Ask a Manager

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

1. I was accused of eavesdropping at a coworker’s door

Yesterday my direct supervisor pulled me into the office and told me that our CEO, Kathy, pulled her into her office and stated that there was a complaint that I had been seen eavesdropping outside of my coworker’s door. Kathy wanted me to be moved into one of the other buildings away from the main office.

My jaw dropped. I do not do anything like that and this came out of left field. I told my supervisor that I have no idea where this is coming from and I don’t understand why someone would think this. She stated that she went to bat for me, argued for me to stay where I am and not move offices, and said that I have worked for her for years and she had never seen anything like this sort of behavior.

But I’m at a loss of what my next step should be. Do I tell Kathy that I have no idea where this is coming from and I would never do such a thing? Or does that come across as defensive? Should I let my boss handle it?

Kathy would not tell my boss who accused me. I thought I was on friendly terms with everyone, though I know a couple are drama stirrers. Am I just a casualty in them wanting drama? Is there something going on I don’t know about? Is my employment at risk and this is an excuse to start compiling evidence?

I work in a position with a lot of confidential client data. I feel like my integrity is being attacked. I am wondering if I should find another job. If they think I am eavesdropping on conversations, why am I trusted to touch client data?

It’s possible this is just a misunderstanding! You were walking by and stopped to look at your phone or tie your shoe, and someone thought you were purposely lingering outside their door. Or who knows, you and a coworker were dressed similarly that day and they mistook that person for you or a bunch of other possibilities — but it’s more likely that this was a honest misunderstanding than a deliberate plot to smear you (unless you work in an office where people routinely hatch deliberate plots to smear each other, in which case that’s the bigger issue).

Go back to your manager and say this: “I’m still thinking about someone saying I was eavesdropping, and I’m really bothered by this. I would never do that. I work with confidential data so it’s crucial I understand the importance of confidentiality! It feels like my integrity is being questioned, and I want to talk about how I can put this to rest so Kathy isn’t left with these concerns about me.”

You might hear that Kathy has already forgotten about it and it’s not going to be an issue, or your manager might say she’ll reinforce with her that it’s not something you’d do, or she might have other advice. But by insisting on talking about it again, you’ll be signaling that you take it seriously and are horrified anyone thinks that, which on its own will help emphasize that you’re not cavalier about people’s privacy.

2. Could my religious education be turning off employers?

I have a undergraduate degree and a masters degree. I double majored in undergrad, and half my bachelor’s degree is religious studies (from a very secular university). My master’s degree, which I got last year, 10 years after my bachelor’s, is in theology (and the specific college it’s from is not immediately identifiable as religious as it’s part of a secular university). The specialty of my master’s was along the lines of pastoral counseling.

I’ve been struggling to find a job and trying to pinpoint the problem (or problems). I’m wondering if my education is the problem? I feel like I can’t remove it because so many jobs require degrees — many even expect graduate education. Moreover, I’m proud of my education and it imparted me with many useful skills and knowledge.

Should I be worried about what people think of my education in secular fields? How do I present my education in a way that won’t leave people worrying about my running around trying to convert people? People are quietly religious all the time. I just have the misfortune of possibly raising biases about it during hiring because of my education.

If I had to guess, it’s less that they’re worried about you running around trying to convert people and more that your recent master’s degree indicates your real goal is to work in a different field than theirs. That impression might be intensified by your bachelor’s being in religious studies, but it’s the recent master’s that’s most likely the issue. Typically employers consider recent master’s degrees to signify the specific work you want to do — more so than a bachelor’s, since people are less likely to get graduate degrees out of a general desire to learn and more likely to do it because they have a focused professional interest … or at least that’s the narrative most employers will assume, especially with a degree that suggests a specific career path like pastoral counseling does.

If you’re applying for jobs unrelated to your master’s, you’ll want to make it clear to employers why you’re seeking work in their field. If that’s not clear, that’s likely getting in your way.

3. My organization says they can’t pay me market rate because of it wouldn’t be fair to non-attorneys

I recently met with HR to request a raise and was soundly denied. It was a frustrating experience, but one thing I’m hung up on is that I was told that they would not be able to get my salary up to market rate because of “internal equity.” I work at a nonprofit that has a lot of different types of employees — social workers, advocates, relief staff, admin, etc. I’m a lawyer, and was told that it wouldn’t be fair to the non-attorneys on staff for the attorneys to be paid more and that they need to maintain “internal equity.” Is this an actual thing? My googling shows that usually internal equity is talking about people doing the same work getting paid the same amount, but is it being used differently in other places? My thought is that if you want a flat-ish salary structure, it would be much more equitable to pay all staff the higher salary instead of keeping one or two departments way under market rate, but mostly I’m just curious if this is a real thing other orgs are doing or if mine is just weird?

Yeah, that’s not what internal equity means! It doesn’t mean “we pay everyone the same, regardless of job” — and if they do it mean it that way, they’re going to have a hard time hiring people, because they won’t be paying market rates for the work (and the market rate for, say, a lawyer is really different from the market rate for, say, an assistant). It typically means exactly what you said: ensuing that people doing similar work are being paid the same and that you don’t have disparities by race, gender, or other demographics.

They’re misusing the term to justify not paying you more. And if their philosophy really is that everyone on staff should be paid the same regardless of role, experience level, or contributions, that’s something they should be very up-front with applicants about from the beginning, because unless they’re pegging everyone’s salaries to the jobs with the highest market rates, they’re going to be seriously underpaying a lot of people.

Read an update to this letter. 

4. Am I supposed to miss class for job interviews?

I am a college student who recently was offered an interview for a summer internship that I was pretty excited about. I originally had scheduled the interview for a date and time that worked very well for me. Then, the day before the interview, the internship coordinator called (I am not actually sure if this person was HR, the hiring manager, or someone else) asking if I could reschedule the interview to a different, specific date and time. The time she asked for was during one of my classes, so I told them that time wouldn’t work. She said unfortunately, if that was the case, then they wouldn’t be able to fit the interview in, and then hung up.

I’m quite disappointed about this outcome. My mother thinks that by indicating that I prioritized class over their interview, I might’ve made it seem like I wasn’t very interested in the job. Do you think I should’ve handled this differently?

No, it’s very normal to have conflicts with a proposed interview time and to say, “I can’t do X, but I’m available Y or Z.” An employer who refuses to offer you anything other than a single time and date is an employer who’s being overly rigid or just isn’t that interested in the first place (unless they’re apologetic about it and offer context — like “I’m sorry, that’s the only day the manager is available before she goes on leave”).

Your mom’s advice is off-base — it’s normal to have schedule conflicts that you need to prioritize (you don’t work for this company yet! of course you would prioritize something like school or a current job over an interview for a job that you may or may not get) and a company that frowns on you prioritizing school while you’re a current student is a company that’s going to be problematic in other ways.

Related:
does it look bad to be unavailable on one of the dates an employer suggests for an interview?

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

1. My work assignment would require my spouse to be fingerprinted and background checked

As part of my job, I’ve been tasked with securing a permit for the organization to serve alcohol at an upcoming event. In our jurisdiction, this requires submitting extensive personal information, background checks, fingerprinting, etc. for the applicant and spouse (“and spouse” is bold and underlined in the application instructions and forms).

I’m one of the few employees of our organization who is married, and I’m not comfortable with having my husband do this. He would certainly pass the background checks – he’s never had so much as a traffic ticket – but he’s a very private person and is not comfortable with it. Even if he was, I feel like it’s asking a lot for my employer to expect my husband to take time out of his workday to attend the appointments associated with applying. Is this as unreasonable as I think it is, or am I off base?

I want to push back, but I’m afraid it will look like I have something to hide. I’ve thought about asking someone else to do it but there aren’t any great alternatives. Our CEO really should be the one to do it (technically, no one else has authority to sign the forms on behalf of the organization) but he can’t due to a conflict of interest due to his relationship with the local authorities. My supervisor is also married, so her husband would be subjected to the same requirements. The org has a few other employees, but this event isn’t within the scope of their jobs. So, is there a tactful way to decline this, or do I need to suck it up and ask my husband to do it?

What on earth?! I’m dying to know the reasoning behind the spouse requirement.

If your husband just needed to sign his name on a form, I still wouldn’t love it, but just having him do it might be the easiest path since you don’t have other great alternatives. But fingerprinting and a background check and time off work for appointments? You can quite reasonably decline on those grounds. I’d frame it to your boss as, “Gavin is swamped right now and can’t take the time off work to do everything they’d require of him. Since that means I’m not an option, how do we want to handle this?”

(Also, any chance there are options that don’t require any of you to apply for the permit — like using a catering company that has their own liquor permit?)

2. Should we use one-way video interviews?

I’m in the middle of a hiring process, and my HR department is recommending that we do a one-way video screening (Spark Hire), instead of a phone screening. We have already done preliminary screening of written responses and need to cull the list down to a manageable number for zoom interviews. What are your thoughts on one-way video interviews?

Resist! Candidates hate those, and with good reason. They’re horrible. You’d be asking your candidates to invest not-insignificant time on their end doing something a lot of people find really uncomfortable (even people who are comfortable on camera in a more natural back-and-forth set-up) and to invest more of their time in your process without any opportunity for them to ask their own questions and find out if they’re even interested in the job. (This is true regardless but it goes double if the “written responses” you mentioned were something more than a resume and cover letter. If you have already asked them to produce something beyond the initial application, then it’s way too much to ask them to do yet another thing before they can even have a conversation with you.)

And you will lose some of your best candidates who will nope out rather than bother with it.

Do phone interviews so you can have real conversations with people. If you’re not convinced everyone you’re considering is worth the time of a short conversation, then cull them from the pool (or put them in a maybe pile to possibly go back to later).

3. Giving a dishonest reason for a layoff

In one of my first jobs out of college, I was in an assistant to two senior people at my organization. One of my bosses, Shirley, was super organized and easy to work with. The other, Laverne, was extremely unreliable. From what I could tell as her assistant, she worked maybe 20 hours a week max in a salaried full-time role. She worked in the office one morning a week, when we had a weekly team meeting with her boss. Otherwise, she “worked” from home and was almost entirely unreachable. Fending off folks demanding a response from Laverne became a significant part of my job. Projects were delayed, collaborators were livid, significant mistakes were made, costs were incurred, all because Laverne was unreachable and ultimately not really doing her job.

I got a sense from vague comments from Shirley and other senior folks that Laverne had some significant things going on, possibly health related, but she was not on FMLA to my knowledge — everyone, including her boss, seemed to expect that she would be working a normal number of hours, and none of this really appeared to be above-board or accommodated.

So clearly Laverne was not doing the tasks of her job. In retrospect, I do think Laverne was placed on a PIP while I worked there, because we had a very strange meeting where she called me into her office to let me know that “we” really needed to start doing better, and was very frantic about it for about two weeks.

The interesting thing was, Laverne was a nightmare to work with internally, but she clearly had a real knack for parts of the job. Everything was chaos before a project was delivered, but she had some of THE best performing work in the organization. In terms of sales metrics, she was doing incredibly.

Eventually, Laverne was let go — probably about eight months into my time there. However, her boss let us all know that Laverne had been laid off due to her market area underperforming, and there not really being a market for what she did. This was the same week that one of her recently released projects had reached a metric that our organization gave out special plaques for, so clearly the market for her work was there. Even though Laverne had been making my life miserable, it really rubbed me the wrong way to be so obviously lied to about why she was gone. I think as a kindness to Laverne, her boss decided to say she was laid off rather than fired due to poor performance, but that felt kind of unfair to the rest of us who had been dealing with her. I expected to feel hugely relieved that Laverne was gone, but the whole situation left a bad taste with how everything was handled.

Should her boss have been honest with us, or is this a reasonable thing to do as a manager of someone who is performing poorly, but possibly due to circumstances outside of their control? Did he assume that we would all know what really happened so it didn’t matter if he had a different cover story?

It’s common for employers to try to help fired employees save face a bit; in general, firings (and the circumstances around them) should shared on a “need to know” basis. Colleagues need to know the person is no longer there, of course, but they don’t usually need to know “and it’s because she was doing a terrible job.” So it’s not uncommon to be told something more bland than the real story.

What’s unusual in this situation is that they came up with a really specific cover story that didn’t make sense for the circumstances. They may have figured that anyone close enough to have seen the problems would read between the lines (and really didn’t need more information than that) … but I also wonder if this is the story they told Laverne herself. Sometimes employers do try to lay people off instead of firing them (there are times when that can be a kindness, although there are times when it’s not) and it’s possible they decided it would be easier for all involved, Laverne included, if they framed it as being about the market rather than her work, regardless of what the actual facts made clear.

4. Interviewing for out-of-state jobs just for practice

My soon-to-be-graduating-from-college son is getting contacted by recruiters for out-of-state jobs, even though he’s listed as interested in local jobs only. His stepmom, who used to work HR for a large company, told him to apply for those jobs even though he knows he wouldn’t accept them, because the practice he’d get from the whole process is good, plus they have connections and contacts that might lead to a local job.

This isn’t a good idea, is it? Applying for a job you know you’d never accept? My thought is no, but I’ve never worked HR, so, maybe?

It’s not a terrible idea for him to get some interviewing experience in low-risk situations, but he also shouldn’t waste a ton of people’s time while doing it … so I could see taking a few initial calls with recruiters to get a feel for how they go (and who knows, maybe someone will have an opportunity that intrigues him enough to consider a move) but he shouldn’t progress through multiple steps in their hiring process if he’s sure he’s not interested. Also, he’s very likely to be asked about his willingness to locate in those initial calls, so he’d want to be prepared for that.

If part of the motivation would be that the recruiters might have leads on local jobs too, then he’d want to be especially careful not to come across like he’s wasting their time. So, an initial call = fine, but remaining in their process after that = probably not.

5. Can I ask for clarification about the wording of this rejection?

I am currently, let’s say, the director of llama grooming at a very small company. I recently applied for a position as a manager of llama brushing at a much larger organization. Though the title is a step down and the area of focus is less broad, it seemed like the level of responsibility was on par with what I currently handle.

I just got an email letting me know that they’re not moving forward with my application. I’m disappointed, but understand that they’re making the decisions that are right for them. My question is about a specific line from the rejection email: “We hope you’ll continue to keep an eye out for more senior level openings that match your skills and experience.”

I am conflicted about how to interpret “more senior level openings.” To me there are three options:

1. Please keep an eye out for additional/other senior-level roles similar to this one that might be a better match for your skills than this one was.

2. Please keep an eye out for jobs that are more senior to this role, as we think those would be a better match for your skills.

3. This is the form letter they send out to all applicants and I am reading way too much into it.

I really like this org and don’t want to ruin my chance of maybe being hired someday by sending a reply digging into the ambiguous grammatical implications of their polite and timely email. No one likes unsolicited grammar critiques! But … I also feel like getting some clarity on what they mean would help me to be a better candidate in the future, and I would really like to be a better candidate in the future. Do I need to just let this go? Or can I send a brief and polite email asking for a little clarity? I need to just let this go, right?

Yeah, let it go. I agree it’s ambiguous and could be any of the three options you listed, but I think it would be a little too much to write back and ask for clarification.

For what it’s worth, I’d guess the third option (form letter) is most likely, followed by the first option (apply for similar roles). The second option (target jobs that are more senior next time) seems least likely to me if there wasn’t any other context for it (but could be more likely if, for example, they’d told you in an interview that they were concerned the role wasn’t senior enough for you).

Also, keep in mind that while candidates tend to read rejection emails really carefully, scrutinizing each word for meaning, on the employer’s end they’re often written more haphazardly than that. I would just continue to apply for roles there that interest you and seem like the right match with your skills.

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

1. HR jokes about firing people

This is less a question and more a grievance. HR at our podunk local government has a framed 12×12 meme that reads, “I came here to watch cartoons and fire people. And I’m just about out of cartoons.”

I find it really offensive that they are so flippant about something like that. Am I off-base that this is inappropriate?

Wow, no, that’s breathtakingly horrible.

It’s true that people often develop a sort of gallows humor about the harder parts of their jobs (which can result in jokes that seem really callous to people outside those fields), but displaying something like this on their wall (!) shows a remarkable lack of concern about other people. When you have power over people’s ability to buy food and pay rent, you can’t say things that imply you take that lightly … let alone indicate that you think there’s something funny in what could be the worst day of someone’s life.

Someone with authority over this person should have intervened as soon as it was noticed, and should be taking a closer look at their approach to their work in general.

2. How can I break the habit of giving reasons for my time-off requests?

How can I break the habit of giving reasons for my time-off requests? I seem to be unable to stop giving reasons. I am firmly in the work/personal boundaries camp in theory, but was trained in a give-all kind of mindset. It’s been three years since I left that environment, but I seem to be unable to break bad habits.

As an example of boundaries I am enforcing, so far I have been successful at resisting my urge to give my phone number or be available for questions during time off. To be clear, my managers are not asking me, and my boss mentioned I don’t need to explain myself. But my emails just don’t sound right without it! When I split my bereavement leave up, I wanted to explain why. Or if I need to take off during the busiest part of the month. Or if I want flex time for an appointment, etc. I just can’t do it! How can I break this habit?

I bet it would help if you saw other people’s time-off requests and could see how very normal it is not to include reasons. Without those, your only frame of reference is your previous training. So here are some examples of very, very typical time-off requests (and these could be, and often are, the entirety of the emails):

• “I wanted to let you know I’ll be out this Friday and not online at all.”
• “I’d like to take off May 10-12 if that works for you.”
• “Is it okay for me to plan to use vacation time on May 10-12?”
• “I’ll be out next Monday. I’ll have X finished before I go, and Jane is going to handle Y that day.”
•  “I’m under the weather today and am going to take a sick day. I’m hoping I’ll be well enough to be back in tomorrow.”

You need to adjust for your office, of course. Some offices are very “just let your manager know the dates you’ll be out and assume they’ll speak up if there’s an issue” and others are more “ask for permission first, don’t just announce it” (generally with the exception of sick days). But in none of those cases, as you can see above, do you need to include details about why you’ll be out.

Since you’re struggling with this, try copying whatever language above feels the most comfortable to you and use that as a template. Your boss has already assured you that you don’t need to explain further, so presumably you’ll get a positive reply back, which you can take as confirmation that this works.

Keep in mind that your measure of success right off the bat shouldn’t be “I do this and feel perfectly comfortable about it” … but should just be “I do it.” Feeling comfortable with it will come in time, after you’ve done it a bunch and seen it be fine.

Read an update to this letter. 

3. Should I trade free time for more money?

I have been at my current company for eight years, and hold a pretty high role as an internal consultant. My salary is decent (low six figures), and benefits are pretty good, along with an okay bonus structure. The work itself is … meh. No excitement, no real challenges. The CEO is the owner, and can be very demanding. The upside? I realistically only work 20 hours a week, and am fully remote (even pre-Covid). There is just not that much work for me to do. On occasion (2-3 times a year) I have extensive travel and work around the clock, but it is manageable.

I get great performance reviews and have asked for additional work. My manager is convinced that I am overworked already and doesn’t believe me when I tell him I can easily take on more. Even outlining my hours makes no difference. I have taken up keeping the house clean and doing most of the laundry on company time due to my open time frames.

There are chances for advancement at my job, but it will take 2-3 years before I can be considered, and there are factors outside my control that will influence it, like new clients and their timelines.

I have a former coworker who works at a large, well-known company who is recruiting me for a position that is right up my alley. It is a step up from where I am now, and would be a 30%-ish pay bump with more vacation, etc. The rub? I would be working 40-45 hours a week.

My wife is saying that I should stay, due to the open time I have, and that the pay may not be worth it. I understand that, and get that some people would kill for a job with these benefits/pay and limited hours. Would you recommend moving on, or staying? I am afraid that staying will limit my career down the road, but moving on may end up with me working a lot more than I am used to and that the pay may not balance.

It depends on what you value most! A lot of people would be thrilled for the work set-up you describe, and would value that enough to stay even if it meant earning less and sacrificing some professional growth. Others wouldn’t; they’d start to feel stagnant and would itch to take on more. Neither of these is right or wrong; it’s just about what you personally want from work and from life.

But you do need to think about how well this job is positioning you for the job market in the future. Are you keeping your skills fresh enough and having enough work accomplishments that you’ll be a competitive candidate the next time you need to find a job? Or is the nature of the work you’re doing (and the quantities you’re doing it in) going to hold you back at that point? In the situation you described, it’s entirely possible it won’t be an issue at all (and it’s not something I have enough info to assess from here) — but make sure you’re including that in your long-term thinking. If you do have concerns along those lines, it’s worth thinking about whether there’s more you can do to alleviate that now. (For example, could you propose a specific project to your manager, even though he’s convinced your plate is full?)

Read an update to this letter. 

4. Should we do first-round interviews in-person or remotely?

Before the pandemic, we almost exclusively did interviews face-to-face unless the candidate was not currently in the same city as us. Then during the pandemic, we interviewed and even hired people completely remotely.

Now that we’re hybrid or more remote, we tend to do a mix but I’ve been wondering if it’s better to do the initial interview on video and then move to face-to-face in a second-round interview because obviously, a candidate would want to see where they’ll be working and meet potential colleagues face to face. My thinking is that it’s a much smaller ask on their time before things get more serious because they don’t need to leave work early or whatever. Thoughts?

Yes, absolutely don’t do first round interviews in-person — that’s a huge demand on a candidate’s time (they may have to take a half-day off work, buy an interview outfit, travel to you, etc.) before you’ve done any substantive screening yet … and before they’ve had a chance to ask their own questions to determine how interested they are.

Personally, I’m a huge fan of phone interviews as the first conversation (and was pre-pandemic as well). Phone interviews are usually a much lower burden on candidates than video interviews are; it can be a lot easier to find somewhere to take a phone call (whereas video presents a higher burden) and they don’t need to worry about what they’re wearing or what they look like. You can talk face-to-face in the next round.

5. CEO said I’d be good at her job — and now she’s retiring

The answer to this one might be obvious to most, but I grew up far from the world of office jobs and I’m pretty unpolished when it comes to business etiquette. (I’ve become pretty senior in my field via subject matter expertise.)

A few years ago, I interviewed to be deputy CEO of a mid-sized nonprofit. In rejecting me, the CEO raved (in writing) about how overqualified I am for any role other than CEO, and how I should be doing her job, and how she’s going to retire fairly soon and I should have her job when she retires. We’ve corresponded a bit since, and she remains encouraging of me applying for CEO jobs.

Now she’s retiring. How do I proceed? Can I apply and talk in my cover letter about what she said? Should I ask her blessing before doing that? It’s a field with sufficiently formalized hiring processes that I can’t just ask her to pull some strings and get the board to hire me. I dropped her a quick note to congratulate her on her retirement and she wrote back a quick thanks without mentioning, “Hey, you should be my successor!” Should I read anything into that other than her maybe being inundated on the day she announced her retirement?

Yeah, I would definitely not assume that her comment a few years ago would translate into her believing you should be her replacement now. Even at the time, I doubt she meant “if I left tomorrow, I would anoint you as my successor”; it’s more likely she meant “you could be a plausible candidate who we would be open to considering alongside other candidates.” (And really, she might not have even meant that; sometimes people puff up their praise, although obviously I have no idea if that was the case here.)

Since now it’s been a few years, she might not even remember the specifics of her assessment of you back then, and I think mentioning “the CEO said I should have her job” in your cover letter might come off strangely — like you’re putting more weight on it than you should, especially to people who don’t know the context. The best thing to do would be to just apply and then send her a note letting her know you did. Include a line like, “When I originally applied with you a few years ago, I recall you said I could be the right match for a role like yours. If you continue to think it could be a strong fit, I’d be grateful if you’re able to highlight my application to the board.”

Read an update to this letter.