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

by Alison Green on October 8, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I’d bet it’s no big deal at all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Can managers ever really get anonymous feedback?

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

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

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

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

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

You may also like:
{ 116 comments }

{ 116 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Marshmallow*

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

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

    Reply ↓
    1. Joron Twiner*

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

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

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

      Reply ↓
    2. GammaGirl1908*

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

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

      Reply ↓
    4. Karstmama*

      My high school (junior and senior years only, residential) uses ‘grandsenior’, ‘grandjunior’, etc, as a shorthand for where someone falls above or below you. It’s just a known shortcut to explain graduation year.

      Reply ↓
      1. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

        Maybe I’m missing something – if they only have juniors and seniors, why is a shorthand needed? Isn’t someone just either a junior or a senior?

        Reply ↓
        1. Archi-detect*

          Yeah even at a full 4 year high school we always just used what class someone was, upper or lowerclassmen for the upper or lower two grades.

          Reply ↓
    5. word nerd*

      For the OP, I wonder if it would help to reframe it not as “grand” like in “grandma” but “grand” in another word: a chess grandmaster, grand finale, grand duke/duchess, grand marshal, grand slam, etc. It doesn’t have to do with family necessarily.

      Reply ↓
  2. JSPA*

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

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

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

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

    Reply ↓
    1. Port*

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

      Reply ↓
      1. Archi-detect*

        I also imagine virtual would negate a lot of the benefit too. A lot easier to slip off and check email that way.

        Reply ↓
    2. Academic who should be writing*

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

      Reply ↓
    3. KeinName*

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

      Reply ↓
    4. MK*

      If the gathering has traditionally been focused on allowing people uninterrupted time to write, OP has grounds to complain about it, though. That’s not simply changing the focus of the gathering, it’s completely changing its purpose and also making the original purpose impossible.

      Reply ↓
      1. Martin Blackwood*

        Yeah, like, it sounds like this person is the only one treating the group this way. Maybe im wrong but im picturing people talking, saying like “Today i need to work on this article to submit to a journal instead of my dissertation” or something like “my fridge died this week so dealing with that ate up a lot of writing time” not nitty gritty details about their writing. Plus, laymen probably are the worst to give feedback in an academic context? like, if you dont understand what theyve written because youve never read any string theory, you cant tell if its worded awkwardly or if you just dont know the jargon

        Reply ↓
    5. Tg*

      From listening writers talk, it seem sthat their writer groups are about sharing work, giving and getting feedback, and supporting each other. It seems like this person is trying to do this.

      It sounds like academic writing groups are structured quite differently, and he needs a to be told this.

      Reply ↓
      1. But Of Course*

        Just to clarify, the non-academic writing groups I’m part of are explicitly NOT set up to handle someone like this, and they would be asked to leave. While there are groups where sharing your writing (or probably even some about sharing your ideas or whatever) are the goal, this is not an academic/non-academic writing group split.

        Reply ↓
    6. Nina*

      At my institution we call these events ‘Shut Up and Write’ and it’s definitely acceptable to tell someone bluntly, ‘hey, Shut Up and Write means shut up’.

      Reply ↓
      1. Writer Claire*

        There is a Zoom Meetup group called Shut Up and Write. While I don’t belong to that one, I do belong to a similar group. We have 15 minutes of introductions and what each person hopes to accomplish. (Members often have wildly different goals, from poetry, to college dissertations, to novels, to business letters.) Then we all mute ourselves and write for an hour. At the end, another fifteen minutes to say what we did accomplish. The moderator is very firm about ending the chit-chat.

        Reply ↓
  3. Nodramalama*

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

    Reply ↓
    1. allathian*

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

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

      Reply ↓
      1. The Prettiest Curse*

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

        Reply ↓
        1. Ellis Bell*

          For me it makes sense because of the similarity between family trees and hierarchy diagrams. It doesn’t mean I think of the relationship as being at all similar!

          Reply ↓
        1. Sing-lo*

          Yes this exactly! Grand-boss is a way of defining hierarchy- like an org chart looks similar to a family tree.

          Reply ↓
        2. londonedit*

          Yes, it’s exactly like ‘parent company’. Otherwise all the bosses can and do get confusing, especially for something like AAM where people are writing longer-form letters and trying to explain situations clearly. I’ve definitely read letters here where a good portion of the comments section has been taken up with people going ‘Hang on – is this your boss, or the boss’s boss? Or the boss’s boss’s boss? Or the boss of the whole company?’ ‘Grandboss’ and ‘Great-grandboss’ are just simpler ways to express the relationships, because everyone can imagine a hierarchy of Boss – Grandboss – Great-grandboss. It has nothing really to do with the whole ‘we’re a faaaaaamily’ thing. No one’s literally saying your boss is like your grandparent.

          Reply ↓
    2. Spooky*

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

      Reply ↓
      1. Ellis Bell*

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

        Reply ↓
      2. Nodramalama*

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

        Reply ↓
        1. londonedit*

          Yes, exactly – in real life there are all sorts of job titles and hierarchies that might not translate across industries. If letter-writers say ‘the director’ or ‘our senior executive’ or whatever, people would probably have a much harder time trying to parse the various relationships, even if those are the terms used in their particular workplace. Is the ‘head of department’ your direct boss? Or your boss’s boss? Or higher than that? And so on. And these relationships can be important when people are asking questions about what’s appropriate at work – is it appropriate to speak to the head of department if they’re three levels above you? Possibly not. Is it appropriate if they’re your boss? Of course.

          Reply ↓
    3. Myrin*

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

      Reply ↓
      1. Spooky*

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

        Reply ↓
      2. Nodramalama*

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

        Reply ↓
        1. Airy*

          Perhaps it’s because I’ve spent time on Tumblr but it feels like the writer really hoped on some level that Alison would realise from reading their letter that the use of “grandboss” is disgusting and unclean and apologetically expunge it from her site, validating their emotional response to the word as normal and correct. I hope they can accept that they have in fact misunderstood the vibe of the thing and let it go.

          I mean, I kind of loathe it when people use “niblings” in place of “nephews and nieces” for brevity and/or gender-neutrality because it makes me think of little rodents nibbling, but I can see where they’re coming from.

          Reply ↓
          1. Emmy Noether*

            I always feel like that should logically be “nieblings” with a long “ie” sound like “niece”, not “niblings”. I’ve never heard it spoken out loud though, do people pronounce it like “nibbling” or “neebling”?

            Reply ↓
              2. Emmy Noether*

                Well, that makes a lot of sense! I still find niebling more pleasing personally, but nibling is more logical.

                Reply ↓
                1. Retiring Academic*

                  Niebling makes me think of the Ring of the Nibelung – and you really don’t want to get into some of those familial relationships!

          2. ASD always*

            The little rodent association in part of why I like it! It may feel infantilising once they’re older, but mine are little kids at the moment, so appropriately small and cute like a hamster.

            Reply ↓
          3. Good Enough For Government Work*

            Nibling is gender-neutral. Many people don’t want to say ‘nephews and nieces’, not just for brevity, but because it excludes non-binary people.

            Reply ↓
    4. RC*

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

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

      Reply ↓
      2. bamcheeks*

        In German you actually can use Doktorvater/ Doktormutter for your PhD supervisor, and continue to Doktorgroßvater/mutter for their supervisor. My Doktorgroßvater is Hugh Kenny.

        Academia is never knowingly underFreudianed.

        Reply ↓
        1. Emmy Noether*

          Oooh, when I was doing my thesis, I was fascinated by the different words used for it in different languages and what it says about attitudes.

          Is a “Doktorarbeit” (doctoral work) different from a “thesis”)? Does a “Doktorvater” see his role differently than a “supervisor” or an “encadrant” (French, literally the person who sets the framework)? Is a “soutenance de thèse” (French, support of thesis) less adversarial than a “thesis defence”?

          Reply ↓
          1. bamcheeks*

            Hm, I had a French colleague who liked to talk about the necessity of “killing the father” in your doctoral study — ie, the point where you take ownership of your own work and ideas and stop relying on your supervisor. Like I said, never knowingly underFreudianed.

            Reply ↓
            1. Emmy Noether*

              Hadn’t heard that one before! Very oedipal and dramatic.

              My lab usually assigned two supervisors, and there were definite parallels to parenting in that, too (like, which one do you go to with which problem?).
              It was good in my case though, because one of mine quit 9 months before I was set to finish and I was simply switched to someone else as co-supervisor (would that be my step doctoral father, then?) while keeping continuity in my work. Then my other original supervisor broke his collarbone a week before my defense…

              Reply ↓
    6. El l*

      OP is entitled to their opinion and to not like it.

      I’m entitled to my opinion that it’s a useful analogy to concisely explain a relationship. And all without recourse to sports terms. And that the visceral response is out of line.

      Reply ↓
  4. postdooc*

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

    Reply ↓
    1. KeinName*

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

      Reply ↓
      1. Helena Handbasket*

        Group rules really help in this instance. I was part of a writing group, and we all agreed to use the Pomodoro Technique, where would would do 25 minutes of quiet writing, then a break of either 5 or 15 minutes, then another 25 of writing, and so on. As a group we all agreed to use this method, and when a new person joined the group, we were very clear about this. They did try to talk several times and the group members (kindly) shut them down, which worked very well.

        Reply ↓
  5. Bambue*

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

    Reply ↓
    1. SALC*

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

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

      Reply ↓
    2. TechWorker*

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

      Reply ↓
      1. ASD always*

        If someone talked about their second line manager I’d assume someone on the same level as their line manager in the hierarchy that they also report to in some capacity. “Grandboss” feels much less ambiguous.

        Reply ↓
        1. ASD always*

          Though in real-life conversation I would refer to my boss’ boss as “John” to coworkers or “the CEO” to non-coworkers (it’s a fairly small company)

          Reply ↓
      2. Beth**

        This works less well in financial services where “second line” = the risk department and “third line” = internal audit

        Reply ↓
    3. SkipToMyLou*

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

      Reply ↓
    4. ThatOtherClare*

      I’ve never heard or said ‘grandboss’ in the workplace either, but it’s useful online when nobody knows (or needs to know) where the COO sits relative to my role in our organisation chart. At work I’d just say ‘the COO’ of ‘Geoff’. Online, ‘grandboss’. Skip manager works perfectly well also, but personally, it sounds funny to me. I feel like I’m talking about the cool kid who decides who’s allowed to play hopscotch at lunch.

      Reply ↓
    5. Your credit's fine Mr Torrance*

      I wouldn’t say grandboss in real life because it seems a little cringey, not because of the grandparent connotation, but because it sounds too AAMish/cute if that makes sense. Like I wouldn’t say bananapants at work either instead of crazy.

      It makes total sense here however when you’re describing a reporting relationship in a company.

      Reply ↓
  6. EA*

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

    Reply ↓
    1. Nodramalama*

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

      Reply ↓
    2. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

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

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

      Reply ↓
      1. Ellis Bell*

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

        Reply ↓
        1. Allonge*

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

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

          Reply ↓
      2. Not That Kind of Doctor*

        I make a lot of slides for clients, and this kind of request is usually a lose-lose scenario: they really do want all 40 individual statuses plus an overview and they also want it to fit on 2 slides, and they usually don’t picture what that would have to look like until they see it. We’d usually end up with something along the lines of your suggestion plus a detailed back-up slide for each area (they won’t use it, but they’ll complain if they don’t get it).

        Reply ↓
      3. Archi-detect*

        When I was in high school, our valedictorian was praised for never doing a short answer on essays and whatnot; if it was 3-5 paragraphs they did four pages. It took me years to realize that that is actually a bad thing. No one wants 15 powerpoint slides and I have sent a 5-6 paragraph email maybe twice- doing that regularly is extremely rude to your colleagues.

        Reply ↓
    3. niknik*

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

      Reply ↓
  7. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

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

    Reply ↓
    1. Nodramalama*

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

      Reply ↓
      1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

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

        Reply ↓
        1. Nodramalama*

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

          Reply ↓
        2. Emmy Noether*

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

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

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

          Reply ↓
    2. ThatOtherClare*

      It does seem as though they deliberately chose to use the word that has the maximum number of inappropriate alternative connotations, rather than, say, ‘Grandmother’, which carries a far more dignified air to it.

      Etymonline (not the best source to be fair) says the prefix grand- simply means ‘a generation removed’.

      Sometimes, my dear letter writer, one simply has to accept that other minds aren’t quite as far into the gutter as one’s own.

      Reply ↓
  9. Luna*

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

    Reply ↓
  10. Maths and bosses*

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

    Reply ↓
  11. Beth**

    Welcome back Alison!

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

    Reply ↓
  12. Beth**

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

    Reply ↓
  13. WritingGroups*

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

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

    Reply ↓
    1. Marion Ravenwood*

      Yeah, when I was in writers’ groups a few years ago we would talk far more than we wrote in our sessions. Maybe like a 10-15 minute writing exercise, but then we’d read them out and get feedback from the rest of the group. Or we’d just talk about what we’d been working on that week and our goals etc.

      What OP1 seems to be describing is more akin to the type of thing you get during NaNoWriMo where groups meet at cafes with laptops and work for a couple of hours quietly together. (There is almost certainly a proper term for this but it’s eluding me right now.) Which is totally fine but I don’t know if it’s been made clear that this is what this group is.

      Reply ↓
    2. STEMProf*

      At my university, writing accountability groups are really common, and it is clearly spelled out that you only talk for the first and last 5-10 min. The rest of the time is for writing. I assume that this is something similar (in which case it might be helpful for OP and their group to agree on some ground rules)

      Reply ↓
  14. Irish Teacher.*

    LW2, have you reason to believe your boss is a petty, passive-aggressive person? Has she a history of making indirect digs while outwardly saying she is pleased with what people did? Sometimes reactions like you are having come from a wider pattern.

    If this is not the norm from her, then I wouldn’t assume it now. It would be a pretty bizarre way of telling you she was displeased and one many, perhaps most, people would miss. And yeah, there ARE bosses who are that bad at giving feedback but unless you have reason to believe she is one of them, I’d take this as her simply saying, “it’s fine that you went over the limit as the presentation was excellent” and possibly not even thinking of the individual questions she asked when asking you to review them.

    One thing to consider too is that we tend to assume that much of what our bosses do and say when interacting with us is about us, but very often it’s not and can often be more about them. Not in a bad way, but like the guy who spilled…was it condons? on his interviewer’s desk and after he got the job, he found out she’d hardly noticed because she was busy worrying that she had spinach in her teeth or a colleague of mine, when new, was asked by the principal about “any difficulties she was having” and worried that that was the principal’s way of implying she wasn’t coping or that there had been complaints about her but later realised it was most likely that the principal was worried SHE wasn’t being supportive enough of new staff and felt the new colleague might not have confidence in HER.

    In other words, the initial part of the message could be more a “yeah, I realise I was wrong” that a criticism of you and the request to review the questions might be more about her being nervous about interviewing rather than creating ways to have digs at you.

    LW5, as a teacher, I can say, it is VERY hard to make feedback truly anonymous. Unless you are dealing with a company of 100s of people. I have asked for anonymous feedback from students but usually know who wrote a fair bit of it based on writing style, what they mention, handwriting if it’s done as handouts, etc. Not that I let them know I’ve any idea who said what.

    Reply ↓
  15. Academic Annie*

    OP#1, my writing group uses an agreed format for these types of events: from the hour to quarter past is social time, when chat is welcomed. From quarter past to the hour, it’s silent writing time. Everyone knows this and has agreed to it when they signed up for the event. This format might not be exactly what you need, but hopefully a) you could adapt it to suit your events, and/or b) you may get some comfort from knowing that other groups have had similar issues and found ways to handle them.

    Reply ↓
    1. ThatOtherClare*

      This is good advice. I think the work of Nobel prize winner Elinor Ostrom is relevant here.

      If we think of the shared writing group’s time and mental resources as ‘public commons’, the ‘tragedy of the commons’ can be averted in the usual manner: by establishing group rules.

      Reply ↓
  16. Green great dragon*

    Yeh, saying she understood why you did it that way isn’t the same as saying she thought it was the right decision. Take it as nuanced feedback. There were lots of good things about the slides, sufficiently good that she went with them instead of asking you to shrink them down to the 1 or 2 she’d requested, but she’d have preferred a smaller number.

    Reply ↓
  17. bamcheeks*

    The interview question includes “[the manager] provided minimal guidance on the content they want”. To me that is at least as much recognition that she didn’t give actionable advice as it is of you for technically breaking the “two slides” format.

    I don’t think there is a problem here, but you could certainly ask whether she would have liked you to do something differently.

    Reply ↓
  18. Kwebbel*

    OP 5 – I’m a manager of 4 in a department of 25. Every 3 months our company sends out a staff survey with the ability to comment. My manager goes through the overall results with me before sharing with the wider team. Every time he’s done this, he’s taken guesses at who gave which feedback.

    For our last survey, which was during a period where there was good reason to believe the survey results would be extremely bad, my manager sent a message to the whole team saying “please, please add as many comments as possible. They’re 100% anonymous, and I promise you, they do get read. Feel free to go crazy, or just tell us how great everything is.” I…think he thought that was a cute little joke, but it really rubbed me the wrong way. It was particularly tone deaf for our situation, but also deeply lacking self awareness at how he treats the comments.

    Anyway, I decided not to leave any comments at all because of this behavior. And I also gave my direct reports a heads-up that this might happen as well.

    Short answer: If the team is small, comments are technically anonymous, but managers will probably try to guess who said what.

    (Also, if exactly one person on your team is, say, a non-native speaker, or is dyslexic, or uses Random Capitals, or uses a lot of semicolons or hyphens…well, they’re automatically outed in “anonymous” written feedback)

    Reply ↓
    1. Emmy Noether*

      Oooh, what if the person who writes in all caps does it purposely so that they can disguise their writing by writing normally in anonymous surveys? No one will ever suspect it was them! Genius!

      Reply ↓
  20. Cardboard Marmalade*

    For LW1, if the direct approach won’t work with this person/group, you could float the idea of instituting a one dollar “admission fee” to attend the group, with the pot then being given as a prize at the end to whoever has produced the highest word count while they’re there. If this doesn’t have the effect of getting the chatty person to buckle down and get to work, it might at least spur the others to be bolder about telling them to hush so their own chances at the pot aren’t spoiled. If anyone dislikes the gambling feel of this, I’m sure there’s another way to gamify it, but I feel like even a small amount of money is usually enough to get people to focus.

    Reply ↓
        1. Ferret*

          Fair point although I tend to use guy as a gender neutral term especially in contexts like these where we are talking about what sounds like a fairly informal mixed group. But I can see LW1 used neutral language so I’ll be more careful on this one

          Reply ↓
  21. flutter by*

    OP1 – I think my suggestion would be to get some kind of sign that says “Silent Writing Time” which can be set up when writing time starts and taken down at the end. If this person arrives late, don’t make smalltalk at all, just indicate the sign.

    Obviously you need the group’s buy-in on this but explaining it as “this makes the situation clear to passers-by and late arrivals without interrupting anyone’s focus” might be softer than calling out the problem person directly.

    Reply ↓
    1. DJ Abbott*

      Yes, or I’m wondering if OP and the others can just tune this person out. It sounds like the talker doesn’t need a response. Just ignore them, and maybe they’ll get bored and stop talking. Maybe use both approaches, put up the sign and then ignore them if they talk.
      I once gave my phone number to a man for hobby reasons, not dating or friendship. He began calling me every couple of days, and as soon as I picked up the phone would talk for an hour nonstop. He just wanted someone to talk at, not any kind of connection. It wasn’t long before I began screening his calls. :D
      I still see him occasionally as part of group activities. That was 19 years ago, and he’s gotten even weirder since then.

      Reply ↓
  22. Lost in academia*

    LW1: Lots of writing groups that I know of use the Pomodoro Technique whereby you set a timer for 25mins silent writing and then have a 5 minute break, also timed. If you go over two hours you have a longer break, but most groups I know of limit themselves to four of these cycles. Many groups also use the acronym SUAW (shut up and write) for themselves, but you might feel it’s a bit pointed to use this given the circumstances. Could you propose using this for a couple of sessions as you don’t feel you’re currently using the time as well as you might and you have had this technique recommended? (Side note: it is also a really good technique when you are writing on your own, I bashed out large chunks of my PhD thesis using it.)

    Reply ↓
  23. Your credit's fine Mr Torrance*

    I don’t think you need to say anything at all in #3, but imo you shouldn’t do (a) in the response – for all you know Jane likes it and finds it a good way to meet the office people.

    Reply ↓
  24. FashionablyEvil*

    LW1–there’s a lot of good, practical suggestions in this thread, but I’d also suggest looking more closely at your reluctance to assert some pretty normal boundaries and how you can get better at that in general. Asking that a writing group meet your needs as a writer isn’t “drama.” It’s a normal, necessary request.

    Reply ↓
  25. Ebar*

    On the grandboss I’m a firm believer in the term since I came across it here. My Great-grandboss’s official title would – to anyone outside of the (government) organisation – makes her sound like she’s someone who gets the tea. Instead of someone at very nearly the top of the organisation. Whereas Great-grandboss is a good deal less ambiguous.

    Reply ↓
  26. Can't spell 'Who Cares' without HR*

    LW #4: As someone who’s not a native English speaker, I always thought of “grandboss” in terms of importance –a grand entrance, grand gesture, grand opening– rather than it being related to family

    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