BY ALISON GREEN, INC.COM COLUMNIST
Here’s a roundup of answers to four questions from readers.
1. How can I avoid talking shop outside of work?
I have a colleague who I am sharing a few really challenging, long-term projects with. They’re great to work with and we’re getting a lot done. The only problem is that we live in the same part of town and frequently bump into each other on the way in — which in itself is fine but they often immediately start talking about work, including ideas they’ve just had and are expecting my opinion on.
I care about my work and I am often thinking about it out of hours, but I don’t really trust my own analytical skills while I’m still digesting my breakfast and finishing my coffee and don’t have all the relevant info in front of me. It’s making me feel bad that I’m not ready to dive in immediately when they apparently are.
I know I could just say, “Oh, I don’t feel up to talking shop right now,” but I’m worried I’ll be shutting down their enthusiasm and i really don’t want to come across as saying “we should work less hard.” Any way I can navigate this?
Green responds:
No reasonable person will think you’re saying “we should work less hard” just because you’re not prepared to talk about work when they bump into you at a coffeeshop. Particularly reasonable people may even feel a little bad about not respecting your off hours.
It’s fine to be someone who’s up for talking about work whenever the opportunity arises. But politeness and consideration for others require being attuned to cues that someone else may not be in the mood — and not judging them for it.
I would say this: “Do you mind if we wait until we’re both in the office? I’m not in work mode yet!” Alternately, “I’m going to need to have my coffee before I even start to think about that” is a standard for a reason.
With either of those, you’re not explicitly saying “I don’t want to talk about work if I’m not on the clock.” You’re just pointing out that most of us have work modes and non-work-modes, and you’re in the latter.
2. Should resigning managers share info about team members with incoming managers?
I’m preparing to leave my job and am training my newly-hired replacement. This position supervises several folks, and one of them in particular is … quirky. He is compassionate, customer-focused, and dedicated to our clients, but when dealing with other coworkers, he can be cranky (the word “curmudgeon” comes to mind). He also really hates change, and it takes a lot of convincing to get him on board with any changes that impact his particular processes.
Should I give my replacement the heads-up on this? I was not given any insight into his behavior when I started, so I spent the first few years that I supervised him frustrated and, frankly, unsure why our clients loved him so much. I think that having some background knowledge of his quirks might make things go a little smoother for my replacement; on the other hand, I don’t want to “poison the well” for him by giving his new boss a bad impression.
Green responds:
When you’re training a replacement, it makes sense to pass along institutional knowledge and context that will help them do their job better, and when you’re training a manager, context about the people she’ll be managing is part of that. That’s why new managers generally get access to team members’ past performance reviews, etc. New managers shouldn’t have to start from scratch figuring out team members, when long histories exist that will give them helpful context. It makes sense for new managers to come in knowing things like: Jane regularly hits her goals out of the park and so we’ve given her as much flexibility as we can, Bob has been talked to repeatedly about missing deadlines and shouldn’t have much rope left, and Lucinda really wants to move into client work next year and has been working on demonstrating she’s ready to do it. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t observe things for themselves and make up their own minds — they should — but without that context, you get situations like Jane bristling because the new manager isn’t giving her the autonomy she’s earned or Bob acting like his deadline problems are new ones.
Of course, you should should keep the info you relay calm and factual — don’t start ranting about how frustrating Bob is to manage, but do calmly explain what challenges you’ve seen and what you’ve learned does and doesn’t. And you can explicitly say, “You might end up with a different take on this and you should get to know him on your own terms, but this is context that might be useful to have.”
3. My coworkers come up with bizarre solutions to simple problems
I work in a construction company where the other departments are very lax. We have processes in place for how information is communicated from these departments but often these processes are not followed, which leads to disorganization and mistakes. Plus, once the information reaches me to complete the next step, I have to stay late or push other tasks aside to meet the deadline that others had no respect for.
I believe that the solution is for people to follow the process and complete their baseline duties. When I bring these issues to our meetings, I communicate that A is the problem, B is the outcome, and C is the expectation so this can be prevented in the future. I try not to get too specific so it doesn’t feel like I’m publicly criticizing anyone. But everyone takes it upon themselves to come up with ridiculous and crazy solutions. For example, problem: we paid a vendor late because the invoice wasn’t forwarded to accounting. Proposed solution: “Why don’t we just pay the vendor $1,000 in advance so that if we miss a payment, we are still okay!” (NO! Just send the invoice over! It’s not that hard!)
I am all for brainstorming and creative thinking, but these ridiculous ideas and “obvious” solutions make my blood boil. They are suggested in pompous tones that make me feel like they think I am an idiot for not thinking of it and for asking my coworkers to follow well thought-out processes. It is so difficult to bite my tongue and not walk away from the meeting furious and feeling steamrolled. How can I communicate that I am interested in enforcing a ready-built solution, not looking for a new one? Am I being close-minded to new possibilities?
Green responds:
Stop bringing this stuff up in meetings and instead address the problems one-on-one with people as they make the mistakes. That will let you be very clear and direct, rather than trying to be vague so you’re not publicly criticizing people. That way you can use language like, “Bob, because you sent me this invoice one day before it was due, we paid the vendor late and were charged a late fee. We need you to submit invoices at least a week before they’re due.” (And if people repeat the errors, then you escalate and talk with their managers.)
If you instead rely on group meetings, people won’t always know what applies to them and what doesn’t, especially if you’re being intentionally vague about specific situations; some people will tune out because it’s a meeting, and some people will (apparently) think you’re looking for a discussion rather than just conveying instructions. One-on-one conversations significantly up the chances that people will feel more responsibility to pay attention to what you’re saying and do what you’re asking, and they’re less likely to think it’s an invitation for a group brainstorm.
4. I sent a bad follow-up email after an interview
Let’s say you have a good job candidate who is qualified for the position, and after a lengthy wait of 17 days post-interview, they send a follow-up email which is a bit desperate, such as begging for the job or poorly worded or they ramble on in the email about whether or not they are being considered for the position or where they stand in the hiring process. Should this be used against them as a red flag and should they be eliminated from being considered?
In other words, should the quality or effectiveness of a follow-up letter be used to take an otherwise strong candidate out of the running? Meaning if they had never sent the ineffective follow-up email, they may have been hired … and sending a followup email is not even a requirement for getting the position. (Yes, I am the candidate here. I was getting concerned over the delay in hearing back and in retrospect now I wish I would have just waited.)
Green responds:
Yes, it can matter. I think you’re hoping that since you weren’t required to send that follow-up email, it shouldn’t be considered when they’re assessing your candidacy. But even “extra” communications like this are data about the candidate, and it’s smart for employers to consider all the data they have when hiring.
It’s really going to come down to the tone of your email. If it sounded aggressive or pushy or rude or was terribly written, that stuff matters. If it was just a little rambly (like five sentences when two would do), that’s probably not a big deal — but again, it comes down to the overall feel of it.
There’s nothing wrong with checking in about where things stand, but you want to keep any frustration or other negative emotion out of it. And if you don’t trust yourself to do that, writing it and letting it sit for a day before you come back to edit it is a good idea.
