Ask a Manager

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

1. I’m in trouble for badging in, then going back home

My large corporate employer is coming down hard on people who aren’t returning to the office in person. I’ve been badging in the required three times a week, but now I’m being investigated because I’ve been badging in, then immediately out to go home and do my work. I was working from home for three years during the pandemic. I also just started a coaching business, which was approved by the company, but they are questioning if it interferes with my work and work hours (it doesn’t). Someone reported me; I have no idea who.

I was required to meet with employee relations this week (two of them) via MS Teams. They told me they were recording the call but said I was not allowed to record it. Is it legal for them to record the call and tell me I can’t record it? I am badging in three times per week as per their directive. There is no minimum time required. Can they take action against me?

Yes, they can fire you over this, and it’s very likely that they will if you dig your heels in. You’ve got to be aware that they didn’t just intend for you to badge in and then go home; they wanted you working in the office three days a week, period. Not only are you breaking that policy, but you’re also trying to deceive them about it (or you’re being intentionally obtuse about what the badging in requirement meant, as malicious compliance) — and adding intentional deception to the mix will always make things worse.

If you want to keep the job and they’re telling you the three days a week in the office is a requirement, then you’ve got to decide if you want the job under those terms or not. That’s true even if you think it’s a ridiculous requirement and even if you did fine working from home for three years previously; they have the authority to require on-site work. They also have the authority to decide your coaching business is a conflict, even if you feel it’s not.

Also, yes, your employer can put restrictions on what’s recorded, although that’s the least of the issues here.

2. My coworker made a creepy pass at me

I started a new job this summer around the same time as another coworker, “Mac.” Our office is one where we’re often up and moving between different areas to complete tasks, so there’s a fair amount of brief socialization that goes on as paths intersect. Mac and I have started to gravitate to each other often in that context. I had assumed it was because we’re some of the only employees in the same particular stage of life: married with kids the same age, similar lifestyles. We even discovered we live in the same neighborhood, just a few streets apart. But Mac said something to me this morning that has me scrutinizing all of our past interactions and unsure how to move forward.

He said, “You have this whole ‘sexy librarian’ thing going on today, and I think it’s a problem for me.” His statement was made with a bit of a smirk and a raised eyebrow, and it came across like he was making a pass at me.

Now I’m looking back at all of our past interactions and wondering if I’ve been giving the wrong signals. I make no secret of the fact that I’m happily married and I love my husband, but I talk to Mac more than any other coworker. I’m also open, friendly, and quick to smile … but I’m like that with everyone. Even our clientele regularly comment on my upbeat and smiley demeanor, and I am definitely not flirting with any of them. (Not on purpose at least. Now I don’t know!)

I don’t know what I’m supposed to do from here. In the moment, I laughed it off and kept moving to where I was going without comment. I did do my hair and makeup a little differently today and wore my oft-neglected glasses, so maybe I won’t do that combination of things again. I don’t want Mac to think I’m interested in a clandestine office romance, but I don’t know how I should act around him going forward. I’m not very good at turning off the “happy” that apparently reads as “flirty.”

Ugh, I’m sorry. You don’t need to change your hair and makeup choices over this! I promise those choices are not responsible for Mac’s creepy remark; Mac himself is.

If you’re comfortable with it, you could go back to him and say, “Your remark the other day was really inappropriate. Don’t say things like that to me again.” Or, “Your remark the other day was really inappropriate and frankly it pissed me off that you’d say something like that when we’ve had a good working relationship up until now. I’ll forget it happened as long as it never happens again.” If he says something stupid in response or tries to play it off as a joke, say, “I don’t want to debate it, I’m just telling you not to do it again.” If he’s weird with you for a while after that, that’s on him, not you. Let him manage his feelings about being called out as a creep on his own.

If he continues similar remarks after that, or if he makes your work life difficult in any way (because he feels awkward or embarrassed or angry), that’s something you should report because that’s harassment territory and your company would legally need to put a stop to it.

But please don’t let this make you question whether clients and others think you’re flirting with them. This was a Mac problem, not a you problem. He took what sounds like a normal and friendly work relationship and sexualized it because he wanted to and didn’t care if he made you uncomfortable. You didn’t cause that, he did.

Read an update to this letter. 

3. My staff is pushing back on schedule changes

I’ve just recently stepped into managing a team at a fitness studio, and I am not keeping the same hours the previous manager kept. Scheduling has been really difficult as the staff all have extremely specific availability, and they’re being very inflexible with the changing schedule. I need to balance the needs of the business with the availability of the staff, and no one is happy. I am getting so stressed trying to make things work, but I am getting constant pushback.

How do I set a boundary of “this is the schedule, you’ve got to come in or find someone to switch” without losing my brand new staff? I don’t want to be a pushover and give in to every little request, but I can’t risk a bunch of people quitting either. What’s a good way to juggle this and transition smoothly?

If they each have specific availability … that is probably their specific availability, especially with fitness center jobs, which a lot of people do on top of full-time work elsewhere (and if they have to choose between the two, most people will choose their full-time jobs). If they were hired on the premise that they could work a specific set of hours, it’s not unreasonable for them to push back when you try to change that.

You do need to prioritize the needs of the business, but you can’t make people magically change their availability. You might need to hire new people who can work the schedules you need … but while you’re doing that (because it won’t happen overnight) you’ll have to decide if it’s more important to stick to the hours you want or to keep the staff you have. It sounds like they’re telling you that doing both isn’t an option.

One note: You put this in terms of setting boundaries. The thing to realize about setting boundaries is that boundaries are about what you do. They’re not about what someone else does. You can say “these are the hours I’m scheduling you for and I’m holding firm on that” and that’s your boundary. They can say “that won’t work for me so I’m quitting” and that’s their boundary. You’ve got to decide if you’re okay with the risk of that outcome.

4. How do I get my staff to take PTO earlier in the year?

I have over a dozen direct reports and every year we run into the same problem: they wait until early November to try to use up PTO and between holidays (we’re generous with time off) and already planned vacations, we can’t fit in all of their PTO. In years passed, I have tried reminding them as a group or individually (or both) to try to spread out their PTO, take it in the summer (we’re slow), and even have gone so far as to look up the spring break schedules of their kids’ schools to try to entice them to take time off. It never works. Every year they seem shocked that they have so much time left and they’re DEVASTATED if they have to lose any time. I feel for them — I plan my vacation very diligently so that I won’t lose any PTO.

Am I obligated to approve every request simply so they don’t lose time even if it will make the remaining folks miserable? Is there a way to convince them next year to take this more seriously in spring and not wait until late fall? I want to be a good manager to my entire staff, but this time of year that starts to feel like a fool’s errand.

No, you’re not obligated to approve every request even if it will make the remaining folks miserable, at least not as long as you’ve been proactive about pushing people to take their time earlier in the year and — this is key — ensuring they can actually do it without coming back to a pile of work so large that it wipes out any benefits of them having gotten away.

Since you know this is a thing your team struggles with, why not address it as a group? As in, “This keeps happening, I remind everyone throughout the year, but people still aren’t taking enough time off and then are devastated if they realize at the end of the year that they’re going to lose time. How do we want to handle it?” Sometimes getting people’s involvement in the solution makes them take the problem more seriously. Some things to put on the table to consider during that discussion: a formal quarterly report from you about how much time each person has remaining and a nudge for a plan from them to use it, or even a scheduled time (June?) when you sit down with each person and say, “Here’s how much time you have, let’s plan when you’ll take it.” But also as part of that conversation, make sure you ask why it’s happening, since if it’s being caused by workload/workflow issues, that’s not something people can solve without your intervention.

5. Professional obligation to employer after a layoff

If someone with mid-level fiduciary duties at an institution is laid off by new leadership, and that new leadership has no real idea of the scope of that person’s role and responsibilities (and frankly does not care), does the person being laid off have a professional or moral obligation to document one’s role and responsibilities before departing, even though no one in leadership has asked/seems to care/has a transition plan in place? Asking because I am staying at the same organization in a new role and because I care about the place.

The fact that you’re staying on in another role means you shouldn’t just throw up your hands and leave them with nothing, even if they don’t seem to care. But that just means you should do  what you reasonably can to document your work in the amount of time you have left; don’t exhaust yourself doing it. That means don’t work extra hours to get it done or take on additional stress; it should be part of your normal work, to the extent that you can comfortably fit it in. If you find that you don’t have the time to fit it without extra stress or extra hours, you should flag that to your boss — “in order to get XYZ documented before I leave, I’d need to move ABC off my plate.” If they make it clear they’re not willing to prioritize it, then you don’t need to care more than they do.

One thing to consider: I’ve seen people spend hours on lengthy, detailed transition memos that no one ever reads. Hell, I’ve written those lengthy, detailed memos and am pretty sure no one read them. Short and concise, with only very top-level stuff, is more likely to get used. Think about what’s truly a fiduciary responsibility and focus there.

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

1. My coworker won’t stop talking about death

I work on a team where keeping up with the news is a very important component of our jobs. We are all assigned to different areas of the news, so one of us works on business news, one of us works on entertainment, etc. We are also a friendly team, we all sit together in an open-plan office, and the nature of our jobs means we have some substantial periods of downtime, so we inevitably converse about the current events we encounter throughout the day.

One of my coworkers, Barry, is assigned to the area of “crime.” The stories he’s covering often involve topics that I, frankly, find quite upsetting — murders, muggings, the like. Barry is also by far the most talkative member of our team, and when others are talking about current events in their areas, he will frequently chime in with topics that I’d just rather not hear about at work. (For example, he’ll say something like “Wow, that’s an interesting story about factory contracts. That reminds me of a story from this morning about a factory worker who just died in an industrial accident” and then go on to describe the death in detail.) I don’t go a single day on this team without hearing multiple detailed stories about death and/or violence from Barry. Nobody else on the team really seems to mind, and they seem to welcome his contributions and will actively discuss these stories with him, but it really bums me out all around.

I have considered just putting in headphones and shutting myself out of these conversations, but this is a very social team, and I don’t want to be perceived as unfriendly or antisocial — because I’m neither of these things! Barry is also, genuinely, a nice guy who wants everyone to feel included, and if I haven’t chimed into a conversation in a while he’ll often look over at me and ask for my input. I’ve also considered bringing this up with Barry, but I’m torn because I don’t necessarily see why he shouldn’t be able to talk about his work, since the rest of us talk about ours. Any advice?

Talk to Barry! If he’s a genuinely nice guy, he won’t take offense to you saying, “I know you’re probably used to it because you have to read a lot of it for your job, but the talk about death and violence can really get to me. Any chance I can ask you to pull back on it? It can be jarring to hear in the middle of the work day.”

You’re not saying Barry can’t talk about his work. You’re asking him to be thoughtful about which aspects he talks about and when (and to remember that, while it’s normal for people who work with difficult subjects to get somewhat desensitized to their horror, people around them may not feel that way).

2. Are my interview questions too hard?

I was talking with some friends about job searching recently and at one point someone mentioned that just because you flub one question on an interview doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve blown it. In support of this point, I said “I don’t think I’ve ever had an applicant who had a good answer to every question I asked.” A couple of them objected to this, saying that if that’s true, then my interview questions are too tough. What do you think?

I’ve been sitting on this question a while, mulling it over. I think my interviews are pretty rigorous (and I’ve co-interviewed with people who I can say without hesitation are extremely rigorous interviewers) and I can think of candidates who did have good answers to every question.

I don’t think that necessarily means your interview questions are too tough, though. Are you hiring people who go on to excel at the job? If so, something about your process is working. (That said, make sure to look at whether you’re hiring a reasonably diverse group. If you’re not, then something about your process might have bias built into it. Maybe it’s the questions, maybe it’s something else — but that would be a flag to look more closely.)

But certainly very strong candidates can have a weak answer or two; good interviewers know that’s not inherently prohibitive (although it depends on the specifics). You want to look at the entirety of what you’re learning about someone through their answers to your questions. And tough questions can elicit all kinds of interesting data, even if they don’t produce the “correct” answer (such as how people think, how they rise to challenges, if they’re even aware when they’re struggling with something, and how they handle it if they are).

But if you ask a question that no one ever has a good answer to, that’s probably a problem with that specific question.

3. Bruises at work

I am a high school teacher. In my spare time, I also take pole dancing classes several times per week. Not that it should matter, but I never dance in public and my social media posts around this are limited to friends only. It’s just a hobby. But I am always covered in extreme bruises from the sport! It is unavoidable. I have constant, severe bruises covering most of my arms and legs, some of which look disturbing. I don’t want anyone to be concerned about it, but I understand there is a stigma around pole dance and I don’t want this part of my life known to my students.

I am never sure what to say when students, parents, or other professionals I meet ask me where the bruises are from, and I vaguely answer “sports,” but is there a better way to phrase this? (For what it’s worth, most of my colleagues do know about my hobby and are very supportive, as is my boss.)

Yeah, stick with “sports”! People are so weird about teachers’ private lives (God forbid one of you get photographed with a red Solo cup) that it’s safer.

However, at some point someone is likely to ask you what kind of sports you play so you’ll need to be prepared with an answer. Cover stories are acceptable here.

4. Why doesn’t HR care more about cybersecurity?

I have had the opportunity lately to interact with medium to small HR departments, passing confidential documentation back and forth — mainly identification (driver’s license, passports), proof of work rights, tax information, and so on. If a secure link to upload the documents is not provided, I ask for one. 100% of the time if it is not provided, I get an argument from the HR department about how “our email is secure” and “we will securely store the documents.” (Ideally I would like an apology as in “I know we don’t have one, how would you feel comfortable getting us the documents?”) These are reputable companies, not scammers, and they work with large organizations, sometimes government.

The ignorance about handling personal information and securing documents against identity theft is breath-taking. Every time I encounter this, I explain that though their servers are secure (hopefully), the act of emailing is insecure and if they don’t believe me they can, like, check any reputable source ever. But I am tired of being treated like I am an off-the-grid loony.

Why are they acting like I am crazy when I have a cybersecurity background and obviously know more about this than they do? Is there anything to which I can refer them (HR specific) that demonstrates their liability for the risk they are requiring their staff to take? And what is the best answer to “we’ve never had information stolen from us so it is okay”?

They’re acting like you’re overreacting because they’re not used to people thinking it’s a problem. You thinking it’s a problem is out of sync with everyone else they deal with, and therefore you must be wrong. (You see this thinking in all kinds of things, going back to Galileo!) They see your cybersecurity background, yes, but they also see themselves and others using lax security all day long and Everything Is Fine (as far as they know) so you should relax. That’s the thinking.

You can try saying, “I work in cybersecurity so I’ve seen too many disasters when information is emailed insecurely. I propose sending it to you by X instead if that works for you.” The last part is key — tell them what you do feel safe doing so they’re not flailing around for an answer. It sounds like you’re waiting for them to ask what you’d feel comfortable doing; stop waiting for that and just tell them.

And you could try sending this or this, but you’re fighting an uphill battle.

5. Does “willing to travel” mean I have to drive?

I started a new job about half a year ago that I love. It’s a work-from-home position with some in-person things each year, mostly during the same few months every spring/summer. The job posting said that employees had to be “willing to travel” and during the hiring process they described the frequency and typical locations of the in-person work. It all sounded doable to me. I’m happy to travel when needed to attend in-person assignments and the employer pays travel expenses and a per diem.

That said, I do not have a driver’s license. I’m unable to drive for disability-related reasons. I didn’t even think to worry about that when I applied because I grew up in a European country where many people do not drive. The large urban area where I live now in the USA also has great public transportation that I use to get around without issues. My company is headquartered near the city and the majority of our in-person work is done in the area, so I have had no challenges getting where to I need to for work so far.

But, I have noticed that the default assumption is that everyone drives to in-person work events. I’m starting to worry that “willing to travel” in the job description was meant to be interpreted as “has a car and a driver’s license” and I just didn’t pick up on it due to cultural differences. This year there are plans to move most of the in-person events away from the city and towards a more central location to ensure employees on the other half of the state have a more reasonable travel time. Unfortunately, more central also means a rural area with limited to no public transit. I’m worried about being able to get to in-person assignments when they start again and how that will impact my job.

Can you offer any clarity on whether I’m likely to have misunderstood the job requirements? In addition to having a different cultural background, I’m also autistic, so reading between the lines is not my strong suit. And, more importantly, I could use suggestions about how best to handle the situation. Overall my job is a great fit and I really want to stay here for at least the next several years if possible. I’ve gotten nothing but positive feedback on my performance so far and I am in a very high demand position that is hard to fill.

If the job requirements just state that I need to be willing to travel, is it my company’s responsibility ensure that I’m able to get to the work sites in a way that’s accessible to me? Could my disability that prevents me from being able to drive mean that I would be eligible for more support and/or flexibility with the travel requirements? I’d rather not disclose that I’m disabled, but I could if it would help.

“Willing to travel” isn’t usually code for “has a car and a driver’s license.” It usually means exactly what you interpreted it as — willing to travel. (There are some rare exceptions to this, like if you were applying for a sales job where it was clear you’d be responsible for a large territory in a field where the norms were to drive from place to place. In a case like that, you’d want to clarify up-front. That doesn’t sound like your situation though.)

I suspect your employer is assuming people drive, but that doesn’t mean they will require people to drive. And if the travel is not a frequent and central focus of the job, they’ll be legally required to provide you with accommodations — like another way of getting to and from the other locations (even if it’s just arranging for you to ride with someone) or letting you attend remotely.

Would you be comfortable saying to your manager, “I don’t have a driver’s license for medical reasons”? That’s pretty vague but makes it clear that it’s not something that will change, and it should trigger your manager to realize they have legal obligations to come up with a solution.

Here are two articles from the Job Accommodation Network that might help:

Accommodations for Driving

Travel on the Job

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

1. I was fired for talking to coworkers about their experience as immigrants

At lunch one day in our company cafeteria, I sat down with my supervisor, who had just returned from China to visit her family, and my coworker, a new naturalized U.S. citizen, originally from Kenya. We talk about current events, and I have nothing but genuine respect for both of them. They know I lived and worked in three western European countries for seven years. That day, I asked my supervisor about how it was to be back in China. I asked if she would want to go back and live there again and she said yes but her Chinese husband is a U.S. citizen and would not want to go back. I asked her whether, after living here in a democratic system, would she want to be back living under a communist system? She started to act differently at that point, and I said I find it interesting how may people have passed through the U.S. southern border and not gone through the legal immigration process. I referenced my colleague’s recent process to become a citizen. I also said that as I traveled around the world, I had many people telling me they want to come to America.

I did not think I had created any problems until two weeks later when I was contacted by HR. The call was basically the HR manager asking me if I had asked some specific questions. I was not given any names or dates, but I was able to conclude from the HR’s manager’s interrogation and her disapproval that it was about my lighthearted conversation driven by curiosity and not discrimination at the lunch mentioned earlier. My comments had been taken out of context to a different level, and I was being accused by the HR manager that I had said things and made them feel uncomfortable. I tried to convey that I never made any harsh or derogatory comments and it all was just in curiosity and sincerity. Next, I learned the comment I said jokingly, “they will just let anyone into the country,” was not acceptable per HR policy. When I said that, it was in a non-offensive way, followed by saying how I admired anyone who took the legal path to becoming a citizen.

The HR manager asked me not to speak to the individuals the rest of the day. The following Monday, I was fired. I received nothing in writing, nor had been given any warning. I had only been at the firm for 10 months and was given no recourse.

So I am emailing to ask how I can be fired for this. My work performance was never in question and I got along well with my team. I am still upset and can’t believe this has happened, and I and wonder if I should talk to an attorney in employee law.

It doesn’t sound like the company broke any laws.

Any chance this wasn’t the first time you had that kind of conversation with someone at work? If so, it would explain why they moved straight to firing rather than giving you a warning first.

Because it sounds like the conversation landed very differently with your coworkers than you realized. From your description, I see why; you were pretty weird, even offensive, about immigrants and made them feel othered. Against that backdrop, saying “after living here in a democratic system, would you want to be back living under a communist system?” sounds pretty jingoistic (and then more so when combined with the comment about people telling you they want to come to America, and that’s even before “they will just let anyone into the country,” which doesn’t sound like as a joke at that point). You’re presenting this as taking an interest in their experience, but they’re almost certainly tired of having to field racially charged comments all the time. What seemed like “curiosity and sincerity” to you could have been the 50th question about being Chinese that your colleague had to fend off this month. In some contexts, “curiosity and sincerity” can come across as “oblivious and overbearing.” In this case I think you likely came across as racist and xenophobic.

It sounds like the piece that’s missing in your thinking is that you don’t need to intend to be discriminatory for your comments to sound that way. You’re looking at it as “but I didn’t do something like use a racial slur” but there are a lot of other problematic ways to talk about race and national origin too. A lot of people of color have written about their experiences on the receiving end of that sort of conversation; I bet reading some of it would help you better understand what your company objected to. (This is one especially accessible place to start, but there are a ton of others. Here’s one more.)

2. Interviewing someone with a visible “squishmallow” collection

A few months ago, I was hiring for a contractor role at my nonprofit organization. The role is in community outreach and requires extensive “embedding” in at-risk communities — meaning that folks need lots of self-directedness, resilience, and social intelligence to be successful in the work. I consider these qualities to be separate from work experience. The role was entry-level and it was far more important to me that folks have these “soft skills” rather than extensive community organizing experience.

I interviewed candidates via Zoom. I’d like to think of myself as a fairly thoughtful person and I’m intentional about not letting biases and blind spots get in the way of fair assessment of a candidate. That said, I was thrown off when a candidate interviewed in their bedroom, with a large squishmallow collection visible in the background (I’m including a stock photo of squishmallows, oriented and hung up in the way they were in this candidate’s Zoom background).

From the interview, it was clear the candidate wouldn’t be a good fit for the role and we didn’t hire them. But I’m finding myself thinking about this interview and worrying the squishmallow collection biased me towards thinking this candidate was too young, emotionally needy, or lacking maturity. If a candidate had had a collection of a different sort in the background — like model cars, or dried flowers, or puzzles — would I have had the same perspective on their interview? I’d like to think I would, but the truth is I feel like the squishmallows really did factor into my concerns about the candidate’s emotional readiness for what can be pretty heavy work.

It’s an odd choice for an interview! I suppose it’s possible that they simply didn’t have anywhere else in their house where they could do an interview … although virtual backgrounds are a thing.

(Even more interesting, what if this was their choice of virtual background?!)

(Sorry, it is the end of the year and I am addled and reliant on ideas like this to keep me going.)

I don’t think the squishmallows alone would be a reason not to hire someone if they otherwise seemed great, but  I can understand why it gave you pause! It would give me pause too. If the person otherwise was great, I’d take it as a flag to dig in a little more on maturity and see what you find.

That said, because the role needs strong soft skills and maturity, ideally your hiring process would already be set up to probe for those things, even without the squishmallow conundrum. If it’s not, this is a useful nudge to make sure it is going forward.

3. My team’s name doesn’t match what we do

I’ve recently been promoted to a director level position, leading the team where I’ve been an individual contributor for the past few years. Our team handles a pretty standard business function, but for some reason (decided before I was hired), it has an unusual name that downplays or obscures the scope of what we do – to the point where it may not be clear based on our titles what we ACTUALLY do. Think something like “Manager, Turkey Sandwich Assembly” when the reality is more like “Manager, Global Bread Entree Design.” (This is a terrible analogy. And yes, I am eating a sandwich right now.)

While the function of our team is known internally, I believe the team name is confusing to others — specifically, when applying to other jobs. I believe it’s confusing to recruiters and hiring managers to who see it in a resume — and in fact, I’ve gotten feedback from recruiters that my current position did not seem like a good match for the role (when in fact it was).

I’d like to change the team name to move it more in line with what the industry calls our function, but since we’re already established under our current name in the org, the only reason to do so would be to improve my chances (or others’ chances) at getting a job elsewhere in the future. Is there a way to broach this subject with my boss and HR in a way that doesn’t make it obvious that I’m advocating for a name change that wouldn’t benefit the company, but would better position team members (myself included) for leaving the company in the future?

Can you say it’s to help in recruiting (because when you’re trying to woo candidates, it helps to have a job title that makes sense) and also for clarity about roles when people on your team are communicating with external contacts? Those are both good reasons on their own.

4. I don’t celebrate Christmas

I don’t celebrate Christmas. I’m an atheist, and the commercialization of Christmas makes me sick. After 35 years in the workforce, I’m tired of pretending I “had a nice Christmas.” Do I keep quiet or just say “I don’t celebrate” when people ask?

You don’t need to pretend you celebrate Christmas when you don’t! It’s fine to say, “Oh, I don’t celebrate, but how was yours?” when people ask. You shouldn’t go on an unsolicited rant about the commercialization of Christmas, etc. but there’s nothing impolite about the language above (and as a Jew, we use it all the time).