180. My ex is now my boss, and other toxic promotions. PLUS! DEI is doing more harm than good, with Sarah Gashier
48:45 Share

This week in work. Have you ever been offered a promotion and found it came with more work but almost no extra pay? Well, you're not alone. Almost half of employees today say promotions come with too much extra stress but not enough money. Are diversity policies harming businesses? JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon seems to think so. He's just attacked advisors who push for diversity, calling their approach damaging and costly.

Is he right? Is this a genuine issue that's hurting businesses or just another backlash against woke capitalism? Our Hot Take guest, Sarah Gashier, also has an opinion. She warns that equality, diversity and inclusion does more harm than good. And how would you cope if your ex-partner became your new boss? Awkward enough for you? Well, it's happening right now to one of our listeners and we'll be tackling that in the Workplace Surgery podcast.

This is Truth, Lies and Work, the award-winning podcast where behavioral science meets workplace culture. Brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals. My name is Leanne and I'm a chartered occupational psychologist. And my name is Al and I'm a business owner. Together, we help organizations build amazing workplace cultures. Let's dive straight into this week's episode right after a quick message from our sponsors.

Welcome back. If you like interviews, you're in luck because every Thursday we bring you a brand new interview with an expert guest who knows how to create great workplace cultures. This week we talk to a guy who wants to make work fun again, but right now it is Leanne's favourite time of the week. Yes it is. It is time for the news roundup. I'll cue the jingle. Jingle's being cued. Leah, what have you seen this week? I have a new word. You always have a new word. What's the new word this week? Boomer asking. What the?

Okay. Go on, what is it? Tell me. It sounds a lot like something you'd ask me. So you've got a question for me, so you're a boomer asking. That's my suggestion. No, it's not. It's a good guess. And I'll be honest, it's what I thought it was too when I first saw it. But it isn't something that your parents do on Facebook. It's a term researchers are using to describe a pretty annoying conversational habit.

So Al, you know when you're talking to somebody and they ask you a question but it's really obvious that they're not interested in your answer, they're just waiting to jump in with their own story? Like this question here? Yeah. Yes, I do know. That's Boomer asking. Oh, I see. Okay, so I'm basically just putting in a question to pretend I care, but actually I just want to get back to talking about me and my dog. Yeah, so it's been coined from Boomerang. Yeah.

So the conversation is coming back to you, Boomer Asking. So I'm basically just asking questions to then bring the conversation back to me. So researchers Alison Wood Brooks from Harvard and Michael Eumanns from Imperial College London recently explored Boomer Asking in a series of studies published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology General and was also highlighted by the British Psychological Society.

Fancy. Very fancy. So they ran eight experiments with hundreds of participants from the UK, US and Hong Kong and found that boomer asking typically appears in three forms. First of all, ask bragging. So you ask someone a question purely so you can brag about yourself. So for example, do you have a podcast? I myself have an award-winning psychology podcast that's part of the HubSpot Podcast Network.

The other one, ask complaining. You ask somebody how they're doing only then to be able to unload your own complaint straight away. I've fallen victim to that one quite a few times. And finally, ask sharing. So you pretend to be interested in somebody's opinion but quickly pivot back to your own views, something we do, I do regularly in this segment of the podcast. So there you have it. We're all guilty of being rasking from time to time.

The researchers, what did they find? They found that across hundreds of participants from the UK, US and Hong Kong, boomer asking consistently made conversations feel less enjoyable, more frustrating and insincere. It signals to the other person that you're not genuinely interested in what they have to say. You're just waiting to talk about yourself.

And perhaps unsurprisingly, boomer askers usually have no idea they're doing it. They genuinely think they're engaging positively because they asked the question first, right? But no, participants rated these individuals as significantly less likeable, sincere and trustworthy. Why should you care? Well, leaders should care about boomer asking because it undermines trust, damages relationships and weakens relationships.

team performance. When leaders boomer ask, their teams quickly sense that the conversation is more about the leader's ego than genuine engagement. And according to the researchers, boomer asking signals insincerity and self-interest, and that's going to harm all sorts of things like psychological safety and discourage employees from

speaking openly and probably reduce overall collaboration as well. It's like Mr. Stephen Covey once said, most people don't listen with the intent to understand, they listen with the intent to reply. So if you want to build a high-performing team, you need to listen with intent to understand. Al Thor, this is where, this is the boomer asking bit where I'm going to ask you and then you're going to come back to me. Yeah, well, first of all, if you're interested in Stephen Covey, then we had the amazing Todd on the website. No, this isn't a website, this is a podcast.

On the podcast recently, Emma, who worked with Dr. Covey for a long, long time, also taught me that I was calling him Coven. It's Dr. Covey. Oh, sorry. Sorry about that. Sorry, Steve. Anyway, so, yeah, this is, look,

If you've ever been to any kind of networking event, then you know what this is. You know that people are like that. Like, so, you know, how do you build websites at the moment? I mean, people, you know, God, I know what you're going to say. You're a web developer. You're asking me how I build websites because you want to say, well, we build them a different way. And that's what I was thinking about when I was thinking about websites before. Yeah, there's also, what about this, Lee? I tend to do kind of the opposite sometimes. Someone will ask me a question and I'll go, yeah, you know, I'm not sure it's a tricky subject. What do you think?

And the idea being, because first of all, I genuinely want to hear what they say. But secondly, I also want to learn a little bit more about them because often when they talk, I can then work out whether I actually want to keep talking to them or not. Is that the opposite or is that still a type of boomer asking? It's not a type of boomer asking that the researchers have identified because it's a different intent, isn't it? Your intent isn't to speak. Your intent is to listen. So no, I don't think it would be classed as boomer asking. These researchers should have talked me, Lee. They really should have done.

It's an interesting, interesting one, isn't it? And I think it's where the sincerity comes in because if as a leader you know that you should ask your people how you are but then show no interest when they actually reply, that's when that insincerity is going to come through and equally it's going to come in insincere if you then just talk about yourself. The only one that I'd say maybe just approach with a little bit of patience and a little bit of time is maybe the ask complaining approach.

just in case somebody isn't doing all right and they just need to offload. Often that's all that's needed is just to get it out and once it's out,

It feels a bit lighter. So that's the only boomer asking that I might be inclined to tolerate a little bit more. But really interesting research there from Harvard and Imperial College London. Really interesting. I will leave the link to the full article in the show notes. Well, Lee, I have been reading this week in Forbes, not quite as highbrow as some of the publications you've been reading, though. But I've been reading in Forbes an article about nearly half of employees are now turning down promotions.

So according to a recent Randstad survey, which is, by the way, is everywhere. When I searched for it, I think most publications have picked this up. There is a link in the show notes to this. 42% of workers are saying no thank you to moving up the ladder. The reasons are pretty eye-opening. Firstly, it's about work-life balance. People don't really want to sacrifice family time and personal well-being for a fancy title and a bit more cash. This is a key thing. You're now VP of something and you get an extra $1 a week. It's like, hmm, yeah.

Also, I think a lot of them have seen too many burnt out bosses and they wear their council holidays and miss their kids' school plays and all that kind of thing. Secondly, I think this is really important, the money often doesn't match the headache.

Many of these people who asked felt that the pay bump isn't worth the mountain of extra stress, responsibility, and all those lovely 9pm emails from clients that just have to be answered. And thirdly, and I found this one particularly interesting, people are more interested in developing their own skills than collecting titles. So they'd rather become better at what they actually enjoy doing rather than managing others doing it. This is so interesting because I think this

This is a generational thing. This generation seems to value expertise over authority, whereas probably Gen X, maybe millennials, certainly boobers, they were the opposite. They wanted the title. They were like, I'm going to be the boss. Really interesting. This is also creating serious challenges for businesses because the article points out that without people willing to step up, then organizations are going to face leadership gaps, succession planning, and other nightmares. And they ultimately could lose their best talent, perhaps.

I don't know. Worst case scenario. Some forward-thinking businesses are adapting by creating expert tracks where people can grow without managing others. Not sure how that solves the problem, but that would be where you'd go in and you'd say, right, I'm a JavaScript developer, and so you're just going to work to become an even better JavaScript developer rather than your next natural step being a manager.

or they're being offered like project-based leadership roles where they can step in and lead for a little bit and then go back to their regular job. I love this quote from a lady called Sarah Avaram, who's quoted in the article. Check the article out. She's an employee engagement consultant. She said, So that was really, really interesting.

So Leanne, is this a passing trend because of the changes since the pandemic or the Gen X or Gen Z or pesky, not Gen X, Gen Z or pesky Gen A? Or are we actually seeing a fundamental shift in how people view careers? Should we all be worried about this? I think we should be a little bit worried about this, yeah, as a business owner. But I think this is a really perfect example of,

of that full circle moment of businesses taking an approach that doesn't favour their people, their people responding appropriately and that response now affecting businesses that are starting to think about it. So if you go through some of the points that you made, Alan, in terms of the added stress, that's what we will learn from Dr Elaine's hot take today.

Like last week, a couple of weeks ago, the state of mental health in leaders is unacceptably poor. Leaders aren't prioritising their own mental health because they've got too much work, not enough time and they're not getting compensated fairly. People are seeing that role model. And with the views that people now have after the pandemic, with burnout rates going higher, that means that more and more people have been burnt out and recognise it and don't want to go back to it.

I think then, yeah, people don't want to sacrifice their health for a title if it's not much more money. I think the second thing that sprung to mind when you were saying that is what you were saying about people prioritising skill development. We know that 82% of managers are accidental managers. They've never been trained to be a manager. They get promoted because they're good at the job that they were in previously.

Organizations have for too long got away without training their managers. So now it's kind of saying... What do you mean by out-training? Sorry. Not training, sorry. Oh, not training. By not training their managers. Right, yeah, yeah. So it's one of those things where it's like, well, if I'm not going to get much more money, I'm going to get a lot more stress, are you not actually going to train me on how to do this job? Again, it's not very...

Very interesting. And the final thing that you said that I thought was worth picking up on is how younger generations, millennials, Gen Z are favouring expertise and

Yes, but don't forget that millennials are famously the most overqualified and underpaid generation in history. And perhaps the reason millennials were so underpaid was because either they didn't want to step into management roles or they weren't the management roles available because of the point they were at their career. That now, as you say, there's that push to prioritise these routes, non-managerial routes, individual contributor routes, to actually progress and earn the money finally. So I think this is just one of those examples of

You know when you see leaders who, not leaders that we work with, but leaders who are like, oh, that doesn't matter. We don't need to trade our managers. I'm not spending that on this. It's like, this is what comes round is when you're going to struggle in terms of skills gaps, in terms of talent gaps, in terms of people saying no. And ultimately, it's going to cost you more money in the long term because what you're going to have to do, you're going to have to start offering more money. So it is attractive again. It's very interesting. It's not overall surprising given where we've been the last...

15 years. Fair enough. The links to the study is in the show notes. Lee, anything else caught your eye this week? Yes. I have to ask you, Al, are diversity policies hurting companies? This is a thorny one. I mean, the thing is, what's difficult is that I have edited this afternoon Sarah Gashier's Hot Take. So I have a little bit of inkling to this, but I will pretend I didn't. So I don't know. How can they possibly hurt companies?

Well, that was a great example of boomer asking. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, is back in the news again. He really honestly, there was about three stories from him I had to choose from, but this fitted him well.

with our hot take as well. So what is Jamie doing this time? Well, this time he's taking a direct aim at two of the world's most influential advisory firms. And his main criticism is that their aggressive push for corporate diversity, equality and inclusion policies isn't good. According to Diamond, these advisors are creating such a heavy regulatory burden that companies are actually choosing to exit public markets. In fact,

In other words, he believes that influence is making corporate governance overly complicated, expensive and ultimately harmful. Diamond didn't hold back, as we know he doesn't. Speaking at BlackRock's retirement summit, he labelled the two proxy advisors, which are Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services, or ISS, as incompetent, suggesting they should be gone, dead, done with.

Quite the dramatist, isn't he? Very dramatic. He even went further, saying that anyone who pays these firms for advice should be ashamed of themselves. Why does it matter? Well, these two advisory firms are hugely influential. They advise around 90% of the world's largest pension funds and asset managers. They're basically shaping how big investors vote on critical company issues, like who sits on boards, how executives get paid,

and increasingly how companies handle diversity and social responsibility. Now, Diamond's criticism isn't happening in isolation. There are currently wider backlashes, particularly in the US, against what some are calling woke capitalism. Donald Trump?

I got him in. I'm not usually allowed to talk about DT. Donald Trump, notably, has led a movement against DI initiatives, prompting giants like Google, Amazon and Meta to roll back long-standing diversity policies. Policies? Policies.

Fallacies. A phallus. Yes. Carry on. Policies. In fact, these proxy advisors themselves have also started to shift position. I can't imagine why. Following Trump's electoral victory, that's why ISS announced it would stop explicitly considering gender, ethnic or racial diversity when recommending company directors. Meanwhile, Glass-Lewis says it's reviewing whether its DEI recommendations are truly aligned with their clients' interests.

though it is still including diversity considerations in its advice for now. It is also worth noting this isn't Diamond's first battle with Glass-Lewis or ISS. They have previously criticized his own pay package. And last year, Glass-Lewis famously opposed a $56 billion pay package to Tesla's Elon Musk, labeling it excessive money.

How they responded, ISS has defended their approach, emphasising that investors rely on their objective and independent research, free from undue interference by company management. Glass Lewis hasn't yet commented publicly. So what do we think? Are diversity and inclusion initiatives genuinely benefiting companies? All the employees they're intending to help? Or have they become just another layer of corporate complex?

Firstly, I am not qualified to talk about this whatsoever, being a white middle class male of a certain age. So I certainly am not. I can kind of see some of the, I can see why some people might say this because they might go, well, you know, people are being promoted to certain positions based on the fact that we need a diversity hire. We need to, you know,

even up the number of women on our board, for example, when in actual fact they're not as qualified. I can see that, but I don't understand it well enough to be able to go, oh, well, that's what, this is what needs to happen. I mean, what's your thoughts, Leigh? I'm not sure, actually.

Mr. Diamond is really talking about DEI. I think he just wants to pop at some organisations that are making his life a bit harder right now. And I think it's one of those things that's in the news already. It gets picked up. You know, I find it hard to feel sorry for these billionaires that are struggling with DEI because why? They think it's taking opportunities away from them? No, I don't think so. I just think it means things are a bit more expensive. They need to pay people fairly. I don't know. I don't think it's about any of that.

That said, we do know that some EDI practices aren't particularly effective and they can unintentionally isolate the groups that they're meant to help with.

We've seen this famously talked about by Adam Grant in his book Hidden Potential. There's also been studies from Harvard Business Review, which does kind of say that, you know, if diversity hires are made, typically those people feel undervalued and isolated. So it's not to say that there isn't research out there that certain diversity measures aren't working. That's very different to saying DEI doesn't work.

So I think we need to be very careful in terms of, I guess, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, essentially. That said, as you alluded to, Al, we do have quite an interesting take on this, a hot take on this coming up just after the break. Yeah, I think the other thing that just the last thought on this is not around the actual diverse DEI, which I've got no business getting involved in, but more like it seems like there's more and more people aligning themselves with this DT guy.

um who's who's now president um seeing more and more people who are just aligning themselves with what he believes so they they're trying to like sort of get in the back door like um like musk has because musk is obviously having you know all his dreams are coming true right now aren't they so did you see that sorry to go off topic a minute the um the open letter written from tesla

to the US government basically saying that they think the new tariffs aren't cool and it's going to massively affect the automobile industry. This wasn't from Musk then? Well, it wasn't signed by anyone at Tesla. It was just Tesla, which is interesting because wasn't it when all the Twitter layoffs were happening, it wasn't signed from anybody. It was just signed from Twitter and previously it was signed by somebody. So to me, do you know what I mean? It's just, it's just bizarre.

You okay? Carry on. Do you want to cuddle? Please. We've got something even better because up next our hot take is from the expert Sarah Gashier and she's got some pretty spicy views on DEI as they currently sound. She says it's not working and it's time to rebuild them from scratch. So don't go anywhere. Join us for Sarah Gashier.

Welcome back. Our guest today for our hot take is Sarah Gashier, an award-winning workplace wellbeing consultant, a registered nutritionist who's on a mission to revolutionise workplaces through compassionate leadership and evidence-based strategies. With an MSc in public health nutrition, Sarah combines nutritional science and psychology to help organisations create environments where employees genuinely thrive.

Her work in work well-being has earned recognition from the Mayor of London and saw her shortlisted for the prestigious True Leader in Well-Being Award.

Sarah is a passionate public advocate who isn't afraid to challenge traditional approaches to diversity, equity and inclusion, arguing that many DI initiatives fall short of serving the very people they're designed to support. In fact, Sarah believes equity, diversity and inclusion does more harm than good. So I am a workplace wellbeing consultant and I'm revolutionising the workplace through Compassion.

And so I've worked with some really prestigious organizations on well-being, including House of Commons and Royal Albert Hall.

And what am I known for? I guess for challenging the status quo. Well, speaking of thinking differently about things and challenging the status quo, let's get right to it. Sarah, what is your hot take? Right. So my hot take is quite topical at the moment is that EDI, equality or equity, diversity and inclusion does more harm than good. I'm

a woman from a different ethnic background. I'm Arab, Muslim, and I have disabilities. And I experienced disability discrimination in the workplace. These workplaces had diversity, DI initiatives,

And they had, you know, the networks as well, the diversity networks. But what was missing was accountability from leadership. They allowed sort of the bias and discrimination to happen. So in terms of what we're seeing at the moment, various organisations, you know, getting rid of their DEI teams, cancelling programmes, re-diverting funds, is that the solution? It's not saying that actually diversity, equity, inclusion doesn't need to be

there at work because it does but it just doesn't need that buzzword so yeah we have seen actually a lot of the roles particularly with what's gone on in the US but actually in the sort of over the past two years a lot of the roles are no longer there anymore and we see that actually if you look at the data in terms of the training that it's not actually having an impact but if you think about it like when people do this mandatory training they're not really applying what's going on from that training onto day-to-day

And I think the solution actually is it's more about the culture, the leadership. Like the leadership accountability is massive, I think, because you can't just have leaders, you know, allowing and taking a neutral stance when bias and discrimination happens.

And if they're allowing that behavior to happen, then they are part of the problem. I think it's a bit contradictory sometimes, leaders and organizations, when they have these initiatives, but then when they're faced with an incident of discrimination and then they just say, oh, go to HR, HR doesn't do anything about it because we all know they're just there to protect the organization. That is another hot take. Yeah.

But yeah, so I think it's about these everyday behaviors, training managers and actually how to be, how to communicate. It's the soft skills, compassion, empathy and leadership accountability. That would probably do more for DEI than having any training or initiatives. There is a much bigger problem here and that is the systemic thing because there's other people at play here who are allowing these behaviors to happen. And

like a couple not just my experience as well with me having a disability and being from a different ethnicity um I'd noticed in my workplace that they were sort of focusing more on one minority rather than another and when it came to wanting to speak up about my health condition um I was sort of there was a lot of

really horrible stuff said about me. And then really sort of what hit me was my manager and other leaders had sided with this leader who'd said this. So this is kind of what's concerning is that it's a group thing. I don't want leaders to think, well, oh, I've been doing this and now you've told us not to do this anymore. So what am I doing? I think they just sort of need to rethink because the key message I want to get out to leaders is that

The way DEI has been happening, there is a lot of resentment because it is not really having the impact that it should be having. I think if there is confusion from leaders about, you know, should we stop the program? Should we do this or whatever? I think that I would just advise them to sit back and look at their cultures and look at sort of what's going on in their organization and take accountability. And if you start from there, that's going to be much better for you than

trying to create a programme or initiative or worrying about should we have a DEI policy, should we have this, are we doing that, are we doing this? Just value your employees, value everyone's contributions, truly listen to them. It almost makes you wonder...

if it's better to deal with some leaders that are like this is all bullshit don't believe in EDI compared to a leader that goes oh yeah no we totally buy into it we do loads of stuff and then actually in reality there is mass discrimination in their organisation for me there's just a bit of lack of transparency there if you're going to go out on social media and say that you do all this and then go out to your employees as well and in your newsletters and say we're doing this but then when something like

like that happens and someone is treated unfairly for having a life-threatening illness and then told that they will need to leave their job because of their life-threatening illness and there's not much that we can do, doesn't really scream to me like, yeah, we've got a lovely wellbeing strategy and an EDI policy when you hear stuff like that. Goodness, Sarah certainly didn't hold back there.

I think what a term that I really liked that Sarah used was performative EDI because I think that explains it perfectly. These organizations that are parading these diversity credentials and everything they're doing on social media while discrimination prevails.

is just festering internally and the research does back that up because when companies implement these surface level policies without actually addressing any culture issues then it's this cognitive dissonance this gap in or this difference in thinking that can be more damaging than doing nothing at all

Yeah, absolutely. And when she talks about leadership accountability, that made a lot of sense because I think we've all seen how organizations are guilty of throwing money at training programs or hiring fancy consultants without actually ensuring all the leaders truly believe in equality. If the leaders aren't walking the walk or afraid to address these sort of problems head on, it's like putting a plaster on a broken leg, for example. I'm not quite sure where that analogy came from. Me. Is that right? Well, we need to fix the leadership behavior first and

and then worry about the policies. Yeah, wellness washing. That's what I said. Anyway, but yes, you're right. And I think as well, it feeds into her point about resentment. So when organisations are kind of doing all of this half-heartedly, so it can't be just a tick,

boxing exercise really and that's we people are wise to it now and especially with social media people talk about it more it's where we see wellness washing it's where we've seen DI washing it's where we've seen green washing it just doesn't flow it needs to be done with that level of integrity otherwise people just won't buy into it. As Leanne says about engagement surveys or anything to do with any kind of initiative if you do it badly it's actually worse than not doing it at all. Yeah and it is about that that authentic

and belief behind it. Don't get me wrong, from all the conversations we've had today, diversity is really good for business. Like look at any research, diversity of people, of thought is so important in terms of creativity, innovation, speed to market, revenue, performance, name a commercial metric, a diverse team will perform higher. So it's not to say that there isn't any research behind this that actually shows that diversity, bottom line, it just commercially makes sense.

But like anything, you have to really believe it. You have to believe that that is the business you're building, both morally, ethically and commercially. Without that, you know, it is just, as you say, it's these tick box exercises. It's the rainbow logos during Pride Month. It's the fruit in the break room if it came to well-being. It needs that joined up thinking. It needs that strategy and that execution.

anyway enough about me and going on if you would like to connect with sarah and of course you do the best place to find her is on linkedin and instagram i will leave links to both of those profiles in the show notes fabulous okay on to my favorite time of the week which is the world famous weekly workplace surgery where i put your questions to leanne you know this leanne's a chartered occupational psychologist who's an expert in workplace culture so she is the exactly right person you should be asking your

questions too if you've got a question yourself look check the show notes uh write in we'll feature on next week's show or the week after um obviously it will be you could be anonymous if you want to be

Okay, so question number one. My ex is now my boss. I'm in a situation I thought I'd never, sorry, I'm in a situation I never thought possible. Three years ago, I had a serious relationship with someone who worked in another department. The breakup wasn't great, but we managed to stay professional at company events. Yesterday, our department head announced they were leaving and guess who's being promoted to replace them? Yep, my ex.

They start next week and I'll be directly reporting to someone who once told me I was emotionally unavailable and career obsessed. Oof.

I'm good at my job, but I'm terrified this history will affect my progression. Some colleagues know about our past relationships. The gossip has already started. I've considered asking for a transfer, but I've built relationships with our clients and I love my team. HR knows nothing about our history and I'm not sure if I should tell them. I need this job. Sounds like you love this job too, but I'm dreading every upcoming one-to-one meeting.

How do I handle this without torturing my career or having to leave? Awkward. Awkward. Very awkward. Can you imagine having to work with your ex or even your current spouse? No. No, it must be a nightmare. Christ, no. Back to this listener. Oh, I feel fear. I feel fear. I can feel that stomach churn when you found this out.

This is why you tell HR when you have a relationship in an organisation, because things like this can transpire if people don't know. They don't know or they don't know. I would, this is what I would do, and it's going to be super awkward. Everything about this situation from this point onwards is going to be massively awkward. There is no getting away from that, so just suck it in. The thing that I would first do probably is

kind of salvage this situation HR need to know about this they need to know even just as an FYI and everything works out really great they know that this dynamic is in place so someone can check in with you can check in with your new boss make sure everything's happy um I would do this if you can with your ex so I would be inclined to contact your ex partner and say this is awkward

I think we probably should make HR aware that this dynamic exists. I'm sure that we'll be fine. I have every intention of dealing with it professionally. You are my manager. I'm sure you have every intention of dealing with it professionally as my line manager. That said, I'm finding this situation really awkward.

and a bit weird, and I'd just like to put it on the radar of HR, I think we'd be better doing that together. What do you think? If this person says no, red flag number one. And if they do, go to HR, have this conversation, explain that, you know, at the time we didn't disclose it for various reasons. Bearing in mind that could be against company policy, so just do some research first and make sure you're not going to get yourself in trouble.

But have a conversation with a HR rep that you trust and just kind of say, I don't want anything to be done about it. I just want to flag it. I just want to share it. So if anything happens,

happens in the future you have this context in which to to understand what's happening and then I think you've just got to suck it in and see because it could be it's fine it could be that everyone's moved on you're going to stay professional the gossips will stop when there's nothing to gossip about and gossip about anymore they see you and your ex are getting on well professionally and it's all fine if it isn't fine um at least HR know and will understand the context and I I hate to say

maybe start looking for another job.

because I really hope that you're both mature enough to manage this situation. You said it wasn't a particularly bad breakup. Yes, there were some words said, but we all change over time. Maybe you were emotionally unavailable then, you know, and that's okay. Might not be the worst idea to just have a little look around, maybe brush up the old CV. Just that normal career cushioning activity any sensible professional in this current job market climate would be doing anyway. Might not be a bad idea. So to summarise,

Call out the elephant in the room with your ex that this is really freaking awkward and you think you should go to HR. Go to HR, have this conversation with her. We don't want anything to be done. We just want to disclose that this happened in the past because of this new work relationship we're entering into and give you some context should anything occur in the future. And then maybe three, just have a little look around.

should the worst happen. I think that's interesting advice because my thought immediately when I was reading this was like, ooh, maybe you should go and talk to your ex. Go out for a coffee and talk to them. And I realise now that actually, in the context of what you just said, that's probably not a good idea at all. You need to make it a bit more formal. But also, I don't know. I mean, as Leanne said, things have changed. When you do split with someone, you do...

quite often say things that either you don't necessarily believe or you believed strongly at the time and you no longer believe. Everything could be absolutely fine. I think my only advice is don't rekindle this. If you get the opportunity, if you've got a one-to-one in the office and the blinds are shut and the door's locked,

Yeah, leave that alone, I think. Good luck to you. Good luck at Godspeed. Okay, question number two. Top performer or high-functioning alcoholic? Possibly both. Possibly both. Continue. I manage a team of nine people, including a senior account manager who consistently exceeds targets and whom clients absolutely love. By the way, loving the use of the word whom there. I love it. Hmm.

The problem? I'm increasingly concerned he has a drinking problem. He arrives to morning meetings with bloodshot eyes and coffee that doesn't really hide the smell. His afternoon performance noticeably dips and he's missed deadlines twice after lunch.

Clients have also mentioned he was a bit off during late afternoon calls. Despite this, his overall performance is still better than most of his team. HR advised that unless his work significantly suffers or he comes to work visibly intoxicated, there's very little I can do. I feel stuck between protecting a high performer and addressing what seems like a serious personal issue. This is an interesting part of the question here. What is my responsibility here to the company, to him and to the team?

I like that this person's looked at it multifaceted. It's not just like, how do I manage this person? But, you know, I've got to think about the team and also personally think about his life. Anyway, sorry, Leanne, this is your turn. No, please continue, Al. Continue. Well, what do you think? What do you think this person should do? I mean, HR is right, legally speaking, unless there is something significantly obvious about this. You know, they turn up to work intoxicated. It's conjecture. And, you know, it...

In that case, you have to treat this as you would any other employee who is maybe struggling. It's these little behavior changes, these little changes in appearance, these little changes in performance that a really great manager is going to pick up in everybody, whether it's because they have a substance abuse problem, whether it's because they're having challenges at home, whether they're going through grief, whether they're stressed.

It's all these cues that kind of tell us how much really good is you recognize them ahead of time before there's a significant problem that would potentially escalate to a formal performance management issue or a referral to HR. So you've noticed that, which is great. Approach it as you would any other conversation with an employee. Mentioning you one to one, you know, is everything OK? What's going on with you at the minute?

leave it at that don't add any context or leading questions and just keep asking that if there are things that aren't acceptable it doesn't matter how before how performing they are if there's something that isn't acceptable then you'd have that conversation as you would with any employee if a client isn't happy you go look what happened with jason down at abc you know you're just going to have that conversation so i think at this point you approach it

as you would any other employee. Try and suspend judgment or coming to your own conclusions about what the issue is. It could be that, it could be something completely different. It's great that HR know because if this does escalate, it's not going to be completely blindsided. And just see where it escalates. In terms of your responsibility, your responsibility right now is none other than to be a manager. You're not...

a health professional that helps people with substance abuse challenges. You're not HR. You are a manager whose job is to manage people, create a safe, high-performing environment and give them the support they need to do their job well. As part of that is, of course, to have empathy and concern and check in with them. But checking in with them in light of these little behavior changes, shifts in performance that you're seeing. Approach it.

As you would any other employee conversation with these dips in performance or behavior changes and see what comes out. And if it does come to a point where this person is struggling with an alcohol problem, then you've already got that relationship with your HR rep. You go back to them. You ask for all the signposting options.

And you go from there. It's not your responsibility to counsel this person through their alcohol addiction. It's your responsibility to manage their performance at work. So approach it as that.

your responsibility is to manage their performance at work have the conversations you would with any other employee if you start to see signs they were struggling yeah absolutely and of course there's other options as well potentially this person's got a new baby so they're really tired so they're up up at like three in the morning so for them that one o'clock in the afternoon is like midnight um so there could be that there could be um health problems it could have type

for example which means that you'll be tired after lunch they could have insomnia so they're trying to have a couple of whiskies to try and get themselves to sleep but they don't

There's so many scenarios, isn't there, Alan? Yeah, there is. And I think what Leanne said is really, really, I think it's really cool advice because you're saying treat them like any other employee. Just like, okay, that's my hypothesis, but I don't have any proof of that. And like Leanne says, when you do get proof, then perhaps you have to do something slightly differently. It's okay to say, I noticed you didn't put together this morning as you normally do. Is everything all right? Or I noticed that you're hitting a bit of a wall in the afternoon. Is there anything I can do to...

To help you with that. Yeah, he's asking these open questions without agenda, without judgment, with only the view to try and help this person out a little bit. Question number three, the secret Slack channel. Oh, yes, that's C. Yes. Very common problem. Very common problem. I recently discovered my team operates a private Slack channel where they discuss work issues, share information about projects and apparently vent about management decisions.

I found out by accident when one team member mentioned what was said in the group about a new policy, assuming I knew about it, but I did not because I'm not invited and neither are any of the other managers. From what I can gather, this isn't just a casual chat. They're making decisions, agreeing approaches to projects and creating workarounds for processes they don't like. It's essentially a shadow management system. While performance hasn't suffered, I feel undermined and concerned about the implications for transparency and inclusion.

Leanne, what do we do? Talk me through the red flags you saw there, Al. I know you saw them. I did. Come on, red flag number one. While performance hasn't suffered. Red flag number two. I feel undermined and concerned about the implications for transparency and inclusion. This is not a DEI thing. This is about them feeling included. Red flag number three. Part of me wants to confront this head-on and demand to be included. God damn it. Like,

Like a petulant child. Listen, I'm so sorry. I know you've written in looking for advice, but we're going to be, this is with love we say all this. Lee, go. Yes, we make light of it because hopefully to help you see how maybe silly this is. And if you still don't see it, then yes, tough love.

Performance hasn't suffered. End of that. No more to be said. No more to be said. If there was more to be said, though, love, what would you say? No, the only thing I would say that you could say, and you have to completely remove your ego from this situation entirely, as long as decisions are being made that you're happy with, as long as people feel capable and able to come to those decisions and it's not a source of stress for them,

then cool let it carry on it's great task and social cohesion and action over slack which is apparently what we can't do is collaborate and ideate and decision make virtually the thing that might be useful for you to know is if there are workarounds and policies that are working and doesn't

undermine compliance in any way how do we make this a permanent solution so it's just the way things are done if you approach this from a if there are anything in this anything that comes up in this group that you need help to fix could be a permanent solution is around continuous improvement innovation give me that feedback because if i know i can do something about it if i don't know

it'll continue to be a source of frustration for you and there's always a risk that you'll do some kind of process change that will hit something you know not hit something in terms of governance or compliance that's the only risk factor and that's the only value add you can you can bring um that still doesn't mean you need to be part of the group should this person like let on that they know the group exists well it sounds like there's already one member of the team who

thinks you already know it exists, right? So you could always talk to them about it, first of all, and go, you know that group that I don't know about? I'm just wondering, would it be beneficial if the team understood that there was a consistent thing that comes up in this group that they can come to me? You probably want to facilitate that in the one-to-ones, you know, include that as a question. So tell me, are there any processes you're driving you nuts at the minute? Is there anything we can do to fix them? Any changes that you've made that could benefit the wider team? It's all about...

What all of this has done really is given you an in to understand the roadblocks your team currently have. Thankfully, they're, you know, they're innovative enough and motivated enough to fix a lot of these problems themselves. That's not to say they're not going to benefit from you as a manager facilitating that process. And you'll probably ought to help in terms of speed, in terms of authority, in terms of making sure it's all done in the right way. That's the opportunity here.

and the potential risk if there is processes being changed that shouldn't be otherwise

Leave it alone. Yeah, I totally agree. I think what we've got here is, according to this year, they are self-manning a little bit. They're overcoming challenges themselves without coming to you with them. They're finding that, you know, maybe senior leadership is saying you have to do certain things a certain way. They're finding ways around it, which is still compliant with what senior leadership want. This sounds like a dream team. It sounds like the biggest problem is that you're in the playground and no one will play with you. Or being a bit more generous. It could perhaps

They'd be making you feel a bit insecure that you're redundant as a manager. You know, these are things that you should be doing and you're not. So it's understandable that you'd react differently.

defensively in that situation. But ultimately, as I said, you've got a really great self-managing team. This allows you to really help them change the things that they can't change and also turn your attention to things that are going to make the team environment even better, make your customers even happier, you know, make your senior leadership team even more impressed and that'll come back to you.

as the team manager so yeah this is a really great situation to be in it's a very first world problem okay i think that's the end of the episode leanne coming up this thursday well let's just say this is one of the most fun interviews i've done in a while we're bringing you the story of steve kars who went from being laid off in 2009 to building the king of pops which is a 10 million dollar ice pop

What is really unique about this founder story is that the King of Pops is built on a radical notion that work can be, and in fact should be, free.

fun. Steve was named one of Atlanta's most admired CEOs in 2017 and included in the 40 under 40 list in 2012. He describes himself as a dad, hot dog stroke, cotton candy stroke, beer stroke, Christmas tree stroke, ice pop slinger and serial entrepreneur and is famous for telling the world to slow down, enjoy the ride and realise these are the good old days. This interview is going to be for anyone who wants to make work fun again. MWF

no that doesn't really work does it you couldn't get it that way it worked fine again woofer woofer woofer but whether you're a leader a manager an employee or someone who's building your own empire this is going to be right up your street yeah you don't want to miss it we will see you on Thursday until then subscribe join us over on LinkedIn only 10% of you

of you that watch us on YouTube, subscribe. If we could just get it up to 20%, it would do wonders for our numbers and help us get some money. So if you feel like it, click that subscribe button. Get that bag. And we'll see you Thursday with the amazing Steve Carr. Bye. Bye. This week in work. Have you ever been offered a promotion and found it came with more blah, blah, blah, blah, blah? That's a good start. My name is Al and I'm... Oh, it's not going well.

Welcome back, our hot, no, registered nutritionist and psychological safety practitioner who's on a mission to revela... revela... strolling today, aren't we?