Ask a Manager

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

1. Is our “Diversity Day” as insensitive as I think it is?

I’m looking for a gut-check on something that’s been bothering me since it started. My company has something called a Diversity Day where our HR team supplies us with a list of holidays that people in the U.S. don’t traditionally get as a day off and our workforce votes on which one is going to be our “Diversity Day” that year and it gets added that year’s holiday calendar. Last year we got Diwali off and this year we get Yom Kippur.

It’s probably meant well, but it feels very othering and like, “Look at these ~*exotic*~ holidays! We want you to vote on which one is the most valid and gets to ascend to the status of ‘real’ holiday this year!” It’s like weird a popularity contest.

Also our workforce is mostly white, which adds to the ick for me.

Am I off-base in thinking this is problematic and they’d be better off just giving everyone a floating holiday to use as they please?

You are not off-base. This is really distasteful and othering. It’s also disrespectful — for example, Jews take Yom Kippur off for a very specific reason (fasting, attending services, and private introspection and repentance); it’s not just a day off. (And something similar is true for all/most of the other holidays on the list, I’d imagine.)

And what could the votes even be based on?

A floating holiday would be far better.

Read an update to this letter. 

2. How do we fire someone who refuses to talk to us?

I am a volunteer on the personnel committee for the small church I attend. We only have three staff members (two ministers and an office person). We have determined that one of the ministers needs to be terminated — I’ll spare you the details but she is colossally bad at her job and has responded angrily to feedback. So, we asked her to attend a meeting to discuss “next steps” (we were going to tell her we are ending her employment, which should not be a surprise to her at this point) and she refused to attend. She, in fact, said via email, “This meeting is non-consensual.” She came to church the next day and performed her role in front of the congregation as scheduled, pretending everything was fine.

So the question is: How do we fire a person who sneaks out the back door and refuses a meeting? It seems so cold to fire her by email and turn off her key fob (not to mention she’ll need to go into the church to collect her belongings!).

If she won’t let you call a meeting, then the next time she’s supposed to be there in person, walk into her office and do it on the spot as soon as she arrives. You don’t need the meeting to be scheduled in advance. But if there’s no practical way to do that and she’s going to keep showing up and speaking to the congregation and then sneaking out while you’re sidetracked with other things, your only option is to do it via remote methods — meaning both call and email, one right after the other. Leave a voicemail letting her know you’re terminating her and follow it up with an email, both saying that (a) you tried to do this in person but she’s made that impossible, (b) she is not authorized to do any further work for the church (you don’t want her to just show up at the pulpit next Sunday as if nothing happened!), and (c) she should call or email to arrange a time to collect her belongings. In a case like this where someone is actively trying to avoid the conversation, it also makes sense to follow up with the same message by certified mail (include a note explaining you’re doing that because she’s made it impossible to meet in person).

Based on what you’ve seen so far, is there any chance she’ll try to show up at church to perform her normal role anyway, even after this? If so, you’ll need a plan for how to handle that if it happens. In a normal workplace, I’d say you’d want security there to prevent that from happening — and frankly I’d recommend it here too, although it’s more complicated as church with a congregation this might happen in front of.

Read an update to this letter. 

3. Assistant keeps introducing me as tech support … I’m not

I am a senior professional with a specialized role. I would consider myself to be about average in my technological proficiency, fully able to use everything I need to do my job, but not to the level of an IT person (nor do I work in IT). However, because many of my coworkers are terrible at office technology, I have become a go-to for help with these matters. It’s really a distraction from the professional level-responsibilities, but I put up with it when it isn’t egregious.

Recently, however, our department’s executive assistant has begun referring to me as our “tech support” when talking with new hires. This really rubs me the wrong way. First of all, there are tech support workers in our IT department who would help new hires with their email, computer, etc. so it’s legitimately confusing. Second, “tech support” is not really a reflection of my professional duties and significantly lower than those duties. In my mind, it’s similar to referring to the aforementioned executive assistant as a “typist” or “meeting scheduler” in that it does not refer to most of what I do.

The executive assistant knows full well what my title is. We’ve worked in the same department for five years and have a really contentious relationship, in part because she thinks that reporting to our department head puts her on a higher level than the rest of our team. (She sees herself as equal to the person who is our department’s second-in-command, when that’s not the case.) How can I address getting my job description correct with her in a firm yet tactful way?

“Please don’t introduce me as tech support to new hires. That’s not my role, and it causes confusion when they don’t realize they need to see IT for help with their computer and email. Please introduce me as (title).”

If she continues doing it after that, correct her on the spot in front of the new hire: “No, I’m not tech support. I manage our llama campaigns. We have an IT department that will help you with any tech issues.”

4. Job searching when I can’t drive

I know you’ve addressed the question of if/when to disclose disability in job searches before, but I’m in a situation that complicates things a bit. Last year my spouse and I moved to a state with very little local work because he was offered a good job here. I was working remotely on a long-term contract at the time, as well as finishing grad school. I’ll graduate in May and my contract is coming to an end.

I’ve been interviewing for other fully remote roles in my field, which is legendarily unfriendly to disabled folks like me, as well as to technological advances like remote work. I’ve had some interviews and I’ve even made it to the final round a few times. The problem is that all of these “remote” jobs require the ability to travel and that always requires the ability to drive. I am epileptic and cannot drive. I’ll never be able to drive. Sometimes the job postings make the driving part obvious and I can opt out, sometimes I don’t find out until I’m 2+ interviews in.

Some of these jobs are great and at excellent organizations, but I think it would be dishonest if I wait to disclose that I can’t drive until I have an offer in hand. I don’t want to waste anyone’s time, but at the same time, I also want to work to change the assumptions about how disabled people can work, particularly in remote jobs. I’d like to work in my industry, or in an adjacent one, but this problem is also not industry-specific. I’m not sure what to do and this problem isn’t going to just go away.

Unless driving is clearly a key piece of the job (for example, if the job were for a social worker who would have to transport clients to various appointments, or a traveling salesperson), it’s not dishonest to wait until you have an offer to raise it. If the travel is just a handful of trips a year, having you fly/take a train and then use a ride service while you’re there is a reasonable accommodation, and one that the Americans with Disabilities Act would expect them to make. As with any disability that they’re legally obligated to accommodate, you’re doing them a favor by waiting until the offer stage so that it doesn’t unconsciously bias them (and also so if they reject you before the offer stage for other reasons, they don’t need to worry you’ll think the disability was the reason).

For jobs where you thought there was no driving and then you learn about it a few interviews in, you can ask for more info on the spot: “Can you tell me more about how much driving is involved in the job and in what contexts?” And then you can assess for yourself if it’s closer to the reasonable accommodation/“handful of trips a year” end of the scale, or the “frequent and essential duty of the role” end. And if you’re not sure, you can ask outright — “I don’t drive for medical reasons; is that something we could work around?” (Or you might prefer to wait for the offer to avoid illegal/unconscious bias, but some people in this situation would rather hash it out before investing more time. It’s up to you.)

5. My coworker got an internal job I wanted that wasn’t even posted

I have worked for a local hospital for 34 years. I have been looking within the hospital for a different position for the last couple years. No position was posted or announced, but I discovered that a woman I used to work with was appointed to the position I was looking for. My qualifications would have exceeded hers. Where I have been loyal to the hospital, she has left on two occasions to work in an unrelated capacity. Is HR allowed appoint someone to a position without posting it? How can I prevent something like this recurring? Do I have any recourse?

Yes, your employer is allowed to hire people without posting the position, unless their own internal rules say they must post all positions before hiring someone. (Some employers do have that rule, but it’s up to them; it’s not a legal requirement.) It’s not terribly uncommon for an employer to move someone internally when a job opens up rather than posting it first if they feel like they have a good internal candidate.

For what it’s worth, loyalty isn’t usually a factor in hiring decisions; managers are generally looking at who they think will do the best job (and sometimes other things too, like who they’re prioritizing retaining). It could even be to your coworker’s advantage that she left twice to work somewhere else, because it could mean that she expanded her experience range and then brought those skills back!

The best thing to do is to make sure that the right people at your hospital know the kind of job you want to move into, so probably HR and the people who hire for the areas you’d like to move into. Let them know what you’re interested in and that you want to be considered when jobs open up in the future, and ask what you can do to make yourself a stronger candidate for when that happens.

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

1. Our assistant turned abusive when she wasn’t invited to a meeting

I work in a small office (five owners/managers, including me, and three assistants). Three of the managers are siblings, and one assistant, Kate, is the cousin of one of the managers. For years, we have allowed all eight people to attend office meetings. Unfortunately, this has morphed into the three assistants feeling entitled to ownership-type opinions regarding investments and office policies. It is nearly impossible to make a decision with eight people. For the last year or so, one manager, Bob, has requested that the meetings be managers only. It has been significantly more efficient.

For the most recent meeting, Bob again requested managers only. Someone mentioned that Kate wanted to be included, but the message was that Bob said no. The meeting wasn’t a big deal — we basically rehashed the same tired old questions that we discuss almost every time (should we eventually sell the company or pass it off to our children, what if one person wants out but the rest don’t — same-o, same-o). I typed up the minutes outlining the various opinions expressed and summarizing the meeting. No decision were made. I sent the summary only to the managers, but Kate got ahold of a copy.

The meeting was 10 days ago. Since then, Kate has gone ballistic. Every single day, I get 2-3 emails and/or texts about how mean we are, how we make the assistants feel like outsiders, how she has valuable opinions, she deserves a seat at the table, she refuses to be part of “taxation without representation,” she will no longer invest any money with the company (for the record, she never has), I have a bad attitude, she doesn’t know how I got so nasty. Quite the river of vitriol. So far I have not replied. The reality is that it wasn’t my decision; I am just the messenger. Bob made the request. I have always solicited input from everyone, and I am a big fan in theory of a completely level playing field, rather than a rigid hierarchy. But it has been much more efficient meeting only with the managers, and some of the decisions frankly need to be manager only (like selling the company someday).

I hate to pull rank on her, but this nastiness is debilitating. Any suggestions, other than “I’m sick of your drama”? I don’t really want to dump it all on Bob because his manager-only approach has been a good one, but I also don’t want to be the punching bag for her insecurity or controlling behavior, or whatever it is.

What on earth! How was Kate’s behavior allowed to get to this point without any of the managers stepping in to shut it down? I’m guessing it’s because Kate is someone’s cousin, plus some of that aversion to hierarchy, but you can’t effectively run an office this way. The reality is, there is hierarchy — some of you own the company and have decision-making authority and some of you don’t — and as this incident with Kate shows, you’re not doing anyone any favors by hiding that fact.

Right now you’re thinking of this as a sort of interpersonal dilemma (“I’m sick of your drama”), but you need to address it as a work issue between a manager and an employee, because that’s what it is.

One of the owners needs to talk to Kate and tell her what she’s doing is unacceptable (all else being equal, it should probably you since you’re the one she’s directing her hostility toward). Explain that the owners play a different role and have different responsibilities than she does, she needs to accept that if she wants to stay on, and she cannot send vitriolic messages to anyone on staff, including you. If it continues after that, you really, really need to let her go. You can’t conduct business with this happening in the background and it’s not okay for her to abuse people … plus, think about what working around her must be like for the other assistants, who don’t have the authority to shut her down. This will be complicated by the fact that she’s someone’s cousin, but you can’t let it continue (and if you do, you’re just asking for ever more outrageous behavior from her in the future because she’ll know there are no consequences).

2. My coworkers don’t check in on people who are out sick

My coworker, Jane, and I are close and we work on a very small team of six. A month ago, Jane went on leave to have a pretty major surgery. She was supposed to be on bed rest for a couple weeks following surgery, then back online for the month following, and then back to the normal hybrid office/work from home schedule by March. Well, she had some surgery complications and she’s been on bed rest for way longer than originally expected.

I know the details because I’ve been in regular contact with her. I texted her the day after her surgery and wished her a speedy recovery and we chat pretty regularly. She mentioned to me that I’m the only one on the team who has said a word to her since her leave. She told our lead when her recovery plans changed and what was happening with that and it sounded like our lead didn’t even ask how she was holding up or if she was okay or anything. The rest of the team, this is pretty expected, but I feel like our lead should have shown some form of human empathy.

But then it also happened to me on a much smaller scale. I got Covid and was out for a week and a half recently. I wasn’t hospitalized but I was pretty miserable. One of my teammates did reach out and ask how I’m holding up, which I appreciated. Other than that, only Jane has been asking me how I’m doing. My lead has been radio silent the whole time other than telling me to come back to work when I’m ready in response to me telling her that I’d probably be out for the week. I wasn’t expecting an outpouring of empathy or anything, but even just a mid week “how are you holding up?” text would be nice. The relationship I have with my team otherwise is fine. I guess I’ve just never been on a team that couldn’t care less about the others.

Is this normal? Should I just temper my expectations and know that aside from Jane and the other coworker who reached out, the rest of my coworkers are just kinda chilly? Or is there something I can/should do about it? It feels weird to have a conversation with my lead about empathy, but it also feels weird that she in particular showed no signs of any for two people on her team, one of which had major surgery.

I think you’re reading chilliness when it’s not there!

Not contacting people who are on sick leave isn’t unusual, and it doesn’t signal that people on your team don’t care about each other. If anything, it’s more common for teams not to message people who are out sick. It’s definitely true that your team lead should have expressed some basic human concern when Jane told her about how her recovery plans needed to change. But beyond that, it’s very normal for people not to check in with coworkers when they’re on sick leave. They want to leave you alone so you can rest and not think about work.

(Also, some people would take leads/managers checking in as pressure to return more quickly, and a lot of managers have it drilled into them that they shouldn’t bother people who are out sick.)

3. The company owners tell us how much money they are making, but none of us make a living wage

I work for a small, relatively new company in a new booming industry in the state. Most people working here make $15-18/hour, with abysmal benefits. At weekly company-wide meetings, the business owners regularly talk about how they have become millionaires due to the company. At the last meeting, the owners stated that they are forecasted to make millions of dollars in revenue by the end of this year, and discussed how rich they are for the next 20 minutes. As I am sure you can imagine, this is extremely grating when no one who works for them makes a living wage!

How would you suggest we handle this? It seems that most people are annoyed, but these are the owners so most people feel their options are limited. Unfortunately, we live in the rust belt so for most people, this is the best job they can get.

That’s incredibly oblivious and obnoxious. That’s the kind of thing they should discuss privately. It’s hard to imagine what kind of reaction they think they’re going to get from their far-lower-earning staff.

The next time it happens, are any of you willing to say, “It’s great to hear the company is doing so well. Is there a plan to put some of the profits into raising staff salaries to more livable levels?”

If that feels too confrontational to do on the spot, it still might be a good time to ask for a raise separately. If they balk or cite the budget, feel free to mention the numbers they’ve been sharing with the staff.

Related:
we got quizzed on our new boss’s horses, family, and vineyard

4. Jet lag as a pre-planned sick day

I have a U.S.-based employee who has been working internationally many time zones away for a few months. In the upcoming weeks, they are traveling back on a work day (let’s say Monday) using personal leave and then asking for all of the next day (Tuesday) to be “tentative” sick leave based on jet lag. How should I handle the request to use sick time for jet lag?

Potentially unnecessary context: they are a solid performer who asked to work internationally more than the allotted month allowed due to family needs. Those needs are fulfilled, and the employee is able to return to the U.S. earlier than originally scheduled, but still beyond the typical stint of working fully remotely. They have been accepting work and meetings at all hours of the day and night (local time – though that’s just daytime in the U.S.), so it hasn’t had much impact on their day-to-day. This is a company where there is a lot of employee trust around sick days, though HR has defined it as an “illness or injury.”

Seems reasonable to me. They’re saying they won’t be in any shape to work due to exhaustion and their body readjusting; that’s close enough to sick leave for me, and as a general rule it’s good to look for ways to say yes when you can.