should I hire back a bully?

by Alison Green on April 14, 2025

A reader writes:

About a year and a half ago, I was forced to lay off multiple employees. I was truly heartbroken to see most of them go. But there were two employees I swore I’d never hire back. They both did fairly decent work, but were bullies who fed off of one another’s bad behavior. They were constantly in my office explaining why they’d said something nasty to one of their coworkers or why they’d ransacked another’s belongings. They were also blatantly disrespectful to me. One was far worse than the other, though.

Now that we’re hiring again, employees have contacted me and asked for their jobs back. I’ve told the particularly awful one that she has to reapply and be considered along with other applicants (though I have no intention of hiring her back). She hasn’t bothered to reapply because she feels she’s entitled to her job back and has decided to text/call me incessantly. Obviously, my answer is still no. I’m on the fence about hiring the other employee back. She hasn’t badgered me to make a hiring decision and has handled the idea of reapplying with far more grace than her colleague. And when she worked for me, she was a lot nicer to others when her unpleasant colleague wasn’t around. My fear is that, if she were to reapply and be hired back, she’d become the new bully. Is this fear justified? Should I take a chance on her … again?

I work in a very tough hiring market and new talent has been tough to come by.

I answer this question — and three others — over at Inc. today, where I’m revisiting letters that have been buried in the archives here from years ago (and sometimes updating/expanding my answers to them). You can read it here.

Other questions I’m answering there today include:

  •  How do I decline a promotion because I’d be managing someone I’m dating?
  • My employee is pregnant — what next?
  • Is it rude to bold and highlight key parts of an email?
You may also like:
{ 95 comments }

{ 95 comments… read them below or add one }

      1. Momma Bear*

        Agreed. LW might be hiring to fill one seat and lose several more who don’t want that person back. I would not hire a known bully for the sake of the rest of the team.

        Reply ↓
        1. Venus*

          That was my thought. It’s very clear that hiring a bully when ‘talent is hard to find’ means that you’ll lose more employees overall because the current ones with any talent can easily find another job.

          Reply ↓
          1. Paulina*

            Yes. Those coworkers whose belongings were ransacked, and who the bullies were nasty to, they’re going to polish up their resume as soon as they hear “X is coming back.” Especially since how the bullies left, being laid off along with many others who behaved far better, meant that the bullies’ bad behaviour had no obvious consequences.

            Reply ↓
      2. Yankees fans are awesome!*

        No kidding. I left my previous workplace because my manager refused to deal with a co-worker who everyone knew was a bully and then some. I’ve been in a different job for the last three years, and no way would my current boss stand for bullying. It’s one of the many qualities I respect and admire about here; talk about night and day.

        But I still remember when I gave my notice at previous job: my weak manager stood there all blinking and bewildered, which was actually quite satisfying.

        OP, I understand what you mean about it being tough to hire, but you will likely lose employees if you hire back either of the two bullies, and therefore will be in even a worse position, with more roles to fill.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sara without an H*

          +1. The bullies will stay, but the employees OP really wants to retain will go and leave skid marks behind them.

          Reply ↓
          1. goddessoftransitory*

            And above all this, LW, it’s NOT YOUR JOB to give this person a second chance.

            It doesn’t matter that the other employee “seemed” to be worse, or the instigator. She went along with all this stuff, on multiple occasions. Being so-called “less bad” isn’t actually a recommendation.

            Is it good she seems to be following the procedure, unlike Mean Girl #1? Sure, as far as that goes. But that doesn’t erase what she chose to do just because, again, MG1 isn’t doing those things. Actions have consequences. It doesn’t matter that so and so did XYZ and she only did X. X still counts.

            Reply ↓
            1. Ellie*

              Yes, it bodes well for her future that she seems to have learned something since you last hired her. But its going to be much better for her and you if she moves on to a fresh team somewhere else. This well is poisoned, the old team will not want to have her back, and her habits may well return once she feels secure again. Let her learn the lesson fully by not allowing her back.

              I do hope you’ve let your company know about the harassment from your other employee though! She should be on a permanent do not hire list.

              Reply ↓
    1. Skytext*

      Awww, the one I really wanted an update to was the one about declining the promotion. I am curious as to how that situation turned out.

      Reply ↓
    3. Elizabeth West*

      Thanks for posting the #1 — I couldn’t remember if I had seen that and if I did, I don’t remember it.

      Reply ↓
    4. Lenora Rose*

      Really glad of the outcome on the bully one. The interview didn’t dodge the issue at all, but confronted it face on and gave her a chance to come clean — and she chose instead to absolutely prove the LW’s instinct not to hire her back was correct, instead. Plus, a bonus lie on her resume!

      (There are extremely few and limited circumstances where I’d even consider it possible there’s an answer besides “no” to the title question; this was not one of them.)

      Reply ↓
      1. NotAnotherManager!*

        I had mixed feelings about the approach to the interview. The outcome was 100% correct, but I don’t love the method. In that position, I’d have preferred to see a more direct lead off with the fact that, during their prior tenure, there were a number of incidents where they were not able to resolve conflict productively with their coworkers and ask what they had learned during their time away and how they would build more better intra-team relationships. The way it was described sounded more like a gotcha or file-papering than about seeing if she’d changed. I also don’t think you ask for/call references unless you are serious about moving forward with a candidate. The former employee’s answer to the interview alone were disqualifying.

        Reply ↓
        1. KateM*

          But on the other side, “there were a number of incidents, what have you learned during your time away” would almost be like telling the bully the correct answers so she could be hired.

          Reply ↓
  3. bananners*

    When I am sending an email that requires multiple responses/action, I put the action items in a bulleted list at the top, then follow with the context in a narrative below the list. It seems to be effective without coming across as rude.

    Reply ↓
    1. Typity*

      That is a really good idea. Nobody here ever seems to read an email all the way through — I’m going to give this a try.

      Reply ↓
    2. cat herder*

      +1

      Another helpful practice is a put preface in the subject line (ranging from “Inform” to “Response Requested” to “Urgent”, and then the actual subject). It can be great when you know people are getting a barrage of emails of varying degrees of urgency, and triaging as they go.

      Reply ↓
    3. Not that other person you didn't like*

      Came here to say similar. Even when no response / action is required, in this kind of situation I will start with an “executive summary” with key takeaways (as well as action items, requests for answers, etc.). I’ll even label it executive summary (or if I know the person very well “TL;DR” :-)

      Reply ↓
      1. Academic Physics*

        haha agreed! For students I use the acronym TLDR freely, they just seem happy the action items are listed at the top for them.

        Reply ↓
    4. Madame Desmortes*

      I teach this to my students as “Bottom Line Up Front” (BLUF), which I believe comes out of the US military but is a useful organizing principle for email anyway.

      Reply ↓
      1. BLUF Rox!*

        BLUF has consistently earned me praise among executives over the past 10 years in the private sector. Aside from the US military it also popular in the federal intel agencies where I originally came from. I’m surprised it isn’t formally taught in business schools more.

        Reply ↓
        1. Coverage Associate*

          I learned it in grade school forward as part of journalists writing, and have read about businesses sending employees to journalistic writing classes for the same idea.

          I guess my formal professional writing has the idea built in with précis and introduction and short answer sections, but I am surprised at how many times I suggest to bosses to put the client’s action item at the top of less formal reports, or to at least make reference to it at the top. (Eg, “We request more information about this below.”)

          Reply ↓
      2. Happy meal with extra happy*

        Very similar to law school where you learn some variation of CRAC: Conclusion, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion.

        Reply ↓
      3. NotAnotherManager!*

        We teach this to new hires, too, along with the use of bullets/numbering for ease of response. We work with people that have a tendency to answer “yes” to multiple choice questions if not appropriately corralled, and BLUF seems to cut down on that a great deal.

        Reply ↓
    5. Slow Gin Lizz*

      Yeah, this. And I know that the OP said they need three questions answered, but I have found that asking one and only one question in an email is the best way to get three questions answered. Email “What color do you want your teapot?” and you will hopefully get a quick response because it’s an easy question to answer. When they write back, “Red,” then you can say, “And do you want a hummingbird or an owl pattern on it?” which hopefully they will then respond quickly to, and then you can ask your third question.

      I don’t know what it is about our human brains that tend to be better with back and forth emailing rather than one longer email asking several questions at once, but it might have something to do with email exchanges keeping the questions top-of-mind rather than “Oh, I have to carefully craft a response to OP’s email questions” and then it gets buried in their inbox. Does this mean you don’t get all of your questions answered at once? Obviously, yes, but it may actually lead to your questions getting answered more quickly. And since it seems like OP’s client only answers one question at at time anyway, why not ask them that way?

      Reply ↓
      1. Mad Harry Crewe*

        For very specific clients, maybe – but even then it’s not great. Trickling out information or questions is incredibly frustrating and creates a negative experience for most people – maybe if they’d known there would be a design, they’d have picked a different background color behind a red design instead. Because you’re not providing the full picture at once, they don’t have all the information they need.

        Reply ↓
        1. metadata minion*

          I think one middle ground in these situations is to send all the question at first, but with the mindset that it’s going to be a one-at-a-time situation. It’s definitely frustratingly common to send a message with “please let me know your size, style, and color of t-shirt” and get back “blue”. If you go into it with the expectation that you’ll have to then say “and what size did you want?”, it keeps you from screaming quietly into your keyboard, and for those lovely people who do read the whole thing, you’ll get all the information you need in the first reply.

          Reply ↓
      2. mysterious and important*

        I don’t know if it’s a “human brain” thing. I personally can’t stand multiple back-and-forth emails, partly because I have ADHD and every new email is another interruption to my hard-fought focus. But it also gives me the sense that they didn’t actually take the time to understand what they need from me before emailing me. It’s also a nightmare if I need to reference the email chain later for specific information.

        It’s also frustrating for me as the sender. I *know* what follow up questions they’re likely to ask, and every fiber of my being wants to just address them preemptively in my first email so the next reply I get is a useful answer, or at least something approaching one. But as evidenced in the letter, that does not happen.

        Reply ↓
    8. Disappointed with the Staff*

      It helps if you know the person. My boss reads email on his phone and needs short subject lines, action at the top in a few words, then optionally some following text that will be ignored by the boss but may help others understand what’s required if he forwards to/includes others in the reply.

      Technical staff generally appreciate (and require) self-contained emails that have all the necessary information in them, or at least as much information is as known at the time of sending. We have both a wiki and an issue tracker so often they will reply to the email with a link to one of those where they have organised the email into a plausible technical document.

      Emails from customers often have to be translated, not just from languages we don’t read but also from localised technical jargon even when they’re nominally in English (some call llamas camelids. Others don’t groom they prune or shear)

      Reply ↓
  4. CubeFarmer*

    I’m not even sure why this letter ranks as a question to answer: no. That’s an easy answer. They both made your working environment difficult. Why would anyone invite that back into their lives?

    Reply ↓
    1. A. Lab Rabbit*

      Professional courtesy? A believer in second chances?

      But yeah, it looks like OP gave the lesser bully a second chance (update linked above) and they failed it. Oof.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lenora Rose*

        And OP only gave the second chance because their boss wanted to do so – which put OP and boss in agreement to never ever hire this person again.

        Reply ↓
  5. Lisa*

    Since the LW says it’s been a year and a half, I might consider giving the person an interview if they do apply, and using the opportunity to feel out if they recognize their behavior was problematic and have changed. But if you did hire them you’d have to keep them on a very short leash at least at first and actually address the behavior if it comes back. I am giving a lot of side-eye to the LW and their company for not actually handling it properly the first time.

    Reply ↓
    1. pally*

      Hlao-roo posted an update (please see above).

      The OP tried to do this at the interview. Didn’t turn out so well for the bully.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

        Yea, it went poorly, but that doesn’t mean giving a chance was the wrong decision.

        Reply ↓
        1. pally*

          Agree- oughtta give them a chance (i.e. an interview). Who knows? Bully may have had an epiphany over their prior behaviors. An interview is the only way to find out.

          Reply ↓
        2. Smithy*

          Completely agree.

          In the grand scheme of things, this was giving a few hours of the OP’s time. And even if their initial gut feelings of not re-hiring this person were confirmed, I do think the message it sends other staff is honestly positive. For those who felt bullied or other had negative experiences with this person, should they hear they interviewed – there’s confirmation that they weren’t hired back.

          But inevitably there are often people who weren’t bullied/or figure that while they might be difficult that their work makes up for it. Hearing they at least got the chance to interview I think just gives a good overall impression regarding the company in giving folks who were laid off a chance. Application pools can be competitive, folks can bomb interviews, etc, but they had a chance. This really prevents any potential for giving an impression that when layoffs were made it was just a chance to clean house of folks they didn’t like without having to go through more formal processes .

          Reply ↓
  6. Alice*

    “she said that she was worried that I or others on the team would be upset about her having a baby so soon after starting.”
    Decent people shouldn’t be upset with the mother for having a baby soon after starting — but sometimes colleagues (or indeed customers) are justifiably upset with the manager and the company if they don’t provide extra resources to get the team through the period of parental leave in good shape.

    Reply ↓
    1. Wayward Sun*

      This. Too often parental leave means someone has to do the work of two people for the pay of one person.

      Reply ↓
  7. I should really pick a name*

    The LW who doesn’t want to disclose their relationship seems to be taking separation of work and personal life to the extreme.

    This seems like a completely normal situation in which to disclose.

    Reply ↓
    1. Peanut Hamper*

      Some people and also some countries (I’m thinking of France) have higher levels of privacy than others. I understand LW’s desire to keep their personal life private.

      Reply ↓
      1. allathian*

        True. But in this case when one partner would end up managing the other, there really is no choice but to disclose. I don’t mean disclose to the whole company or even the whole team if they don’t want to, just the hiring manager/team.

        At my current employer I’ve worked with some people for years before learning that they were married to a coworker in another department. There have been several such couples during my time here.

        On the other hand, in many parts of Europe there’s no separation of church and state, and in countries with a state church, the local tax authority is usually the authority responsible for collecting tithes for the church from members. I’m in Finland, and here the tithe is 1 percent, so the tax rate for members is 1 percentage point higher than for non-members in all income brackets. This means that HR and payroll at least know which employees are members of the state church, and possibly more pertinently, which aren’t. That said, religion is much less pervasive in society at large here than it seems to be in the US. Sure, there are churches and the church bells will toll at 6 pm on Saturdays (except on Easter Saturday) and the evening before a religious holiday, and again for services on Sundays, but for most Finns that’s just background noise. Someone who’s been raised in a non-Christian religious tradition is undoubtedly aware that Finland is a traditionally Christian country, but that doesn’t stop the majority from living largely secular lives, whether or not they’re church members. It’s generally considered inappropriate to talk about religion at work, and certainly even minor attempts at proselytizing will have consequences for the employee unless the workplace’s particularly toxic.

        Reply ↓
  8. Flower Power*

    People always called me a bully just because I stood up for myself and was not afraid of confrontation. Maybe the less mean employee is actually just misunderstand and assertive. Women often get accused of being b|tches when really they were just fighting fire with fire and speaking the truth to power.

    Reply ↓
    2. Bossy*

      I hear you but that isn’t borne out by the actual letter. Further, I mean I’m pretty assertive and can be blunt when needed but I have never been called a bully – tho I have heard whoa you say some of the hardest stuff in the best way (which is direct but not nasty or mean). And fighting with fire with fire just leads to more fire. Just sayin’

      Reply ↓
    3. Jennifer Strange*

      Let’s take the LW at their word that the employee was a bully. While it’s true women are often accused of behaving poorly simply for being assertive, that doesn’t mean they can’t still be bullies.

      Reply ↓
    4. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      This is a very good point. And in the original letter, OP writes that the person who did apply was more a follower than a ring leader in the mess.
      And then the employee interviewed…
      from her answers and non-answers, she came off as just as bad as the other employee only less aggressive, more reactive. It seems she attacks when threatened (by things like showing up, working with others, doing her job) more than offensively attacking others for daring to show up, work with others, do their jobs.
      It was worth the interview to discover that the employee is worse than they realized.
      And now OP knows.

      Reply ↓
      1. goddessoftransitory*

        It reminds me of the film In The Company of Men, where one employee at a company is basically a sociopath and has the second guy following like a remora in his wake. The latter keeps insisting to himself and others that “I’m a good guy,” but it becomes glaringly obvious that what he is is a wannabe who is basking in the reflected power of the first man.

        Followers of bullies are not good people. They glom onto a powerful seeming person in order to inflict damage and reap spoils while not daring to actually admit to what they’re doing.

        Reply ↓
    5. I&I*

      If you get called a bully once or twice in specific situations, that may be being ‘misunderstood.’

      If people ‘always’ call you a bully, it might be your own understanding you want to check.

      Very few bullies wake up and think, ‘Another day, another chance to be a bully!’ Along with ‘People do everything wrong unless you force them’ and ‘I can’t help my feelings’, ‘I stand up for myself and I’m not afraid of confrontation’ is one of the commonest ways bullies self-describe.

      I’m not saying you are, but if it keeps happening you might want to consider that.

      Reply ↓
      1. Academic Physics*

        Also, in my field if I has having confrontations all the time that would be quite strange for my position and work. Not to say that I haven’t, especially on certain topics like safety, but it’s just not a daily part of my job.

        Of course my field is not everyone’s field, so I understand if it is different in other roles.

        Reply ↓
    6. Elizabeth West*

      According to OP, they ransacked other people’s belongings. How is that being misunderstood and assertive? On what planet is that okay at ANY job?

      Reply ↓
    7. Lenora Rose*

      Read the update. Not only did this particular woman pretty definitively prove herself an intentional bully in the interview they did grant her, she also tried to blame others for her misdeeds — and, as icing on the cake, invented a fake job for her resume.

      Reply ↓
    8. NotAnotherManager!*

      The letter gives the example of the people in question ransacking coworkers’ belongings and being in their office multiple times for being nasty to coworkers (plural). That’s not misunderstood assertive behavior, it’s behavior that does not have a place in the professional workplace.

      We could go on all day about the infinite possibilities of any letter, but, generally, we’re supposed to take the letter-writer at their word and not write fanfic about what *might* have happened.

      Reply ↓
  9. Chad H*

    My first reaction is no… However.

    OP, You said the worst was when they were feeding off each other, and one of them definitely isn’t coming back. I would say its okay to consider them if and only if you and this prospective employee/ex employee is on notice at the point of the job being offered that the previous behaviour will not be tolerated… And then I’d only do it if they’re definitely not going to cross paths with prior targets or others who are going to have a problem with it.

    Some people can and do change, if they’re willing to work hard to to do it.

    Reply ↓
    1. Decima Dewey*

      My thought is that they’d have to be willing to do the hard work of changing somewhere else. For their sake as well as for their former coworkers.

      Reply ↓
      1. goddessoftransitory*

        Pretty much this. Even if the first person didn’t come back, this person has shown weakness of character and willingness to follow someone into unethical behavior.

        (This was my reaction even before reading the posted update)

        Reply ↓
    2. MsM*

      I’m not really seeing how they wouldn’t cross paths with prior targets if they were coming back into the same department/role, though. And if there are other qualified options out there, I feel like there’s no real benefit to taking a chance on a known problem instead of starting fresh and letting them do the same somewhere else. Especially if they haven’t acknowledged that there were problems the first time around and outlined any kind of plan for what they’re going to do to make sure this time is different.

      Reply ↓
    3. Festively Dressed Earl*

      To me that’s an argument against hiring back the “lesser” bully – the best way to handle covert bullies that only flare up when they’re in close proximity to each other is not to hire covert bullies. Even if LW didn’t hire back the “greater” bully, “lesser” bully would be back to her old awful self the second a different covert bully dropped their mask. LW did the right thing by not hiring her back.

      Reply ↓
  10. cncx*

    I left a job with a Main Bully and a Lesser Bully. The market around here is small so if I found out Main Bully got hired at my current employer, I would quit on the spot. If I found out Lesser Bully got a job, I would need a lot of reassurance that I would be believed the first time something went down. The sad part is Lesser Bully was actually good at his job, he was just easily influenced.

    Reply ↓
    1. Bossy*

      Ha ha there are lots of the second bully type and I do not feel sorry for them in any way shape or form. Sorry but being spineless isn’t an admirable quality.

      Reply ↓
      1. cncx*

        Oh I don’t feel sorry for him, just that there is a difference between me turning on my heel and walking out the door if Main Bully was my new colleague versus ramping up my job search on the dl and giving current boss a chance if Lesser Bully showed back up in my job life.

        Reply ↓
    2. A. Lab Rabbit*

      Yep, the Lesser Bully used to be called a “Toady” in my childhood. This bully/toady combo is so common, that it’s made it’s way into movies like A Christmas Story and television shows like The Simpsons (IIRC; it’s been years since I’ve watched The Simpsons).

      Reply ↓
  11. The Chill Coordinator*

    Regarding how rude formatting in an email can be: I believe this is very context specific.

    For example, I had a job in higher education that involved dealing with lots of different focus groups and would often be told by group members that they didn’t know about something that I sent them in an email. So I started bolding and underlining important dates, action items, etc. so it would be harder to miss.

    Shortly thereafter, I get told I’m being rude, followed by a particular woman who decided to start attempting to bully me, oddly enough.

    At my current job, I never bother to format anything and all of us figure if someone misses something, oh well, you’ll get either a link to the meeting recording or will see some meeting minutes later – guess you should’ve read that email after all.

    Reply ↓
    1. Coverage Associate*

      I have been struck how some organizations I work with have poor automated confirmation emails after the registration process. I recently noticed that one had the date of the event in small font at the end. Another had the location in an attachment. Oftentimes, I have to save a few emails to keep all the details for a single event.

      Internal meetings always have outlook invites.

      Reply ↓
    2. Academic Physics*

      Oh I’m so sorry! That’s terrible! Also, I tend to think that is super fine way to communicate in higher education, as bolding and underlining would only be helpful to my students, so why not the professors? That ‘particular woman’ was being out of step is my opinion.

      I worked with a lovely professor that wrote all of her emails in colors (green, red, blue), with each font corresponding to different items. The students loved her, and I found her emails so much easier to process!

      Reply ↓
      1. Freya*

        As long as those colours meet the contrast requirements for Accessibility, that sounds cool. I had a lecturer that did all their slides in bright red text on white, which as well as being insufficiently contrasting to meet Accessibility requirements in general, for me in specific that text swims and gives me a migraine. When requested to change the text to black or some other colour that met university guidelines, he changed it to bright orange on white, which was worse.

        Caveat: it’s been a number of years, and I might be remembering incorrectly which colour he started with and which he changed to. But the two text colours were definitely bright red and bright orange, and neither were readable, and both failed WCAG success criterion 1.4.3

        Reply ↓
  12. Angstrom*

    #4: I’ve received multi-page paper documents that had been highlighted where I needed to sign or initial. Seemed perfectly reasonable.

    Reply ↓
  13. Heffalump*

    If I were running a scam to separate senior citizens from their life savings, of course that would be reprehensible, but my desire for financial gain would at least be understandable. Bullying isn’t even understandable. Bullying is just evil.

    Reply ↓
  14. errrrr, really?*

    “should i hire back a bully who was awful because she’s not bothering me right this second?” uhhhh. like i’m sure everyone else is answering. No. that’s like saying ” i stepped on a nail a few months ago and it pierced my foot and got infected but i went to the doctor and am finally ok. should i step on the nail again because my foot doesn’t hurt any more?”

    Reply ↓
    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      I like this metaphor. I can also see it as…
      I’m the manager, so I wear boots on the floor.
      My employees don’t wear boots, but if they step on a nail, they can come to me and I will provide first aid for the injury, but we are still going to leave the nails on the floor.

      Reply ↓
  16. Festively Dressed Earl*

    Re LW 3 managing a pregnant employee.

    Is there a way for a new manager to ask what best practices are for covering an employee’s leave without blowing that employee’s cover? If this is the employee’s first time taking an extended leave, she may not know what steps to take any more than her manager does. It could be helpful to talk to a different manager at the same company or a mentor in the same industry.

    Reply ↓
  17. Sherm*

    I sometimes highlight words with an aqua blue rather than yellow, the idea being that the shade is associated with “chill,” and as such I hope I’m conveying that the highlighting is not a sign of aggravation.

    Reply ↓
    1. Heffalump*

      I wouldn’t be offended in the first place by the highlighting as such, but it would never occur to me to read anything, good or bad, into the color of the highlighting.

      Reply ↓
      1. Filosofickle*

        I would hope that’s the case for most people. But color cues can be subconscious, so people may not know they are inferring “HEY DUMMY” in yellow and “Hi friend make sure you see me ” in aqua. Personally I prefer aqua to yellow because I find it easier on the eyes.

        Reply ↓
        1. Good Enough For Government Work*

          I don’t infer any other moral judgment from it, but I also prefer the blue to look at!

          Reply ↓
  18. different seudonym*

    Late to the party, but it can be helpful to literally write “I will be highlighting important dates in yellow” before you do it. That sort of emphasizes that it’s functional.

    Reply ↓
    1. linger*

      Yup. In one [adjective redacted] editing project, I soon got into the habit of prefacing my notes to the author with “Sections of suggested replacement text are marked in blue”.
      (The text contained enough quote marks, italics, etc that I couldn’t unambiguously use those as delimiters. And red would have been dispiriting in the quantities needed.)

      Reply ↓
  19. Retired Vulcan Raises 1 Grey Eyebrow*

    #4 When I sent EMs with n questions I always put in the EM title “Project xyz: n questions”.
    The EM body started with “n questions” followed by bullet points numbered 1-n with 1-2 line summary

    Reply ↓
  20. Raida*

    I’d say just be clear in the hiring process:
    You *were* good to work with.
    You then *were not* good to work with.
    You clearly were in some kind of feedback loop with *bully1*.
    That tells me two things: 1) you are not inherently a bully 2) you are susceptible to just being a dickhead if someone else is.

    Why should I hire you back?

    They can tell you how they are going to avoid being a dickhead again, and how they agree it isn’t acceptable behaviour, and how they will repair professional relationships. Or they don’t, and you don’t hire them.

    Reply ↓
  22. flora_poste*

    My team was once sent an email by another team with regards to our (perceived from their side) inadequate response to an extremely time-consuming, non-mission-critical, unexpected, constantly shifting request they had made of us. All their chief complaints, and the impact out shortcomings had had on their team, were bolded, which was essentially the whole (very long) email. It would have been an obnoxious email anyway, but we did indeed feel we were being shouted at via both words and formatting.

    Now we use some of their phrases (and formatting) within our own team to sarcastically complain about each other (really we get on very well) which has taken a lot of the sting away.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

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

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS