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.
