I’m coming at this with experience of having kids and having to navigate all of the challenges of school, daycare, etc. I get it. It is difficult. But there are ways to make it work. Clearly, your coworkers did before your old boss retired. So to me, they’re being unreasonable and using the needs of their family schedules to manipulate the schedule to be one that works best for them. Just because you don’t have kids doesn’t mean your time is any less valuable to you than theirs is to them. You might have a standing date with Jeopardy! that you’re missing. That’s valuable.
I think you’re in a good spot to solve this, though. Three options:
1. You have a system that worked equitably for everyone previously. It may not be perfectly ideal for them, but you’re going to also get a shift or two that don’t work perfectly for you, too.
2. You have a Big Boss who has told you to figure it out amongst yourselves. Two of the three are not participating in this exercise in good faith, so you can take it to Big Boss to solve. And you have your previous schedule to point to as something that worked.
3. You can be petty… If Big Boss isn’t willing to step in, I’d say you’re in great position to ask for an increase in pay. If you’re stuck with all the closing shifts, split shifts, or working every day (you are getting compensated for your hours worked, right?) then I’d suggest to your boss that not having the same sort of consistency in your schedule and having to cover the less-popular shifts all the time should merit a premium pay. Make it a financial thing for them. Likely they’re not going to want to do that or be able to justify doing it, so you may see them revert to the plan that worked before.
These are really good points and a really good pep talk, too. I feel more confident about standing my ground on what does/doesn’t work for me. We’ll see how it goes!
#1 -I would encourage you to think about what you would like the public image of your role to be, even if the “public” is just your superiors at the company. As a senior leader, being the public face of your team/department is part of the job.
I have a peer who is a manager who has the same issue. It is holding her back, a lot. Our company is really relationship-focused (it sounds like yours is too) and her team is less tapped for interesting projects, her budget is more scrutinized by the CFO, and I hear about it from other people. No one will outright say that this is because she isn’t engaged at social events, but our other peers (including myself) who aren’t even more outgoing, but who understand that this is part of their job, are viewed very differently (and more positively) by my leadership.
And really, there’s NO shame in wanting a job where you do the job, talk to your coworkers/bosses/clients/etc. about the job, and leave. It just may not be on the same level of the org chart, or for the same paycheck.
I’m a consultant at my office and my boss is very against the hybrid model we use (though he takes WFH days just like everyone else). I have to send him an email daily with what I did on my WFH days. It’s only 4-5 bullet points, though.
At another job for a publisher, I had to daily fill out a report of what I did by 6-minute intervals.
It’s a part of some jobs, and while a good manager should be able to tell you’re productive, we’re stuck with this.
The options here are:
The current Person-In-Charge hires someone explicitly for the “bad” shifts, so the person doing them knows that’s what they signed up for and there’s sufficient coverage and the other employers who don’t want to/can’t do those hours don’t.
The current Person-In-Charge sets the schedule themselves and tells the existing employees this is the job, can you deal with that?
The current Person-In-Charge does the old manager’s method, which seemed to take into account requests for availability but not guarantee it? I still don’t quite know how that worked, other than perhaps the other employees feel more comfortable telling OP “nah, not doin’ it” than they did old Manager.
Whichever route they go, the current Person-In-Charge needs to act. This is not a “resolve amongst yourselves” issue because it’s a core job requirement issue.
LW1: Aside from some of the other good advice here, practice your excuses — if you don’t have a strong enough hold on your expressions at times to not betray a bit of honesty, especially if someone hits on the exact wrong question to ask, practice having the kind of pivot ready that people are talking about here. Like:
Social Butterfly: Isn’t this disco party-paintball fusion the most exciting event we’ve done yet!!!
Letter Writer: [unavoidable face journey] Well, I’m not the most athletic person, so I’m not very good at it–but it’s so good to see people enjoying themselves! [The last bit has to have a genuine happy expression — focus on how you’re happy other people are having fun.]
And then immediately pivot to asking them something.
Also, if there’s types of socialization events you hate less, it might be worth potentially helping organize, even if the last thing you really want is to do more of this. Or at least giving feedback to the organizing team.
LW2, I think for scheduling, the approach shouldn’t be so much what everyone’s availability is, because of course they’re going to say they have to be home for the kids. My bet is that it’s just more convenient for them and that they could, in fact, get their partner/kid’s other parent/family member to look after them. Given that they’ve managed to make it work in the past, I doubt they’re single parents with no outside support. And if your coworkers women in a het couple, it’s not YOUR problem if the dad isn’t willing to step up and take responsibility for his own children while the mom has work commitments.
Instead say, “we have X number of opening and closing shifts, which means we all need to pick Y number of each. Give me an ordered preference of which days of the week are best for you for each type of shift, and I’ll see if I can slot them together.”
And if they try to say that none of them work because they have kids, you can say something like “We all had less than ideal shifts before, and it was balanced. While I do have a little more flexibility and can help out in a pinch, taking on all the shifts outside of standard business hours and never having a day off from working with customers isn’t sustainable for me.” Because they probably don’t fully realize the extent to which they’re inconveniencing you! They may genuinely not be thinking beyond advocating for themselves
Yes, this. It’s possible. And it sounds like a consistent schedule could be worked out, so that there were only a couple days weekly that were really tricky vis-a-vis children. For me (I have two kids and work fulltime, with a partner working full time), knowing that we always need extra paid care Monday and need to do split schedules Wednesday is far preferable to any sort of randomness. And it’s doable, even if it’s a pain!
#4, I’m not sure about laws in the US, but in Canada a letter from a lawyer will almost certainly resolve this issue promptly, as this would violate the Privacy Act for federally regulated workers as well as several other provincial privacy regulations for non-federal workers.
I’d be surprised if a nasty-gram with a law firms letterhead didn’t resolve the issue in the US as well, regardless of the laws in question. The cost of defending the suit would almost certainly exceed the value of having someone listed on a website for promotional purposes unless you are already a household name. Most employed Americans don’t have employment contracts where you can hide a legal release in the fine print.
Of course, doing this would almost certainly sour your reference and cost you money, so I can see why someone wouldn’t make this choice. Sometimes letting sleeping dogs lie is the smart choice. However, if it’s really important to the LW, I am confident that a good lawyer could make it happen.
This is such a scorched earth approach to something so basic it likely just flew under the radar. A simple “Hey, not sure if you realize, but my name is still up on the website!” will suffice.
You’re right. I fully agree this is the scorched earth approach and I also agree that starting with a simple request is the way to go. I don’t quite agree that this “just flew under the radar,” given that it benefits the person who is doing it by making their business look better, but I’m cynical like that.
However, when I saw the phrase ” You can’t force them to do it” in the answer I just felt the urge to dissent, because I’m certain any decent lawyer could do just that in Canada or the UK, and I’m pretty sure they could in America as well. The real question is whether the price to do that is worth it, and I can’t answer that question for the LW.
California’s right of publicity law would seem to apply and I believe that’s recognized as a common law tort in most other states (though California and Tennessee have more aggressive laws in that regards than most of the country)
I was going to say the “You can’t force them to do it” bit seemed a little off. You probably can if you are willing to litigate but there is an excellent chance it’s not worth it (but probably worth discussing with an attorney if the polite note doesn’t get a response).
1: A lot of folks don’t want to work either, but we all manage to show up and be professional and personable. Extend that ethic to all work-related events, including social gatherings. Whether you personally like the event or not is irrelevant. Show up and be pleasant.
I will happily extend it to all work events I’m being paid to attend during working hours.
If you’re in a position of senior leadership, “work hours” is unlikely to be just 9-5.
LW #4, what do you actually want from your boss (other than to not be forced into crying in meetings anymore, which is very reasonable!)
If you just want to not discuss this with them any more – take Alison’s advice.
If you want to make sure your boss continues to be aware that you’re struggling because of the management decisions that changed your job description – then come up with a simple script to say “I’m still feeling frustrated about the changes to my responsibilities, but I’m making sure my work isn’t affected; [hard subject change to actual purpose of meeting]”. Stick to the script and say you want to concentrate on work instead of feelings every time they push.
If you think there’s any chance that the things you’re struggling with could be fixed by boss and they want to try, then respond by asking about updates – “Oh, I’m doing ok, but I’m still really interested in a move back to something more like my previous role – any news about the transfers you offered to keep an eye on for me?
There’s a ton of people repeating *why* OP 1 should appear more enthusiastic and welcoming. I haven’t seen any yet about *how* they should do that. What does it look like, on a practical level, for them to do better here?
That’s a great point, and it’s going to depend on the behaviors the LW is exhibiting now, which we don’t have enough info on.
LW1: What, specifically, is your boss hearing complaints about? Is it that you’re short with people? Are you making biting, sarcastic comments the entire time? Are you standing in a corner glowering? It’s got to be pretty overt for multiple people to be making complaints about it, so I assume there are some specific, discrete behaviors. Start by replacing those with striking up a conversation with someone you don’t know (it’s not small talk if it’s about work, and about making connections at work), or moving around being generally pleasant.
Here’s something that’s a synthesis of several earlier comments: You don’t have to be happy for yourself from the activity itself. But you can be happy that other people are happy, and you can be happy that other people are acknowledged and celebrated.
Is your team going to function better because they had cake to celebrate a contract win? I.e. they won’t complain about last-minute crunch time, having to think outside the box, etc? Then you should be happy about that, not happy about the cake itself.
“I haven’t seen any yet about *how* they should do that.”
I think that’s mostly because this is a skillset most people learn in grade school. I’m not trying to be dismissive or anything here–it’s just that humans learn basic social interactions like this (and to be clear, “Don’t be so visibly annoyed that people complain to your boss” is a pretty basic social skill) by doing them as children, to the point where for most of us it’s more or less automated. Asking “How do I stop showing contempt?” is akin to asking “How do I color inside the lines?”
This is not as trivial an issue as I may be making it seem. The loss of unstructured free time and group play in children is having a significant impact on such soft skills, and it’s starting to have some surprisingly negative impacts on people’s lives.
As for practical advice: Smile. Great a few people–don’t just react to them greet you, go up to them with a big smile and a handshake. Ask “How are you doing?” and actively listen to the answer. The key thing to remember is that YOU don’t have to be interested in the topic; THEY have to be interested in it. If it’s a happy hour situation maybe buy a drink for someone who’s celebrating something. If it’s a corporate event with competitions cheer your group on for the competitions. If it’s a dinner sit with folks and ask them how things are going–and again, actively listen and engage with the answers.
The reality is that most people just want to be seen. They want to know that their higher-ups view them as human beings. If you give them the chance to open up like that, with a smile and an appearance of genuine interest, they’ll appreciate it. Will it come off as artificial? Probably. I don’t know many managers or executives that can really do this naturally. But it’s a conventional artificiality. The point isn’t that your boss’s boss’s boss cares about your dog getting sprayed by a skunk; they don’t, it’s irrelevant to them. The point is that they care about making that human connection, that you’re not just a company asset, you’re a person.
If it’s really difficult for you–and it is for some people–consider an acting class. I know someone who’s doing exactly that. The main skill actors have is managing nonverbal communication to present the desired message. Anyone can read lines off a page; my 8 year old can do it. But reading them while standing and moving, all in a manner that convinces people you’re the embodiment of an immortal spirit of wisdom who’s been killed fighting a demon and brought back to life? That requires skill! The same skill, but on a larger scale, as projecting an air of enjoying one’s self and one’s company when in fact one wishes nothing more than to leave the event. And acting classes are specifically designed to teach those skills.
I guess I’d prefer to err on the side of helping people learn these skills given that this is an advice site. For those of us who either did not learn those skills in grade school, or for some reason what we learned didn’t translate to this context, it’s helpful to get practical tips. I find there can be so much contempt for the idea of even asking about how to come off better in social situations. I get why people are upset with OP and also it feels similar to the experience I have as someone with ADHD when I ask for tips on being on time and get a bunch of responses like “if you really cared you’d be able to do it effortlessly.” Even if OP of this post has a bad attitude about this, I am sure there are many people who really do want to learn reading it.
when I ask for tips on being on time and get a bunch of responses like “if you really cared you’d be able to do it effortlessly.”
Being clear that that specific response is mean, asking for tips on being on time does come across as a bit juvenile (this is assuming you’re an adult and you’re asking, say, your boss and co-workers). That’s not to say that you’re not being sincere, but I think you’d be better off looking for advice specifically from other folks who have struggled with punctuality (for whatever reason).
The issue is, part of the problem–I’d say the root cause here–is the attitude. Once that’s addressed a good chunk of the downstream issues (facial expression, tone, etc) will likely resolve themselves, because that’s how (most) humans work. Resolving those downstream issues without resolving the root cause is a Band-Aid on a bullet hole; it won’t do much good, and the problem is only going to get worse. Further, in my experience explaining the why makes advice stick better. If I had said “Take an acting class” right out the gate the inevitable response would be “Oh, so now we need to pay in order to pretend to be happy enough to satisfy a bunch of idiots at a stupid event no one event wants to be at?” (I’m exaggerating to make a point, but not not by much.) Now that people have discussed the problem with the LW’s attitude, and why it matters, advice like “Take an acting class” doesn’t come off as dismissive or idiotic; it’s a logical progression from the principles we have outlined earlier.
I will also point out that you are directly responding to a list of actionable advice. Your comment does not make it seem that you are willing to read the advice given. Maybe you are, and you’re just carrying on the conversation, but if the response to “Here’s practical steps to take” is “People never give practical steps to take!” it diminishes people’s willingness to share such practical steps. And to be clear, it’s not just you; there’s a general hostility towards advice on being more friendly and engaging with coworkers on this site (and I’m not the only one to point that out in this thread).
The lessons I learned in grade school were that other kids thought it was funny to bully me for no reason or pretend to be my friends and then gossip about me behind my back, so the best way for me to endure it was to never share anything personal with people and physically avoid them when possible. Which isn’t “rude” if you can find a way to be on-task all the time, but doesn’t translate to “enthusiastic and welcoming.”
And it’s not clear that people do learn this in grade school, either. Look at all the discourse about teaching teenagers to recognize, ask for, and give enthusiastic consent in the context of sexual relationships. Why shouldn’t it apply to everything else?
I’m not sure if this nested wrongly but the whole second half of Dinwar’s comment is practical tips and advice on how to learn these skills!
I get the impression from the letter that the LW doesn’t think it’s worth doing rather than that they are trying but can’t though. Not to dismiss your point and it is definitely true that there are people who lack these skills, but my impression is more that the LW is, perhaps subconsciously, refusing to use these skills because she sees them as inauthentic rather than because she hasn’t learnt them and is struggling to appear positive.
There’s actually a lot of advice peppered throughout the comments (including things like looking for opportunities to introduce your team to other people and acting happy to see people). There’s quite a good comment from a commenter named Kella with a short, numbered list of actions, if you’d like to search for a particularly helpful one.
I realized after posting this that some of the articles on this site may help. I’ve found them interesting lately. https://www.succeedsocially.com/articlesconversation
A lot of people seem to be reading OP1’s tone harshly and I’d like to offer a counterpoint because of that.
Sometimes senior leaders really are busier, or have things they can’t drop, and it’s not necessarily the case that they can attend everything. I’d like more information on how often these events occur, for instance, or whether they are deconflicted with larger organizational meetings. Some organizations also have cross-org responsibilities that are not the soldier jurisdiction of an immediate supervisor. At my last job, my immediate supervisor had very little to do with my day-to-day, and would schedule social events without asking if I was able to attend due to other meetings that were scheduled by people more senior to her in the organization, or operational requirements with firm deadlines. Some deconfliction and prioritization would potentially help.
That said, OP1 doesn’t sound the most social – I get it! – and probably does need to learn to reframe the situation. Resources on thinking, strategically and executive presence might also help.
I would love an ask the readers thread on what’s expected of senior leaders and how to grow into those roles. It could be helpful for similar situations, and at least knowing what you’re getting into before you’re frantically learning on the job. That’s not the right time, even though it’s probably when most people do it.
I don’t think the tone of her letter is harsh, but if her boss has gotten multiple complaints from different people about LW’s attitude/demeanor, well it’s likely *something* is happening.
It’s hard to tell from the letter. It’s possible LW is rolling her eyes and hrumphing around and generally being a Grinch at the Christmas party. But it’s frankly just as possible that she’s just doing a round of meet and greet, sitting quietly for a bit, and taking her leave after whatever main events happen instead of closing the party.
Some people can get weirdly offended when you don’t have the same enthusiasm for social events that they do.
While I agree that part of the job of senior leadership is showing up to various work events and at least feigning enthusiasm, I also think that part of the social contract is failing to notice when the act isn’t 100% convincing. I wonder if that’s happening here.
I think if multiple people are commenting on it, the LW is likely doing the former. But even if it is the latter, they’ve been told it’s a problem, so that indicates that they are expected to participate more.
Unhappy worker: great advice (as usual) from Alison, but I wonder whether she’s trying to convince herself that all’s good with you even after they screwed you over.
If you don’t think it will make you a target, I might say to her, “you’ve asked me that repeatedly, and I’m wondering why. Honestly, I’m unhappy and humiliated at how I was treated, and the fact that no one has ever had a problem with my performance makes it worse. I’m a professional, so I will do the best job I can even though I have been demoted. But you asking me about it so much makes it harder for me to focus on work rather than on how I got shafted here.
Did they really screw her over though? It sounds like her colleague was objectively performing better than LW was in the role that they were both given. So it also sounds like the change was a reasonable business decision. LW treating it as being screwed over or shafted probably wouldn’t go well for her.
I’m not without empathy for a situation that sounded destabilizing for her. But highlighting her performance against the performance of the person who was promoted over her and suggesting that an unjust choice was made – it just seems unwise under the circumstances.
LW1, As someone in a senior leadership role, You need to control your emotions and body language. Every job has pros and cons. Im sure you enjoy the pros of your job. But its also your responsibility to encourage morale and culture.
OP 1 – I disagree with this answer. I think having someone in senior leadership that shows that not everyone enjoys these activities and advocates for those that don’t is important.
Showing up to work events and being so unprofessional that fellow employees complain about it is neither an important task to undertake nor helping anyone advocate for anything. OP1 has pushed back on the expectations and received their answer that the expectations aren’t changing; at this point they’re just throwing (public!) sulking fits.
A leader can advocate to other leaders for fewer social events, and use themselves as an example of someone who doesn’t enjoy them. That would be fine.
Showing up at an event and being a sourpuss is not the way to do it.
Being unpleasant isn’t advocating, it’s just making them look bad. Also, they are doing this while encouraging their staff to participate in these activities, so if they really wanted to push back it seems like making them optional for their staff would be a better choice.
1. People complain that I don’t want to be at work social events
“I do attend, but it’s out of obligation. People notice and then complain to my boss, who keeps talking to me about my participation.
I resent this. To me, attending even though I don’t want to is my way of being a good leader and teammate.”
Well, you are getting pretty bloody clear feedback you are failing? How is your behaviour at the event you leading well, if your boss is being complained to?
Now, if this were one or two forced-cheerfulness people, then I’d expect your boss to tell them they need to chill tf out over policing people’s emotions when it comes to events.
But if it is a pattern and not from a neurotic, then you are the problem.
So you can: Not attend, keep it short, or do a good job while in attendance. Especially for things that require attention like corporate retreats often do for strategic planning.
5. How do I tell my former boss to stop digging into how I am?
Your crying has been telling them that you *need someone to ask how you are*
You tell her “I don’t want to talk about it, I’m as fine as I’m going to get. There’s no big bucket of better jobs out there calling my name, I’m just doing the work in front of me and dealing with it.”
and also “I have been talking to my mates A and B about it and that’s been great.”
and if they push, “Yeah no. Sorry. I already told you I have people I get these emotions out with and I don’t want to discuss it and get worked up.”
LW 1. You don’t want to be there, but you encourage your staff to go? I am not sympathetic. If you don’t want to go, why are you telling your staff to go? Imagine being a much lower level employee and being told that you have to go. Other people BESIDES YOU have good reasons not to go. How about your company stop making these things required? And if there is any blowback for not going, then it’s required.
By the way. Are employees paid for going since this appears to be non-optional?
#3, I once had a job that had us log what we did EVERY 15 MINUTES. It was terrible. But a summary at the end of the day doesn’t seem like a huge ask, though I get it feels a little like you’re not trusted as a professional.
LW1, here. I really appreciate the insights. I think my attempt to be brief led to some assumptions about details, but that’s really only my fault. I’ll try to respond to a few common comments below.
1) My org is very people-oriented. Most people are very extroverted. Many are less analytical than I am. I often don’t see the benefit to my job that these activities provide. So, when someone says, “We want you to want to be there,” it doesn’t really help me.
2) I hadn’t thought people might think me rude. I do have one of “those faces” and so it’s easy for that to speak for me. That was a good point, and well-made.
3) I often feel like these conversations are frustrating because no one can tell me what the expectation is, but I’m also not given the benefit of the doubt. Example: I led a team-wide game at our Christmas party. People had fun. At a white elephant gift exchange later, a guy had forgotten a gift and was sad. So, I gave him mine. Someone saw I wasn’t participating and complained to my boss about my bad attitude. While I didn’t advertise helping out the other guy, I also got no credit with this complainer about having led a game. See?
4) My org is a non-profit, so I’m not terribly concerned about missing opportunities for promotion, etc. But, if anyone is in that position, this is absolutely worth considering, especially if one could negatively affect one’s team.
5) My letter was, admittedly, worded harshly. In truth, I have a positive outlook on the job, and the others in the organization generally like me too. This is the sole sore spot with someone.
I think that’s about it.
I spoke with my boss. I admitted that I’ve had other priorities, and said I would work to adjust them to meet his expectations, and that I would like help anticipating unspoken expectations by whoever these complainers are, or his support by defending me where their complaints aren’t fair. He saw my point and we’re on the same page.
Thank you for writing in.
“I think my attempt to be brief led to some assumptions about details, but that’s really only my fault.”
It’s not just your fault. The fact that commenters used complaints about your attitude to portray you as an unreliable narrator who was actually being hostile, yet did not apply this same logic to the very next letter about scheduling around dogs (which would mean claiming that the fact that letter writer received a complaint about being okay with animal abuse means that letter writer was an unreliable narrator who was actually displaying hostility and hatred to the dogs) shows that the assumptions against you are not being made in anything resembling good faith or consistency.
Your point #3 and your last paragraph show what some of us suspected, that the complaints against you were the result of unreasonable standards and unfairness. I am glad you got this resolved with your boss, and I hope that cuts off some of the bananapants treatment you have been receiving.