should I use my maternity leave to set an example for other women?

A reader writes:

I am pregnant and live in a state that lets me take maternity leave from 36 weeks pregnant to 18 weeks after the date I give birth. Not all of this is paid, but much of it is and I could take the rest unpaid or apply my banked PTO. approximately 10 weeks depending on the nature of the birth are paid disability, an additional six weeks are paid family leave, and, for the remaining time I could potentially take off, I could either take it unpaid or apply my banked PTO.

I was discussing plans with my mom, and she thinks that because I am a woman in a leadership role, I should consider taking the entire allowed leave, to set a positive example for the women who report under me. Her take is that if I take a short leave, perhaps other women will feel pressured to take a shorter leave themselves, and it’s my duty as a woman to lead by example and prioritize the importance of family leave.

I … am not sure. On the one hand, I totally get it. I wouldn’t want one of my staff to feel pressured to take less leave because she was trying to prove herself, either to me or to the company. On the other, while I do think leading by example is important, I also think that part of that would naturally be doing what is best for me, my family, and my career. I may take the maximum allowed leave regardless, but I’m unsure if this should be a factor.

Should women in leadership roles factor the impact of their decisions on the potential decisions of those watching them into their grand scheme life choices?

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.

my company advertises every job all the time to make sure we know we can be replaced

A reader writes:

I work at a mid-sized company in a highly competitive field where turnover is usually very high, and most positions are either sales-focused or service-based with a few office/administrative occupations making up the roster. The sales openings do not require any specific training, while the service positions are considered skilled trade jobs and can be highly specialized and hard to fill.

Recently, my company has adopted the policy that everyone’s job is posted online all the time. So, no matter what your position is (unless you’re an upper-level manager), you are at risk of being replaced and it only takes your manager opening the bank of applicants to move forward with replacing current employees.

The company’s stance is that everyone should be aware that they are replaceable, and that should be enough to motivate us to perform our best every day. However, I feel that this is incredibly offensive and horrible for morale. Granted, I am opposed to any kind of tenure system and feel that no one’s job should be protected against replacement if warranted, but this is taking it to the extreme. (One colleague pointed out that it was like a married person logging onto dating apps when they get into an argument with their partner).

Besides the employee morale issue, this is also problematic because we constantly get calls from job seekers who have submitted their application online and are wondering about the status of the job search when it may be a position that’s not technically “open.” I have voiced concerns that it does not present a great image when a person is hired and notices the job they just got is still posted online.

In your opinion, is this a good idea? Or am I correct that it’s incredibly demoralizing and bad for business in general? Do other companies do this?

What?! No! This is a terrible idea.

Your company is managing people by threat and fear. They are clearly saying to employees, “We have zero loyalty to you, we can and will replace you on a whim, and — most importantly — we want you to know that and to fear it.”

Why would anyone want to build a career somewhere that operates like that?

Something is deeply wrong with the management culture in your organization. They apparently don’t know how to manage effectively without holding the daily threat of replacement over people … and they don’t realize that managing by fear stifles tons of good things that you should want from employees, like creativity, initiative, risk-taking, and willingness to give honest input. Who’s going to take any risks in their job or be honest about problems in a climate like this one?

Who is even going to feel any good will toward an employer that operates this way?

Your company is shooting itself in the foot in the weirdest way possible.

To be clear, good managers do try to build a pipeline of potential candidates so that they’re not starting from scratch every time they need to hire someone. But that means things like networking, talking with people with interesting skills, building relationships with colleagues at other organizations, and keeping in touch with former staffers and interns — all low-key ways of expanding the group of potential candidates you can reach out to when a job does open up. It doesn’t mean posting current employees’ jobs online!

Here’s hoping that everyone working there takes this as a giant sign to get out. If everyone is at daily risk of being replaced, its workforce should give the company what it seems to want — every position vacant.

spooky spider dilemma, coworker texts while driving, and more

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

1. A spooky spider dilemma

I work at an after-school club, and I am in charge of organizing the Halloween party this year.

One of my assistants, Hanna, has a fear of spiders. I was aware of this, but only in a peripheral way — in the same way that you’d overhear someone mention, say, that they didn’t like big dogs. It’s turned out to be much more serious than that. Hanna has had a full-blown phobia of them. If the word “spider” is so much as mentioned in Hanna’s presence, she has to leave the room to calm her nerves (fortunately it’s not a word that comes up very often in conversation).

Unfortunately the kids have been spending the past couple of weeks preparing an interactive activity featuring a huge spiderweb and a huge, malevolent looking spider. They are very proud of it, and can’t wait to show it off.

Hanna was not aware of this at all, because she only works twice a week. She will be assisting at the party. I took her aside to give her a heads-up about the spider. To my surprise, she simply got up and left the room without saying a word. (She returned 10 minutes later, acting as if nothing had happened, but she didn’t look very well.)

Would it be fair to ask her to refrain from attending the party? Her own children will be there. She’d also lose some pay and we need all the hands we can get on deck. Should I cancel the spider exhibit? That hardly seems fair on the kids, who’ve worked so hard on it. We are renting a space, so using a separate room is not an option. In short, how far do I need to go to accommodate Hanna’s phobia?

Ask her if she’d like to skip the party … she presumably does. I know you need all hands on deck, but if she had to leave the room for 10 minutes after a single mention of the spider, it’s very unlikely that she’s going to be very helpful at a party with a huge malevolent looking spider as a centerpiece. If you can find someone else to help out (a parent maybe?), go that route — but either way it doesn’t sound like you should expect Hanna to attend.

2. Coworker insists on texting while driving

I semi-regularly go on car trips to clients with a coworker who is higher up but in a different department than me. Say, he’s the sales manager who squares away the contract and discusses warranty terms while I’m the technician who does the product install. He’s recently taken up the terrifying habit of texting while driving; furthermore, he insists on driving even though I’ve expressed I’m perfectly willing to. How should I approach this? Should I talk to him directly (softly as in “you seem busy, why don’t I drive from now on” or hard as in “this is really dangerous and I’d appreciate if you stopped”) or should I go through my boss (his equivalent in my department) first?

Actually, your “hard” example isn’t firm enough — your message shouldn’t be just that you’d appreciate if he’d stop, but rather that you need him to stop if you’re going to continue to ride with him, period. For example: “Texting while you drive is really dangerous, and so I’m going to plan on driving us going forward. It’s a personal rule I have.” If he balks at that, you should insist on driving yourself separately (just like you’d hopefully do if he were insisting on driving drunk — and it’s worth noting that some studies show texting while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving). Keep using the “it’s a personal rule I have” language if you need to.

You should also tell your boss why you won’t ride with this coworker anymore (like you’d also hopefully do if your colleague were driving drunk).

And keep in mind that you don’t need to wait for anyone’s permission (your colleague’s or your boss’s) to keep yourself out of an unsafe vehicle.

3. Was I the last choice for my job?

I have been working as an admin at a medium-sized church for over a year now. I applied for the job just coming out of Covid quarantine, a few months after my husband left me, with a brand new infant. I had needed a job that would be comfortable with a single mother’s schedule. I moved to a new town and began working here, and it has honestly been lovely. Everyone has been so friendly and supportive! I love being here and I hope I do my job well.

Today, while filing, I stumbled upon some paperwork about the posting for my job last year. It pretty much stated that I was the only acceptable candidate who applied; there had been quite a few others they offered the job to before me, but those candidates turned the position down for various reasons. I am trying to put it from my mind, but I am plagued by the thought … was I the last choice? Did they even want me for this job, or did they just have no other options? Am I not good enough to be here?

They were probably thrilled to get you. That’s not me blowing smoke up your ass — it sounds like they had trouble hiring for the role and then they found you, thought you were well matched for the job, and were able to hire you. That’s a success!

Hiring processes are often rocky and it’s not at all unusual for an employer to hire their second, third, or even fourth choice and be completely happy to do it. Hiring isn’t like looking for a soul mate; it’s not like you have one candidate you match with and hiring anyone else will mean you’re settling. There are often multiple candidates who an employer would be happy to hire, and if the first few turn them down and they hire someone else, they pretty much never think about those earlier candidates again. The same is true if you were the only good enough candidate at the time you were hired — they thought you could do the job, you accepted it, everyone wins, and it’s highly unlikely that they’re thinking of you as “the only person we could get.” They’re thinking of you as “Jane, our team member” (and hopefully “Jane, our awesome team member”).

4. Inviting employees to see my band

I play music in a cover band, and in the past I’ve invited people from work to hear us perform. I won’t claim that we’re world-class performers, but we play songs people know and people seem to have had a good time. Some of my coworkers have even seen us more than once and have invited other people from work to go, so some of our shows have been pretty well-represented by my coworkers (say, 15 people or so).

This was all well and good in years past, but I’ve since become a department head, and my gut tells me that it’s now awkward to mention specific shows I’ll be playing, because it could create the impression that there is pressure for people in my department to go, which I don’t want to do. Is there a way to invite coworkers to come to our shows without making it weird, or should that formally be relegated to the past?

Yeah, as a department head you’ve got to worry not only about people feeling pressured to go, but also about employees worrying that coworkers who attend will be favored in some way over those who don’t (even if only with the extra face time at the shows). If you’re generally known as a fair and reasonable manager, I don’t think it needs to be an enormous worry, but you’re right to be sensitive to it.

Can you switch to a model where you don’t proactively announce upcoming shows but just share the info with anyone who asks for it? However, if that means that you end up with more face time with people who attend, be deliberate about ensuring that doesn’t give them an advantage others don’t have: don’t let social conversations at a show turn into work discussions where decisions are made, find ways to give others equal time with you during the workday, etc. (And if that turns out to be overthinking it, great. The risks of overthinking it are a lot less than the risks of under-thinking it!)

5. I’ll be out for a vasectomy; what should I tell my team?

I’m a new manager, and I have a small, fairly close-knit team in a medium-sized organization. In a few weeks, I’ll be taking a couple days off to get a vasectomy. For almost any other health thing, I would likely just mention to my team, “I’m off to get fillings at the dentist” or “I’m starting to feel a little sick to my stomach; I better head home!” But for this, obviously, I don’t want to be uncomfortably specific AND I don’t want anyone to worry! Can you think of an approach that makes sense?

“I’ll be out for a few days for a minor medical thing.” If you want, you can add, “Nothing to worry about, just something I need to take care of.” That’s it! It’s actually good to model that for your team so they realize they don’t need to disclose their own medical details either.

our new admin crashed the company car and lied about it

A reader writes:

I’m sending this question on behalf of my husband, who owns a small business. He had a new admin manager/personal assistant, Pam, start about a month ago. So far she has been excellent — on the ball, great communicator, well organized, and liked by everyone in the company. She comes with lots of experience and is pretty late career, is paid very well, and is going to be part of the management team once she’s fully on board. Pam will also be handling a lot of the HR, email, and both company and some personal accounts, so she has to be trusted implicitly.

Anyway, a couple of days ago Pam was driving a company car and came back with a dent and some yellow paint on the back of it. She told my husband she had it parked at a large store picking up some supplies and came out to it damaged like that. She was very shaken and said she didn’t want to drive it and have responsibility for it ever again. At the time, he took the story at face value, made a joke about errant school buses, reassured her, and moved on.

However, since then, she’s told the story to others, and several people questioned the incident when talking to the general manager (along the lines of “do you actually believe that story,” not “I wanted to talk to you because I think Pam is lying”). The GM then thought about it some more, drove out to the store and found a scraped up yellow pole that looked like it’s been backed into with paint matching the company’s car on it at the level of the damage.

Husband is now at a loss for what to do. (He actually came home today and immediately asked, “What would Ask a Manager say about an employee potentially lying?”) He needs to take some action on this tomorrow or at least this week, but assuming the obvious fact-finding goes nowhere, how does he move forward? How does he talk to her about it without being accusatory while making it possible for her to come clean? If it does turn out she lied, does he have to fire her given how key trustworthiness is to her position? Or does he just believe her implicitly and let it go given that the evidence so far is not exactly overwhelming? He would definitely do that for a better known quantity, but she’s been there only four weeks. If so, how does he move on and trust her again and how does he shut down the rumors clearly going around?

I wrote back and asked, “Do you know what made people start doubting her story initially? It doesn’t sound terribly suspicious as written here, so I’m wondering what made so many people skeptical about it!”  When I received the answer to that, it also included an update!

Long story short, they did have tapes and she definitely crashed it herself. In terms of what made people think that, he asked and the GM said it was just spidey senses going off – something about the way she was telling it didn’t ring true. Husband says he probably missed it because he was so occupied with consoling her at the moment.

So now the question is what to do. Right now he’s leaning towards not saying anything for now, giving her the weekend, and seeing if she comes clean when she’s back at work. It’s understandable that someone would panic in the moment, but once she has had time to process, he doesn’t want to keep her in her role if she will persist with the lie, especially since it’s so early into her tenure. Does that seem too harsh? If they do keep her, how do they avoid sending the message that integrity is not important to the rest of the team?

Oh noooo. He should talk with her first and hear what she says, but unless there’s something truly revelatory in that conversation (like, I don’t know, she was on a new medication that made her lose time and memory), he probably does need to fire her.

People do indeed panic in the moment and say things they shouldn’t. But lying about damaging company property — specifically to avoid acknowledging that she was responsible — is a big deal. And she really committed to the lie — telling loads of people, letting colleagues try to comfort her, etc. She’s also had time to come clean and she hasn’t. It’s especially frustrating because what she actually did — backing into a pole — isn’t a big deal! But lying about it turns it into one.

Maybe if Pam were a long-term employee it might be possible to try to salvage this — if she were someone who had worked there a long time with a track record of integrity and this was clearly a one-time, out-of-character mistake. Even then, that would be hard to pull off.  But Pam has only been there a month; that’s not enough time to judge whether this was one bad decision that will never happen again or whether it’s typical of how she operates. And especially in the sort of job where trust is essential — she’ll be handling HR! — seeing such a significant display of deliberate, calculated untrustworthiness just a few weeks in has got to be prohibitive. (And it was calculated — she had the whole drive back to the office to decide to lie instead of telling the truth. She didn’t just blurt out something weird in the shock of the moment.) What’s going to happen the next time Pam makes a work mistake (and she will because she is human)? Will her instinct be to try to cover it up? You’ve got to be able to trust that you’re getting the straight scoop from her, and unfortunately now you can’t.

Read updates to this letter here and here.

how to work with clients who can’t make up their minds

A reader writes:

I work as a designer and recently have had clients who cannot make up their minds. I end up going in circles with designs. It feels like an endless game of whack-a-mole, they ask for X, I give them X, but now they really want Y, so I give them Y, but actually let’s go back to X, no never mind, let’s do Z, so I give them Z. I really do want these gigs but how do I tell them enough is enough with the redesigns? I find when I work with clients, I have been more compliant because I want the job and when I speak up it’s not always received well — perhaps I’m usually frustrated at that point. How can I be nice and assertive?

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:

  • Employee has already decorated for Christmas
  • My employee keeps getting in my personal space
  • Is it unprofessional to bring your own beverage to an external meeting?

I was hit on at a conference … was I too friendly?

A reader writes:

My spouse and I are in the same field and usually attend conferences together. Generally we don’t spend that much time together at conferences, touching base a couple of times throughout the day (often mostly via text) and then having dinner and going to the room together, but people know we’re married.

I recently attended a conference without him there. I was speaking at the conference and otherwise would probably not have attended, because while it’s within the same industry, it’s a different sector and I didn’t expect there to be much that I would be interested in, nor did I expect to know very many people there. I was happily wrong on the first part, but right on the second — I only knew about a dozen people there (and consequently, few of the attendees knew my spouse). Which, fine, I’m an extrovert, I’ll get to know new people and it’ll be fine. In an industry full of introverts, being the extrovert at a conference is generally a good thing and I get complimented all the time for my skill in meeting people and then connecting them to other people they should meet. I’ve helped several people find new jobs with a well-placed introduction.

So, I’m walking around at break and I saw a man sitting alone, looking around and looking like he was feeling left out. So I paused to talk to him and ended up chatting a bit. He asked about a part of my work I’m pretty excited about, so I sat down to really talk about it. We talked some more, he complimented an article of clothing, and I said, “Oh, my spouse bought that for me.” Then his friends came and they went for lunch and I moved on to try to find a friend.

A little later, I saw him and now I was the one standing around looking left out, so he invited me to sit with him in the session. So we sit and talk a little about the session, etc. He then says, “Hey, you really chatted me up, wanna go out for drinks and see what happens?” I had mentioned my spouse multiple times at this point so I was really surprised and basically just said, “That’s not what I’m here for, and I’m really focusing on speaking later this week, so I’m just going to be in my room in the evenings” and we left it like that. He later apologized for making it awkward, which I appreciate, but I didn’t know how to respond.

I think he was out of line. My female friends think he was out of line. My male friends (including my spouse) think it was perfectly okay because he took the no with grace and didn’t push back and apologized afterward. But I find myself second-guessing my actions — was I too friendly? Was I too outgoing? Should I stop networking with men? Only network with men if they’re in a group? And how should I have responded to his apology? Should I have educated him about seeing women as colleagues instead of potential sexual partners?

Aggggh, I’m sorry. You not only got hit on in a context where you shouldn’t have, but now you’re stuck in that awful cycle of questioning whether you somehow caused it by being a friendly person.

I can guarantee you that this man is not second-guessing himself and agonizing over whether he misread you or offended you or whether he should stop networking with women. Which is a shame, because frankly he should stop networking with everyone (men and women) until he’s able to stop assessing colleagues as potential sexual partners. But that’s not going to happen.

The thing that especially sucks is that the cycle you’re in right now — the second-guessing and the worry you’re to blame — harms women professionally. You should be able to be warm and friendly and meet new people at conferences without worrying that your perfectly normal demeanor (which could be identical to that of any man there) will invite unwanted advances. You shouldn’t have to curtail the networking you do because of that worry — and giving in to that could limit you professionally. You didn’t do anything wrong, and yet you’re the one questioning whether to take potentially career-harming actions in response.

To be clear: This was all on him, not you. It doesn’t sound like you gave off any signs you were interested in something sexual. You engaged in the completely normal and expected action of networking at a conference; that’s it. You mentioned even your spouse multiple times! This man wasn’t responding to signs from you; to the contrary, he was responding to his own interests, with total disregard for yours.

As a general rule, people shouldn’t hit on colleagues (at work or at professional events) unless they are receiving Very Clear Signs of interest — not just “she is talking to me” (because that is a normal and expected behavior; in fact it is the exact behavior the conference is designed to facilitate) — and if in doubt, should err on the side of not making colleagues feel they’ve been sized up sexually, because that is not what most people are there for, and because women need to be able to exist in professional spaces without worrying that warmth or friendliness will be taken as sexual interest … and, importantly, without needing to worry that rejecting a dude’s overtures could have professional consequences for them. I suspect that your male friends who saw nothing wrong here don’t get this because it’s not something they’ve had to worry about personally.

Moreover, if someone is confident they’ve seen signs of mutual interest and is going to attempt to move the relationship toward the social realm, in a professional context it’s essential to do it respectfully. That means “I’d love to grab dinner if you’re free” or “we have so many interests in common, I’d love to hang out socially after today’s last event if you’d like to” … not “wanna go out for drinks and see what happens” (WTF).

To answer your last question, you’re not responsible for educating this man about appropriate behavior. You can if you want to! If you feel moved to set him straight, you’d be doing the world a favor. But you have zero obligation to take that on if you’d rather not. And as for the right way to respond to his apology, anything you were comfortable with was fine. If you felt like ignoring it, that’s fine. If you wanted to just go with “thanks, I appreciate it,” that’s fine. And if you wanted to say, “Yeah, you were really out of line — women are here to network, not be hit on” or any other variation of that, that would be fine too.

employee quit after decorating expense disaster, can my wealthy family donate to my nonprofit employer, and more

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

1. Employee quit after decorating expense disaster

I hired an employee in February. When she started, our reception area and conference room were very bare, and I gave her a budget of $3,000 to decorate the office. I gave her two company credit cards to use, and asked her to use them because i didn’t want to mess around with reimbursements. However, she put many items on her personal cards and then asked to be reimbursed. I did so by check twice, then in April reminded her to use the company cards and told her to submit any remaining reimbursement requests right away. I reminded her of this process in June and July. She never did. (I suspect this was because she had already gone well over the original $3,000 budget.)

After several months of increasingly odd/erratic behavior, last week I met with the employee to see what was going on. She blew up at me and quit in a fit of rage. It was shocking, but I gave her time to collect her personal items. She emailed me three days later with a list of other “personal items” she wanted to come collect. These were all clearly items she bought for the office but never put in for reimbursement. My instinct was to say that she’s not entitled to come collect these office items, and that the failure to timely put in her expenses does not make the items personal items. But was wondering if you had any thoughts?

If she paid for them and you haven’t reimbursed her, those are indeed her items! Even if they were clearly bought for the office and even though she ignored your reminders to submit reimbursements. If she brought them in and you haven’t paid for them, they’re hers. That’s true even if they’re obviously not the sort of thing anyone would buy for their home — even if it’s name plaques for other people or a fancy door number for your suite. If she paid and you didn’t, it’s hers. (Do make sure that the items on her list really are things you didn’t already reimburse, of course. And you could offer to reimburse her for them now if that would make more sense.)

For what it’s worth, the idea of someone going way over the office decorating budget while using their own money and then never submitting for reimbursement is … strange. The whole thing is so odd that it’s worth reflecting on what happened with this employee and whether there were signs you should have intervened earlier or more assertively. (Maybe there weren’t — but whenever something blows up spectacularly, it’s always good to do that reflection. Hell, even when there’s not a spectacular blow-up and a hire just doesn’t work out, it’s good to do that.)

2. Can my wealthy family donate to my nonprofit employer?

A few months ago I started a new job at a nonprofit. My org is one of many nonprofits working in a particular field, but external evaluators have identified us as one of the best nonprofits in this field in the world.

My dad is pretty rich (tens of millions) and quite philanthropic. He’s made significant, long-term gifts to other nonprofits in this field. I think those donations would be better spent if he gave them to my organization instead; we’re better than the places he’s currently donating to! He has a high opinion of my org, and I think I could convince him to learn more about our work and consider donating.

I cannot overstate how much I care about this cause area, and I truly believe that my dad’s choice of where to donate will make a difference in the world. But also, my inherited financial privilege has already given me a million unfair advantages, and I really really really don’t want to add to that.

My org has a development team that works with donors. I am not part of this team and they don’t directly supervise me (I’m on the program side). Is there a way for my dad to talk to them to learn more about the org without it affecting my role there, like if I asked Development to keep it secret from my supervisor and anyone else in management? (I think talking to them would significantly increase the likelihood that he donates.) Or is the only safe option for him to donate anonymously through a third party, without telling even Development who he is?

Well … the organization will be glad to have the money, momentarily glad that you working there is what brought it to them, and then forever afterwards uneasy about you being an employee. It can be really tricky to employ the family member of a major donor; they’ll have to worry about whether your reactions to things at work will affect future donations, they might limit what you’re exposed to if there’s something they don’t want to risk reaching a big donor, they’ll feel much less able to give you really candid feedback if there are problems, firing or laying you off will be seriously fraught if it can even be considered at all, and your coworkers will assume you’re getting special treatment, whether or not you are.

So yes, the best way to do it would be for your dad to donate anonymously or after you’re no longer working there.

3. My resignation imploded

I turned in my two week notice on Thursday the 6th at noon and said my last day would be Tuesday the 18th. My boss freaked out and said I was “stabbing him in the back” after all they’ve done for me, that it wasn’t even a “full” two-week notice, and that this was “not very Christian of me.” I’m leaving because I have Crohn’s Disease (which he knows about) and the job has gotten much harder for me after having Covid. I’ve found a job that’s still in our niche industry but is much easier physically and one where I won’t be out at a job site in the winter time.

I will say this though. If I had any doubts about my decision, I don’t now after he said that to me. I offered to come in next week on Wednesday (which I haven’t been working due to my illness) and to push my last day to Wednesday the 19th but must be off at noon for an appointment. So AITA? Was this too short of a notice?

No. It’s true that you didn’t give a full two weeks — but only by a day! That is really not a big deal — and even more so since you’re normally out on Wednesdays anyway (the “missing” day). Your boss’s reaction — stabbing him in the back! not very Christian of you! (WTF?) — is bizarrely over-the-top. We’re talking about a single day. A single day!

You are fine and he is a loon.

Read an update to this letter

4. Can I suggest my interviewer hire my friend instead?

I have an interview coming up for a job that I’m not at all sure is going to be a good fit for me. (I know, that’s what the interview is to find out and I do have a list of questions to ask them.) Yesterday I was talking with a good friend who I didn’t realize is looking for a new job. The position would be so perfect for her! Is it okay, if I get to the end of the interview and am not interested, to hand them her resume and recommend they get in touch? Is that a thing?

You can do that! It might be a little odd to whip out her resume right on the spot, but you could email them afterwards, say you reflected on the job and it’s not for you, but here’s a candidate who might be exactly what they’re looking for. (Make sure your friend is interested first to save everyone some time, though.)

Read an update to this letter

5. Interviewer asked if they could call my references, but nothing has happened

What’s the best way to handle post-interview, when the interviewer asks, “Okay if we call your references?” and “We’ll let you know one way or another in the next couple of weeks” and my references have told me none have been contacted and it’s now been five weeks, and not a word? I did a follow-up thank-you the day after the interview.

You can check in by email and ask if they can update you on their timeline for next steps. But after that, you’ve got to just assume you’ve been ghosted and move on. Unfortunately it’s really, really common for employers to ghost candidates, even after multiple interviews and even after telling you they’ll definitely get back to you in X amount of time.

Also, a lot of interviewers routinely ask “Okay if we call your references?” at a certain stage in the process without it meaning they are definitely going to. They’re getting your permission/notifying you that they’re reaching that stage in case they decide to move you forward, not committing to doing it — something candidates often don’t realize.

how many interviews are too many?

A reader writes:

I’ve seen a lot of questions on your site about interviewees who feel that the interview process is too lengthy or burdensome, which got me thinking about my practices as a hiring manager and how many interviews will scare off strong candidates. This 2016 letter writer from the archives was subjected to 10+ interviews, which is clearly unreasonable. This letter writer from 2013 thought four was unreasonable.

My team is currently recruiting for a mid-level role with:

1. Short recruiter phone screen
2. 45-60 minute video interview with hiring manager
3. Either (depending on whether candidate is local):
(a) In-person two-hour interview with up to four team members (separately) plus a short 30-minute interview with hiring manager (for in-person introductions and follow-up questions)
(b) 30-minute phone interviews with up to four team members (for this, we usually shoot for a two-hour chunk of time to get them all done at once, but sometimes it is more spread out if interviewers have conflicts at those times)

Some candidates would count this process as up to seven interviews, but I think of it as a three-step process. How many interviews do you think is ideal, and how has this changed with the normalization of video interviewing?

If that’s three separate appointments — the phone screen, the hiring manager meeting, and the more complicated step 3 — it’s perfectly fine.

But step 3 gets tricky. If step 3 all happens in one appointment, great. But if it gets spread out into four separate calls … then yeah, you’ve got a seven-step process and that’s too much. In that case, you’re asking people to carve out time from their current schedules seven separate times (in addition to other interviews they’re likely conducting). It’s often much harder for people to do that than to just take PTO for a half day and get it all done in one swoop.

And it’s not just that. It’s pretty common for people to spend time preparing before each interview (going over their “tell me about a time when…” examples, practicing how they’ll handle a particularly tricky question, etc.) so you’re asking people to do that prep seven times. It’s too much.

I think you’ve got to commit to making step 3 happen all in the same chunk of time, even if it means involving fewer team members in that step. (I’m also curious how you handled this before Zoom interviews became so ubiquitous! I’m betting you wouldn’t have asked people to come to your office four separate times for part 3.)

If you can’t do that, at least make sure you’re laying out the whole process at the beginning so that people know what to expect and aren’t thinking midway through, “When is this going to end?” But it is indeed going to read as seven interviews, and that’s a lot to ask.

As for how many interviews is ideal in general … it depends on the job. More senior positions typically need more interviews, but that should mean two or three (maybe four for very tricky positions and/or roles with a lot of stakeholders), not five plus. Virtual interviewing has made it easier/more convenient on the employer’s side, but on the candidates’ side, you’ve still got the issues above with carving out time from existing jobs and all the prep time involved. Plus, for people who aren’t working from home, finding a private area to do multiple interviews during the workday can be pretty onerous. So employers need to be really careful not to fall into thinking they can ask more and more just because candidates aren’t traveling to them.

my employee wants a demotion

A reader writes:

My employee is a truly exceptional worker. Let’s say he’s a product builder, and about a year ago, he completed an advanced program in prototyping, which was great; we didn’t have a prototyper in the company, and it was a career path for him that offered some great possibilities. I went to bat for him, and got his job changed to builder/prototyper.

A couple days ago, he came to me and confessed that he hates prototyping and wants to go back to just building. Prototyping makes him miserable, and he feels that moving into it was a big misstep. There are a few problems with this: (1) We don’t have anyone on staff who prototypes. (2) Without a prototyper on staff, those responsibilities will fall to the designers, who are not good at it. (3) I went to bat for him, and (uggghhh) am afraid this is going to reflect poorly on me. What do I do?

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:

  • Speaking up about a sexist conference organizer
  • My employee is making a big deal of her birthday
  • Letting a candidate know they missed their interview

can I go braless as a medical accommodation?

A reader writes:

You’ve written about how, rightly or wrongly, most employers still expect employees with obvious breasts to wear bras (or at least not to make it obvious that they’re not wearing one). My question is, could going braless — or getting an exemption to the dress code more generally — ever be a reasonable accommodation for a disability? And if so, how could someone approach it? Should you preemptively bring it up, only address it I someone complains, etc.?

I have a chronic pain condition that causes me to be sensitive to anything that’s even slightly fitted in the neck/chest area. I can push through the pain for a job interview, but wearing a bra daily to the office will be torture. It’s not a matter of just finding the right bra (as many people will tell me). Believe me, I’ve tried *many* options (including sports bras, bralettes), I know what my body can handle, and it’s just not feasible. I can wear nipple covers to make it less obvious, and I generally wear lose clothing. But wearing multiple layers or sweaters or scarves is difficult, as I’m also sensitive to the weight of my clothing. So you can generally tell I’m not wearing a bra.

You definitely do not need to wear a bra if it’s painful or otherwise not feasible for your body!

That makes it sound like you therefore do need to wear a bra the rest of the time, and that’s not true either anymore. In many offices, if you’re not wearing a bra, no one is going to order you to; the issue is that that if it’s very obvious, it can become a thing you’re defined by, and so you have to decide if you want to take that on or not. There also are offices where you would get talked to if it’s obvious, particularly in more conservative industries, but that’s not all of them. So some of this is knowing your field and your office, and also knowing how much you care.

But when you have a condition that makes it horribly painful to wear a bra, that’s a whole different thing. Dress code exemptions are reasonable accommodations for a variety of disabilities. To fight that, your employer would have to show that allowing you to go braless caused them “undue hardship,” and it’s highly unlikely they’d be able to meet that bar (or would care enough to try in most cases).

Because this isn’t something that would require an official accommodation in so many offices, I wouldn’t raise it unless someone brings it up. If you do get told to wear a bra, at that point you can go the accommodation route. But it might never even come up.

The tricky thing, though, is that a lot the judging about bralessness being unprofessional is the kind of thing people might think without ever saying anything about. If that bothers you, you might choose to go the accommodation route more proactively. Which is BS, to be clear … just still the reality in some cases.

I look forward to the day when this is a complete non-issue.