It’s 4 solutions to 4 questions. Right here we go…
1. Our communal music is simply too repetitive
I work in a inventive division at a reasonably conservative firm and am within the workplace 4 days every week. My coworkers and I share an enclosed house with particular person cubicles. A lot of my job includes writing. Although I can typically write with out “locking in,” “getting within the zone,” and many others., generally I do actually need to focus with minimal distraction.
Not too long ago, a coworker introduced in a small bluetooth speaker, and now we have taken turns enjoying music to brighten up the house a bit. My supervisor is totally on board. To make it simpler and spend much less time twiddling with bluetooth, we’re utilizing a shared gadget to hook up with Spotify. My coworkers – understandably – should not taking an excessive amount of time to seek out and choose music to play. They arrive in, press play on the gadget, and let the playlist roll.
I like listening to music. I don’t love listening to the identical playlist over, and over, and over once more. Nevertheless it apparently solely bothers me to listen to the identical songs day out and in. I’ll try to placed on different music, which helps for a bit, however finally we discover our method again to the “default” playlist, which I assume is predicated off what you’ve performed beforehand on the platform (It’s solely about 150-200 songs). When this occurs, I can barely concentrate on what I’m doing. I’ll pull out my very own ear buds, however they have a tendency to combine with the music on the speaker and make the issue worse.
I actually don’t wish to be the person who wants to show off the music. This looks as if one thing my coworkers actually take pleasure in, based mostly on how typically they’re discovering their method again to activate the speaker after it’s been off for the day or after a gathering. Nevertheless it’s starting to make me hate sure songs that I had no feeling about beforehand, not to mention the impact on my productiveness. I assume the answer is simply to rise up and alter the music when it begins bothering me — however I fear I’ll come off as overly involved about enjoying DJ when actually, I simply don’t wish to take heed to “Bittersweet Symphony” for the fifth time this week!
If it actually turns into an issue, I do know that I might be capable to simply say I want some quiet for a bit and switch it off. However do you’ve any options for tips on how to deal with that with out being the workplace spoilsport?
I feel you’re overthinking it! Simply say, “Y’all, I like having the music on however I can’t take a lot repetition, so I’m going to take cost of switching up the playlists except another person needs to” after which try this. It shouldn’t be a giant deal. If something, folks will in all probability recognize it.
Alternately, spend a while this weekend making a ridiculously big 30-hour playlist after which by no means give it some thought once more.
Nevertheless it’s additionally okay to say that having music on on a regular basis isn’t working for you! Having to write down whereas topic to another person’s musical selections could be tough for lots of writers.
2. Coworker is profiting from our WFH flexibility
I lead a extremely engaged staff of exempt staff that work remotely ~90% of the time. Our division may be very supportive of labor/life stability and doesn’t penalize for issues like physician’s appointments or getting youngsters off the bus. So long as conferences are lined and work will get carried out, it’s all good. We’ve a number of required in-office days every month which happen on a daily, predicable cadence.
One staff member bends this flexibility greater than anyone else. Though their work output is nice, there have been a number of situations of this particular person sending the staff an inventory of sporadic upcoming instances that they will not be out there through the day because of their little one’s daytime extracurricular actions. This as soon as resulted in a last-minute scramble to maneuver an necessary assembly that had been scheduled weeks in the past. One other time, they requested our supervisor to be exempt from all in-office days for a few months to accommodate a unique voluntary, child-related exercise (supervisor stated no). This worker lately known as into one other necessary assembly however couldn’t be heard over the background noise. They have been out of the home on an errand that might have occurred at one other time.
I reported this to our supervisor (who agrees with me) however can’t assist questioning if I’m being unfair. If this particular person was working round one thing extra obligatory and immovable, like healthcare wants, I wouldn’t suppose twice. I don’t care if folks work from a public place like a espresso store or library so long as they are often totally engaged in conferences. I don’t have youngsters myself however have by no means encountered anyone else who has required this degree of daytime flexibility for non-essential actions. No person else on the large-ish staff does this.
I perceive that if this particular person had simply quietly blocked their calendar with out offering any particulars, I might in all probability not be writing to you … however right here we’re. Is there any approach to equitably standardize what applicable flexibility seems like, or ought to I simply erase the main points from my mind and fake they’re shuttling the children forwards and backwards from physician’s appointments?
Extracurriculars are totally different from medical appointments. It’s cheap to say that whereas your staff tries to permit staff flexibility with life stuff that comes up through the day, together with kid-related wants, persons are anticipated to prioritize necessary conferences, take part in in-office days, and take work calls from a quiet place the place they’ll focus and with out disruptive background noise, in all however essentially the most uncommon/unavoidable of circumstances. And it’s cheap to outline “uncommon/unavoidable” as medical issues or uncommon private emergencies.
Since your supervisor appears to agree with that, she must make clear these expectations along with your coworker, who appears to be translating some flexibility into whole flexibility.
3. HR has applied a screening take a look at for candidates that no person can go
A number of months in the past, our HR division applied a screening take a look at for all candidates that they have to go earlier than being employed. It is a timed take a look at, and the questions and acceptance standards are the identical for all jobs. Not one of the hiring managers had seen the take a look at or knew something in regards to the questions when it was applied.
Solely about 5% of screened candidates have handed the take a look at. As you may think, that is inflicting points with hiring managers as they’re unable to fill open positions with candidates they’ve already evaluated and recognized pretty much as good hires.
There was such disruption that HR determined to have all present staff take the take a look at and use the typical rating to contemplate adjusting the acceptance standards (particular person scores are supposed to stay nameless). This was the primary time any of us had seen the take a look at questions, and now it’s clear why candidates should not passing. Most, if not all, of the questions don’t pertain to the roles we’re hiring for. There are math phrase issues, phrase analogy issues, inductive reasoning sample issues used to display engineers, logic puzzles, and many others., all with a giant timer counting down the out there time on the prime of the display.
I see a LOT of points with this. The aptitudes and skills being examined should not related for all positions, and a few should not related for any positions at our firm. (No person right here must know the precise definition of “obfuscate” as a part of their job.) It’s biased towards candidates who’re functionally fluent in English however use it as their second language. It’s biased towards candidates who would carry out their jobs nicely however don’t carry out nicely on timed checks. It will not be unlawful, however I can’t see how it’s helpful.
I raised these considerations with HR, and likewise advised them that if this take a look at had been required once I utilized to my place a number of years in the past, I possible would have withdrawn my utility. I might have seen it as an enormous purple flag that my efficiency wouldn’t be evaluated objectively based mostly on the job necessities however on random standards as an alternative. I think many candidates are both not finishing the take a look at or selecting solutions at random as a result of they’ve related considerations.
Am I off-base that this can be a unhealthy follow? Is there anything I can do as a hiring supervisor to persuade HR to vary this follow?
You aren’t off-base; that is ridiculous. It’s a elementary precept of hiring successfully that you simply display based mostly on the must-have’s and nice-to-have’s for the function you’re hiring for, not on components that don’t have anything to do with somebody’s capacity to carry out the job. Coincidentally, that additionally occurs to be a elementary precept of making certain you’ve a various workforce with various views.
HR shouldn’t have this type of energy. You and different hiring managers ought to push again exhausting, mentioning that HR’s job is to assist managers in hiring individuals who will carry out their jobs nicely, to not throw up roadblocks to discovering and hiring these folks. Insist on listening to a justification for the take a look at and why it ought to trump your individual evaluation of what you want in candidates, insist on seeing information about outcomes, and escalate it as excessive as you should.
4. Grownup pictures at work
Is displaying a coworker a nude pic of a star thought-about sexual harassment?
In the event that they don’t wish to see it, sure. If there are folks close by who don’t wish to see it or hear about it, sure.
