And three other tricky workplace dilemmas.
BY ALISON GREEN, INC.COM COLUMNIST
Here’s a roundup of answers to four questions from readers.
1. When your new hire is in jail on his first day
My company hired a new person on my team. He was scheduled to start on a Monday but he pushed back a week at the last minute, and he didn’t notify us until minutes before he was expected in.
The next Monday he didn’t come in, and no one could get in touch with him. We eventually discovered he was in jail. He claimed he was pulled over on the way to work for a traffic violation, then found out he had an outstanding warrant from a traffic ticket mix-up over ten years ago. When he did make it in later that week, he was immediately fired.
I’m wondering how reasonable it was to fire him. A responsible, organized friend of mine also got in trouble from a traffic ticket she was never notified of, so I know his story isn’t impossible. On the other hand, missing your start day because you’re in jail is never a good look — doubly so after he pushed back his start date the first time. My company has a very open culture so I would have some room to encourage us not to put inappropriate weight on what is often a very flawed legal system.
Green responds:
This is one of those things a person would likely get more grace for when they’ve worked somewhere a while and is a known quantity but which is more likely to be held against them if it happens on their first day — because as a new hire, the employer has far fewer data points on them and so there’s less counterweight to the alarm of the arrest and jail.
When you combine that with the employee already pushing his start date back a week at the very last minute, that combination from a new hire is going to be really hard to get over.
If the first part hadn’t happened and it was just the traffic arrest, then yes, it would be worth using some capital to stand up for the guy if you were in a position to. We don’t want companies automatically pulling job offers or firing people because of minor mix-ups or assuming being jailed is the same thing as being guilty. In this case, though, I can see why your company felt like it was too much when combined with what happened his first week.
2. Giving a reference when I can’t think of any weaknesses
As a manager of a high-performing team, I’ve been receiving reference checks on my previous employees looking to advance in our very large organization. I have nothing but good things to say about them, all very true. I struggle with one common reference check question though: “What would you say are Jane’s weaknesses?” This puts me in a conundrum because I really have to stretch to think of something, and when I do that I feel like I may be hurting their chances. However, I’m afraid if I say something like, “I can’t think of any,” I might be hurting their perception of my authenticity, and thus my former employees’ chances.
What would you tell the reference checkers asking this weakness question when you honestly cannot think of any?
Green responds:
If you genuinely can’t think of a weakness, you can say, “I honestly can’t think of one. She was really outstanding.” Lots of references do say this, and reference-checkers won’t automatically think you’re BS’ing them. (They generally will assume you’re fairly neutral; they don’t assume you’re hoping to pull one over on them.) They might try to dig a little more, and that’s fine; just answer honestly if they do.
But an alternative is to think of something you saw the person improve on over time. For example: “When she first started with me, she wanted to improve her public speaking skills and was really disciplined in practicing and improving them. It’s been three years, and she’s now one of the strongest presenters on my team.” So you’re talking about something that was a weakness at one time, but putting it in context.
Really, though, if you think the person is great and haven’t noticed any real weaknesses, it’s fine to say that. You don’t need to stretch to find something. If the reference-checker wants to push further, they will. (Do make sure, though, that you’re speaking to the person’s strengths with some specificity and nuance — that’s where the credibility and usefulness of a reference comes from. If it’s all sweeping pronouncements like “she’s great,” that’s not especially helpful.)
3. Can I be unavailable for lunchtime meetings?
I cannot take any more lunchtime meetings! Our company is a mixture of remote employees, employees on the west coast (I’m on the east coast), and on-site employees. This has resulted in meetings right at lunchtime three to four days per week. I’m a senior manager, as well as a very introverted single mom who has a child with a chronic illness, and I use my lunch breaks to do errands, be alone and not bothered by my employees, call doctors with limited availability, and of course get lunch.
These meetings have become such a nuisance that I’m simply declining any requests for a lunchtime meeting with the exception of our west coast colleagues or critical meetings that I must be at. Aside from that, I figure that if they need me there, they need to find another time. What do you think of this approach? If you don’t agree, what suggestions can you offer? I’m sick of spending three to four of my precious lunch breaks in rambling and inefficient meetings that almost always go over time while I sit there starving with a list of errands I need to figure out how to do.
Green responds:
Yes, try blocking out that time on your calendar as busy and/or say you’re unavailable for meetings at that time. You’d need to pay attention to your office culture to make sure that’s not out of sync with it, but generally that’s a reasonable action (as long as you’re making exceptions for critical meetings, which you’re doing).
Also, consider talking to people who repeatedly target that time for meetings and ask how difficult it would be to avoid that slot. Maybe it’s the only time that works for the whole group, but you might find they have other options they can use once they know your preference.
4. What should we do with employees’ email accounts after they leave?
I’m in HR, and our company usually leaves departing employees’ email accounts open when they leave the company. Sometimes there is an out-of-office message, and sometimes not. Generally the person’s manager or an assistant “manages” the in-box following the departure.
Employees often ask me what will happen with their emails, who’s going to be monitoring their in-box, etc. I understand their concern. Clients and outside contacts who do not receive prompt responses (which may happen depending on who is managing the in-box) may view that as a lack of professionalism on the part of the employee leaving, if they don’t know they’ve left.
HR has become frustrated when I share employees’ concerns about this. They state that it’s not the employee’s email account and so it’s not up to them what happens to it after they leave. While I understand that, I can’t help but wonder if we are hurting departing employees’ reputations by not shutting off their accounts or always ensuring there is an out-of-office message. What is your opinion on this? I can’t help but think that just shutting off the account so a sender gets a bounce back would be the best option.
Green responds:
You should turn off the accounts (with a bounce message) or set up an out-of-office reply explaining the person no longer works there. Which of those to do depends on the circumstances and type of job, but you should consistently do one or the other. Otherwise, as you note, people may not realize the person has left and will wonder why they’re not hearing back — which is bad for the employee’s reputation, but it’s also bad for your company’s reputation. Try pointing out the latter to your colleagues.
