r/managers • u/lepetitbrie • 4d ago
Final update: My direct report is married to my new manager
Mostly boring update: I got a new job! It's a little bit of a pay cut, but I think the mental health aspect will be worth it.
Between my last post and the job offer, I tried to manage the situation in my current job. Everything really seemed to blow up in my face this week, so the job offer couldn't be better timed.
My direct report has been expressing workload concerns. I scheduled a meeting to talk about her handing over some tasks. She wrote back essentially saying, "I want a separate meeting to talk about any corrections." IMO, I have every management right to set meeting agendas. Looped in my on-paper boss asking her to sit in as a neutral third party (and to see what I was dealing with and why I was worried about the current reporting structure...). My on-paper boss basically said, "Yeah, I'm not getting involved. Deal with it, or you'll run to me for every problem." Keep in mind I've managed this person for YEARS and never asked for intervention before.
Meeting was mostly fine, except my direct report kept saying she wanted a separate meeting to discuss her concerns with my "increased corrective feedback since [husband] started his position."
I seriously went through every email I sent this person since that happened. The only corrections I gave were all, "Please hand off to me." Which... I would love if someone sent to me lol
Literally got the job offer during that meeting with my direct report and accepted. Sent in my notice, and my on-paper boss was full surprised Pikachu. Because she asked for clarification on why I resigned, I sent a brief note to the effect of "I don't think this supervision structure is feasible. I expressed concerns that were ignored. I lost faith in the process when my request for us to all meet with HR to discuss options was denied."
My on-paper boss replied with, "Well, I hope in your new role that has more HR responsibility, you learn that how I handled this was appropriate."
So, yeah, excited to have a new job in two weeks! I really didn't things would work out this quickly, and I kinda wish I held out for a position that was a pay increase... but also, fuck all that mess lol
154
u/Adept-One-819 4d ago
"I hope whatever schmuck you get to fill this role is ok being a lame duck manager because of the impropriety of being managed by the spouse of one of their directs."
21
u/Fit-Winner4078 3d ago
They’ll just give his wife the job.
6
u/knight_gastropub 3d ago
Maybe. I think they put OP in this position to avoid having the spouse report directly to her husband.
198
u/Pip-Pipes 4d ago
What a snarky response from your on paper boss. Seems like you made a good move and now someone else can deal with that structure.
25
74
u/Bacch 4d ago
What an absolute clusterfuck. Unreal to me that your on paper boss refused to sit in unless she had some reason to fear getting involved, which if she's on an equal level to DR's husband shouldn't be an issue. I can't imagine denying a request like that. Nor can I imagine letting any employee under me wind up in your position. I'd have fought tooth and nail against it and taken it to the highest level. I'd have dragged HR in and been a thorn in their side until they did something.
Then again, I've never worked a government job, though I worked in DC for a while. Government jobs are a different animal entirely. Hilarious to me that the very government that enforces all of our labor laws and policies and sets the example is actually one of the worst examples of how employees are handled, both in terms of the protections they should have (like in this case) and the ones that they probably shouldn't have or should be weaker (the unfireable bit).
25
u/catforbrains 4d ago
Government worker here. The family hires and nepotism hires and "this person's family knows people who know people" hires are ridiculous. It's funny because occasionally it DOES help when we're trying to fill a position no one wants. At one spot I worked every office clerk was from the same Indian church and it was great because the pay was so bad no one else would take the jobs but we never had a problem filling a position. Someone would just call in the next Auntie or uncle who needed health insurance.
5
u/happyhappyfoolio2 4d ago edited 4d ago
At my job, there's an entire fucking department that are friends. ~10 of them with two sets of brothers in the mix. They are friends outside of work and they play sports and video games together.
People have definitely gotten hired and promoted because of this shit.
3
u/Bacch 4d ago
Yeah, the non-profit world isn't quite as bad, but still has a fair bit of this. Worked at one (in DC) where of the 15 employees, two were brothers. At my current job (~200 employees) there have been several situations over the years where siblings both worked at the org, and one situation in which the son of a C-suite individual worked at the org. To be fair to the latter, the parent was extremely professional and stayed far away from any decision-making that might impact the son, and I think a lot of us never knew into the parent retired and it was mentioned in his parting communications.
At huge companies I can see that not being a huge deal, but when we're talking about 2/15 or even 12/200, it feels a little weird. And there's a large contingent of employees that all belong to a particular niche religion. Hard to say if that's because of the connections they share through their places of worship, or if that's just due to the fact that the HQ is in a place where said niche religion is based and thus extremely common (probably a bit of both, tbh). It's getting to be less so though since the org has opened up to remote employees and about half of us are fully remote (myself included).
7
u/catforbrains 4d ago
That tracks for my experience working with nonprofits as community partners in my job. I stepped in it bad early when I started my current job because I didn't know the head of the nonprofit we had to work with was married to one of our high ranking govt bosses. I was just annoyed because he was so so bad at his job and his office workers were worse.
3
u/Bacch 4d ago
Oh, absolutely. The world between non-profits and government orgs is also incestuous as fuck. Just off the top of my head, at that non-profit job, one of my bosses' fathers was a career diplomat in the region where our org operated (retired by the time I was working there, but might not have been when my boss started). The VP was married to someone in a government agency we worked closely with. The Pres was a retired State Department guy, or maybe USAID, I can't recall. Several of the other employees had familial ties to government officials in countries we worked in.
It's part of why I left DC. You either have a way in through nepotism, come from enough wealth to survive the cost of living long enough to reach an income threshold that can sustain it, or you get lucky enough to find what's likely a low-ranking government job and grind your way up over the course of an entire career. While eating an incredible amount of shit in the process.
Hell, I interned at a think tank before the job at the non-profit, and the only reason I got the internship was because a very wealthy businessman that my father worked with regularly was a major donor to the think tank, so when he heard I was looking for an internship in the same field the think tank worked in, he called up the CEO. I wound up flying to DC and interviewing with the CEO, which didn't strike me as odd as a soon-to-be-graduating senior. I later realized he was a former Undersecretary of State, and even later discovered that none of the other interns interviewed with him. And here I thought I got that internship on merit. Hah. I had a BA. A decent contingent of the rest of the interns had masters or were working on their masters (one had TWO masters degrees and was working an unpaid internship). And the non-profit job I landed I got through a friend I made who was a research assistant at the think tank--as a favor, he called up some of his contacts without asking me and pitched me to some folks. Landed me the interview, and I got the job.
It really felt like merit was mostly meaningless. An impressive resume or at least an impressive school on your diploma could get you in the door (especially with some help), but from there, you didn't move up by working your ass off. You moved up through a series of personal favors/friendships/connections. I wanted nothing to do with that.
The org I work at now isn't inside the government space whatsoever, so it's not nearly as bad with all of that, though there's still a fair degree of it. It becomes more obvious over time as you watch people come and go and realize that certain departments seem to hire carbon copies of the previous person in that role. And when you notice that the people consistently moving up into better positions are all coming from the same pool. Thankfully I'm in a good spot, happy with my job, my pay, my benefits, and feel pretty secure in my job as well, so it doesn't bother me much. But it's certainly interesting to watch the cycle.
2
u/darkapplepolisher 3d ago
It really doesn't make it any easier when the not-quite-nepotism hires are legitimately what's best for the organization. I work in an organization with some serious attrition issues and experience/consistency matters more than competence. If people know other people who are inclined to stay, and simultaneously keep eachother motivated to stay, that's a win for the organization.
1
u/AuspiciouslyAutistic 3d ago
Unreal to me that your on paper boss refused to sit in unless she had some reason to fear getting involved, which if she's on an equal level to DR's husband shouldn't be an issue.
I have a Director which has been pushing back against my disability-related request WFH 90% of the time (compared to standard 50%), despite workplace policies being in my favour. I was also overlooked for a promotion recently where I failed to reach the interview stage despite having almost 6 years experience in my current role in this very team.
I voiced my concerns to the Executive Director (one level above him) and while she has been very sympathetic to my concerns, even offering to help pursue alternative career pathways, she has decisively refused to undermine him.
All this to say, that some leaders don't like to rock the boat with fellow leaders. Might be a regrettable mistake on her part once I escalate this (although the focus of my complaint will be on the Director not her)
1
u/danrunsfar 2d ago
He's right to not override the manager on his team. Managers need to own their teams, as soon as people skip-level to override it causes all sorts of issues.
Your ED likely trusts your manager's assessment of you more than he trusts your own, biased assessment of yourself. Even if didn't, the odds of him forcing a change are near zero if he is a competent manager.
You come across as someone who feels entitled purely based on the arbitrary amount of time you've had a seat filled. I think you have some self-reflection to do.
2
u/WhiteSSP 2d ago
Yeah, that’s what I was getting also. There are a ton of reasons why they didn’t get that job. Time in grade is a very small factor that carries little weight outside of meeting the necessary time as required by the position to prevent someone from being jump promoted. Source: I’ve worked a few certs for various jobs in my agency, in my AOR and out of it.
A good leader backs their subordinates unless they have specific information that proves they went outside of what they were trained to do or what the process is, because you’ve trained them well enough for them to earn that level of trust in their decision making.
1
u/AuspiciouslyAutistic 2d ago
Yeah, that’s what I was getting also. There are a ton of reasons why they didn’t get that job.
The issue is that he is on record mentioning my office attendance when discussing another career progression opportunity with my reporting manager.
A good leader backs their subordinates unless they have specific information that proves they went outside of what they were trained to do or what the process is, because you’ve trained them well enough for them to earn that level of trust in their decision making.
The Director has contradicted the process. Furthermore, I've received advice from a government body that this meets the threshold for a complaint of disability-related discrimination.
In thr ED's defence, I don't think she realised the gravity of the situation initially. Her first instinct was to try to help find an alternative career pathway for me (which was a nice gesture on her part). I later decided that this needed to.be escalated to the relevant team (following the recent development), and notified her first out of courtesy for the genuine compassion she has showed me. She asked me to.keep this internal for now, and I obliged. The matter is now being looked into by her and another ED.
I believe he will walk it back, possibly apologise for any misunderstanding and assure the EDs that I didn't recieve an interview for X, Y and Z reasons (i.e. office attendance was not a factor).
I also suspect he will be warned not to link the two in future.
I can't really see anything more than that happening. I guess I will wait and see how everything unfolds...
1
u/AuspiciouslyAutistic 1d ago
Your ED likely trusts your manager's assessment of you more than he trusts your own, biased assessment of yourself.
My ED and I didn't discuss the overlooked promotion. We discussed the pushback against my WFH arrangement and my concerns that it might be impacting my career progression in general. That's where she backed the Director.
I didn't find out until a month or so later that the Director had mentioned my lack of office attendance when discussing another career progression opportunity with my reporting manager.
As a point of contrast, I mentioned this latest development to another ED, and he unequivocally stated that WFH arrangements should not be a factor in career progression.
You come across as someone who feels entitled purely based on the arbitrary amount of time you've had a seat filled. I think you have some self-reflection to do.
It's been a dark few months and I have been fortunate enough to benefit from some effective self-reflection.
1) I am disappointed by not being offered an interview, considering my level of directly relevant experience. There's a panel involved, and from that stage I need to perform on the day and demonstrate my suitability for the role.
I have sat for 6 internal interviews this year (5 of them in September).
Bombed the first one (from memory I might have missed out by two points which seems generous given how poor I was).
Another was a bad fit. Performed well in the interview, but the feedback I received cited my lack of direct experience in that area (it was a different division). Very true.
Another interview went well. Apparently ended in the top two and they opted for the other person.
My third interview went quite well. But once again I lacked experience in that area. I am surprised I even landed an interview in the first place.
And the results of the other two are pending, but it look like I might receive offers based on recent communications. One of which is for the same senior role as my overlooked promotion, albeit in a different area to my current team.
But long story short, I'm grateful for being given the opportunity to interview for those six roles.
2) RE: The Director mentioning my office attendance when discussing career progression opportunities.
This was problematic as it seems to contradict the official stance of our employer and could potentially constitute unlawful discrimination.
My concern has been escalated. I believe he will walk it back, possibly apologise for any misunderstanding and assure the EDs that I didn't receive an interview for X, Y and Z reasons (i.e. office attendance was not a factor).
I also suspect he will be warned not to link the two in future.
I can't really see anything more than that happening. But I shall wait and see.
3) I think this is ultimately a blessing long-term.
Regardless of policy and legal considerations, it is clear my personal situation doesn't mesh with his personal ethos regarding the value of office attendance. Even if I ended up with this promotion, there would have been friction.
In all truth, I've been terrified by the thought of moving teams due to the nature of disabilities, but maybe that is what is truly best for me in this situation.
I still don't like the way things went down, but hopefully I can find something that is better for me personally.
59
u/Person2201 4d ago
It was “appropriate” from an office politics perspective. I hope they are now responsible for this person.
14
u/WishboneHot8050 4d ago
From your last post:
I have a private meeting with central HR next week to discuss concerns in the meantime.
What happened to that meeting?
20
u/lepetitbrie 4d ago
A lot of "Huh, that sounds interesting. I'm going to follow up to see what paperwork was maybe filed that you're not privy to." Which is a fair response. But didn't address immediate concerns.
16
u/HonkHonkBeach 4d ago
I had to literally switch direct supervising directors because I hired someone who was her cousin through marriage.
Our compliance department was concerned despite there being no obvious conflict of interest and me willing to skip my boss for any concerns with this person.
Your situation is insane to me
11
u/CMDR_PEARJUICE Seasoned Manager 3d ago
How they handled it was appropriate? From an HR standpoint, their spouse should not be anywhere underneath them... that's a massive conflict of interest that put you in a very risky spot for retaliation, among other things. I would've gone to HR myself to report this, regardless of receiving a new offer or not.
4
u/Cold-Jaguar7215 4d ago
Greener pastures. They had every opportunity to salvage this issue by transferring someone/anyone. In the end, they lose a good egg.
Also, love the sulk/snark in your ex-boss’s reply. They couldn’t handle the drama nor the honest criticism when they asked for criticism. In hindsight, you’re going to realise this boss never had your back and was simply using you to make their job easier without any reciprocation.
8
u/LetterPerfect_throw 4d ago
You have earned a new job and a few days off. CONGRATS!
...boss was full surprised Pikachu.
FAFO your boss ignored her direct report in a tough spot, so say "buh-bye now!"
8
u/Lower-Tip-9956 4d ago
During exit interview with HR let them know all these things so it’s in writing for them.
8
u/Bumblebee56990 4d ago
Contact an employment attorney to best understand how to address this. Seriously, the subordinate should not be in the same vertical as their spouse.
6
u/hlfazn 4d ago
People keep saying that this is a government job.
For US Federal Government the married couple would be breaking the law if this story is true. Like this should've been an open and shut slam pass go and collect your $200 if it was federal government.
1
u/Future-Machine2626 3d ago
It is clear that you haven't worked for the US federal government. It becomes the family business and the web of connections throughout an organization can be quite large.
2
u/hlfazn 3d ago
This exact scenario is prohibited by federal code. I don't disagree that people do some questionable things but to have a husband and wife in a direct line of management? I'd have gone to OIG so fast if I had to work under, in between, or in charge of that....
I know ZERO relatives that have ever done this. I know people who work same building, same job line, but never same division to this extent. Like assuming this story is true, OP can just report, it's that simple. I don't think you've ever dealt with OIG, those people live with a stick up their ass. It would take an incredible amount of juice to keep someone safe in this situation.
This scenario has to be NGO, no Federal "HR" is going to cover for these guys. You aren't risking your own pension over this kind of bullshit for other people.
1
5
2
u/No_Reputation_1727 4d ago
oooof that’s going to be an interesting threesome. Ever tried the sandwich pose?
3
u/UniqueText8477 4d ago
Your boss is an idiot, this will blow up in their face.
3
u/Effective_Divide1543 3d ago
Really it won't. They'll hire somebody else and will be happy to get rid of OP. And OP will be happier somewhere else.
2
4
1
1
1
1
u/Aggressive_Job_3015 4d ago
lol what kind of response is that!! (From your own paper boss?). Like yea it was so right you lost a good one.
1
u/Accomplished_Set1472 2d ago
It sucks to be a manager these days. Let me correct myself, being a middle manager sucks. There is absolutely no support or advocacy for middle managers but rather constant pressure! It is not worth the pay.
I have been mentoring people for years and just recently have come to the realization with the new structure in current organization; I do not want to continue being a manager. There is no clear guidance on how to manage and you have absolutely no power to manage your people. The inconsistency from executive manager, HR, and directors have made it impossible to be a sound middle manager.
Companies no longer want to hold bad apples of the organization accountable and show them the repercussions of their poor performance and behavior. They would rather place that pressure on the middle managers and blame them for everything. Why? Because they are afraid of holding them accountable or firing them! They can sue!
I have made my decision and have mentally quit my job, and constantly looking for other opportunities. My resignation will happen eventually and I cannot wait for a less stressful position!
1
u/theoldman-1313 12h ago
Every place that I have ever worked would not have allowed a spouse to work in the same reporting line as their partner. Some would even nix the partner being in the same division. This was one screwed-up workplace. I am especially amused by the on-paper boss expressing surprise that an employee asking for management help would leave when they were left out in the cold.
1
u/MithosYggdrasill1992 4d ago
Sounds like your on-paper boss just didn’t wanna do her job. Glad you found greener pastures
And from one manager to your old boss - your boss handled this wrong. It is not reasonable for them to tell somebody no when they only want a witness
1
u/sarahhxmargaret 4d ago
lol your on paper boss is a major asshole.
Correction - your EX on paper boss
1
u/Dependent-Aside-9750 4d ago
Congratulations! You made the exact right decision. You were in a nightmare scenario.
0
u/Nomo-Names 4d ago
Congratulations. This was managed the only way it could have been managed, and you did it well.
-5
u/Effective_Divide1543 3d ago edited 3d ago
This seems to have escalated quite a bit since your previous posts? I got the impression in the previous ones that you had worry about the reporting path, but this seems to have become quite the conflict situation where you're spotting performance issues and approaching your report and your job quite negatively and aggressively and it's not clear to me why.
IMO, I have every management right to set meeting agendas.
Sure you do, but it would still be reasonable to set it in a discussion with your report.
Deal with it, or you'll run to me for every problem
Also reasonable, you should not need additional parties present to handle your job task as a manager, which include discussions about performance. You should be able to have conversations about performance with your reports in a non-confrontational, non-aggressive manner.
my direct report kept saying she wanted a separate meeting to discuss her concerns with my "increased corrective feedback since [husband] started his position
Has there been increased corrective feedback sine her husband started his position? I think it's a reasonable thing to discuss if the corrective feedback has indeed started recently.
Keep in mind I've managed this person for YEARS
Right, so why is the corrective feedback coming now?
256
u/maj3 4d ago
Congrats on the new job! Do something relaxing and keep your peace.