Speaker 1: My colleagues, We'll stop commenting on everything I get at
Speaker 1: people and meeting? Why does my coworker keep taking credit
Speaker 1: for all my ideas? Have any wisdom for me? Hi?
Speaker 1: I'm Alison Green. Welcome to the Ask a Manager podcast.
Speaker 1: Right answer questions from listeners about life at work, everything
Speaker 1: from what to say if you're allergic to your coworkers
Speaker 1: perfume to what to do if you drink too much
Speaker 1: at the company party. Let's get started, Hi, and welcome
Speaker 1: to the show. Today, I'm going to answer a bunch
Speaker 1: of shorter questions from people. The first question today, well,
Speaker 1: I'm just going to say that when I first started
Speaker 1: asking Manager eleven years ago, I never expected to get
Speaker 1: so many questions involving office toilet etiquette. Hi, Allison, I
Speaker 1: work in a small office of about three five people,
Speaker 1: and we have an interesting situation here that none of
Speaker 1: the leadership is quite sure how to contend with. So
Speaker 1: we decided to ask you. Someone or perhaps multiple people
Speaker 1: are not flushing the toilet. I know staff are reporting
Speaker 1: with some regularity and no pun intended, that they're finding
Speaker 1: toilets filled with shall we say, large deposits and are
Speaker 1: growth out. How do you advise. I addressed this with
Speaker 1: my staff. I've been a manager for more than twenty years,
Speaker 1: and it's a first for me. Okay, the first thing
Speaker 1: I need to say here is that I get a
Speaker 1: lot of letters from people whose offices are in the
Speaker 1: same situation, which has really surprised me, because who knew
Speaker 1: that this was so common. I've even encountered it in
Speaker 1: real life. I once worked in an office where this
Speaker 1: was happening. We called whoever was doing it the phantom pooper,
Speaker 1: and it suddenly stopped after one particular guy was fired.
Speaker 1: So either he was the phantom pooper or someone else
Speaker 1: was and realized that they could frame him by choosing
Speaker 1: that particular time top. I want to say that second
Speaker 1: option is too pathological to explain it, But on the
Speaker 1: other hand, the behavior itself is already kind of pathological,
Speaker 1: so who knows. I also have a relative who reported
Speaker 1: it was happening in his office too, and like I said,
Speaker 1: I get a bunch of letters about it, So apparently
Speaker 1: there is a weird epidemic of aggressive non flushing in offices.
Speaker 1: As for an answer, I don't have a great answer
Speaker 1: for this. I don't know that anyone does. I mean Obviously,
Speaker 1: you can try putting up signs asking people to flush,
Speaker 1: but people generally already know that they're supposed to flush.
Speaker 1: It's not like a sign is going to teach someone
Speaker 1: that rule for the first time. Maybe if it's just
Speaker 1: happening because someone is incredibly absent minded. But I'm skeptical
Speaker 1: that this is about being absent minded. I mean, flushing
Speaker 1: is a key part of the activity that you're in
Speaker 1: there to do, so I think it's more deliberate than that,
Speaker 1: and that it often can be a kind of active aggression.
Speaker 1: It's you know, it's no coincidence that the guy who
Speaker 1: least seem to be responsible in my office with someone
Speaker 1: who eventually got fired for unrelated reasons. It's not the
Speaker 1: kind of thing that you think your star performer is doing.
Speaker 1: You know, it feels more like an f you. And
Speaker 1: if that is the case, signs aren't going to help
Speaker 1: and might even egg the person on. But you can
Speaker 1: try signs who knows, try putting up some friendly signs
Speaker 1: asking people to remember to flesh and see what happens.
Speaker 1: It probably won't solve it, but it'll take minimal effort
Speaker 1: to try that out. But assuming that doesn't solve it.
Speaker 1: At that point, you don't have a lot of options
Speaker 1: if you really want to get serious about it. There
Speaker 1: is one thing that can potentially work. It's kind of
Speaker 1: a pain, though. You can put a lock on the
Speaker 1: bathroom door and start requiring people to get the key
Speaker 1: from your receptionist in order to get in there. That's
Speaker 1: actually not an uncommon set up. Lots of offices do
Speaker 1: have bathrooms that work that way. But if yours isn't
Speaker 1: already set up like that, it can feel like a
Speaker 1: lot of effort and change just to get someone to
Speaker 1: flush the toilet. But that is a way to potentially
Speaker 1: stop it, because if someone walks in there and find
Speaker 1: something gross, it's much easier to know who was last
Speaker 1: in there if people have to get a key every time,
Speaker 1: So there's this sort of specter of accountability and that
Speaker 1: might stop it. But again, I mean, that's a lot
Speaker 1: of effort to go through for this. The other thing though,
Speaker 1: and this is a fairly meta way to address it,
Speaker 1: but you could think about your staff and who's thriving
Speaker 1: there and who's not. You know, do you have someone
Speaker 1: who's struggling with their work, or who seems unhappy, or
Speaker 1: just any unresolved personnel issues. And I am not saying
Speaker 1: you should then go to them and accuse them of
Speaker 1: doing this, Absolutely not. The idea is that if you
Speaker 1: do have unresolved staff issues, you might take this as
Speaker 1: an incentive to really tackle those. And I know that
Speaker 1: sounds totally unrelated, but like I was saying before, this
Speaker 1: isn't something that your star performer generally does, and really
Speaker 1: you should be resolving any existing staff issues anyway. But
Speaker 1: it's human nature to let things linger, and lots of employers,
Speaker 1: lots of managers, do let things linger. It is possible
Speaker 1: that by deciding we're going to do a sort of
Speaker 1: organizational health check up and start working to fix anything
Speaker 1: that isn't in good shape, it is possible that in
Speaker 1: doing that you will find that this problem goes away too.
Speaker 1: And that might seem like an awfully big picture reaction
Speaker 1: to something that seems very small. But what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is that this poop might be like the canary in
Speaker 1: a coal mine, you know, a sign that not all
Speaker 1: is well, the poop in the coal mine. If you
Speaker 1: will or not, I mean, maybe you have a tremendously
Speaker 1: absent minded person on your staff who knows but it's
Speaker 1: always a good idea to do that kind of organizational
Speaker 1: health check anyway, and there are all kinds of other
Speaker 1: good things that could result from it, so it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be wasted effort. That's probably way more than you've expected
Speaker 1: me to read into poop in the toilet, But there
Speaker 1: you have it. Okay, let's go to our next question. Hi, Allison,
Speaker 1: my name is Riah. I love your podcast and love
Speaker 1: hearing your helpful suggestions to people at their workplace. I
Speaker 1: have a question for you that's been a recurring topic
Speaker 1: of debate among me and my friends. What is your
Speaker 1: opinion on using personality tests to hire personally? I kind
Speaker 1: of think they're like horoscopes. I think people sort of
Speaker 1: read into them and pick what they want to hear
Speaker 1: and ignore what they don't want to hear. I could
Speaker 1: give you another hundred reasons why I don't like them,
Speaker 1: but I'm really interested in hearing your take. Thank you
Speaker 1: for your time, and I really look forward to many
Speaker 1: more episodes in hiring specifically, I'm not a fan of
Speaker 1: personality tests. Frankly, I'm not a fan of using them
Speaker 1: with existing employees either, but that is more just about
Speaker 1: my personal preference. I know that a lot of people
Speaker 1: have found things like strength Finder or the Disk assessment
Speaker 1: to be really helpful and giving insights into their own
Speaker 1: strengths and their approach to work, and forgetting insight into
Speaker 1: those same things for their coworkers, and just figuring out
Speaker 1: how to communicate with each other better. Some people do
Speaker 1: really find value in that, But using it with an
Speaker 1: existing team is one thing. Using it as part of
Speaker 1: your hiring process is a lot more problematic. There are
Speaker 1: employers who have people take personality tests early on in
Speaker 1: their hiring process, and then they just automatically reject people
Speaker 1: who don't score a certain way. That puts way too
Speaker 1: much weight on the results of the tests. And actually
Speaker 1: several of the big personality tests, like the Myers Briggs
Speaker 1: specifically say that they should not be used in hiring.
Speaker 1: There's a couple of big problems with doing in hiring. One.
Speaker 1: There are loads of problems with most of these tests
Speaker 1: scientific validity. It's one thing if you want to use
Speaker 1: a non scientifically valid test with existing employees because you
Speaker 1: think it helps people learn to communicate better with each
Speaker 1: other or whatever it might be. But it's a really
Speaker 1: different thing to use them to make decisions about who
Speaker 1: you will and won't employ. Another problem is that you're
Speaker 1: forcing people to take what is essentially a psychological test
Speaker 1: as part of your hiring process, and people are entitled
Speaker 1: to some psychological privacy. It's not really reasonable for an
Speaker 1: employer to require that a potential employee open up to
Speaker 1: them so completely. It's kind of gross, you know, to
Speaker 1: scrutinize every aspect of a candidate's life in that way.
Speaker 1: And then the other thing is it's just not good hiring.
Speaker 1: People with different personality types can excel at the same
Speaker 1: job for different reasons, and it's not smart to decide
Speaker 1: that you know who will be good at what based
Speaker 1: on the results of a personality test when you have
Speaker 1: much more relevant information right in front of you in
Speaker 1: the form of their work history and their accomplishments. It's
Speaker 1: a little like if we were going to hire based
Speaker 1: on i Q. Intelligence is great, but what you really
Speaker 1: want to know is what has the person used their
Speaker 1: intelligence for? What if they achieved And it's the same
Speaker 1: thing with personality tests. You want to look at what
Speaker 1: they have actually gotten done, and that is a much
Speaker 1: more reliable measure of what you can expect from them
Speaker 1: if you hire them. Let's take a short break here
Speaker 1: and come back with a lot more questions. Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, next question. Hi Allison. I work for a
Speaker 1: small media company and we're constantly battling to stay staffed properly.
Speaker 1: Clients will send us large projects with a tight deadline,
Speaker 1: and so we'll staff up to meet the demand, but
Speaker 1: then the client will inevitably delay and force us to
Speaker 1: let people go since we can't always sustain a higher
Speaker 1: staff when the money isn't coming in as quickly as expected. UM,
Speaker 1: my question for you is what's the best way that
Speaker 1: we can let people go without killing morale or treating
Speaker 1: them unfairly. We're a small group, so we tend to
Speaker 1: become pretty good friends, and it's hard to watch good
Speaker 1: people get cut simply because of financials. Sometimes we're cutting
Speaker 1: three or to five people, which is a pretty big
Speaker 1: blow when our total staff hovers around twenty people. In
Speaker 1: the past, my boss has pulled staff members who are
Speaker 1: getting cut into a conference room while somebody else hit
Speaker 1: send on an email to the remaining staff letting them
Speaker 1: know what's going on the and while those on the
Speaker 1: chopping block are being let go, their workstations are locked down,
Speaker 1: and they gather their belongings and leave. The reaction is
Speaker 1: basically chaos from the moment people start reading the email
Speaker 1: until they say goodbye, and everybody grumbles about how shady
Speaker 1: it is to fire people this way and how uncompassionate
Speaker 1: it is. I'm torn myself because I'm not sure what
Speaker 1: other way we could possibly do it. So what are
Speaker 1: your thoughts? What's a graceful way for a small company
Speaker 1: to make big cuts like this? I know we'll never
Speaker 1: make everybodey happy, but surely there's got to be a
Speaker 1: better way out there. This is so hard. There isn't
Speaker 1: really a great way to do layoffs. They always suck
Speaker 1: and they're always hard. The way that your company is
Speaker 1: doing it is actually pretty typical. It's very common for
Speaker 1: companies to have laid off employees leave immediately, in part
Speaker 1: because they want the staff who remain to be able
Speaker 1: to adjust to this new normal as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: And it can be hard on everyone to have laid
Speaker 1: off employees sticking around. Hard on the people being laid off,
Speaker 1: of course, but also hard on their coworkers, who can
Speaker 1: feel kind of guilty and awkward, and it can prevent
Speaker 1: the company from being able to move forward and recover.
Speaker 1: I suspect with your staff who are complaining, it's feeling
Speaker 1: very abrupt. You know, one moment they have these coworkers
Speaker 1: who have they've grown close to, and the next minute
Speaker 1: people are gone. So one thing that you might do
Speaker 1: is talk to your staff about why you do it
Speaker 1: this way and how it can be difficult for someone
Speaker 1: to be told that they're being laid off but then
Speaker 1: still be expected to stick around and be productive. But
Speaker 1: there are two other things that I would also do.
Speaker 1: One is to make sure that you're treating your laid
Speaker 1: off employees as well as you can. You know, make
Speaker 1: sure that you're giving them generous severance, pay for their
Speaker 1: health insurance as long as you can, and even help
Speaker 1: with job hunting leads if you can. If you're remaining
Speaker 1: employees see that you're doing those things, it's going to help.
Speaker 1: They want to see that you're treating people well, So
Speaker 1: the more that you can demonstrate that you are, the better.
Speaker 1: The other thing, though, is that it sounds from your
Speaker 1: letter like this is not an uncommon thing to have
Speaker 1: to do, and if you are regularly needing to lay
Speaker 1: people off because you're staffing up for a new project,
Speaker 1: and then the client delays or doesn't come through, you
Speaker 1: might need to change the way that you're handling that staffing.
Speaker 1: You might be better off going with contract workers or
Speaker 1: temporary workers where it's explicit from the beginning that this
Speaker 1: could happen, rather than hiring people as longer term employees
Speaker 1: when the reality is that you know from past experience
Speaker 1: that you might not be able to keep them on.
Speaker 1: You don't want to hire someone away from a good
Speaker 1: full time job to come work for you and then
Speaker 1: end up laying them off a few months later. That's
Speaker 1: pretty awful to do to someone. If there's any way
Speaker 1: that you can foresee it. Sometimes you can't foresee it,
Speaker 1: of course, but it sounds like in this case that's
Speaker 1: happened enough that you know going in that it's possible.
Speaker 1: And in that case, at a minimum, you've got to
Speaker 1: be open and transparent about it with people so that
Speaker 1: they can make good decisions for themselves and not get
Speaker 1: blindsided by it later. But it would be even better
Speaker 1: if you could change the home model that you're using
Speaker 1: to hire for those projects so that it is explicitly
Speaker 1: structured as a shorter term contract to begin with, maybe
Speaker 1: with higher pay to compensate for the uncertainty that's built
Speaker 1: into the timeline. That would be the right thing to
Speaker 1: do for them, and I suspect the rest of your
Speaker 1: staff would feel a lot better about it if they
Speaker 1: knew that that's how it was being handled. Okay, next letter.
Speaker 1: So I quit my job at Company A that I
Speaker 1: really like back in December and have been working at
Speaker 1: a new place closer to home since then. I regretted
Speaker 1: quitting almost immediately. I left my previous job at Company
Speaker 1: A for a few reasons. Tensions with the bullying manager,
Speaker 1: go pay, and chronically overworked employees, to name a few.
Speaker 1: I decided to quit and come to Company B for
Speaker 1: those reasons. I heard lots of good things about Company
Speaker 1: B and did enjoy it for a while. The work
Speaker 1: is easier, I combided to the office, and my schedule
Speaker 1: is flexible. However, I find my unchallenged and disengaged a
Speaker 1: Company B. The people here are less dynamic and of
Speaker 1: a different cohort than myself, and the work is much
Speaker 1: less interesting. I missed the hard work and the people
Speaker 1: at Company A. I reached out to Company A about
Speaker 1: three months after starting my new job to open the
Speaker 1: door to coming back, and had what I thought was
Speaker 1: a positive meeting with my previous manager. I also talked
Speaker 1: to several of my colleagues at Company A, and they
Speaker 1: were over the moon at the prospect of the returning. However,
Speaker 1: those meetings did not go anywhere, and I did not
Speaker 1: hear back from my former manager. I decided not to
Speaker 1: push it. I've thought about it for a while now
Speaker 1: and feel I made a mistake in leaving. How can
Speaker 1: I reopen the communication with Company A to express my
Speaker 1: desire to go back, or should I just take the
Speaker 1: hint and look elsewhere? Would so appreciate hearing your thoughts
Speaker 1: on this. Thank you. There is a framework of thinking
Speaker 1: in your question that I hear from people a lot,
Speaker 1: which is that you're looking at this as a choice
Speaker 1: between A and B when you really should looking at
Speaker 1: see it sounds like you left Company A for really
Speaker 1: good reasons. A bullying manager and low pay and being
Speaker 1: chronically overworked are things you want to get away from,
Speaker 1: not things that you want to knowingly go back to.
Speaker 1: Aside from the low pay, which of course you do
Speaker 1: know about going in, those are the sorts of conditions
Speaker 1: that people tend to discover after taking a job and
Speaker 1: hate and wish that they had known about beforehand, because
Speaker 1: they would not have signed on if they had. You
Speaker 1: have the advantage here of already knowing what it's like there,
Speaker 1: and it sounds like you made a smart decision to leave.
Speaker 1: I think your second guessing it now because company BE
Speaker 1: turned out not to be the right match for you.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that you should go back to
Speaker 1: company A. I would actually take the fact that your
Speaker 1: conversations with them about returning didn't go anywhere as a
Speaker 1: blessing in disguise, and instead focus your energy and finding
Speaker 1: a better match somewhere else. I will say that when
Speaker 1: you do that, be careful that you don't jump at
Speaker 1: the first offer that you get, which is easy to
Speaker 1: do when you're in a bad situation and you want
Speaker 1: to get out of it. But because you have not
Speaker 1: been at the current job that company be very long,
Speaker 1: I think close to a year. You want to make
Speaker 1: sure that wherever you go next you can happily stay
Speaker 1: for at least a few years so that your resume
Speaker 1: doesn't start looking job poppery. You're totally fine with this
Speaker 1: one shortish stay. You just don't want to start racking
Speaker 1: up more of them because you don't want it to
Speaker 1: look like a pattern. So just be really vigilant about
Speaker 1: screening the next employer and do due diligence to make
Speaker 1: sure that it's really what you want. I mean, of course,
Speaker 1: that's always a good idea to do anyway, just be
Speaker 1: really careful about it in this context. But yeah, don't
Speaker 1: go back to a job that sounds so problematic just
Speaker 1: to get away from the current one. That would be
Speaker 1: like going back to a bad X rather than dating
Speaker 1: new people. You've got lots of other options out there.
Speaker 1: Let's go to a quick break and then I'll come
Speaker 1: right back with another question. Welcome back, Okay, here is
Speaker 1: our next question. Hi Allison. I'm a recent graduate working
Speaker 1: in a major metropolitan area. I put my all into work,
Speaker 1: but I often like to plan for things after hours,
Speaker 1: like networking events, alumni meetings, or dinner with friends. I'm
Speaker 1: contract at nine to five, just like my colleagues with
Speaker 1: the same title. My new supervisor often keeps me late
Speaker 1: without notice. I almost always let him know when I
Speaker 1: have conflicts after work, but he often emails me new
Speaker 1: assignments right before I'm about to leave. He has told
Speaker 1: me my relatively frequent requests to leave on time, not early,
Speaker 1: are quote unquote inconvenient. I now think he's distracted by
Speaker 1: these requests so much that it hinders him from seeing
Speaker 1: my efforts. I'm always early and often work through lunch
Speaker 1: and complete overtime. I meet deadlines and expectations. None of
Speaker 1: my colleagues with the same title are held to these
Speaker 1: time standards and are instead given much more flexibility. How
Speaker 1: do I stand up for myself without crossing the line.
Speaker 1: My boss is the head manager and we don't have
Speaker 1: a human resources department. Thanks so much, well, that is annoying.
Speaker 1: It is true that jobs aren't always really nine to five.
Speaker 1: In professional type jobs, it's not uncommon to need to
Speaker 1: stay late to work on something that comes up at
Speaker 1: the last minute, or to meet a deadline. It shouldn't
Speaker 1: be happening constantly, though, unless that's something that you were
Speaker 1: prepared for in the hiring process, or unless it's a
Speaker 1: known condition of your field. But having it happen occasionally
Speaker 1: is not uncommon, but a good manager will work around
Speaker 1: it if you explain that you have existing plans, unless
Speaker 1: whatever the work is is truly crucial or unless whatever
Speaker 1: your existing plans are sound really really flexible. Like if
Speaker 1: if something fairly important comes up and you say, well,
Speaker 1: I was planning to go to the gym, that's not
Speaker 1: going to look great. But you know, if you have
Speaker 1: a commitment to someone else and something comes up that
Speaker 1: isn't super time sensitive, a good manager would not push
Speaker 1: on that. I'm curious about two things. The first is
Speaker 1: how time sensitive is the work that he's giving you
Speaker 1: right as you're about to leave, and was there any
Speaker 1: way for it to be handled earlier in the day.
Speaker 1: In other words, is the way that he's doing this
Speaker 1: really necessary or is there something else going on? And
Speaker 1: then my second thing that I'm wondering about is it's
Speaker 1: interesting that other people with your same title aren't having
Speaker 1: this happen. If they have different bosses than you, that
Speaker 1: could definitely explain it. But if you all have the
Speaker 1: same boss, then it's weird and it makes me wonder
Speaker 1: what else might be going on, Like does he think
Speaker 1: that you're more competent and so he wants you to
Speaker 1: be the one to do the work, or are you
Speaker 1: getting stuck with it because you're the one who doesn't
Speaker 1: have kids and therefore you don't need to leave for
Speaker 1: daycare pickup but everyone else does, or something unfair like that.
Speaker 1: In any case, I think the best thing to do
Speaker 1: here is to talk to him about it head on.
Speaker 1: Sit down with him and say something like, I wanted
Speaker 1: to talk to you about my hours. I've gotten the
Speaker 1: sense that you don't want me making plans in the
Speaker 1: evening in case last minute work comes up, and I
Speaker 1: wanted to clarify what is expected of me. My understanding
Speaker 1: when I was hired was that their role is mostly
Speaker 1: although I understand that of course occasionally I might need
Speaker 1: to stay late. I wouldn't want you to have the
Speaker 1: sense that I'm not putting in the time. I'm always early,
Speaker 1: and I often work through lunch and work over time hours,
Speaker 1: and I never missed deadlines. But of course I also
Speaker 1: do sometimes have commitments outside of work, and I can
Speaker 1: change those when something is really urgent. But I have
Speaker 1: the sense that you have wanted me to be available
Speaker 1: in the evenings more often than I have been. I
Speaker 1: don't want to guess what your expectations are, so I
Speaker 1: was hoping we could talk about it. When you say
Speaker 1: that tone really matters, you want to sound kind of
Speaker 1: the tone I was just using like it's it's sort
Speaker 1: of you're trying to not be defensive or argumentative or
Speaker 1: saying that you absolutely have to do it your way,
Speaker 1: but you're trying to get a better understanding of what
Speaker 1: the situation is and what he's looking for, and then
Speaker 1: see what he says. But if he tells you that, yes,
Speaker 1: you will frequently need to work later than you have been,
Speaker 1: it would be reasonable to say, can I ask you
Speaker 1: more about that? I've noticed that other people in this
Speaker 1: job do regularly leave in time, and I'm wondering is
Speaker 1: there's something about my particular role that makes it different.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to argue with you. I just want
Speaker 1: to understand so that we're on the same page going forward.
Speaker 1: And who knows, he might actually have an explanation here
Speaker 1: that makes sense, like maybe you deal with a different
Speaker 1: type of client than other people do and your clients
Speaker 1: have more time sensitive work or who knows what. But
Speaker 1: if not, then depending on how the conversation has gone overall,
Speaker 1: you could possibly say something like, UM, I really appreciate
Speaker 1: you talking with me about this. Is there a way
Speaker 1: to make this work where I am still able to
Speaker 1: have evening commitments? I, of course can work around them
Speaker 1: when there is an emergency, but I'm hoping that you'll
Speaker 1: factor in that I am coming in early and working
Speaker 1: through lunch and doing excellent work, and I'm hoping my
Speaker 1: schedule can be more similar to the other analysts or
Speaker 1: whatever your job title is. Hopefully that will lead to
Speaker 1: a useful conversation. But if you come away from this
Speaker 1: having been told, yeah, this is just how it is
Speaker 1: and you just need to deal with it, then at
Speaker 1: that point you know, Okay, this is part of the
Speaker 1: deal with this job, at least for as long as
Speaker 1: he is your manager. And at that point you have
Speaker 1: to decide what do you want to do within those parameters.
Speaker 1: And that could mean you decide you're going to suck
Speaker 1: it up. It could mean you decide you're going to
Speaker 1: look for a job with different hours. It could mean
Speaker 1: that you just keep doing what you've been doing, which
Speaker 1: is pushing back and letting him know when you have
Speaker 1: other plans on a day that he wants you to
Speaker 1: stay later. But a lot of this depends on the
Speaker 1: type of work that you're doing and the culture of
Speaker 1: your office, because there are offices where it would be
Speaker 1: totally fine to push back like this, and there are
Speaker 1: others where you might come across as not understanding the
Speaker 1: nature of the work. I don't know from here which
Speaker 1: yours is, although it is really interesting that other people
Speaker 1: in your same job don't have the same expectations, and
Speaker 1: I think one of the most useful paths here might
Speaker 1: be finding out why. That is. One last thing about this.
Speaker 1: You had said that your contracted nine to five. I
Speaker 1: have been assuming when you said that you don't actually
Speaker 1: mean that you have an actual signed contract limiting your
Speaker 1: work to those hours. I am assuming that because most
Speaker 1: people in the US don't have contracts in that sense.
Speaker 1: They have offer letters, they have employee handbooks and hiring paperwork,
Speaker 1: but it's unusual to see actual employment contracts except for
Speaker 1: very high level executives in most fields. Now, if I'm
Speaker 1: wrong about that, and you do have a contract that
Speaker 1: explicitly limits your work hours, you'd point to that contract.
Speaker 1: But I'm assuming this is a more typical situation where
Speaker 1: your hours were just laid out in an offer letter
Speaker 1: or in a handbook, which isn't binding in the same way,
Speaker 1: and where your employer can say, hey, I need you
Speaker 1: to stay late tonight, Well, that is our show for today.
Speaker 1: If you would like to hear your question answered on
Speaker 1: a future episode, you can record it on the show
Speaker 1: voicemail by calling eight five four two six work. That's
Speaker 1: eight five five to six nine six seven five. Or
Speaker 1: if you have a longer question, a question where you
Speaker 1: actually want to come on the show and talk with me,
Speaker 1: email it to podcast at ask a manager dot org.
Speaker 1: That's it for today and I'll be back next time
Speaker 1: with more questions. M