Ask a Manager

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

1. I’m biased toward midwestern candidates

At the east coast company I work at, I’m frequently on hiring committees for competitive positions that typically include a wide range of candidates from all over the U.S. I recently noticed a concerning pattern in the candidates that I have advocated for hire. Essentially, when other qualifications are relatively equal, I nearly always prefer the midwestern candidate. (I am from the midwest and work remotely from the midwest) for their personability and communication style. And generally, my opinion holds a strong sway for who ends up being hired. While I’ve never advocated for a midwest hire who isn’t one of top candidates in terms of objective qualifications and interview responses, I still don’t think this is a great look.

What can I (and the company in general) do to reduce this type of bias during hiring? Should I just hold my opinion if we are between a handful of candidates and I prefer the midwestern one?

A quick caveat: I am, unfortunately, amazing at recognizing midwestern accents, especially in people from the Great Lakes regions (or from the city of Chicago).

Yeah, “like me” bias is really common in hiring, and it’s good that you’re recognizing it! We (often) naturally prefer people who remind us of ourselves and feel comfortable/familiar to us. It’s especially telling that you noted your preference is based on their “personability” and communication style, because those are two things that are really subjective and can be big sources of bias.

So how do you mitigate it? First and foremost, make sure that you’re assessing all candidates on the same list of must-have and nice-to-have traits, and that you’re clearly defining what each of those looks like and not just “I know it when I see it.” For example, you might assess communication style and personability through metrics like: enthusiasm for engaging with people; conveying points clearly; listening carefully and asking questions to understand others’ perspectives; and being able to put people at ease, especially people different from themselves (that last part is key). Also, involve diverse voices in your hiring process (and make sure you get aligned with them about the must-have’s and how to assess those so that everyone is measuring against the same bar; otherwise people will default to their own criteria). Ask people to fill out written assessments independently, so they’re not overly influenced by what you or others think, and ask them to peg their ratings to observable behaviors, not gut feelings.

Those two things won’t solve it entirely — bias is a huge and complicated thing that takes significant work to mitigate — but they should help significantly, and should also surface places where earlier you might have been influenced by bias without even realizing it.

2. The right way to clean up after a reply-all email storm

My inbox was victimized by an external email storm yesterday, and it made me curious about how you’d advise the organization at the center to proceed in the aftermath. A university career center recently launched a new hiring platform to connect students and employers, and they sent a webinar invitation to recruiters across the region — corporate, public sector, school districts, etc. Something went wrong in the system and an automatically generated reply went to everyone, which then generated a service ticket email that also went to everyone. Enter Corporate Recruiter A, who responded, “I’m not sure why I’m on this service ticket.” For some reason this email also generated a subsequent service ticket email. Enter Corporate Recruiter B, who responded, “Same here.” (HELPFUL. Are both of you new to email? And technological systems in general?) City Employee chimed in, “I am getting multiple emails from this. Is there something you need from me?” And then Corporate Recruiter C opened the floodgates with, “Please remove me from your mailing list.” Cue hundreds of recruiters from the region asking to be removed from the list, followed by a handful of well-intentioned folks with the “STOP REPLYING” directives. Every one of these emails generated a separate service ticket email, so it was like the BOGO of email storms.

800 emails later, it has finally stopped. If you were the university, would you ignore all those requests from recruiters to be removed, since you need them to be recruiting your students and they were most unwittingly responding to one specific event? Or are you obligated to honor their request? Do you dare send a follow-up email to explain and apologize? Do you do personal outreach to the recruiters who participated in the melee to mend relations? Just to recruiters from high-value contacts, e.g. Fortune 500 companies and major local employers? Cut the registration fee for your next career fair as a mea culpa?

The emails were annoying, of course, but I mainly felt sorry and frustrated for the university employees. If I were them and I were instructed to send an apology email, I’m not sure I could stop myself from including some “electronic mail guidance for noobs” on how to disengage from an email storm…

Eh, people asking to be removed in that context usually mean “remove me from this shitstorm,” not necessarily “never contact me again.” I don’t think you’d need to unsubscribe all of them, as long as you’re very, very sure that the problem has been solved. You could send an email a day or so later apologizing and assuring people the problem has been fixed and won’t recur (make sure that’s true! the last thing you need is for that email to set up a whole new flood) and offering an unsubscribe link for people who want it. (That said, you’d want to look at CAN-SPAM and any other applicable laws to make sure you’re in compliance.)

I don’t think anyone would expect you to cut the registration fee or call people personally to apologize. (I’d actually be more annoyed by a phone call about it, in an “I still can’t get away from this?” kind of way.)

Related:
the burnt bagel, the excessive candor, and other reply-all email catastrophes

3. How open should I be about family stress that may affect me at work?

I’m tangentially connected to an ongoing family issue which is apparently on the verge of boiling over and causing some irrevocable damage to the extended family. There’s a high likelihood of my brother and his wife divorcing, and they have two kids under 10. There was a deliberate attempt to conceal the issues from me, up to and including lying to my face about how things are with them.

This affects my work only slightly: My work is pure physical labor. I deliberately made more work for myself when counting new stock as a healthy way to vent my frustrations and distract myself, and I explained my reasoning for doing that. At what point am I giving too much information, or at what point is giving specific details that there is an issue ongoing necessary?

Hmmm, it really depends on the details. If no one will even notice that you’re doing something differently to get more of a physical outlet, you don’t need to say anything at all. If it’s going to be noticeable, sure, say, “I”m working out some family stress on these boxes right now!” But there’s a fairly narrow window for how much of that is okay at work — tackling boxes extra vigorously is fine, but if it comes close to looking like hostile aggression (even though it’s directed toward inanimate objects, not another person), it’s inappropriate for work. If someone would be nervous about coming near you, you’ve crossed a line. Regardless, though, people don’t really need to know the details of what’s going on with your family.

(For what it’s worth, and I realize I’m saying this knowing almost nothing about the situation: avoid judging other people’s marriages and divorces as much as you can. Divorce is sad, especially when kids are involved — but lots of grown children, including me, will tell you firsthand that the damage to kids when their parents don’t divorce but should can be harder on them than a split would have been. Your brother also didn’t owe you a full account of what was happening within his marriage before he was ready to share. Again, I don’t know the details and certainly there are situations that would enrage any reasonable bystander — but when your feelings about someone else’s marriage are looming this large, it’s worth questioning.)

4. Do I owe a previous employer help with their questions now?

I gave two weeks notice at my job. My manager, the owner of the company, sent a message to all the team leads that I would be leaving and I sent the team leads and the other person on my team a message that I had cleared my calendar and would be happy to meet with them to facilitate my departure. I also created a document outlining several tasks that remained and where I was with each of them.

The other person on my team, Sara, set up a meeting with our accounting firm and participated in several meetings in which the managing owner and she were present but I was excluded. Which is fine, but I did not have any insight into what decisions were reached, so I assumed they had everything in hand. I had one meeting with the two owners and Sara, where they said they felt my procedures were excessive and overdone and instead of learning them, they said there was a better way to do my job. (That was fine with me — I was leaving anyway.) I also asked Sara if she wanted to set a time to go over procedures and how to do tasks, as most would fall on her plate, but she insisted she already knew. No one got in touch, no one asked questions, no one showed any interest in anything I had to share. I completed the document, wished everyone the best, and went on my way. No hard feelings, just excitement for my new role.

A couple weeks after I left, I received a message from Sara with questions — where things were, if I had finished a report, etc. etc. I did not feel like I had any responsibility to answer. I don’t have hard feelings, but I feel like no one wanted my help while I was leaving and now I don’t owe them anything further. I don’t think of myself as bitter or angry, just happy to move on. Am I wrong? Should I have answered all the questions?

You’re right on the principle of it: you tried repeatedly to help with the transition while you were still there and they made it clear that they didn’t want your help and felt they knew better. So it’s particularly irritating that they’re coming back to you now.

That said, it generally makes sense to be willing to answer one or two simple questions after you’re gone if you can do so very quickly, simply for the purpose of maintaining good will. But I’m talking about things like “do you remember where the X report is?” not “can you walk me through the history of this client and all the strategies we’ve tried with them in the past” — and also only one or two, not endless or ongoing contact. So if it would have taken only a minute or two to respond to Sara, I’d advise just doing it. You don’t have to, though; it also would have been fine to let the message sit for a week and then reply with, “Hmmm, I don’t know off the top of my head, but check the documentation I left.” (Or even not reply at all.)

5. I have no idea who to give my resignation to

I’ve decided to quit my job! However, I’m not sure who to give my notice to. My boss has left, and her boss is a C-suite executive I’ve never met. I’m sure I’m overthinking this, but I’m in a very senior role with no clear redundancy / transition plan for my responsibilities, and want to make sure I’m setting my team up for continued success after I’m gone. So who do I talk to about all of this? What are the appropriate protocols here?

Who are you going to for other management things right now? If there were a crisis in your department, who would you talk to? That’s probably the right person to resign to. If there’s no clear answer to that, then default to your ex-boss’s boss. If that’s impractical, head to HR, explain the situation, and let them straighten it out.

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

1. Can I work remotely across the country if I’ve been having health problems?

I am a primarily in-office knowledge worker who gets Fridays to WFH. Over the last couple of months, I’ve been having heart-related health issues that rest seems to help. I’ve asked for one, maybe two days to WFH on the days that it is intense and I can’t get the flare-ups to go away on my own. Nothing wild or egregious. WFH is an incredibly touchy subject at my office because so many people are resentful of having to come in when this “requirement” is not being consistently enforced.

I was granted a week to work from home while the rest of my team (including my boss and the entire leadership team) is out of town for a big event that I’m not supporting. Almost no one will be online, and if they are, they’ll be focused on other things and not checking for me. I thought it might be nice to get out of town during this week for a change of scenery and not just sit in my house all week. I booked a trip out of town with the intention of being online during my team’s usual working hours, since I don’t see a ton of difference between being online at my house and being online in a different city if it’s the same hours and level of responsiveness.

My coworker made a point that the optics of this trip aren’t great, because asking to WFH a couple of times because of heart issues is out of sync with flying across the country and exploring a different city. I didn’t think it was that big of a deal since I’ll just be in my hotel room during business hours and very gently exploring the town outside of those hours, but I see her point. I hadn’t considered that until she said something, and this is someone whose judgement I trust a lot, especially when it comes to how leadership perceives our actions.

What do you think — are the optics of going out of town with health issues odd, or can I safely do this if I’m not super outspoken about where I’ll be logging in from? I’ll need to tell my boss I’ll be offline for a bit on my travel days, but not sure how specific I need to be. Would love your perspective on this so I don’t throttle my reputation on this team. (I’ve been here three years and my boss thinks highly of me, so I’m feeling pretty good about my personal capital, if that helps.)

People with heart issues can travel. There’s nothing incongruous about taking a trip while also occasionally needing to work from home for health reasons.

That said, there are potentially some optics issues that have nothing to do with your health: some managers will wonder whether “I want to fly across the country and work from there while the rest of the office is gone” actually means “I think I’ll vacation that week and just do the bare minimum while everyone else is gone anyway.” If you have a good track record, they shouldn’t think that — but since your office is already weird about people working from home, adding in the trip might be pushing it. (If your office were more chill about WFH, I’d give different advice.)

There are also all the usual issues about security and tax compliance when you’re working from a different location (which your office may or may not care about, but you should be aware of them).

2. Candidate no-showed for a high-level interview

I’m on a panel interviewing for a director-level role at a major national nonprofit. By the time I talk to them, candidates have already gotten through a screening process which asks about relevant experience, completed a phone screen, and interviewed with the hiring manager. For this role, we received at least 80 applications and are holding five panel interviews, hoping to narrow down to one person for the head of the department to consider.

So today we’re on the Teams call for the 60-minute panel interview; it’s our fourth this week, getting pretty routine. The scheduled time comes and goes. We give it 15 more minutes. Nothing from the candidate; no contact in any way (phone or email) to anyone in our organization, including the hiring manager, HR, or our general switchboard. Eventually, we all sign off.

If the candidate had some crazy experience that prevented them from signing on, we will of course reschedule — we’re all parents/dog-owners/humans too, after all — but what if they just … forgot? This isn’t an entry-level position where the candidates are likely applying to everything within reason so maybe an interview here or there could fall through the cracks. This would be a major upgrade for a late-career professional, so I’d be surprised if they just ghosted.

We do have other candidates, including some with experience that’s a slightly better match — which we were going to give this person a chance to discuss! Does this incident (again, barring a legit excuse) automatically disqualify them? Should the hiring manager have reached out to them after 10 or so minutes to ask if they’re still planning to join, or take it as a sign that this wasn’t meant to be?

It the person wasn’t a strong candidate anyway, I’d just drop it and move on to other candidates. If they contact you with an explanation and ask to reschedule, you can decide at that point.

But if they’re a promising candidate, I’m a fan of emailing after 10 minutes or so: “You didn’t connect for our 3 pm call today; I hope everything is okay. Please reach out if you’re still interested in the position.” That way you’re acknowledging that something big may have gotten in the way, but leaving it in their court to contact you and explain if they want to. (That said, if you see other signs of disorganization during your dealing with them, take those very seriously.)

3. Should I say something about a coworker’s public LinkedIn job search?

I’m a manager on a classic “small but mighty” team, responsible for many of the company’s back office operations. We are exceedingly understaffed — each manager’s team (including my own) is down at least a headcount, if not more, with no word from upper management on go-forward plans, no acknowledgement that the situation is unsustainable, and currently no hope of backfilling open positions (because the lion’s share of the division’s budget went, very visibly, to other teams). Analysts are being asked to pick up way more work than they have before, and managers have taken up analyst tasks as well to fill gaps in addition to their own work – unsurprisingly, everyone is stressed, overworked, and demoralized.

I paint this picture to ask about how I should handle a situation that I came across on LinkedIn: an analyst on our team, who reports up to a different manager, has been commenting publicly on LinkedIn posts stating that they’re highly interested in an available position, that they applied for an open position and are enthusiastic about it, etc. I do not blame them in the slightest for looking elsewhere (though I personally wouldn’t go about it quite so publicly while still employed), but given the staffing challenges we’re already facing, is this something I should let their manager know about in some way, or is it none of my business? Normally I would have concerns about risking this analyst’s job by saying something, but given how short-staffed we are, I can’t envision anyone getting fired for anything short of an actual crime … and given how short-staffed we are, we really can’t afford to lose another good team member, at least not without a fight. How should I handle this, if at all?

Leave it alone. If your colleague’s manager doesn’t realize that people in the situation you described might be job-searching, I’m skeptical they have the ability to handle the info well if you did offer it.

At the very most you could say something like, “I’ve seen some indications some team members are job-searching because of the workload, so if there are people you definitely wouldn’t want to lose right now, it might be smart to talk with them about how we can retain them.” But don’t name the person you saw.

4. Should I tell my company I’m leaving over a matter of conscience?

I saw the recent letter “Should my resignation letter include 700 words on why I’m leaving?” and had a similar question. I’m considering resigning over a matter of conscience. I don’t know if I will, but if I do, do I tell them why? I’m not interested in causing problems or creating drama, and I certainly don’t expect anyone to share my convictions/conscience (they’re personal and they’re mine). But I’m torn. On the one hand, I feel that if I’m leaving over a matter of conscience, it would be cowardly or disingenuous to not tell the truth about why (and I ​will be asked). But on the other hand, the matter of conscience is personal, so is it even their business? I don’t want to burn bridges. I have a good relationship with everyone I work with, and I’ve been there for quite a few years. What would I say if not the truth?

This depends on so many things — what the matter of conscience is, how big the company is, how much you’re valued, how much of a loss they’ll see your departure as, how you’ve seen them respond to difficult feedback in the past, whether the feedback itself is in line with issues they’re already concerned about, whether your objection is to something fundamental in their business model or not (i.e., if you’re leaving big tobacco because you don’t like big tobacco, there’s not really useful info to offer there ) … it’s nearly impossible to offer broad principles when it’s so situation-dependent.

What I can say is that if (a) the matter of conscience is something they’d care about if they knew (like embezzlement or, I don’t know, behavior toward clients that’s out of sync with their values) or (b) you’re very valued, it’s a relatively small organization, and you have the ear of someone high up or with significant influence/power, it can be worth explaining why you’re leaving. Not by letter, like the person in the question you linked wanted to do, but in a real conversation.

You don’t have to do that. But if you want to and can check at least some of the boxes I listed above, you can.

5. Is something weird happening with my references?

My job hunt has lasted more than a year: I am currently employed and trying to be discerning. This week — for the second time in this lengthy search — I was asked for additional information after all my references were called. In this case, the employer requested writing samples and an explanation of how the job fits with my career goals. I provided the requested information, but it has left my mind reeling and my expectations low because of my previous experience.

Eleven months ago (different employer and position), I was asked for another interview after my references had been interviewed via Zoom, in addition to being asked follow-up questions in writing. Despite my apprehension at the non-standard procedure, I agreed because I really liked the employer. When I asked if they had concerns about my technical skills, the employer indicated they had additional questions about whether I would enjoy the work they do. Ultimately, the employer cancelled my interview with only two hours notice and a flimsy, one-line excuse that they “decided to go in a different direction.”

I have to wonder if it is me! I know that my references are not saying anything bad because they volunteer to divulge what they said and/or wrote. Also, I did not use all the same references both times.To me, calling references is the final step in the process, so this is honestly making me feel increasingly insecure. Is calling references no longer the last step in the interview process?

Checking references usually happens late in the process, but that doesn’t mean that employers only do it for a single finalist. Some employers check the references of everyone who’s still in the running at the finalist stage, or at least the final two candidates, and then use that info to make their final choice. And occasionally a reference check will spur an employer to go back to the candidate to clarify a particular point. However, that’s pretty rare — and I’m concerned that on two occasions now your references seemed to leave employers less certain about you.

In both those cases, the employer seemed to doubt your interest in the job: one wanted to know how the job fit with your career goals — at a much later stage than something so fundamental would normally be discussed — and the other wondered if you’d enjoy the work. That makes me think at least one of your references is introducing doubt about whether these positions are right for you. That wouldn’t have to be something a reference did deliberately; they might have no idea that they were even raising concerns for employers. (For example, is one of your references waxing on about how devoted you are to X and it’s your life calling, but the jobs you’re applying for have nothing to do with X?)

You said you used different references each time, but was there any overlap at all? Either way, I’m concerned that something is happening on those calls that you need to dig into.

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

1. Getting called a Nazi at work

I work for local government in a region that is currently experiencing a drought. Part of my job involves working with people who break drought restrictions, with engagement ranging from education and outreach to levying fines or outright limiting their water. Sometimes people are not happy with this and call me a water Nazi. I am Jewish. I lost family in the Holocaust. This is an extremely homogenous population, many of whom have never met a Jew before. Can you help me come up with some responses that are professional but make it clear that this is not an okay thing to say? My managers fully support me pushing back and are willing to take calls if things escalate, but currently I just end up sputtering incoherently in rage.

I don’t think there’s a great response here. I mean, you could say “Nazis killed my family and that’s not an okay thing to say” … and some people might be chagrined, but others will just get defensive and escalate further. You could leave off the first part and just say “that’s not an okay thing to say” but lots of people won’t understand why or will think you’re being overly delicate.

But really, it’s an unacceptable thing to say to anyone, Jewish or not. So I’d argue you’re better off skipping the whole thing and moving straight to “I’m happy to work with you on this, but if you’re going to be abusive, I’ll need to disconnect this call.”

2. I’m in charge — how do I punish myself for a mistake?

I messed up. I’m the GM of a restaurant. There is no one above me. I constantly harp on my staff about responsibilities and paying attention to what they are doing. And I made a huge mistake.

I left a money bag out and stashed in a drawer. I went to fill in for someone who called in sick, and the opening supervisor forgot to load money in the drawers. So I hurried and loaded money in one drawer and made the change I needed. Because I had guests in front of me, I just quickly stashed the bags and didn’t put them back in the safe. Whelp, another supervisor found them and I had to fess up to the mistake. But how do I now create a punishment for myself so that they understand no one is above doing things the correct way?

As a manager, you shouldn’t be meting out punishments — that’s not the job. You should be ensuring people are well trained, coaching them when you see it’s needed, and holding people accountable for doing their jobs well. If an otherwise good employee did what you did, “punishing” them would be inappropriate. You’d talk to them, find out what happened, and talk about how to ensure it doesn’t happen in the future. If they seemed unconcerned or cavalier and you didn’t trust them not to do something similarly careless again, you’d address that part of it — generally through feedback and coaching — and if that didn’t solve it, you’d need to decide whether you could keep them in the job or not (which would be a natural consequence, not a punishment). Punishing really isn’t part of the job, at least not if you want to be a good manager.

If you’ve been managing via punishment up until now, you’re right to worry that you’ll seem to have a double standard for yourself. In that case, this should function as a humbling reminder that everyone is human and everyone makes mistakes. That doesn’t mean you should ignore mistakes! But your job is to talk with people when they happen and create systems that minimize/mitigate mistakes, not to punish.

3. My coworker didn’t tell me he was applying for a promotion in our sexist company

A long-time male acquaintance of mine, who I have known for 13 years, recently rejoined my industry after an eight-year hiatus and was swiftly promoted to the director of sales and marketing within just three months. Meanwhile, my male director was promoted to general manager. It has become apparent that my director has a preference for working with men, as he has openly expressed.

Despite my qualifications and proven track record of generating significant revenues for the company, I did not apply for the director position due to my aversion to male-dominated hierarchies.

I can’t help but feel that my friend should have checked in with me before pursuing the director position. I have been at the company longer and hold a senior sales manager title, he was hired at entry-level manager position, and I trained him. A simple conversation to gauge my thoughts or intentions would have been considerate and respectful. Instead, I feel as though he went behind our backs in an attempt to conceal his ambitions. This has left me feeling undervalued in the workplace. Should I be feeling this way or should I say something to him?

You should absolutely take issue with the fact that your new general manager says he prefers to work with men. That’s a declaration of intent to discriminate that gives you enough to talk with a lawyer if you ever wanted to go that route.

But your friend didn’t do anything wrong. He just applied for a job — one that you didn’t even apply for yourself! He may be merrily benefiting from a sexist system, but he didn’t really owe you a conversation before applying for the role. (That’s extra true if you are more acquaintances than friends; you used both words in your letter so I’m not sure which one is more accurate.) Lots of people don’t run their plans to apply for a promotion by friendly coworkers, and that’s not deceitful; it’s just that colleagues aren’t inherently entitled to that information. (There are some exceptions to that, like if you’d been open about applying yourself and he’d deliberately misled you about his own intentions in an attempt to gain an advantage or so forth.)

There are problems in your workplace, but your friend’s pursuit of the director job doesn’t sound like it should be near the top of that list.

4. References

I have two questions regarding being a reference. First is the “Is this person eligible for rehire?” question. I supervise student employees at a university, so as I complete their reference checks for their post-college full-time job, I am forced to answer “no” as technically they are not eligible for rehire once they graduate. I always try to add a comment if the form allows explaining why, but I’m wondering if this question is an automatic “no” for prospective employees, even if there is a comment explaining the logic behind the “no”. Should I be answering “yes” meaning “they parted on good terms” even if technically they cannot work a student employment position once they have graduated?

Second is something that I’ve started seeing, but I don’t know if it’s just one of higher ed’s many oddities. Some reference forms ask me if I would like to be contacted by the institution about future job openings at their institution. Is this just higher ed struggling to attract candidates? Is there any way I am hurting the applicant’s chances by saying yes? Would I be somehow unable to apply to work there in the future if I say no? It seems so strange to piggyback on someone else’s job search in this way.

You should answer that they’re eligible for re-hire. Because they would be if they returned as a student, right? Ideally you’d be able to explain, “We’d gladly hire them again if we could, but we only hire students.” But if you’re filling out a form and you’re forced to answer yes or no, answer in the spirit of what’s being asked, which is, “Is this person in good standing with you as a previous employee?”

Second question: It’s obnoxious for them to use a reference check to ask if they can spam you about job openings in the future, but that is what they are doing. Your answer won’t affect the applicant’s chances or your own in the future. No one is tracking your answer in a way that would reflect on anyone involved.

5. Who is on a “hiring team”?

I have a second interview with a “hiring team” and then the big boss. I’m trying to figure out who I might be talking to, or even how many, and realizing I’ve never seen a definition for “hiring team”!

This first interview was with people who would be more like my peers. When I hear “team,” I think of the people I’d be on a literal team with.

The hiring team is the group of people in charge of hiring for the job, whether than means making the final decision or just providing input. It will nearly always include the hiring manager (the person who would be your manager if you got the job) but from there it’s a crapshoot. The most likely options include would-be peers, others who would work closely with you, stakeholders from other departments, representatives of HR, and/or higher-level managers — but really, it could be anyone, just depending on how this particular organization handles hiring.

Related:
what does “hiring manager” mean and other work terms you might not know