Each week Dr Kirstin Ferguson tackles questions about workplace, career and leadership in her advice column Got a Minute? This week: lunch break dos and don’ts, a threatened manager and another missed opportunity.
Everyone at my workplace has been told not to schedule personal appointments during lunch breaks. This follows several colleagues booking haircuts or other lengthy appointments, returning late and then taking additional time to eat. It seems unfair to impose a blanket restriction because some people abused the arrangement. Can an employer dictate what employees do during their lunch break, and wouldn’t it be more reasonable to simply manage those who return late?
Collective punishments for a few bad apples is never a good idea. And how does management intend to enforce this rule? Follow everyone to see where they go at lunchtime?
Whether an employer can dictate what someone does on their lunch break depends on whether the break is paid or unpaid, and what your award, enterprise agreement, contract or workplace policy might say. All that said, dictating how employees use a genuine lunch break is difficult to justify simply on the basis some employees have returned late.
A better approach would be for management to speak with anyone who returns late from lunch. They should have this conversation individually, consistently and on the day in question. It is reasonable for you to expect your employer to trust you to return to work after lunch on time, and it is reasonable for them to speak to you if you do not. The idea of a blanket rule to deal with this issue is only going to impact workplace culture negatively. Trust needs to flow both ways.
I am a highly experienced senior employee with an exemplary record. I intend to progress elsewhere, but personal circumstances mean delaying that move for about 18 months. Meanwhile, my boss has become increasingly irrational and unethical, making political decisions that are damaging our team. After I respectfully challenged one decision and set a boundary, my boss said I should be more deferential and has effectively excluded me for six months. I suspect they feel professionally threatened by me. How do I protect my peace, and my career, until I can leave?
I think the first thing you can do to help with the next 18 months is to stop trying to diagnose your boss’s motives. They may feel threatened by you, sure, but they may also experience your confidence a little differently than you do. Are you confident the way you challenged a decision was flawless?
To try to make this situation a little better, rather than simply having to endure the next 18 months, try to have an open conversation with your boss. Acknowledge your earlier discussion had been difficult. Let them know you want to work together effectively – ask them to clarify what they meant about being more deferential and ask how they would like you to raise concerns with them in future.
At the same time, document your concerns if you observe your boss doing anything unethical. This does not mean just decisions you think are political or examples of where they may exercise poor judgment. If needed, you can report your concerns to someone more senior based on factual evidence only.
I applied for a short-term higher-level position in my government organisation and prepared using the position description. At interview, however, the questions seemed unrelated to it. The successful applicant is the same person repeatedly given acting opportunities, despite failing to meet performance targets and struggling to retain staff. I am frustrated by what appears to be a self-perpetuating system: they receive opportunities that give them the experience needed to secure the next one. Am I missing something, and how should I respond?
Your preparation was a great idea, but unfortunately a position description is not an advance copy of the interview script. Panels will often use unexpected questions to test judgment, adaptability and how you might apply your experience, not just how well you have rehearsed predictable examples.
It is worth asking for detailed feedback on why you were unsuccessful. Something like, “Could you explain what capabilities the questions were designed to assess, where my responses were less competitive and what evidence I need to demonstrate next time?”
A word of caution: please try to avoid judging the successful candidate only on the information available to you. The panel may have considered evidence you have not seen. Equally, repeated acting appointments do create a self-perpetuating advantage – the person gains visibility and experience, which is very helpful for gaining a promotion. That is why they are encouraged for anyone wanting to progress. Given this person has moved into a new role, will you consider applying for any acting roles that come up? You can start to use this opportunity for your own career goals.
To submit a question about work, careers or leadership, visit kirstinferguson.com/ask. You will not be asked to provide your name or any identifying information. Letters may be edited.
Looking for more Got a Minute columns?
Make the most of your health, relationships, fitness and nutrition with our Live Well newsletter. Get it in your inbox every Monday.
Dr Kirstin Ferguson AM is the author of Blindspotting: How to See What Others Miss and Head & Heart: The Art of Modern Leadership. Kirstin is ranked in the world’s Thinkers50 list and holds a PhD in leadership and culture. www.kirstinferguson.com.Connect via X, Facebook or email.
