coworkers are bouncing on yoga balls on Zoom calls, paid parental leave but only for women, and more by Alison Green on January 16, 2025 It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. People are bouncing on yoga balls during Zoom calls I’m at an all-remote company. Zooms are our go-to. In the Zooms I organize, I prefer videos off and most people know that. (So I don’t have to do my hair or get distracted, and it just drains me so much!) Obviously I make exceptions where called for. But I’m at the mercy of others when I join their meetings, and a lot of them have videos on as a default. And a few of my coworkers have recently started bouncing on yoga balls and walking on walking pads throughout their meetings. This makes me feel ill/seasick! And, then I feel really irritated at them, unfairly, because they’re making the meeting more difficult for me. Will I seem overly nitpicky, grumpy, irritable if I ask them to just do videos off when they do this? I don’t have a medical condition like vertigo or anything. I’m one of the most senior execs in the company, FYI, and the people who do this are all my level or below. (None of them report to me directly.) As a senior exec, you absolutely have the standing to say, “Kudos to anyone choosing to exercise during this call, but please turn your camera off if that’s you. The movement is rough on the rest of us.” And if that doesn’t solve it, feel free to direct it to specific people — “Jane, can you turn your camera off, please? The activity is distracting.” Frankly, it’s obnoxious (and maybe a little performative?) that people aren’t figuring this out for themselves and need to be told, and I bet others on the call will be silently thanking you. You also probably won’t have to do this a ton; it’s the kind of message most people will retain after being told once. Related: is it unprofessional to take a Zoom call from a treadmill? 2. Employer wants to offer paid parental leave — but only for women My employer is thinking about joining the modern working era and offering paid parental leave. But … only to women. As you can imagine, the reception is mixed. On one hand, we’re excited to possibly finally have something. On the other, many staff feel like this devalues a) the role of fathers, b) the responsibility of men to care for their children and partners, and c) the role of women in the workplace generally (after all, why promote a woman who might need this leave when a man definitely won’t?). We’ve clarified that adoptive moms would qualify, so physical recovery is not the sole issue. The employer is hinting loudly that we should be grateful that he is doing “more than he legally has to” and that he might drop it entirely if we push too hard. Any thoughts on next steps? Well, it’s illegal. Offering different amounts of parental leave to male and female employees violates the federal law against sex discrimination (just like basing vacation leave or raises on sex would). It would be different if it were framed as “pregnancy leave” or otherwise linked to medical recovery, but it’s not. So: the strongest argument against this is that it’s illegal. Of course, if you point that out, your employer might drop the whole thing — so you should pair it with a strong lobbying effort by employees for a legal, gender-neutral parent leave policy. If you can show that your competitors offer that, that could help too. Related: my company is creating a paternity leave policy, but has no maternity leave 3. My company is ignoring my reimbursement form after laying me off I was laid off from a remote job in November 2024. I was told to ship my laptop back, given a paid shipping label and told to purchase packaging at the shipping store and submit a receipt for reimbursement. I submitted the form for reimbursement with a receipt the same day … then heard nothing. Every few weeks I would send an email asking about the reimbursement status and would hear nothing. On the emails I’ve included my manager, my manager’s manager, and the HR representative who handled my layoff. It’s been two months and no one replies to emails (which have all been cordial). The amount of money ($30) isn’t a big deal but I’m frustrated that I followed their directions and then they’re not honoring their commitment. Also them not reimbursing me after laying me off is just rude and petty! Any other ideas about what I can do? For context, I also signed an NDA so I probably can’t make a post on social media publicly calling anyone out. Stop emailing and call instead! Start with HR, and if that doesn’t work, call your manager, then your manager’s manager. If you get voicemail, leave a message explaining the situation; say that it’s been several months, and ask to get it handled ASAP. They should be replying to your emails and it’s rude that they haven’t, but one when method of communication isn’t working, moving to another will often solve it. (And who knows, it’s possible that emails from your personal email address are being filtered as spam or something. Probably not, but calling will solve it if that’s happening.) 4. Can my company completely change my job? I am an executive assistant at a remote-first organization. There is currently no requirement to come into our office, with the exception of our front desk staff (who belong to a separate department). I have been told confidentially that due to financial constraints, a plan is in place to lay off our front desk staff and require myself and another executive assistant to perform the duties usually performed by our front desk staff (in addition to our current duties). This change would mean that I would have a completely different role than what I was hired to do, not to mention what I see as the extreme burden of being one of the only employees in a remote organization with an in-office requirement, and the significant extra work. Can they legally do this? What can I do to resist this change, other than simply walking away from a job that I really don’t want to quit? We have a union in place, which I have been told I am unable to join due to the confidential nature of my job. Would appealing to the union anyway have any influence? They can legally change the requirements of your job. You can push back on that, of course — but ultimately they can make the change. The union probably won’t help since you’re not a member (unless they see benefit to their membership in some way, which isn’t impossible — you can certainly ask them and see). How much standing do you have at your job? Are you a highly valued employee who they don’t want to lose? Or even a reasonably valued one who they don’t want to deal with the inconvenience of replacing? If you have a decent amount of standing, your best bet is to talk to your manager and say exactly what you said here — the change would leave you with a completely different job than the one you were hired for and significant additional burden — and that you’re strongly opposed to doing it. The trick with this kind of conversation is to walk a fine enough line that you’re not outright refusing or openly saying “I will quit over this” but leaving the strong implication that you are indeed highly likely to leave over it (maybe not on the spot, but soon). On the other hand, if you’re willing to openly say you’ll quit over it and are comfortable with whatever that results in (including “okay, we’ll be sorry to see you go but let’s set your last day”), go for it. There’s a possibility they’ll see this as an opportunity to hire a replacement who’s willing to do the new job, so this is all very dependent on how much capital you have there, how willing you are to walk away over it, how quickly you’d be willing to do that, and how much they’d care. If the other assistant affected by this is willing to do the same, that can give you additional power, particularly if she has capital of her own to spend. 5. What is a “director of first impressions”? I’m on the job market. I’ve been in higher ed. administration for years (also a teacher), and I’m done with it. All I want to do is help people, help an organization function well, get paid / treated decently, and stay with a good job until I retire, if ever. I’ve been on the market for roughly four months with little luck. I had one interview, which I think went well, but I didn’t get the position. Part of it, I think, is that I’m “overqualified” for the kind of role I’m looking for. The thing is, I don’t want to be in charge. I hate being in charge. I make an excellent assistant. But then I see job adverts for things like a “director of first impressions”: “The director of first impressions will play an important role in setting the tone for the organization. As the first person and last person clients see when they are in the office, the director of first impressions is instrumental in making sure clients have a positive experience. Ability to work in a high capacity, high intensity position is a must, while maintaining a joyful and diplomatic spirit. Multitasking is necessary also, as this position is characterized by spontaneity and being ready for any phone call or visit. You will be the direct source of office support leadership, while maintaining office supplies and managing the calendar.” Good lord. I don’t even know how to respond seriously to this. Is this a receptionist role? Okay, I can work with that. Director of first impressions? I cannot. Yep, it’s a receptionist role, with what sounds like some additional admin support thrown in. It’s a silly title, but it’s usually the sign of an organization trying to put a high premium on you making visitors and callers feel warmly welcomed and taken care of. As in, they’re not looking for the vibe visitors get at the DMV. The best way to approach it is to ignore the title and focus on the job duties. You may also like:is it unprofessional to take a Zoom call from a treadmill?more on AI attending meetingsmy employee keeps adjusting himself while we’re talking { 520 comments }
my friend has terrible judgment, and I’ve encouraged it by Alison Green on January 15, 2025 A reader writes: A few years ago, I got a promotion in a different country. The organization I had previously worked at went through a re-structure and my position was eliminated. My good friend Suzie was promoted into a position that was very similar to my former position, but higher on the org chart and with more responsibility. We stayed in touch, mostly as friends, but with cheerleading and mentoring from the sidelines too. This role was a big jump in responsibility for Suzie; she essentially leapfrogged quite a few positions. Complicating matters is the fact that the organization is an incredibly toxic work environment. Decades of very poor decisions and bullying behavior from senior management means there is a lot of distrust and a real us vs. them culture. It is really not possible for someone in Suzie’s position to do much about the culture; without meaningful change from the board and higher-ups, things will not change. For these reasons, I knew that Suzie would have challenges, but she had worked for the org for a long time, knew what she was in for, and has always been confident in her abilities as a manager. Over the years, Suzie will sometimes call to vent, and I’ve always supported her. When she brought in a new policy that was not well received, I empathized; that group of employees never reacts to change well. You do the best you can to make everyone feel their complaints are heard, and then you tell them that the decision is made and they need to move on. When she needed to take some time off and “have a break” and people were grumbling about her taking PTO, I told her she deserved her PTO and should model a good work-life balance for her team. When she started to feel like everyone hated her and was always criticizing her, I told her not to worry; she’s the face of a problem culture, and she needs to just do her best to be fair and a good leader, and try not to take it personally when people who are traumatized and miserable can’t see her efforts. I thought my advice was solid, based on my knowledge of Suzie and the company. But I’ve just moved back to the city, and realized I’m quite off-base. I’ve heard from many former colleagues, and seen evidence myself, that Suzie is, well, a bit of a mess. She has made some appalling decisions and displayed really questionable judgement. That policy she made? She didn’t get any feedback before she created it or rolled it out, and it’s caused huge problems and slowed down processes across the org. When people try to raise it with her, they’re told “the decision has been made and they just need to move on.” That PTO she took? It was in the middle of a huge and important project. Pipelines got stuck because she wasn’t there to approve and give feedback, and hadn’t set up a contingency approval structure. Then to add insult to injury, she posted photos all over social media of herself at what was basically a sex festival. (No judgment of what she does in her spare time, but it’s not really a restful weekend, and posting it was very tone-deaf. It’s also really not aligned with the values of the org.) People are demonstrably more unhappy now than they were when I was there, and they feel their complaints are never heard or taken seriously. Many people have left, so those who are still there are burnt out and feeling incredibly unsupported. I realize I’ve contributed to the problem indirectly, because I’ve been Suzie’s champion and encouraged her decisions. My question is two-fold. First, what can I do from my position of unofficial mentor to get Suzie to be more aware of her actions, especially when she’s used to hearing nothing but encouragement from me? And secondly, how can I avoid this in the future? I realize now that whenever I give advice to people, it’s always based on their perspective of the issue, and I don’t have the nuance to give informed advice or opinions. To some extent this is always an issue with advice-giving; you’re only hearing one side of the story and it may be biased or missing important details. You can try to dig by asking questions like, “What do you think Person X’s perspective is, and why do you think they think that?” But some people will always be unreliable narrators and you won’t always be able to spot them. (Sometimes that’s intentional on their side; they want sympathy and support and so shape the way they tell the story to get that. Other times, people just don’t realize what details would be important to mention; we see that all the time in letters here.) When you give advice, you can caveat it with “There may be internal politics in your company that would change this” or “Based just on what you’re saying and without knowing the perspectives of other people involved” … but it’s never going to be perfect, because people are imperfect narrators. However! I do think it’s worth asking whether you leaned into supporting Suzie unconditionally without questioning her version of things at all. It’s really easy to do that when you know someone’s employer sucks; when management is incompetent, it makes it easy to assume they’re always wrong and the person you like is always right. Plus, you wanted to be supportive of a friend. But since you’re reassessing it now, you could look at whether you overlooked facts that should have jumped out more or if you dismissed things that didn’t sound quite right. If you realize that you did, that’s useful info for next time (with anyone, not just with Suzie). There’s also a question of whether you were trying to be more mentor than friend. A mentor does have a responsibility to not only cheerlead, but also to point out blind spots and nudge when someone’s perspective might benefit from a shift. Personally, I believe good friends should do that too … but with a casual friend, I don’t think you’re as obligated to do what can be fairly heavy lifting. Still, though, you don’t want to feel like you’ve encouraged bad decisions, which it sounds like is ultimately what happened here. So the takeaway might be to remind yourself that you never have the full scope of a story you’re hearing secondhand, that there might be other perspectives in play, and that most people can benefit from advice that encourages them to consider how someone else might tell the story. As for how to approach Suzie on all this now … one option is to start asking things like, “How do you think Person X would tell their side of it?” and “If you wanted to make your staff feel more heard, what would help?” and “What input are you getting internally on this?” And you can start saying things like, “I can’t say for sure that this is what’s going on, but it sounds to me like…” and “Hmmm, the other way to look at this is…” or “I was once struggling with this and it turned out I’d overlooked X.” Who knows, maybe she’ll find that helpful! But whether she does or doesn’t, I think you’ll feel like you’re engaging more responsibly with a situation that you now realize you don’t know as well as you thought! You may also like:my boyfriend thinks only bad candidates prepare for interviewsI hired a friend and it's not going wellI think my life coach is giving me bad advice { 160 comments }
should we offer severance to a belligerent, hostile employee? by Alison Green on January 15, 2025 A reader writes: I recently had to fire a manager for a belligerent, profanity-laden outburst during a board meeting. He has not been doing his job and has been suspected to be drinking or have been drunk while working (although no proof). To further complicate things, his manager has not done his job by documenting the problems and is now pushing me to provide some sort of severance for good will. However, I feel we have a termination with cause for insubordination. What is your suggestion on whether we need to pay severance in this instance? He is talking to a lawyer regarding a possible hostile workplace or wrongful termination lawsuit. I answer this question — and two others — over at Inc. today, where I’m revisiting letters that have been buried in the archives here from years ago (and sometimes updating/expanding my answers to them). You can read it here. Other questions I’m answering there today include: My employee gave her puppy the same unusual name as a coworker’s new baby How can I see what I’ll have to sign as a new employee before I accept an offer? You may also like:severance pay: who gets it and how it worksshould we put off firing an employee for several months so he doesn't violate probation?hostile assistant won't do their job, booking a luxury hotel for business travel, and more { 258 comments }
our CEO is demanding we return to the office but people don’t want to — and I’m a manager stuck in the middle by Alison Green on January 15, 2025 A reader writes: In 2020, due to the pandemic, my entire company started to work from home. I enjoyed a much better work-life balance and know many others did too, especially because so many people moved further away for more space. Sadly, we’ve been asked to come back into the office. At first it was a loose mandate, so people did it sparsely. I co-lead our department of 13 people with my boss, and at first we were pretty chill about it. Then the CEO started wanting people in three days a week, minimum. This caused backlash among the departments. We decided to try two days to try to be in the middle. We thought it was working well and had it going for a year, but with other departments doing their own thing too it became a problem. Some did the three days, while some did just one day. Recently, the CEO — upon hearing Amazon mandated everyone back in-office — sent an email: “Come in Tuesday – Thursday.” So we’ve told everyone the time has come to really stick to it. And it’s been … not great. We had a meeting to say we understand this isn’t what people want, so in an attempt to be flexible — because some people have meetings with international regions, which make some days really bad to come in when they’re on calls from 8 am until noon — we’ll let people come in other days, as long as it’s three days. Well, that hasn’t really happened. Local staff are rarely doing three days. Some reasons are understandable: they’re sick and don’t want others to get sick, children-related, pet emergencies, etc. But it’s getting to a point where the CEO is going to feel we’re disrespecting his mandate, and boom it’ll be a mandate for five days. Our HR head is checking our key entries. We got a list last week. This is a constant hot topic in senior leadership. The old-school people think if we did five days a week in the office before, we should be able to do it again. Others, like me, feel it’s a step backwards to not see the benefits of flexibility or permanent WFH. Our jobs are very hard. I’ve never worked as hard as I’ve had to this past year, due to layoffs and terrible clients. It’s so demoralizing working until 11 pm sometimes and still be expected to be cheery the next morning in-office for the benefit of an out-of-touch CEO. He’s one of those “if I don’t see you working, are you working?” people. Plus, when we’re in the office, we all seclude to rooms for non-stop meetings. However, if I’m being honest, I do think some of our staff are too comfortable. Some don’t even show up in the office or give a reason. We feel a bit stuck. If we bring it up again, people will again spit out the reasons for opposing it. I do think some of those reasons are reasonable! And I also think some people are taking some advantage. I don’t want to care about this. Our team is built of highly functional workers. Many live so far that the commute is really bad (we do let people leave when they want so they can beat traffic). It’s really about tapping that key card for optics. And unfortunately there’s no “can you talk to people above again?” It’s been a discussion for three years now and in the end, what the CEO says goes. The answer is in your last sentence: in the end, this is the CEO’s call. As part of the senior management team, you can try to convince him that it’s in the company’s best interest to allow more work from home, but ultimately it’s his call — and it’s your job to be forthright with your team about that reality. I do think it’s worth coming to terms with what sound like some previous missteps. If the CEO wanted people in the office three days and your team compromised on two but even that wasn’t enforced and you’ve had employees not showing up at all and you thought some people were being too lax but you didn’t address it … well, it’s not surprising that your CEO is now responding with a firmer mandate. That’s not to say the CEO is right. For all I know, he might be; I don’t know your business or how hybrid work has played out there. And it’s possible it’s working for your team but affecting other employees in ways you don’t see (in particular, junior employees who are missing out on the learning by osmosis that happens when they share space with more experienced employees). But he certainly wouldn’t be the first CEO to cling to an old way of operating because that’s what he’s comfortable with, without recognizing that the workforce has changed, or that what technology makes possible has changed, or that what top talent in your field will demand has changed. And it makes sense to lay out for him your understanding of how a return-to-office mandate will affect the company’s operations. If you believe you’ll lose good people, struggle to hire the candidates you want, and generally be less effective as a result, you absolutely should present that case. But it sounds like you’ve done that, he’s heard you, and he’s still making a different call. Which he gets to do. If that’s the point you’re at, all you can do is to be very transparent with your team about the situation — about what’s being required, how much flexibility there is and isn’t, and the consequences if they flout that — and that it’s not about whether they’re right or not, but about what your company will and won’t allow. However, in order to do that, you need management above you to be clear about what consequences they’re truly prepared to enforce. If that conversation hasn’t been had yet, it needs to happen soon, so that you’re not managing blind. And who knows, maybe it’ll turn out that the CEO isn’t prepared to fire people who won’t comply, in which case you can decide whether you’re willing to just keep existing in a state of tension with him over it indefinitely and what that would mean for you/your team. But it sounds like it’s time to call the question: he wants everyone back in the office, people aren’t willing to do it … so now what? He needs to make that call, and then the answers for how you proceed will stem from that. You may also like:did the pandemic really show we can be just as effective working from home?what's the point of making me work from the office to "collaborate" if no one else is here?how can I tell our boss we’ll all quit if we can't work from home? { 600 comments }
HR person secretly helped her mom get hired, coworker is identifying herself as a psychologist when she’s not, and more by Alison Green on January 15, 2025 It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. Our HR person helped her mom get hired in secret I work for a small company of 12 people, led by two partners. In the hierarchy of the company, I am the next tier down from the partners. We are not large enough to have an HR department, so our accountant, “Jan,” operates as the HR person as well as office manager. We have been looking to hire an executive assistant for the company’s partners and Jan has been in charge of placing the ads, screening the resumes, and doing initial interviews. Jan also attended the interviews with the partners and candidates. An interview was set up with a candidate, but Jan was unable to attend as she was out sick. About a week later, we received an email that this candidate had been hired. We later found out through the rumor mill that this new employee is Jan’s mother and that partners did not know about it until after the offer was made. So far, nothing official regarding their relationship has been shared with the office. Neither Jan nor her mother mentioned at any point in the process that they are mother and daughter. I do know that Partner 1 was not pleased that this information was kept from him, but has the mindset that they need someone in the position, so they are just going to go with it and said that if it doesn’t work out, it’s going to be awkward when Jan has to let her mother go. There are so many things wrong with this, I don’t know where to begin! I won’t be working directly with Jan’s mother so it probably won’t affect me much one way or another, but part of the job is to help out with accounting, so Jan could potentially be supervising her own mother in some capacity. Our employee handbook does have a small section on employing family members, saying they can’t supervise each other. To me, this brings up serious questions about nepotism and ethics and what appears to be a conscious effort from both of them to conceal this information from the partners. I have some standing to let both partners know that the optics surrounding this look pretty bad and I worry that this blatant display of poor judgement does not bode well for the future. I guess I know this is really bad, and am interested in your take on the situation. Yeah, that’s a massive problem. It would be a bad idea to hire someone’s mom to work closely with them under most circumstances, and doubly so if the daughter is the HR person*. (Is she really going to handle complaints about her mom impartially? And even if she is, are people likely to believe they can safely raise complaints about her mom?) But the fact that they both went out of their way to hide the relationship — and it’s not believable that in a small office where Jan was involved with the hiring she wouldn’t think to mention that one of the interviewees was her mom — makes it much, much worse; it shows that they’re willing to to subvert professional norms and transparency in order to advance their own agenda, which is the exact opposite of what you’d need if you have two relatives working together. By all means, let the partners know that the secrecy and nepotism look terrible (from anyone, but especially from your HR person). But it sounds like this is going forward regardless, so I’d brace for the dumpster fire. * In an office of 12, “accountant who handles HR on the side because someone has to” usually means things like benefits administration, not substantive employee relations work (including things like investigations of things like discrimination or harassment) … but your mention that Jan is the one who would end up firing her mom indicates that Jan’s HR role may be bigger than is typical with this set-up, which makes this worse. 2. Coworker is identifying herself as a psychologist when she’s not I work at an outpatient mental health clinic as a case manager. My coworkers and I are all on a team of case managers that don’t require any degrees or certifications. If you want to move up to become a therapist or clinical supervisor, you need your masters in counseling, clinical psych, or a PH.D. When I was collecting mail for my clients, I started noticing an influx of mail for my coworker, which I found strange. The mail was coming from several different banks and I started noticing it showed her full name, along with the title “clinical psychologist” and business owner. I looked into it and saw that she is advertising herself online as a business owner as a clinical psychologist and takes client appointments at our address. Most of the mail is coming from several different banks so I am thinking (although unsure) that she may be receiving business loans or something of the sort identifying herself as a clinical psychologist who runs her own business. The other thing is I also found her on several websites advertising herself as a “mental health counselor” and either a Psy.D, PH.D, or clinical therapist on yellow pages, white pages, and for one insurance company with her name and our business address. It shows our address on one and on another it shows her as a psychologist for her previous job. Do I submit all of this to HR? Do I let it go and mind my own business? Are you sure she’s not a clinical psychologist? It’s possible she has credentials you don’t know about. Otherwise, though, the potential for harm to patients and your clinic’s reputation is high enough that yes, flag it for HR and let them decide if there’s any action they need to take. You can frame it as, “There may be an explanation for this that I’m not privy to, but it alarmed me enough that I wanted to bring it to your attention in case it’s something you’d want to know.” 3. Handshakes and sweaty palms I’ve had abnormally sweaty hands my whole life. I don’t know exactly when or how the excess sweat will start or what triggers it; sometimes it happens when I’m nervous, but sometimes I am merely existing. It does not seem to be correlated to temperature or how many layers I am wearing. Usually this doesn’t cause me more than some minor inconveniences, but I had a situation the other day that I’m afraid will repeat itself, especially as I get older and more into the workforce. I was meeting a professor for the first time, and as I was leaving, she held out her hand for me to shake. Not knowing how to decline, I shook it, even though my hands were sweaty. She immediately wiped her hand on her pant leg, and I realized what I’d done. In the future, how would you recommend I deal with this situation? Sometimes when people try to high-five me and my hands are sweaty, I fist-bump them instead, but it seems inappropriate to offer a fist-bump when someone offers me a handshake. Can you discreetly wipe your hands on your pants first, especially when you’re in a situation where you know a handshake might be coming (like any time you’re meeting someone new)? If you’re worried it’s noticeable that you’re patting your pants, say, “Sorry, my hand is damp!” (That could mean you just washed them, for all anyone knows.) There’s also the option of just confidently and cheerfully saying, “I’ve switched to fist bumps since Covid!” You won’t be the only one. There are also medical treatments available if it’s something that really bothers you and you want to go that route. 4. I don’t know how to respond to this job rejection feedback I’m a mid-career professional in tech who got laid off a few months ago. I’ve been applying and interviewing for similar roles ever since, but a couple of recent rejections have somehow gotten me really depressed and demoralized. Both positions seemed like a good fit, and I was able to develop a good rapport with the hiring managers during each respective interview. However, the feedback I received was: 1. I didn’t have enough experience with a specific kind of document that’s relevant to my industry but not readily shared unless you need access for a specific reason, as it contains quite a bit of confidential client data (none of the projects I worked on required me to access that level of data, so I never had access to this document). 2. A well-liked former employee expressed interest in the position after I’d been scheduled for an interview, so the company went with them. I know these are relatively normal things to hear when interviewing (and it’s not the first time I’ve heard them either), but I don’t know how I can make myself a better candidate for these kinds of roles with this kind of feedback. At least if it had been something like a lack of technical skill, that would still be something actionable that I can work on. I have more interviews in the pipeline, but I find myself anticipating rejection for similar reasons as I’m preparing, and I’m starting if it’s time to just quit this industry altogether and pivot to a different career/industry. Do you have any advice on how to stay motivated during a slump like this? Not all feedback is actionable, or needs to be. Sometimes it’s just an explanation or context. It you’re regularly hearing that you need experience with the kind of document from #1, that could be a sign that you’ve got to find a way to get that experience in order to be a serious contender for these jobs. But if you have no reason to believe it’s a widespread requirement (like hearing that from multiple interviewers or seeing it in most of the ads you’re interested in), there’s nothing much you have to conclude here (other than if you do get the opportunity to work with that document in the future, you should take it). The second item — they hired someone already well-known to them — is just a thing that happens, and not anything you need to respond differently to. For what it’s worth, you won’t always get useful feedback, or any feedback, when you’re job-searching, and it’s not a sign of failure if don’t. You’re much more likely to get useful feedback from mentors and people working in the field you’re applying in. 5. Employees aren’t paid for short bathroom or coffee breaks This happened last year, and has nothing to do with me, but it struck me as odd, so I thought I’d ask for your take on it. I work in the legal field. In the course of an online conversation about billing, someone commented that the staff at their firm are W2 employees, but don’t clock in/out and they only get paid for the time they bill. They clarified that any time spent not working on a case, such as lunch or bathroom visits, is unpaid. I’ve worked at various law firms, but I’ve never heard of anything like this. Admittedly, I’m no expert on employment law, but this sounds like they’re being paid per project (i.e., they spend four hours working on the John Doe case, so they get paid for four hours of work, but the 10 minutes they take to run to the restroom or get a cup of water before starting the next project isn’t paid), which does not seem very W2-ish. Is this a common practice that I’ve just never encountered before, or is this as weird as it seems? Surprise! It’s yet another law firm violating employment laws. If they’re W2 employees, not independent contractors, they’re legally required to be paid for all the time they’re expected to be at work, even if that includes down time in between projects (it’s called “engaged to wait”). Moreover, federal law requires that short breaks of 20 minutes or less be treated as paid time. You may also like:our top two execs are secretly mother and daughter, salary offer was lower than recruiter said, and moreI manage my daughter and someone complained about herI had a secret relationship with a coworker and now I'm pregnant { 420 comments }
employer wants me to write 30 essays before they’ll even consider my application by Alison Green on January 14, 2025 A reader writes: I’ve done my fair share of job interviews, but not in the past five years or so. In early August, I applied for a manager-level role at a local nonprofit that fits exactly within my professional experience and personal interests. Almost four months after the application deadline, I finally got an email back, telling me that instead of doing a traditional first-round interview, they were asking all candidates to fill out a questionnaire. The questionnaire is about 40 questions, 30 of which require paragraph-level responses and span the usual “describe an experience that illustrates how you adapted to feedback” to my experience in specific tools/frameworks to “what [my] initial priorities and strategies” would be if hired. I included my copy of just the long-answer questions below. I estimate this would take at least three hours to do if it was a verbal interview, and potentially 10 hours to type out. And … they gave us a week to complete it. Based on the wording of the email, I suspect they haven’t winnowed down their application pool at all yet, so I may be dismissed out of hand for not yet completing my degree. To me, this feels extremely inappropriate and borderline egregious – and not to their benefit, either! Surely it is more work to review pages and pages of responses rather than the resume and cover letter candidates submitted already, and many strong candidates will have already gotten a job or won’t think it’s worthwhile to invest all this time in an application without ever even talking to an interviewer. Should I bother replying to ask whether my application meets their basic requirements? Should I not invest too much time in the survey, and assume I will be one of the few who even reply at all? I love the work of this nonprofit and have several friends-of-friends who work there already, and I’m baffled by what feels like a clear misstep from an organization that prioritizes equity and accessibility. The questionnaire: Please answer each question thoughtfully, as your responses will help us learn more about your experience and suitability for the role. This will serve as the first round of our interview process. Selected candidates will receive an email invitation for a second-round interview following our review of the responses. 1. What specifically interests you about working at ___? Can you share what attracts you to ___’s mission and values? 2. What do you know about ___’s work and why are you excited about the possibility of joining our team? 3. If you were hired, what are your initial priorities and strategies for strengthening our evaluation and learning capacity? 4. Can you describe your experience designing and implementing comprehensive evaluation plans, including data collection, analysis, and reporting? 5. What evaluation frameworks or theories have you applied in your work? How have they influenced your approach to designing and conducting evaluations? 6. Can you discuss a specific evaluation project where you used a particular framework or theory to inform your methodology? 7. What data collection methods are you proficient in (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups, observations)? How do you ensure data quality and reliability? 8. Have you conducted asset-based community development assessments or similar evaluations? If so, please describe your experience and the impact of your work. 9. How do you incorporate asset-based approaches into your evaluation practice to highlight community strengths and resources? 10. If so, could you provide an example of how you have used this approach in your work? 11. Can you describe your experience as a Principal Investigator or lead on a federally funded research grant, such as NSF or NEA? 12. Have you been involved in the development and submission of proposals for other major funding agencies, such as NIH, DOE, or private foundations? 13. What specific challenges and opportunities did you encounter in securing and managing these grants? 14. Can you discuss your experience in managing budgets and financial reporting for federally funded projects? How did you balance the demands of grant writing, research, and project management responsibilities? 15. What strategies do you use to stay updated on current funding opportunities and trends in your field? 16. What specific MERL tools and techniques are you familiar with? 17. How would you approach training staff on the principles and practices of monitoring, evaluation, research, and learning (MERL)? 18. How would you ensure that staff are using MERL to inform program decisions and improve outcomes? 19. Can you share an experience that exemplifies your ability to take initiative? 20. Can you share an experience that demonstrates your ability to collaborate effectively? 21. Can you describe an experience that illustrates how you adapted to feedback? 22. Can you give an example of an experience where you asked insightful questions to achieve better outcomes? 23. Can you share an experience of how you’ve worked effectively in fluctuating or chaotic situations? 24. Can you provide examples of how you have incorporated principles of inclusivity and intersectionality into your evaluation designs and data collection methods? 25. How do you ensure that your evaluations are culturally responsive and address the unique needs and experiences of diverse populations? What strategies do you use to identify and mitigate potential biases in your research and evaluation practices? 26. Have you managed anyone previously? What is your leadership style? 27. Can you describe a challenging experience you’ve had with a previous supervisor? What made working with them difficult for you? 28. Can you share an experience with a previous supervisor who brought out the best in you? What qualities made them an effective leader in your eyes? 29. What is your superpower? 30. What questions do you have going forward? This is so ridiculous that it’s practically offensive. Frankly, most of these questions on their own would be inappropriate to assign as a writing project before the employer had done any screening of the applicant pool. (I’d exclude questions 1 and 2 from that, since those would be fine to ask people to address in their cover letters. Although those are basically the same question and, as if they weren’t already abusing your time enough, they apparently want you to answer it twice.) It is not reasonable to ask people to invest this much time in an application process before the organization has done any screening of its own (so that people know their candidacy at least has some promise) and before candidates have had a chance to ask their own questions to determine if the job even makes sense for them to pursue. And this is indeed a huge amount of time to ask for. This would be an unusually long list of questions even for an in-person interview! To expect people to spend time writing out answers to all of them — something that takes most people far longer than answering questions out loud in a conversation — no. I’m sure the organization believes this will save time on their side — since they can review people’s answers on their own schedule rather than having to set aside time to talk with people — but it’s incredibly disrespectful of their applicants’’ time. Moreover, it’s setting them up to lose their strongest candidates, since people with other options are really unlikely to bother putting in the time to do this. It’s also a really bad sign about how the organization is managed overall. I’d bet money that if you talk to those friends-of-friends who work there, you’ll hear horror stories that have nothing to do with hiring. As for what you should do … I’d respond that you’re not able to spend the multiple hours it would take to complete the questionnaire, especially without having a chance to ask your own questions yet to determine if the job is even a match. You could add, “This is surprising choice from an organization that prioritizes equity and accessibility.” That will probably take you out of the running, and that is an outcome I’d be comfortable with. You might also talk to the friends-of-friends who work there and ask what’s up with this; you might hear something interesting (like maybe that it’s a new system they’re trying out and no one else is playing along either), but more importantly they should take your feedback back to whoever decided to hire this way. You may also like:is this job application horribly invasive or is it just me?to get an interview, I have to spend a week at a writing retreat at my own expenseI was rejected for a job because of my romantic history { 449 comments }
my employees’ juice cleanses are disrupting their work by Alison Green on January 14, 2025 A reader writes: I manage a team of five. One of my staff, Helen, does some variation of a week-long juice cleanse or other liquid diet about once per year, and has for the four years she has been on my team. During that week each time, she arrives late or leaves early for three to four days due to headache, dizziness, or generally feeling crummy. Helen is a highly reliable employee the rest of the year and rarely gets sick. It’s not a terribly busy time of year, and she finishes all required tasks in that week during her cleanse. As a result, I’ve never raised the issue, figuring “her body, her choice” as long as she gets the work done and/or notifies me that she will be using sick leave and needs someone to help out on a project. This month, however, she wrangled another person on my team (Pearl) to join the cleanse, too. In the last four days, one or both of them have arrived late or left early every day due to some variant of feeling crummy. Pearl is less reliable and efficient than Helen, causing a slight backlog of tasks this week. They are trying to convince someone on the next team over that she should participate. I worry about next year having multiple staff feeling poorly, at the same time, and intentionally. This seems different to me than when a nasty cold hits several people in the office over the course of two weeks—this is planned and synchronized. I do not want to become the sick-leave police. But I also feel like these employees are not coming to work prepared to do their jobs, for several days in a row. Is there a reasonable way to approach this? I answer this question over at Inc. today, where I’m revisiting letters that have been buried in the archives here from years ago (and sometimes updating/expanding my answers to them). You can read it here. You may also like:I got in trouble for taking someone’s juice, my boss forgot something major about me, and moremy coworker berates me all day longI can't carry coffee at work, employee refuses to do a critical duty, and more { 151 comments }
a fellow conference attendee was a jerk on the airplane by Alison Green on January 14, 2025 A reader writes: I (a woman) travelled by myself to a work-related conference and encountered some bad behavior on the flight. A quick search on AAM indicated many readers asked questions related to work-related trips with folks within the same company. How about with folks from another company? Other than ignoring and walking away, what would be your take? A tech-related conference was in Las Vegas. At least 90% of the people on my fully-booked flight were heading to the same event. (By the sight of company-branded swags and talking to folks in the line-up, it’s not hard to figure out where the folks were heading.) An anti-harassment policy in writing has been in place for the event, with the highest form of punishment being permanent expulsion from the event. The person on the window seat and I, who had the aisle seat, told each other what we do and where we work. Many folks on the flight did the same. The flight was almost four hours from the east coast. My neighbor made anti-mask, racial, and sexual remarks. I told him the remarks were not welcomed and ignored the remarks that followed. Then he used his knee to control my tray table and treated me like someone who didn’t understand English. He also gestured that he wanted to go to the restroom at least eight times (yes I counted). When he returned to his seat, he purposely bumped my body. He also asked for extra alcohol during the flight, but the flight attendant refused to give him the extra serving. When the flight was ready for the passengers to disembark, I picked up my belongings quickly and left. I never saw this person during the event again. Since the behavior did not occur at the conference, I can’t report it to the organizers. Although the travel is a part of work, I can’t report it to my workplace because the unruly neighbor does not work for my employer. This person wasn’t violent or visibly drunk so others could not see. Messaging this person’s employer’s HR would not yield any favorable results and might be inviting him to retaliate. Yeah, there aren’t great options here. The best one probably would have been to talk to a flight attendant during the flight and see if you could be moved, although I realize it’s too late for that now. It’s not entirely true that conferences with anti-harassment policies aren’t interested in behavior outside the conference — if you’d been harassed by a fellow conference attendee at the hotel bar after a day of workshops, for example, most conference organizers would want to know about that, or even if it had happened in a restaurant across town that you had both ended up in while you were in town for the event. But you’re right that the airplane was pretty far afield from that. That said, depending on how flagrant this guy’s remarks were, it’s possible that they’d still fall under the conference’s policy, particularly if he identified himself as a fellow attendee. Beyond that, though, you’re right that there’s not much recourse; this is more like encountering an ass in the wild than encountering one in a work setting. You may also like:I got fired for attending a conference that I wasn’t invited toI have to go to an awkward Valentine's Day work dinner right after a breakupmy employee was upset when I told him drive, not fly, to a conference five hours away { 203 comments }
politely avoiding sitting by a loud coworker, colleague asked me to lead a project and then went silent, and more by Alison Green on January 14, 2025 It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go… 1. Is there a polite way to avoid sitting by a loud coworker? I’ve recently transferred to a new team at work and so far am really enjoying it. The only real snag is that I have trouble sitting nearby one of my teammates, Chris. To be clear, I really like him as a coworker, I don’t have a bad thing to say about the guy! But he has some minor quirks that, without armchair diagnosing, are what you’d generally expect of someone on the spectrum; he rocks in his chair pretty constantly, talks to himself under his breath and makes little humming noises, and taps or scratches at his desk when he’s not typing. It’s pretty subdued and I’d say nondisruptive, except that I am (also) on the spectrum and his particular stimming habits drive me up the wall, and he keeps sitting right next to me when he comes in. (Not because of me specifically, we just have limited seating and both arrive later than most of our team, so we tend to be taking the last two empty seats in our section.) I’m not sure if there’s a way to deal with this beyond gritting my teeth and putting in headphones, or if there’s a polite way to switch desks when someone else leaves for the afternoon without it seeming like I’m snubbing the guy. I don’t want it to come across like that, our work habits are just incompatible and I can’t really focus when I’m near him. Try just naming it matter-of-factly and without judgment! For example: “You tend to talk to yourself while you work and I am weirdly sensitive to sound (or “incredibly easily distracted” or whatever you’re comfortable saying) so I’m going to move to that desk over there. It’s not personal, carry on!” If you say it warmly — and especially if you make a point of being warm to him in other ways/in other situations — it should be fine! 2. HR said we couldn’t consider candidate’s reluctance to meet our in-office requirement I have decades of experience in state and local government at a high level and have participated in dozens of recruitment and hiring efforts, but something that happened today has baffled me. I’m serving on a hiring committee for a large national professional association. One step in the process is an interview done by a consultant, who then briefs the search committee. One candidate told the consultant that they retired after a 20+ year career due to a child’s high level, demanding sports commitments and the desire to participate in those events. They also inquired closely about requirements around in-office work and possible hybrid schedules, even though the job ad clearly stated that in-office work and residence in a particular city was required. Here’s the part that threw me: the HR staffer organizing the search instructed the committee that we were to disregard this information, and should only consider objective qualifications for the position, and that it is never appropriate to consider any personal information offered by a candidate. I would love your take on this viewpoint, as most of us on the committee were surprised at this statement. When we pushed back, we were told that if outside activities interfere with job performance, it can be dealt with at that point. Sure seems crazy to me to ignore relevant data during the interview process, only to perhaps invite problems down the road! Yeah, that’s ridiculous, and it’s a particularly classic brand of incompetence that you sometimes see with bad HR people, where they have (correctly) absorbed that there are some bits of personal info that shouldn’t be considered in hiring but then utterly fail to apply any nuance or distinguish between what’s legally allowable to be considered (and is relevant) and what isn’t. It’s true that you shouldn’t consider irrelevant personal information, like if the candidate mentioned church membership or their love of The X-Files. It is categorically not true that you shouldn’t consider someone heavily implying that they might not want to work the schedule required by the job. It would be far more defensible if the HR person had said, “Let’s not try to guess at what they meant and instead let’s restate the in-office requirements for the job and ask them outright if they can comply with those” … but to say you shouldn’t engage with it at all and just deal with it after they’re hired if it becomes a problem rather than clarifying it earlier? Ludicrous. 3. Senior coworker wanted me to lead a project and then went silent I recently had a senior llama groomer, Betty, reach out, tell me she’s been very pleased with my work, and ask if I’d like to take swing at leading a small group of junior groomers in an upcoming project. (These are fake job titles for anonymity, obviously.) After some hesitation, and probably being very awkward about the praise (I blame my puritan roots) I said yes! Most of the hesitation was based on the fact that my background is in llama herding, so I wasn’t sure if leading groomers was a great fit. But Betty assured me that it would work out, and that she’d be supporting me through it. So, we continue along with some preliminary proposal work, and end up getting awarded the full llama grooming contract. At this point, Betty went into radio silence. Eventually I messaged to check in on the status of the project, and she suggested that maybe I could help out with restocking the grooming supply cabinet. No mention of leading anything or contributing substantively. Ever since, I’ve been reading her messages as being pretty short/cold, but I might be projecting. So what happened?! I figure one of the following: (1) Betty just kind of forgot. (2) Betty realized that a herder just doesn’t have the technical expertise to successfully lead a group of groomers, and felt too awkward to directly address the leadership offer. Or (3) I’ve done something wrong, and now Betty is unhappy with me but won’t address the problem for whatever reason. For what it’s worth, I tend to agree with the thought process in (2). So what might I have done wrong, and what do I do now? Because of the skills mismatch, I’m relieved to be off the hook with this role. But I’d love to work with Betty again, if a better fit came along. Any scripts I could use to address it? Or should I just pretend it never happened and hope for a future opportunity for collaboration? I feel like it’s this huge elephant in the room, but maybe Betty hasn’t given it another thought! It’s possible that you did something wrong that I don’t know about — like you messed up a high-stakes project for Betty and so she rethought the initial offer, or who knows what — but assuming nothing like that happened, I suspect you’re right that it’s #2. You could say this to her: “I know we’d talked a bit about my leading the X work and you ended up going in a different direction for that — which makes a lot of sense to me since my background is in herding. But I’d love to work with you again if something that’s a better fit comes along.” That way, if she is feeling awkward about it, you’ll be smoothing it over, and either way you’re being gracious and reiterating your interest in future projects. 4. Do I have to say where I’m going when I quit? I just got a new job and gave my two weeks. It’s the first time in my career where I’ve found a job while having a job. Our HR person shared with the whole staff what my last day is (that’s typical). When I told my manager, she was super happy for me and then asked where I was headed. I told her I wasn’t currently sharing the place but shared how it’s vaguely related to current work. I have other coworkers who I’m closer with who are also asking me. I’m feeling uncomfortable sharing with people because I didn’t have a good experience with my current manager. There was a lack of trust and I didn’t think she truly had my best interests in mind. For that reason it’s hard to trust that any of my coworkers wouldn’t end up sharing and then it would get back to her somehow. I’m feeling protective of this new job, especially because I didn’t feel supported or fully valued at this current job. Any advice? I want to share with closest colleagues but also don’t want everyone to know right away and I worry about the word getting around. You don’t need to share where you’re going if you don’t want to. It’s definitely more common than not for people to share it — so it’s not odd or intrusive that people are asking — but it’s perfectly fine to say, “I’m not announcing it publicly yet, but I’ll let you know when I do.” Just don’t be awkwardly coy about it, which will seem strange and raise additional questions in people’s minds; it’s better to just come out and say you’re not ready to share yet. 5. I never heard from the hiring manager after I withdrew from the interview process I am relatively new to the corporate world. I recently interviewed for a job at a Fortune 50. The job posting was a little vague on some details of the position, but it was worth a shot, so I tossed in a resume and forgot about it. I was surprised that the first response I had from the company was an invitation to four hours of interviews with the hiring manager and others I’d be working with. I immediately started more research on the position. I discovered the hiring manager had attended my same school, and we had many mutual acquaintances. I asked around about the manager’s reputation. People had uniformly positive feedback. I didn’t ask anyone to recommend or introduce me to the hiring manager as I had already been invited to interview. I had a pleasant experience interviewing and felt I came across all right. However, I also learned the job was not what I had thought it was. I was overqualified on paper but would be in a position of needing to learn a lot in the job, which sounded politically painful, and I wasn’t interested in trying to move into that area of expertise. I sent a thank-you note to each interviewee immediately after the interview. Then, a few days later, I sent a note to the HR contact thanking them for a pleasant interview experience and the opportunity to be considered, but saying that new opportunities in my current role had come up that were a better fit for my skills. The HR person responded with a polite note. I never heard anything back from the hiring manager and feel somehow nervous about that, given how warm he was in the time we spoke. I had emailed HR to withdraw, not him, because as elaborate as the interview was, we had only ever spoken for 30 minutes in our lives, and it was still technically the first interview. I guess I expected a short reply to my thank-you note or a LinkedIn message along the lines of, “I heard you withdrew, sorry it didn’t work out, but nice to meet you!” But maybe he had expected the same from me. All in all, I felt a bit love-bombed by the whole process and was confused on whether this was the first or the last interview. Did I make a faux pas by not reaching out to the hiring manager instead of or in addition to HR? Nope, everyone here behaved appropriately! You thanked people after the interview, then let an appropriate person know you were withdrawing. It would have been appropriate to email either HR or the hiring manager; you chose HR, and they responded. That’s the end of it! It’s not surprising that the hiring manager didn’t contact you personally after you withdrew. It wouldn’t have been odd if he had sent you a short note, but it’s not odd that he didn’t. The loop had already been closed, and he likely was busy with other things. I think you’re feeling strange about it because it felt like the two of you connected when you met, and there hasn’t been any acknowledgement between the two of you that you then dropped out. But this happens all the time, and there doesn’t need to be an additional message between you. However, it would also be fine to email him directly if you want to! You could say you enjoyed talking with him, decided to withdraw because of X, and hope your paths might cross again in the future. But it’s not in his court to make that happen; if you want to do it, you should initiate it from your side! You may also like:is working from an armchair hurting my credibility?new hire keeps kneeling in front of memy coworker stabs office furniture with a knife and no one thinks it's a big deal { 229 comments }
employee runs to work and drips water and mud everywhere when he arrives by Alison Green on January 13, 2025 A reader writes: One of our staff, Leonard, runs to work. Given our local climate, this often results in him arriving damp and/or cold, which has caused issues: • Our offices/meeting rooms have glass walls, so he uses the shared washroom to change on arrival – tromping through in muddy shoes or bare feet, washing his pants in the sink, and dripping water down the hall. On one occasion he dropped soggy underpants beside a female coworker. He immediately apologized and has shown no other signs of being creepy, but she was Not Pleased. • He runs a space heater constantly. He’s not the only one, but he’s the most blatant, to the point that our workplace occupational safety committee has threatened to do a formal inspection of our offices (which they’ve traditionally looked the other way on). If they did, that would result in confiscation of not only the space heater but other not-exactly-approved appliances like personal tea kettles. Alison, there would be riots. • When we have morning in-person meetings, he’s visibly shivering within a few minutes of starting. He never complains or tries to get out of meetings, but he looks so uncomfortable that others have (privately) requested meeting online or later instead. The thing is, we have an on-site gym, with lockers, showers, even a sauna. However, it is not free – and not cheap! – for staff, so most (including Leonard) have not purchased memberships. I feel like all of these issues would be solved if he just bought one, but I also don’t think any of these issues are severe enough that we can compel him to spend his own money on gym access (and unfortunately the cost is unlikely to change anytime soon). Your thoughts? Yeah, you shouldn’t push him to buy a gym membership, but you should lay out clearer expectations about what he can and can’t do in the office. It’s reasonable to say that he can’t leave a mess of mud or water in the bathroom or the halls, and you can flag for him that people have privately asked to reschedule meetings because his visible shivering makes them feel like they’re imposing on him. The space heater is a little different. If other people also run space heaters in violation of the office rules, you can’t really tell him that he can’t. But you could come up with specific modifications he needs to make — like if other people are only getting away with it because they’re using them rarely whereas he’s running his full-blast all day, you can tell him he needs to pull his usage back. In fact, since he’s presumably running it because he’s cold, you could fold that in the conversation about shivering. Here’s framing that would cover it all: “I need you to figure out a better solutions for mornings when you arrive wet or cold from running to work. Fairly often you’ve come in with muddy shoes or bare feet and washed off in the bathroom sink, which leads to mud and/or water on the floors in the bathroom and the hallways. Can you find a solution that doesn’t leave that sort of mess for others? … I also want to figure out what we can do about your temperature when you arrive very cold since a few people have privately asked me to reschedule morning meetings because they feel awful that you’re shivering. Unfortunately, running a space heater all day isn’t a solution — we’re not supposed to have them at all, and while the facilities team has been looking the other way, they will eventually remove them for everyone if they realize you’re running one so frequently.” (Writing this out makes me realize I might actually leave the shivering out of it — both because people are allowed to be visibly cold and because it’s likely to be solved by addressing the other issues anyway.) If he seems stumped about what to do, you could mention that the on-site gym could be a solution — but at the same time, be aware that it might not be realistic financially and/or he may not want a gym membership, which is a whole different thing than running outside and also doesn’t solve his commute. But ultimately your job isn’t to solve this for him; you just need to lay out the pieces that need to change (mostly, no mess in the bathroom and halls) and let him decide how he’ll do that. You may also like:I told a coworker I was “disgusted” with her, a wet Speedo on the office door, and moremy boss follows me into the bathroom to talk about worka follow-up on the boss dumping pee in the sink ... with Ask a Clean Person { 470 comments }