Am I Missing One thing
It’s 5 answers to 5 questions. Right here we go…
1. Hair extensions at work
I used to be requested not to put on hair extensions at work, in an casual office setting. My hair extensions are clip-in, but they’re real human hair, they’re professionally dyed to match my very own hair coloration (pure shade, no unnatural colors), and they blend in seamlessly. The one cause anyone can inform it’s not my real hair is some days I put on my hair brief and other mornings I choose to position in my extensions. (Clearly I am not able to grow a foot of hair overnight.) This appears personal and fairly ridiculous. The request got here from a manager who had no cause other than stating, “Well, everyone knows it’s not real so it’s inappropriate.” Am I crazy or is that this overstepping
This is a bit of just like the fascinating Michelle letter of last yr!
I feel it’s probably overstepping, though like that letter, it depends upon how conservative your workplace is. In an office that positioned a high emphasis on conservative look (some components of legislation or finance, I suppose, however I’m just guessing), ceaselessly changing from very short hair to very long hair and again again, from in the future to the following, may be a factor that feels out of sync. However in a lot of different offices, it wouldn’t matter one bit. (And to be clear, this is barely concerning the frequent switching it up; if it have been nearly extensions usually, it could be a non-subject, interval.)
In the end, your supervisor can inform you to cease doing this, whether or not you or I believe it’s affordable or not. However you can push back on that if you want to, although you’d must determine how much capital you’re keen to spend on it. (One addendum to that: If you’re from a racial background where extensions/wigs/weaves are frequent and your supervisor isn’t, I believe that adjustments the calculus, and in that case I’d spend more capital on this and explicitly point out the different demographic norms.)
2. Applicant made weird calls for for interview timeline
In a recent period of hiring I got here across plenty of barely strange (and some more than slightly strange) things that candidates felt the necessity to include in their resumes or cover letters. None confused me greater than the under, which to me reads more like a logic puzzle than a statement of availability. For context, this was on the very backside of a four-page resume under the heading “Availability for Interview”:
“I can be accessible for an interview only inside a period of let’s say 4 days and preferably sooner, from the time of receiving the formal shortlisting e-mail discover. This additionally means that I wouldn’t be available for the interview in case the email notice is distributed to me earlier than 4 days prior to the interview date. The time periods include also weekends.”
I just have so many questions! It appears like the applicant wants as short a time as doable to elapse between being shortlisted and being interviewed, but I’m at a loss as to why. And why is four days the magic quantity Am I lacking something
Even when it have been more of a easy statement, I would discover such a factor rather presumptuous on a resume. Maybe in a cowl letter if your availability might be unusually restricted in the weeks following making use of for a job, however in a resume like it’s a blanket requirement of yours regardless of the timing of the appliance It just seems off, or maybe that is overly rigid of me
Noooo, this is sort of bizarre. You are not being overly inflexible.
I also like that he himself may be very inflexible but then says “let’s say four days,” as if he’s simply thinking up the quantity on the spot.
He’s weirdly demanding and out of contact with the norms of people, and it’s best to reject him (but only within a period of let’s say four days and preferably sooner).
3. Can I ask for my old desk back
A yr ago, I took a brief function at one other location in my firm (same city.) It was all the time identified that this role was temporary. While it was likely that I would return to my unique role, that was never a assure.
When i started at the corporate, they had been going by means of a big ergonomics push and they had been encouraging new staff to complete a health screening that would then permit us to order supportive office chairs, higher keyboards, etc. I did it for the chair, however they also allowed (and encouraged me to get) a sit/stand desk. This is only a small additional desk that fits inside the cubicles and may hold two monitors and not a lot else.
Once i changed jobs, I was able to take my chair but not my desk because the place I was going to had a fancy new open ground plan the place all the desks have been fully sit/stand. Ultimately another person took over my previous cubicle in addition to my sit/stand desk.
Now I’m going back to that job and i actually need my desk back (it’s simple sufficient to move the desk from cube to cube.) I at present spend over half my day standing and I’ve terrible posture when sitting, so standing actually helps my neck (which has issues on account of a previous surgery.) It only helps because of the posture thing, so I don’t suppose this raises to the level of ADA accommodation. Nonetheless, I really feel kind of petty for asking, primarily as a result of almost no one in that group has sit/stand desks. Quickly after I got mine, they stopped allowing ergonomic furniture orders. Apparently, I just bought really lucky with my timing of when I was employed.
My present thought is to easily ask the other employee if I can have my desk back, however not to push the problem if she says no. I’m additionally worried that even asking might make me sound petty, because she never had an option to order one. What’s one of the best technique to strategy this with out coming throughout as whiny I’m not at all times the best at avoiding social land mines.
Unfortunately, I believe it’s in all probability hers now and also you don’t actually have dibs on it, simply like you wouldn’t if she had inherited your previous workplace space or your old keyboard. It moved on whenever you moved on.
The most you could really do is to ask her — with real curiosity, not in a tone of possessiveness — how she’s liking it. If she responds with enthusiasm about it, you definitely need to again off at that point. But if she says she doesn’t really care for it or doesn’t use it that a lot, at that point you would say one thing like, “If you actually don’t prefer it, I’d love to take it back and use it again.”
4. When a number of people are promoting Girl Scout cookies
I hope it is a pleasantly low-stakes question. Is there a normal consensus about how coworkers ought to handle it when multiple needs to deliver Girl Scout cookie order varieties into the office If there isn’t, what do you advocate
We typically depart fundraising order forms in a common area, each for people’s convenience and to keep all the things low-key. Ought to cookie-providing coworkers go away out their kinds together, and talk their hope that folks ordering multiple boxes will break up their orders (Nearly everyone orders multiple boxes.) Or should co-staff agree that one person will take the early orders and one take orders from the procrastinators What’s a great approach to avoid popularity contests and treat everybody equitably
I pondered this and decided that I don’t have any opinion on it! If anything, I’d come down on the side of being laissez faire about it and just letting people handle their order types nevertheless they need, as long as they’re being low-key about it and not pushing cookie purchases on their coworkers. Anybody have sturdy feelings to the contrary
5. Using the STAR format for interview solutions
I have a query about interviewing strategies. I just lately made it to the very last stage of a prolonged hiring course of for an amazing job. Sadly, I didn’t get the position. I requested the recruiter if there was any feedback she could weave hair extentions share from the hiring team, so that I can make myself a more attractive candidate in the future. She shared that while the general suggestions was nice, for future interviews I ought to be prepared to reply questions using the STAR format (whereby the candidate states the State of affairs or Task, the Action they took, and what the Consequence was).
The ironic part is, in preparation for the interviews, I did write out some STAR-format interview responses beforehand; I even took my written responses to the interview with me, in case I needed to discuss with them at some point. If it issues, none of the interviewing managers asked me to respond in STAR format. They asked questions in a straightforward method, like this: “Can you talk a few time while you worked properly with members of another department of staff ” after which gave me time to answer. Ought to I have literally mentioned each cue word (‘Situation,” “Task,” “the Action was…” “the Outcome was…”) in the course of the interview
No, no good interviewer will expect you to do that by yourself without any prompting, and it might come throughout slightly strangely — like asserting “I am going to use an interview method I examine now.” It’s true that using STAR-format solutions is a quite common piece of recommendation about interviewing, but it will nonetheless sound stilted to spell it out that means. The thought is that you give your answers in that format because it covers every of the key pieces of information an interviewer will want to hear and will produce stronger answers, however not that you should have special allegiance to those explicit cue words.
I think that the recruiter’s feedback meant that you weren’t giving your interviewers as a lot info as they wanted about some of these elements, or weren’t conveying it clearly sufficient. Lots of candidates are fairly imprecise about exactly what their function was in things they talk about in interviews, and even vaguer concerning the outcomes or outcomes. To me, the recruiter’s suggestions says that they wanted a clearer discussion of these issues.