It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…
1. My Family Says I Shouldn’t Criticize My Field Because I’m Paid Well
I am a woman in my thirties working in academia in a European country, I have 10 years of experience (so not new to the workforce), and my current salary is higher than my country’s median salary — not rich but enough to live comfortably.
In my country, researchers are involved with universities in one of two ways: we can either be directly employed by the university, in which case we get paid more, have access to occupational healthcare, and accrue more PTO, or we can be funded with personal grants, in which case we get much less money, don’t get healthcare, and accrue less PTO. Many people switch between the two categories several times during their career. While personal grants technically mean that we are not bound by any employer, in practice many people continue to report to the same principal investigator, doing the same work with the same equipment, etc. I see the two “tiers” of researcher positions as a structural inequality in my country, and I am transparent to other researchers about my previous salaries, benefits, etc. so that they can be better informed when planning their careers.
I was recently talking about this with my family and their response caught me off-guard. They said that since I am now paid so well, I should not criticize the inequality in the system — either at work or outside of it. They also said that I should be grateful to have a job at all, and that because of my negative attitude I would be among the first to get laid off in case my employer had to reduce the workforce. They basically implied that I should be a happy employee and not bring up any major issues, or otherwise my employer would see me as “difficult.”
Am I off-base in thinking that my family is giving me poor advice? I am diligent at work, meet deadlines while producing high-quality work, and regularly receive good feedback from my boss and coworkers. I do voice my opinions at work, but never in a rude manner, and I don’t make mountains out of molehills. This is not the first time that I think I’m getting bad advice from my family (for example, they told me not to ask about office culture and work-life balance in job interviews because the interviewer would see me as difficult and combative), but I still wonder if I might be in the wrong here. Should I just accept my privileges and not speak up?
With the caveat that I don’t know the norms or practices in your country and am answering through an American lens: your family is giving you terrible advice. You’re extremely well-positioned to critique the practices in your field because you’re in your field and because you’ve been on both sides of the two-tier divide and are now using your positional power to advocate for people with less of it.
It’s of course true that you need to think about internal politics when you raise issues at work — how much capital you have, how much capital you’re willing to spend, what else you might want to use it on, how much you can push before you’re written off as just annoying, and how much you can push before people won’t want to work with you at all. But there’s a ton of space between “never raise any issues with your field” and “don’t harp on it so blindly that you alienate the people you need to succeed.”
2. My Boss and Grandboss Assign Me Conflicting Work
My boss (Christie) likes to tell me to work on things that aren’t her boss’s (Julia’s) priority.
I am responsible for completing a routine review project at the start of every quarter. The review is large. I’ve expressed this to both of them. Last quarter, I was berated for not getting them done on time, so I explained that I was not able to work on it but I left out the part where Christie explicitly told me to work on other things at various points.
Julia told me to block off my entire calendar for July to ensure the project is completely done on time next time.
Christie was in this meeting and did not protest, nor did she point out how often she took me off task. I get the sense that Christie resents having her employees take direction from Julia and tends to check out when Julia gives direction to me.
I blocked off my calendar for July and then sent an email to both of them, confirming I had blocked off July. Then I requested that if priorities shift, that be put into writing where both of them can see it.
I had my 1:1 with Christie, where I tried to preemptively explain my written request as Christie tends to perceive putting things in writing as an act of aggression. I said, “Hey, so I am doing as I am instructed and I’m putting it in writing so that if things go poorly, I’m not blamed for it.” Christie nodded and said she understood. Five minutes later, she told me to start working on a different project, in July. I responded, “I’m not doing that in July, I’m working on the user access reviews.” To which she said, “Oh, as long as you do it around then.” How do I deal with stuff like this?
First, if you have a repeat of that meeting with Julia where you’re asked why you didn’t complete something, you need to give her an honest answer: “Christie asked me to work on X, Y, and Z during that time.” You’re putting your own standing with Julia in jeopardy by letting her think you’re ignoring tasks, rather than letting her know that Christie is assigning you to work on different things.
Second, going forward, if Christie gives you work that conflicts with things Julia has asked you to do, you need to let Julia know right away. You’re not throwing Christie under the bus here; you’re updating Julia with something like, “Just a heads-up that Christie asked me to do X, so that will push back the Y project — if you don’t want things prioritized that way, would you let her know?” If you think Christie will respond badly to you doing that, then it’s time for an in-person conversation with Julia where you explain what’s been happening and ask how she wants you to handle it, being clear about the fact that you’re concerned about Christie’s response if she knows the two of you talked about it. In fact, you might do that regardless.
3. How Do I Navigate a Second Job With Both Employers?
I started at a full-time job about six months ago after years of freelancing in my field. While the job is not exactly the type of work I’m formally trained in, I’m adjusting really well and I love it. There is one issue though. This job only barely pays a living wage for my area, and I have student loans and credit card debt I’m trying to deal with. I’ve been trying to pick up some freelance work here and there, but it’s so erratic that I can’t rely on that, so I’ve been trying to find something to fit around my full-time hours.
I happened across a posting for a remote support position for a piece of software (let’s call them Company B) and they are specifically looking for folks with significant real-world experience that I have. It’s part-time, 20 hours a week, and would more than double my yearly income. The posting seems to imply they’re especially interested in folks who can work outside of regular business hours (which I would need to do anyway).
How do I approach the idea with Company B (if at all) through the interview process that their work would be a high priority, but still a smidge below my full-time job? How do I broach the topic tactfully with my current manager? Obviously I would be very careful not to work on one job while at the other and be cautious about conflicts of interest (I’ve referenced my current employee handbook and confirmed that doing a second job generally in the industry is not forbidden). Am I insane to think this could work, and how do people handle scheduling one job around another?
You don’t need to spell out for Company B that they wouldn’t be your first priority; instead, frame it in terms of availability. Be clear that the hours for your full-time job are 9–5 (or whatever they are) but that you’d be available outside of that, and ask what hours they’re ideally looking for. If they say the work could all happen after 5 pm, then ask whether there are ever times when you’d be needed during the day — and if so, be clear that isn’t something you could accommodate.
With your current manager, you could say, “I’m considering taking on some outside work doing X. It would be completely outside of my hours here and I don’t think it presents any conflict of interest, but is that something you want to be aware of?” Normally you wouldn’t necessarily need to mention it proactively unless your company has a policy requiring it, but because it’s in the same industry, it’s smart to find out now if they’ll have a problem with it.
4. A GoFundMe for a Boss With Health Problems
My boss, who is the owner of the small business where I work, has had some significant health problems lately. Someone started a GoFundMe for her and it was sent to me with no pressure, just a “for you to see and share as you want.” Part of me wants to donate, and part of me feels like it’s kind of inappropriate for an employee. What do you think?
You shouldn’t be asked to donate money to your boss, period. The power dynamics inherent in the relationship make it inappropriate — there’s a real worry that your boss will know who did and didn’t donate and could treat those who didn’t less favorably, or that even if you don’t think your boss would do that, you’ll still feel anxious about the optics if you choose not to give.
When your boss is going through a tough time, you can help by doing your job well and being as easy as possible to manage — but financial support shouldn’t be part of that equation.
5. Why Would an Organization Choose to Use an Executive Search Firm?
Is there a standardized reason an organization chooses to use an executive search firm? The leader of the organization I am at has decided to use one for a role that is not an executive, and I’m wondering if there’s a standard range or reason. There’s more context here about why it is not landing well (seemingly the snub of internal candidates, a bad experience last year, and cost) but maybe there’s something I’m missing to understand if this will help. The org hired a very expensive firm last year that took over nine months to fill the executive role and it was not an easy time.
Typically it’s because they think the search will be too much work to handle efficiently in-house, or they believe the search firm will reach stronger or more diverse candidates than they could on their own, or they don’t feel they have the right internal expertise to evaluate candidates for this particular role. Whether those rationales justify the cost — especially after a difficult experience the previous year — is a fair question for your organization to wrestle with.
