my chatty employee is annoying his quieter coworker

A reader writes:

I supervise a group of part-time workers doing what amounts to unskilled menial labor. One of the workers, Kent, is an older gentleman who has been doing this job for decades. He is known to be very chatty. Everyone kind of groans internally when they see him coming because they know they’re in for a 15-minute diatribe on the weather and what kind of wardrobe it calls for.

Another of the workers, Aaliyah, is a 30-something woman who is no shrinking violet. They work the same shift all week. Lately it hasn’t been very busy, so there is downtime and Kent seems to spend a lot of it following Aaliyah around, chatting at her. On the one hand, I’m sure this is very annoying, but on the other, she is a full grown woman who knows how to take care of herself and all of the work is getting done. Is this something I should intervene in? I don’t get the impression that his talk is inappropriate, just constant. Aaliyah is assertive so I don’t think she needs me stepping in for her, but maybe the work context changes things?

I answer this question — and three 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:

  • How can I head off pregnancy talk at work?
  • Can I discipline a candidate who didn’t show up to a job interview?
  • Keeping a file of personal items at work

we had to share our “shadow sides” and “be more vulnerable” at a meeting

A reader writes:

The small team of seven people I’m on (within a Fortune 500 company) recently had an offsite for team-building and strategic planning. A junior employee was assigned to plan the team-building part of our offsite. She’s repeatedly said she wants more trust within the team and for us to feel like a “family.” So she planned an activity for us to “be more vulnerable with each other.” We were given blank paper masks and asked to draw/paint our strengths and things we showed to the world on the front of the mask, and then on the back to draw/paint our “shadow sides” or weaknesses or things we don’t usually share in the workplace. Then we were all asked to share.

I managed this by not talking about anything I didn’t want to share. But one employee cried while sharing and another was visibly uncomfortable. I’ve done this type of activity before, but in the context of group therapy under the supervision of a professional therapist!

I have the credibility and capital to share some feedback with my management team about this activity. But I’m having a hard time figuring out how to articulate it beyond “inappropriate for the workplace.” I don’t want them to tell the junior employee that other people didn’t like her activity, but I do want the managers to vet activities going forward! Do you have any suggested language to talk about this?

Eeessh…

It’s so common for managers to let employees plan this kind of activity without any oversight! Often the first time other people hear details about the activity are when it’s being announced at the meeting and everyone is expected to participate on the spot. It’s pretty bizarre since if team-building and ice-breakers are valuable enough to spend meeting time on (and they can be! I’m not saying they never are), you’d think they’d be important enough for someone to review before setting a junior staffer loose with complete free rein to come up with anything they want.

Especially one who has repeatedly said the team should feel more like a family.

Anyway, here’s your list of reasons:

* Highly personal activities about people’s most intimate selves are best done with the guidance of a therapist or at a spiritual retreat, not at work. For many people, good-faith participation in this activity would have meant delving into and revealing trauma, which no one should have to do at work … and which could be counter to some employees’ mental health needs.

* It’s intrusive. Many people feel violated by demands that they lower their boundaries, and feel being expected to share deeply intimate things with colleagues or managers as highly invasive and overstepping.

* Asking employees to “be more vulnerable” may not actually be safe for everyone there to do. It puts some people — particularly those with marginalized identities — in a position of actual vulnerability and risks opening them up to discrimination.

* It’s true that high-functioning teams are ones where people feel psychologically safe and where they can be their authentic selves. However, that environment is something that’s created by good management over a sustained period of time. Simply demanding emotional intimacy from employees doesn’t achieve that; to that contrary, that will make many people feel less safe.

* Activities like these always need to be opt-in; people should never feel obligated or pressured to participate. (And even opt-in activities can be inappropriate for work, and I’d argue this one is.)

So yes, please do share feedback with your management team about what happened at this meeting, and ask that future activities be vetted ahead of time and guidelines provided to anyone charged with planning them. Your coworkers will thank you.

Read an update to this letter.

play-fighting at work, love letters on a shared drive, and more

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

1. Employees’ banter turned into play-fighting

I have a fairly established team who all get along very well. Two members of my team, Pam and Angela, are particularly close. They chat outside of work, enjoy sharing projects, and always speak well of each other. With their good relationship comes a fair amount of teasing. Nothing over the line, and always taken in good humor.

We have an in-office meeting once a month, and during the latest one an incident happened that I don’t know what to do about.

It was a great meeting, very informal, we had pizza and shared lots of great ideas. Pam and Angela were having a bit of banter, during which Angela slapped Pam on the shoulder. It sounded hard — it echoed through the room! Pam laughed and seemed to find it amusing, and Angela looked a bit embarrassed at how carried away she’d got. It very much felt like the kind of play-fight that might break out between siblings.

We moved on, and nothing else has been said. I don’t know how to handle this now. Should I pick it up with Angela? It’s sounds very patronizing to tell a grown woman not to hit her friends, and she already seemed embarrassed about it. On the other hand, it was a ridiculous thing to do in work and while I like to keep our meetings causal, it’s still work. What do I do, if anything?!

I think you could do nothing at this point if you choose to — they have a jokey relationship, Pam didn’t seem bothered, and Angela looked embarrassed. It’s unlikely that you have an “Angela think it’s okay to slap her coworkers” problem on your hands.

That said, you certainly have standing to address it if you want to. You could say to Angela, “I know you have a jokey relationship with Pam, but you can’t slap anyone at work, even in jest.” And you could say to Pam, “I know you have a jokey relationship with Angela, but it wasn’t okay that she slapped you yesterday. I wanted to check in with you and make sure you’re okay and there’s not more going on.”

2. I found love letters on a shared drive

I’m an admin in a large corporation. We are planning a big migration of our shared drive to a new software provider, and ahead of the migration, I was tasked with organizing the digital files of one of my superiors. One of the many challenges in organizing his section of the shared drive was that he had many personal files mixed in with his professional files, such as a letter to his landscaper and an invoice for a new mattress.

Then I found a pair of love letters. They had been given names that disguised them as documents pertaining to a real professional matter. At first I thought they were wildly inappropriate correspondence with a business associate, but I’ve never heard of the woman to whom the letters are addressed. The letters just seem to be declarations of love to his sweetheart.

I’m at a total loss to what I should do here. The letters are very intimate, but not sexually explicit outside of a reference to “nights spent together.” I can tell my superior wouldn’t have wanted me to see them, but they’re in a section of the shared drive that I didn’t not require any special permission to access. Anyone could have found them at any time. I obviously can’t put these letters with the other documents pertaining to the real professional matter. Should I just delete them? Should I tell my manager what I’ve found? I’m mortified and so lost!

Make a folder called “personal” and put all the personal stuff in there, mattress invoice and love letters alike. Then put it out of your mind and never think about it again. No need to mention it to him specifically, beyond perhaps “I put all the personal stuff in its own folder so you can move it off the shared drive.”

To be clear, if he were the one writing in, I’d tell him not to keep love letters on a shared drive — or on a work computer, period. And I’d definitely tell him not to give them names that sound like they’re work-related, holy crap. But he’s not the one writing in.

3. Should I help out a new person at my old job?

I recently left a position I had been in for five years for a similar one at a new employer. It was not an easy choice and though I am in a better spot now than I was a year ago, my first choice would have been to stay with my old job closer to home in a city where my husband and I have friends. The higher-ups there made it impossible when my immediate supervisor resigned and they asked me to take an interim position without any kind of timeline and without offering me more pay for the extra responsibilities. I have moved on, but still feel a lot of leftover resentment about how I was treated and the resulting burn-out.

My old employer is now having a lot of trouble filling their open position. I have heard from my former supervisor that they’ve asked her if she has any interest in returning to her former role and she turned them down. I have been contacted by a new person in a new management position who wants to talk about their “challenges.” I’m torn because this new person didn’t mistreat me and I would like things to be better for the next person in that role. I have a long history with this employer, having worked for them before I went to grad school in addition to working for them recently. Careers are long and while I wouldn’t move back to work for them again right now, they are the best choice closest to home. On the other hand, the other people in management had a chance to do an exit interview or have this convo before I left that they let slip by. Or they could have just promoted me and paid me more and we all could have avoided the trouble.

I could quote them a consultant fee, but I work in academia and I’m not sure that’s common practice. I’m in librarianship, where the expectation is to offer support to librarians at other institutions without being paid, but this isn’t exactly the same since it’s coming from management. If it were coming from my old bosses, I’d say no. If it were coming from a newly hired librarian, I’d say yes. Since it’s coming from neither, I’m conflicted. What would you advise?

It’s 100% up to you! One question to ask yourself, though: do you have reason to think that talking to this person will truly change anything for the next person? When the problems are really entrenched, most often it won’t.

But it really just comes down to whether you feel like doing it or not. If you don’t, it’s perfectly fine to say, “I’m booked solid right now. I’m sorry I can’t help!” If you feel more comfortable softening it, feel free to add, “I’ll reach out if that changes.” (That doesn’t obligate you to get back in touch later.)

4. My client is holding up half my fee because she’s too busy to schedule a meeting

I’m a freelancer who works on niche projects for clients I know well, so while I’ve learned over the years to be very explicit about timelines and payments, my contracts tend to reflect the casual and flexible nature of these long-term working relationships. Recently, I had a new client whose company I work for in a different capacity ask me to complete a survey project for her. I drew up a contract where I would invoice half my fee upon submitting the survey, and the second half of the fee once we met to discuss the results (this follow-up meeting was included in the scope of work). I set a date for when the work and all meetings would be completed.

Though my work was submitted on time, the meeting kept getting pushed back and never scheduled, as the company owner was very busy. It was a small project, so half my fee is not a huge amount of money, but if I had known the meeting would not happen for months I never would have structured the fee payment that way. The truth is that the bulk of the work had already happened, and this was just a small way to acknowledge that they would see the work before finishing the payment. They were very pleased with work, and it is annoying to have half my fee held up because we can’t schedule a meeting. After months, I emailed the company head and explained that since we were well past the date outlined in the agreement, I was going to complete the invoice, but I know that we still have that meeting on the books and I’ll be happy to meet whenever they want to schedule. I thought this would give them some scheduling breathing room, since I could be paid but then meet whenever this survey project cycled back into priority. I still work for another part of the company, so everyone speaks with me regularly — it’s not like I’m going to vanish. The company head responded saying, essentially, thanks for the gentle nudge and yes let’s set up that meeting asap, and seemed a little taken aback that I wanted to invoice before completing the duties I had said I would complete (i.e., the meeting). I was worried I had not clearly explained my logic, and so replied that I would be happy to hold off invoicing if we could meet soon, but that the fee structure presumed a timeline roughly within the one we had set in the scope of work, and that I wouldn’t have structured it that way if I had known we would not meet until much later. She replied vaguely, insisting she knows this is important and will get to that meeting soon, she promised. So I thought I was emailing with a very specific request and now I’m back in limbo.

I know, lesson learned, that I should not have split the invoice this way, since it did not reflect the input of work. But do I have any recourse now? I need to keep a good working relationship with this company, and I don’t want to come off as petty. I think I’ve pushed as hard as I can with this last email, and they definitely bristled at my suggestion to get paid now but commit to holding that meeting whenever it makes sense for them.

Given all the factors here — the way the contract was written, the need to keep a good relationship with them, the fact that it’s a small amount of money and you’re working with them on other projects — I’d set it aside for one month. But then, if the meeting still hasn’t been scheduled at that point, just send the invoice over with a note saying, “Attached is my invoice for the remainder due on the X project.” Leave the meeting in their court, but make it clear you need to be paid.

If you think you need to be more delicate about it, you could instead wait the month and then say, “Since it’s been X months since the work was submitted, I do need to close out payment. I don’t want to push you on the meeting if it’s tough to schedule right now, but I’ll plan to submit the invoice by ___ (date about two weeks away) either way.” And then … submit the invoice by the date you name in that message. But really, the first option should be fine unless these people require very careful handling.

Also, is your normal contact there someone different than the owner who bristled? If so, you might talk to that person and ask about the best way to navigate it. They might even be able to submit the invoice for you and get it handled without involving the owner at all, depending on how stuff works there.

5. My company gives free lunch to one location but not another

I am located in Florida. My previous company A had a cafeteria and charged employees $3 for lunch if we decided to eat there.

A few years ago, company B bought company A. Company B has a few locations our county and they get free lunches in their cafeterias. This is mentioned on their job postings. This is a very large company based in the U.S. When company B took over, employees spoke about us now getting free lunches like their other nearby locations. However, the $3 charge didn’t change. The cafeteria manager let it slip that company B saw the profit the lunches were making and decided to keep the $3 charge. This meant that we paid $15 more per week than the other locations if we decided to eat in the cafeteria (most employees did). Is this legal?

It is indeed legal. It might not be fair or good for morale, but it’s legal. Employers are allowed to treat different employees differently as long as it’s not based on a characteristic that’s specifically protected by law (such as race, sex, religion, age if over 40, or disability). They can legally say “we’re going to have a different policy for employees at location X” as long as there’s not what the law calls “disparate impact” on one of those protected classes (like if employees at your location were disproportionately a different race from the other locations).

we need to tell our remote employees they can’t take care of young kids while they’re working

A reader writes:

We are in the place many employers are where we are needing to walk back our pandemic-era policy around children being home when people are working. For context, this is a call center job so people are on the phone with customers the majority of the day. For those in leadership, we have a lot of virtual meetings.

We’ve been able to green light all front-line positions staying fully remote, as there is no business need for them to come into office. But we’re running into more and more issues with people having small children, even infants, home all day while they work. From hearing kids in the background of calls, to toddlers sitting on laps during training, to people explaining their low production numbers with needing to tend to their children, it’s an issue that needs to be addressed. (An important note is that availability of childcare is not a big issue in our area. People are choosing to keep kids home to save money or due to personal preference, not due to lack of options.)

My question is how to put meaningful guidelines around it. To some degree, it will vary by child whether their parent can work from home successfully while the child is also at home, but it also seems like we need a cutoff for kids under a certain age (for example, infants and toddlers just aren’t independent enough to not be a distraction). We don’t want to be overly restrictive, and we want leave some space for one-offs. Ideally someone does not have their five-year-old home all day every day, but if there is an issue that means it needs to happen for one day, maybe that’s okay.

Should this sound something like, “We expect you to have regular, dependable childcare for children under X age while working from home. We understand that there may be occasions when you need to have young children home and this is permissible so long as it doesn’t affect the quality of your work, but it cannot be your day-to-day plan to have them home.”

Many people have the impression that this is a benefit of the job (certainly not something we told them, it’s an assumption), and this needed change will probably mean we lose some employees, but we just can’t have a kid screaming for juice while our employee is trying to help a customer.

Before the pandemic, it was customary for companies to have policies requiring that employees working from home have separate child care in place for young kids, and to strictly enforce that. The reason, obviously, was that you can’t take care of little kids while also devoting your full attention to your job; young kids need a lot of supervision and attention.

If anyone doubted that, Covid certainly proved it — it’s why so many parents desperately needed some slack during the pandemic when their kids weren’t in school or daycare and they had no choice but to care for them at the same time they were working, which caused many companies to relax their policies. Even after schools and daycares opened back up, childcare shortages lingered in a lot of areas (and before vaccination was available to very young kids, out-of-home care wasn’t a safe option for many families). Good employers have rightly chosen to accommodate all of that, since the alternative would mean parents would have to drop out of the workforce altogether (something that would — and indeed did — affect women in far greater numbers).

But if child care availability is no longer an issue in your area — and that is a huge, huge caveat — then it makes sense to return to the pre-pandemic expectation of separate child care for people with young kids. How young is up to you. Pre-pandemic it was pretty typical for those policies to apply to kids up to 10 or 12. (Personally I think that’s on the high end, particularly if the kids are in school much of the day. Ideally policies would leave this up to the parents’ own judgment about their own children, but if that worked you wouldn’t need the policy at all.)

Whatever age you choose, you can include wording that makes exceptions for one-off’s. For example: “Remote workers are expected to arrange for child care just as they would if they were working in the office. If you have a child under age X, we expect you to have separate child care in place during your working hours. We will make occasional exceptions for unplanned or temporary circumstances (like a school closure or a sick child) but these should be the exception and not the norm.”

You might also speak to the outcome you’re attempting to achieve: “Remote workers should have a quiet, distraction-free working space where they can ensure callers will not overhear household noise. We understand that the nature of working at home is that you cannot control every possible sound a caller might hear, but callers hearing noise from (for example) children, pets, televisions, etc. should be a rarity rather than a commonplace occurrence.”

You should also give your employees a grace period before you start enforcing the policy since if they don’t know it’s coming, they’ll need to time to make arrangements to comply with it.

Read an update to this letter.

should I put more effort into making friends at work?

A reader writes:

I started at my company almost five years ago. I’m married and was pregnant when I started, and though I worked full-time and more than satisfied my boss, I didn’t get along well with many of the other women on my team who were in different life stages and had different work ethics than myself. There was just no personal chemistry. After having my baby and coming back to the office, my boss gave me a promotion and created a role just for me, managing a team of six.

The whole time I’ve been here, I’ve had the attitude of “I’m here to work, not make friends” and have kept only civil work relationships with most of my coworkers. This has been particularly necessary because I’m managing people; I know that it would be unprofessional of me to show personal preferences for people or be too honest about what I really think on some work issues or about what I do outside of work.

I’ve definitely felt excluded from the cliques and friendly groups, and have known for a few years that I’m not well liked. I don’t get invited to lunch, or to people’s happy hours, to weddings, or other events when other coworkers are. People go on vacation and bring back souvenirs for everyone but me. I don’t like it, but it’s not something that keeps me up at night. I do have the respect of and positive work relationships with my boss and other department managers, which I try to think of as more important.

But I’m now questioning whether I should have put more effort into making friends at work. I sometimes feel that my lack of friendship with people I’ve worked with for five years is holding me back in collaboration and general inclusion. I don’t know if it’s too late to change direction. I otherwise like my job and the company I work for, but I do feel lonely sometimes and question whether it would be worth starting fresh somewhere else, along with the benefits of maturing my career by moving on to something new and a little more challenging (I’m in my early 30’s).

I’m curious why you’ve chosen this path because it sounds as if it’s making your life at work a lot less pleasant than it could be!

Sometimes you do end up in a workplace where you don’t have much personal chemistry with any of the people around you … but it sounds as if you made a deliberate decision to avoid having friendly connections with any co-workers, and you’re feeling the effects of that now.

Friendships at work aren’t something you need to avoid! It’s true that, as a manager, the nature of the job means you can’t be true friends with the people you manage — although you can and should have warm, friendly relationships with them, and you can still talk about your weekends and know a bit about one another’s lives. But there’s no reason you can’t have closer relationships with peers and other colleagues who don’t report to you.

I think, though, this might be less about friendship and more about warmth. There’s a really big middle ground between seeking out friendships at work and deliberately avoiding them, and that middle ground is just being pleasant and friendly. You don’t need to hang out with co-workers after hours or go to their houses for dinner, but you can still joke around with them, talk about your cats, dissect the series you’ve all been binge-watching, laugh about this morning’s bonkers meeting, or otherwise just connect with colleagues in an affable way. This middle ground is actually where most people dwell! People often distinguish between “work friends” and “friend friends,” and this is usually what they mean by the former.

There are a ton of benefits to approaching work this way. Most obviously, it will make the hours you spend at work much more pleasant! It’s a quality-of-life boost to enjoy the relationships you have with the people you’re dealing with all day. But it can also make your life easier — and even make your work better. When you have good relationships with co-workers, they’re usually more willing to go out of their way to help you when you need it (beyond the bare minimum of what their job might require, like if you messed something up and needed help getting it fixed quickly rather than just eventually). They’re also likelier to give you the benefit of the doubt more and kick ideas around with you. You might find that people are more responsive, as well as more willing to reach out to you with questions, if they find you approachable. Plus you’ll be more likely to hear information outside of official channels, anything from “That job you were interested in is about to open up again” and “Casey used to work with the new manager, and here’s what she’s like” to “They’re talking about raising the cost of parking passes next quarter.” Stuff like that can be useful to know, and you’ll generally get left out of it if you’re not talking to people informally. It can benefit you in more formal ways too; when people know and like you, you’re more likely to come to mind when they’re thinking of someone to lead a project or recommend for a job or other potential opportunities.

You don’t need to form deep friendships to reap these benefits; simply being warm and friendly and showing a genuine interest in your colleagues as people is enough to provide the social lubricant that will get you there.

Whether or not you can accomplish this at your current company after five years of not reaching out is a trickier question. You probably can if you put genuine effort into it. You’d need to make a point of asking people questions about themselves and their work, taking a moment at the beginning of meetings to inquire about how people are doing, cracking the occasional joke, and generally just injecting more warmth into routine interactions. If you do, you likely can change the relationships you have there one person at a time.

On the other hand, you would get a fresh start if you went somewhere new, especially since you mentioned seeing other advantages like wanting more challenging work. It could indeed be easier to change course without colleagues who at this point probably assume you want to be more or less left alone. Five years is a solid stay, and if you do decide to start fresh somewhere else, there won’t be anything odd about choosing to move on after this amount of time. And the same suggestions for being friendly but not friends would apply in a new workplace.

Either way, I suspect you’ll enjoy work more if you decide it’s okay to connect with the people you encounter there.

Originally published at New York Magazine.

I’m biased against people who went to women’s colleges

A reader writes:

I have a strong opinion about something that is making me biased as a manager. I am a woman and I dislike the idea of women’s colleges. I feel things people cannot help like age, race, disability, or sexual orientation are not the same as college choice. People pick where they go to college.

There are a few things that lead me to this opinion:

(1) When women’s colleges were created, it was because women were not admitted to men’s colleges. This made a lot of sense. Now women have many more options for education and I think they no longer serve a purpose.

(2) I think women self selecting to only have an education with each other is a bit precious. There is no avoiding men, they make up half the population. Deliberately selecting to learn only with other women illustrates, to me, intolerance and inflexibility.

(3) Men’s only colleges would be banned but women’s only are still acceptable. I think, as women, the best way to combat sexism and misogyny is to insist that things are equal. It’s really not fair to say, “I want the same things as a man, except when I go to school, I don’t want them around.”

(4) The endowments at woman’s colleges are huge. I mean, it’s a ton of money. And this has the potential to be allocated towards initiatives that would uplift so many more women.

I know it sounds backwards, but because I want to be taken seriously as a woman, I do not support institutions that exclude men.

In addition to this, when I meet a woman who attended a women’s college, I assume she will expect a more than average amount of coddling. I expect entitlement and privilege. I expect her to have difficulty working with the men on our team.

It hasn’t been an issue at work until we went through a restructuring and my team needed two new people. I sat in on the hiring process. One of the applicants was from a women’s college and ultimately the hiring committee selected her. My boss pulled me aside and said that he knows I had an “immediate dislike” to this new hire but she was a sound applicant and I need to respect their decision. I did not realize I was so obvious with my dislike until he said this. I need to manage her fairly. If I could flip a switch in my brain to not have this bias, I would. I anticipate a lot of comments like “just stop thinking that about women’s colleges” but it’s not that easy. How do I override a bias and learn to disregard a choice I genuinely think shows poor judgment?

I also want to be very clear: I am aware this is a bias and I want to overcome it to manage my employee fairly.

Not only is this a bias, it’s an irrational bias.

It’s not like having a bias against people who, I don’t know, spit on their clients or cheated to get through college. Those are biases that would be rooted in a true-to-life fact about the person. But this one is an irrational bias because the assumptions behind it are wrong.

Students at women’s colleges aren’t generally there because they’re too precious to learn otherwise or need to be coddled or are intolerant of men (!). They’re generally there because they like the academic programs the college offers, or they want more equitable access to STEM education (there’s tons of data showing that students at women’s colleges are more likely to major in STEM fields than women elsewhere; they’re also more than twice as likely to attend medical school, earn doctoral degrees, and be involved in philanthropic activity), or they’ve read the data showing (or personally experienced) that male voices are more likely to drown out women’s in many classrooms (even to the point of men getting called on more).

You’re right that it’s no longer the case that women are shut out of other institutions of higher education — but women are still at a disadvantage in a bunch of other ways: on average, we still don’t earn equal pay for equal work, we account for a far smaller portion of leadership positions than men do (despite making up more of the workforce than they do), and we’re drastically under-represented in government and on corporate boards. Sexism is still here and still a problem. In that context, why shouldn’t some women choose to seek out institutions that prioritize women’s leadership and accomplishments and where no one is going to second-guess their abilities simply on the basis of their gender?

When a group is marginalized, it’s not promoting inequality to recognize that reality and choose to build affiliation and networks with each other as a way to redress some of that. You wrote that it’s not fair to ask for equality “except when I go to school.” But it’s not inequality for a systematically marginalized group to create space to support and amplify their priorities. That’s an attempt to level the playing field — to balance it, not imbalance it.

(Relatedly, I hope/assume you don’t have the same objections to candidates from Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Assuming you agree there’s still a place for HBCUs, I’m curious why you think women’s colleges aren’t okay.)

If you really want to move past your bias, I’d encourage you to look at the data on women’s colleges and the success of their graduates (which by many measures is significantly higher than women from co-educational institutions). If these women were emerging from college inflexible and needing to be coddled, you’d presumably see that reflected in their achievement levels. Take a look — you won’t find it.

More than that, though, you need to do the same work you’d hopefully do to counter any other type of unfair bias you want to combat in yourself: be mindful of it, spend more time with people who are different from you, be specific in your intent to change the way you’re doing things, and seek out advice on specific practices you can put in place to guard against internal biases (like evaluating work “blind,” for example, but there’s a ton of reading you can do for more ideas on this).

For what it’s worth, though, there’s a strong undercurrent of “I’m justified in feeling this way” throughout your letter, and you’ll never successfully counter your biases if you don’t first drop that.

apologies in out-of-office messages, avoiding Boss’s Day gifts, and more

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

1. Religious apologies in out-of-office messages

It’s pretty common in Jewish circles to send mass blanket apologies (in email and social media) to coworkers, friends, and family, apologizing for anything they might have done during the year to offend the other person, whether intentional or unintentional. These messages usually come in September, just before the beginning of the Jewish high holiday season.

What are your thoughts on out of office messages in workplaces that are not specifically Jewish workplaces containing such an apology, but not explicitly explaining why the employee is apologizing? I’ve done it for years, as have many of my coworkers (we are a global organization and my Jewish coworkers and I work all over the world).

For example, my out-of-office messages have said something along the lines of, “I will be out of the office from September 25 to 27. If I have done anything to offend you this past year, please accept my apology.” It probably might seem a bit odd and confusing to non-Jews who have no idea why Jews do this, but I still feel compelled to insert an apology in my out of office message every year. My (non-Jewish) boss told me this year that last year’s message was the most interesting OOO message he had ever read, so this year I toned it down; my OOO had just the dates I would be out, followed by, “Please forgive me.”

First, I am Jewish and have never heard of this, nor have any of my Jewish friends/family who I polled! We all agreed we would be confused if we received this. That doesn’t really matter — there are lots of things where different Jews observe differently — but I’m noting it to say I think even many Jews won’t realize what you are doing!

So answering as someone who wouldn’t understand what I was seeing … it would seem very strange and confusing, if not downright alarming. I wouldn’t connect it to Yom Kippur and would wonder if you’d been offending people left and right and were now trying to cover your bases before you got fired, or possibly even if you had been suspended and that’s why you were out of the office. (I’d also wonder how it could be a sincere apology when you don’t even know who you’re apologizing to, since it’s an auto-response. If you had offended me during the past year and then I got that auto-response, it wouldn’t feel like a real apology.)

I’m obviously not commenting on it as a religious practice — although I don’t think you should involve others in your religious practices at work — but I do think it’s going to come across extremely oddly to most people. I would leave it out of your auto-response.

2. How do I avoid Boss’s Day gifts next year?

I had no idea Boss’s Day was this weekend, and my staff have never done anything for it even though I’ve been a manager for 10 years (with the same team the whole time). This year, one of my staff dropped off a gift, with a card with a very sweet message — total value under $10. He gave it to me personally, to my great surprise, told me Boss’s Day was Sunday, and left my office with a smile.

Now, I don’t think he’s trying to curry favor. I think this is genuinely just something generous he wanted to do, and once I read the card I dropped him a note and thanked him. But I still feel awkward, because this has never happened before, and because (like you) I think Boss’s Day is inappropriate. What’s the best way to handle this to make sure it doesn’t happen again?

Ward it off ahead of time next year! One easy way to do it is to send around an article like the one I have here (or anything similar; doesn’t need to be mine) with a note saying something like, “I agree with this! I don’t believe in Boss’s Day and hope none of you feel any pressure to buy into it (or to send cards or gifts my way at the holidays, for that matter). Your good work is always the only gift I want!” Do this two weeks beforehand, so it’s early enough to stamp out anything that might be about to be planned. (This might feel a little weird to the rest of your team, who have worked with you for years without it coming up, but they’ll presumably be aware new team members have been added in that time and that they don’t know what other people might be doing individually.)

3. My employer reimbursed my student loan payments and now my payments have been refunded

I recently paid off my student loans!

I work for a nonprofit and I love the organization. One of my benefits over the past few years has been student loan reimbursement. This allowed me to keep paying during the Covid “pause.”

Now those payments (almost $6,000) are refundable and my refund just came through. Do I need to give it back to my employer? HR told me that they would appreciate giving it back. I don’t want to steal from a charity. What do you think?

So you made the payments, your employer reimbursed you for them, and now the original payments themselves have been refunded? Yeah, you should pay that back; otherwise you’re getting an extra $6,000 when that wasn’t the intent of your employer’s program. They just wanted to reimburse you for payments that have now been reimbursed from a different source. You don’t necessarily have to (that would depend on the wording of any written agreement you had with them), but a nonprofit that you still work for and that you love? It does feel like cheating them if you don’t.

(It’s interesting to consider, though, what your obligations would be if you didn’t still work there; in theory the obligation should be the same, but in practice I don’t think it would feel as strongly obligatory and I can’t fully defend that.)

4. How do I tell my boss to stop being so long-winded in meetings?

I work at a social justice organization where the white VP I report to takes up way too much air time during internal and, worse yet, external meetings with prospective funders (we’re a nonprofit). It’s particularly painful when the people of color we’re meeting with can’t get a word in edgewise and she talks over them when they are able to jump in. Colleagues are asking me how to get her to stop behaving like this. FWIW, I’m also a white woman who feels like I should be the one to talk to her about it, but I’m honestly afraid of getting on her wrong side and jeopardizing my job. When I’ve had “radical candor” conversations with her about other issues, she gets a deer-in-the-headlights look on her face and then is angry and defensive.

It sounds like it’s going to need to come from someone above her. You already know that she gets angry and defensive when you give her candid feedback, so it’s a job for her boss or someone else with authority over her. What you can do, though, is talk to someone in that category and ask them to intervene.

5. I made an employer wait 10 days for an answer to their offer … and then I turned it down

I recently had a job offer that I think I may have totally messed up. Basically, I was going through an interview process for a job I was intrigued by, but not totally sold on. There were two interviews, and during each one I let them know that I had a week-long family vacation coming up, and that if they contacted me during that time I might be slow to respond.

On the first day of my vacation, literally when I was waiting in line to board the plane, I got an email from the hiring manager, Bob, offering me the position. This was a Friday, so I asked if I could get back to them on Monday, and they said that was fine.

However, as soon as my flight landed, it became clear that I would not be able to fully consider the offer during the trip. The agenda ended up being booked solid each day, and internet access was slim to none. Not only would it have been difficult to fit in a call to Bob, but I also wanted to give my current employer a chance to counter-offer, and that would’ve been completely infeasible with the trip schedule. So I emailed Bob again on Monday and said I was sorry, but I wasn’t going to be able to deal with this during my vacation after all and would need to let them know the following Monday.

After I got back (the following Monday — so 10 days after the offer had been made) I told my employer about the offer, and they ended up making a very compelling counteroffer, which I decided to take, so I ended up turning down Bob, who was very disappointed. Now I feel guilty, because I know I made Bob wait 10 days to ultimately still be rejected. However, I am having trouble thinking of what I could’ve done differently. What is your take?

You’re fine. It would have been shady if you had made him wait 10 days if your intent was always to just use his offer to get a better one from your current job, but it doesn’t sound like that was the case. And you’d told him from the beginning that that you were going to be away and less responsive during that time anyway.

When a hiring manager agrees to give you more time to consider an offer, that doesn’t create an additional obligation to accept the job at the end of that period. It’s always understood that you could come back and say no. If that was going to be a problem for Bob, he could have explained that he needed your answer sooner. Yes, it’s disappointing when you wait for a candidate (while keeping all your other candidates on hold) and they turn the job down, but that’s a normal part of how job offers can go.

how should I handle my downtime when I’m working from home?

A reader writes:

In the Before Times (when a vast majority of us went to another location for work), when you arrived was the start of your day. Now with many people being hybrid, start times seem a little more fluid and I’m wondering what the “right/ethical” way to operate is. For reference, I am a salaried employee for my company, but I’m a contractor for the government. This means my hours worked need to be tracked much more aggressively than a normal salaried person (and why I’m having questions about this to begin with). My job revolves around editing, so it’s an ebb and flow of being SO BUSY and then not.

For example, I work from home 4 days and go into an office 1 day a week. My start time on WFH is 7:30 am when I lean over to my nightstand and check my work cellphone for emails, and then (depending on if I have emails or not) I’ll get up or stay in bed a little longer. On the days I have work waiting for me, I’ll quickly start my work day but on the days I don’t … I’ll stay in bed until something comes in (which could be a few minutes up to an hour).

My boss and coworkers have never said anything about my start times or anything so this is purely me wondering if what I’m doing is ethical. You’ve written before about being available to do tasks and technically speaking I am available at 7:30 am. Just sometimes … there’s nothing waiting for me and I can sleep longer (or watch TV, or make elaborate breakfast, etc). And on the days I go into the office, I’m checking my work phone, then getting ready, then checking my work phone and jumping in the car, then checking work phone and waiting for the bus, etc. So again, I’m “waiting” for work. (Although on days I’m going into the office, if I was given something to do RIGHT THIS SECOND I might not be able to do it but I can reply and say I’ll get on it once I arrive at work.)

I believe other people are doing the same thing I am at my job, but I can’t exactly ask, “Hey, are you also sleeping in longer when there’s nothing to do?” I finish my tasks and I’ve been told I do good work so I’m not worried that I’m doing something wrong, but having a work cell phone has made my clock-in/clock-out much harder to pinpoint. I’m “available” 40 hrs a week but some days if I didn’t roll out of bed until noon (not work from bed — like truly laying in bed not working), no one would know since there wasn’t work for me to do. I don’t think I’m operating in bad faith but maybe I need a reality check?

Personally, I think that if you’re getting all your work done, are available when needed, and your employer is happy with your work, what you’re doing is fine. When you’re in the office, it’s very unlikely that you’re being productive every single minute — lots of people have jobs where the work ebbs and flows throughout the day (or throughout the week, month, quarter, or year) and during their slower times spend that downtime chatting with coworkers, reading the news, and so forth. When you work from home, that same downtime can feel like you’re somehow cheating the system, but it’s not really that different from downtime at the office — the difference is just that you’re spending it in bed rather than lingering in the office kitchen chatting to a colleague or similar. It feels more decadent (you’re at home! you’re in bed! it’s more relaxing!) but the practical effect on your work is pretty much the same.

That’s not the case in every situation, of course. There are people who have more downtime when they work from home because they’re deliberately slacking and avoiding work, which isn’t okay. (I mean, it might be okay within a broader anti-capitalist moral framework, but it’s not okay in the sense that you’re violating an agreement you’ve made in exchange for money, potentially causing your coworkers to have to pick up your slack, etc.) But that doesn’t sound like you.

I do think it’s worth asking yourself if there’s an opportunity cost to what you’re doing — like maybe you’re getting all the must-do’s completed but you could be spending that extra time on more optional stuff that would produce stronger results in your work or position you better in your career. If it ends up meaning that you’re merely okay at your job when you could have been great at it, do you care? Striving for great rather than okay can have significant long-term benefits like getting you more money, better projects, better jobs, and more political clout, which all have a direct impact on your quality of life (and can be used to make other people’s lives better too, for that matter). On the other hand, some people go above and beyond and never get rewarded for it — or simply aren’t interested in the trade-offs that would be required — so I’m more hesitant than I used to be to push people in that direction. Either way, I’d say to get clear in your head on (a) whether there’s an opportunity cost and (b) how much you care if there is. (How much your manager may care at some point is also useful to factor into your thinking.)

all this talk about”quiet quitting” is absurd

At Slate today, I wrote about the terribly-named “quiet quitting” trend — how it mirrors a larger change in people’s relationship to work, and why a lot of workers are disgusted with the idea that they should do more than “quietly quit.”

You can read it here.

our health committee chair is anti-vax, anti-science, and out of control

A reader writes:

I’ve decided what my own actions will be here, but wanted to get your thoughts on whether or not an employer has an obligation to shut this down.

My workplace (a state government agency) has various Employee Resource Groups. All 100% voluntary, and there are limits to how much time we can spend on them.

Last year I joined the wellness committee and eventually became a board member. I found quickly that our chair is an anti-vax, anti-medicine, anti-science, MLM (think shakes, protein powders, perhaps named after a summer body expectation) distributor. When she’s sick, it’s essential oils and vitamins, no meds.

I support our right to choose what wellness path we feel is best for ourselves (except the vaccine one … but moving on), but she has taken it to extreme “MY PATH IS THE ONLY PATH AND EVERYONE MUST BE ON IT” levels.

She regularly shames people’s food choices, going as far to demand they throw it out, but she is of course happy to recommend a suitable <> product. Fortunately, we’re remote so she can’t tell if it’s done or not.

She’s suggested we write articles pushing coconut oil instead of sunscreen and implied that oral contraceptives are harmful (and rejected requests to add “talk to a medical professional”).

She believes being unhealthy is a choice. Can it be? Sure. But it can also be a lack of education, funds, availability … all of which will more significantly impact low income and people of color. She recently demanded we change a recipe to replace a couple tablespoons of flour with a hard-to-find alternative costing $8/pound. I, and a few others, pushed back and said we wanted something more inclusive and accessible, and she went on a rant about how being healthy is a choice and we shouldn’t suggest harmful things just because people don’t want to make that long-term investment in their health.

I’m not naive … I know (and sincerely hope) no one is making life-changing decisions based on our newsletters. But I still don’t want to give her an audience, so I’m resigning from the board later this week and will cite our differences of opinion and general concerns on what we’re putting out there.

I just wanted a group with some meal prep tips and workout ideas … didn’t expect to argue about pesticide cereal (yup, that happened) and flour types.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

Wow.

I’m not convinced employee groups should be distributing any information about diet to employees … or even more general health advice for that matter, beyond publicizing public health guidelines. There’s too much room for weirdness and misinformation. Your coworker is taking that a particularly ridiculous new level, but I’d say that even if she weren’t.

Employees have lots of places to get diet and health information from — like their doctors — and it’s not an appropriate role for a workplace to play.

So personally if I were on this committee — or had some authority over it — I’d advocate for dramatically overhauling its mission and activities. Rather than telling people what personal health decisions to make, focus on what the workplace does — advocate for strong Covid protections, flexible schedules, easy access to healthy food at work, subsidized gym memberships, stand-up desks for anyone who wants one, good insurance with strong preventative care, and other actions from the employer rather than from individual employees.

But if that’s not an option, I’d at least focus on getting rid of this chair, whose stances should be disqualifying for the role. I assume she doesn’t speak for the majority of the committee — does she only have power because no one else wanted to do the work and/or doesn’t feel like standing up to her? What she’s doing is egregious enough that it’s worth using some capital to get her shut down, including pointing out to The Powers That Be that she’s using government funding to push those viewpoints. (I do need to note that I can’t tell from your letter whether or not she has tried to push her anti-vax, anti-medicine, anti-science views in an official capacity beyond the anti-sunscreen and anti-contraceptives stuff, although both of those are problematic enough on their own.)

I know you’ve already resigned, but many coups throughout history have been led by leaders who built up their allies from the outside before deposing tyrants.

Read an update to this letter