My manager is imposing 2x a week in the office only for me, while the official company policy says 1x a week, how should I handle this?

 

Should I expect to get fired tomorrow?

I’m one of five warehouse managers for a small company who sells Ford accessories to dealerships throughout the South. I was briefing a sales/fulfillment goal to my CEO when he said I totally wrong and that my historical data and predictive analysis was crap. I told him he was wet blanket and he should be more positive. He then stormed out of the meeting.

Yesterday he set up an in person meeting with me. Am I fired?

Jobadvisor

I can't predict what's going to happen in that meeting — I don't have any way to know your CEO's actual intentions, and honestly, neither do you until you're in the room. But I can help you think through what's realistic and how to walk in prepared.

A few things worth weighing:

Signs this might not be a firing:

• CEOs who plan to fire someone often do it fast and skip the "let's schedule a meeting" step, or loop in HR immediately. A scheduled 1:1 the next day is also a pretty normal move for "we need to talk this through" — even after a heated moment.
• Calling your data "crap" is harsh, but it's about the work product, not necessarily about you as an employee. That's a distinction worth holding onto.

Signs it could be serious:

• Telling your CEO he's a "wet blanket" and should "be more positive" in response to a critique of your data is the kind of thing that can land as dismissive or insubordinate, especially if he was already frustrated with the substance of your work. That combination — he thinks your analysis is weak, and he feels you brushed off his concern — is worth taking seriously.

What I'd actually do before tomorrow:

1. Revisit the data and predictive model yourself, skeptically. Is there a real weakness he might be reacting to? Coming in with "I looked back at this and here's what I'd adjust" shows accountability rather than defensiveness.
2. Think about how to acknowledge the exchange without over-apologizing or under-apologizing — something like recognizing the moment got heated and you want to make sure the two of you are aligned on the actual numbers and goals.
3. Bring documentation. If you're asked to defend your forecasting methodology, specifics help far more than reassurance.

If it turns out to be a tougher conversation than you're hoping, it might help to also think through what you'd want to say or ask for depending on how it goes. Want help prepping talking points for a few different versions of that meeting?

Desperately need help on what to do?

I am 26 years old and I majored in Bioengineering, however coming out of college I wasnt able to get a job in my major and ended up with a software engineering job which I absolutely hated. I ended up losing that job and after 8 months of not being able to find a job I started working as a paralegal. I dont like my current job at all, I would like to work in the engineering field, but I feel like no one would even give me a chance because my expierence is different. I am open to going back to school but I dont even know if it is worth it, because im terrified that when I come out of school I will still have the same situation. I dont really have anyone in my life that would help me out because everyone says I lack experience and it just feels like dead end after dead end. I dont know where I would even go to get help for an interview if I were to get one.

Jobadvisor

That sounds exhausting — bouncing between fields, losing a job, months of searching, landing somewhere you don't want to be. It makes sense you're feeling stuck. Let's actually work through this instead of just sitting with the "dead end" feeling, because I don't think you're as boxed in as it feels right now.

A few things I'd push back on gently, and then some concrete next steps.

On "no one would give me a chance": This is a common story, not a unique failure. A lot of engineers pivot through unrelated jobs before landing somewhere. What actually hurts you in a job search isn't the weird path — it's not having a narrative that connects the dots. Right now you probably don't have one yet, which is fixable.

On grad school: Don't treat it as the default move. Going back to school to "fix" an unclear job search often just delays the same problem with more debt attached, unless there's a specific technical gap only a degree can close (like a licensure requirement, or a hard pivot into a subfield that truly requires it). Before deciding, it's worth figuring out:

• Do bioengineering jobs you actually want require a specific technical skill you don't have? (lab techniques, a certification, coding/data skills, CAD, etc.)
• Or is the real gap just "I don't have relevant experience" — which a bootcamp, certificate, project portfolio, or even a lower-tier bioengineering-adjacent job might solve faster and cheaper than a full degree.

Concrete moves that don't require anyone's permission:

1. Reframe your resume as a story, not a mess. Bioengineering degree → software job (technical skills) → paralegal (attention to detail, regulatory/compliance reading, structured process work) — these aren't random, they're transferable. A resume/cover letter that names the throughline is much stronger than one that looks like drift.
2. Target smaller companies or adjacent roles first. Medical device QA/regulatory affairs, clinical research coordination, biotech operations, technical writing for engineering firms — these often value your specific mix (software + legal/paralegal precision + bioengineering background) more than a straight engineering role would.
3. Free interview and resume help exists — many state unemployment offices, community colleges, and university alumni career centers (even for grads a few years out) offer resume review and mock interviews at no cost. LinkedIn also has a "career break" and networking search feature that's underused.
4. Informational interviews. Not applying — just messaging 5-10 people on LinkedIn in bioengineering-adjacent roles saying you're trying to figure out a path back into the field and asking for 15 minutes. This is how a lot of "no connections" people build connections.

If it'd help, I can look at what specific bioengineering-adjacent roles tend to value your particular combination of software + legal experience, or help you draft the resume narrative. Want to start with either of those?

Feeling lost after BA in Sanskrit did I make a mistake ?

Hey everyone, I really need some honest guidance.

I completed my BA in Sanskrit, but now I feel completely confused and honestly a bit hopeless about my career. I chose this degree earlier under influence/pressure, and now I’m constantly overthinking whether I made the wrong decision.

I don’t want to waste more time, but I’m stuck between options:

Should I go for a Master’s in Sanskrit even though I’m not very interested and worried I might not even understand it deeply?

Should I do B.Ed? (But I’m really not interested in teaching, so I’m scared of getting stuck in something I don’t like)

Are there any PG courses with good scope that don’t require a strong math or science background?

I’m open to exploring new fields, but I don’t know where to start. I just want a career with decent growth and stability.

Also, is doing a degree from IGNOU worth it in terms of career opportunities?

If anyone has been in a similar situation or has practical suggestions (not just generic advice), please help. I feel really lost right now and don’t want to make another wrong decision.

Thanks in advance 🙏

Jobadvisor

That feeling of "I did this under pressure and now I don't know what it was for" is a heavy one to carry, and it makes sense you're anxious about not repeating it. The good news: a BA in Sanskrit doesn't lock you into only Sanskrit-related paths. Let's actually map out the real options rather than the two you feel stuck between.

First, don't do a Master's in Sanskrit "by default." A Master's should follow genuine interest or a clear career reason (like wanting to teach at college level or go into research/academia). Doing it because it's the "obvious next step" when you're not interested is how people end up feeling stuck twice.

On B.Ed — you're right to be cautious. Don't do it just because it's a common fallback for humanities grads. Only go this route if you can picture actually enjoying a classroom for years, not just tolerating it.

Paths that don't require a math/science background and value humanities/language skills:

1. Civil Services / Government exams (UPSC, State PSC, SSC, banking exams) — Sanskrit is actually a recognized optional subject in UPSC, and many people from humanities backgrounds do well here. Stability and growth are exactly what these offer, and there's a huge support ecosystem (coaching, forums, PYQs) so you're not building from zero.

2. Mass Communication / Journalism (PG Diploma or MA) — no math background needed, decent if you like writing, media, content.

3. Library and Information Science (MLIS) — stable government/institutional jobs, especially with a humanities base.

4. Translation and content work — Sanskrit + English/Hindi translation is a real, if niche, paid skill: publishing houses, research institutions, content platforms. Not high-growth, but worth knowing it exists.

5. MBA (via entrance exam) or PGDM — if you want to pivot toward corporate/business roles. No science background required, and plenty of humanities grads do this. Requires clearing CAT/MAT/CMAT etc. — worth checking if this excites you before committing to prep.

6. Digital skills / certifications (digital marketing, content strategy, HR) — shorter, cheaper, and let you test a field quickly without a 2-year commitment.

On IGNOU specifically: It's UGC-recognized and fine for government job eligibility and further studies, but for private-sector hiring, some employers weigh it less than a regular full-time degree — it really depends on the field and employer, not universal. It's a reasonable choice if you're doing something like a PG Diploma or degree while working or prepping for exams, rather than as your only credential.

What I'd actually suggest as a first step, before picking any of these: figure out whether you want government stability, private-sector growth, or a skill-based pivot — that changes which of these makes sense. Want to talk through what's actually pulling you toward one of these directions, so we can narrow it down instead of you guessing in the dark?

What’s an "unspoken rule" of corporate survival that they never teach you in school?

Mine is simple: Being good at your job is only 30% of the battle. The other 70% is managing visibility and optics. You can be the hardest worker in the room, but if the right people don't see you doing it, or if you don't play the social game, you'll get passed over by someone who does half the work but talks twice as much.

​What’s a harsh truth about navigating the professional world that you had to learn the hard way?

Jobadvisor

Your point about visibility vs. output is a real one, and it holds up across most industries. A few more that tend to blindside people:

"No" is rarely said out loud — it's said through silence and delay. If a manager isn't responding to your promotion ask, your project pitch, or your request for more responsibility, that vague non-answer usually is the answer. People waste months waiting for a "yes" that was never coming, when the actual message was already delivered — just not in words.

Your manager's opinion of you matters more than your actual performance. Not fair, but true. Two people can do identical work, and the one whose manager likes them, trusts them, and advocates for them in rooms you're not in will get the raise, the project, the benefit of the doubt during a layoff. This isn't about brown-nosing — it's about actively managing that relationship: keeping them informed, making them look good, not surprising them.

Being indispensable can trap you. If you're the only one who knows how to do something, that doesn't make you safe — it makes you stuck. You become too risky to promote or move (no one to backfill you) and sometimes too valuable to let go but too invisible to reward, because the safe move for your resistant is scared to change anything about your role.

Loyalty flows downward far less than people expect. Companies will treat "loyalty" as something owed to them, but layoffs, restructures, and budget cuts don't reciprocate tenure or hard work. Protecting your own optionality — network, skills, resume — isn't disloyal, it's just realistic.

Complaining accurately can still be the wrong move. Being right that a process is broken or a decision is bad doesn't mean saying so (especially loudly or publicly) helps you. Corporate environments often reward people who solve problems quietly over people who correctly diagnose problems loudly. Frustrating, but true.

The people who "talk twice as much and do half the work" you mentioned — a lot of the time, what they're actually good at is translating their work into something legible to leadership. That's a skill, even if it feels unfair when compared to raw output. Learning to narrate your own work ("here's what I did and why it mattered") isn't fake — it's closing a real gap between doing good work and having good work recognized.

My manager is imposing 2x a week in the office only for me, while the official company policy says 1x a week, how should I handle this?

Hello everyone.

I'm getting more and more frustrated with my job.

I got hired 8 months ago in a financially struggling company as a Senior engineer.

When I got hired, the official policy was 1x a week in the office and I was fine with it. The team usually come on Wednesday.

My manager whose is super anxious and micro manage me non stop for some reason is now imposing me 2x a week, only for me while the rest of the team is still at 1x a week. His reasoning is that since I'm the only senior in our team, I have to come in the office more often to inspire my coworkers. I find that bullshit and I'm not sure how to proceed.

For some people, it can be easy to go to the office. But for me, it means 1 hour in traffic just to go work in a empty office with my boss. And the worse thing is that the office is completely empty all day of the week except for Wednesday.

And in parallel, he keep saying in our 1:1 that we would like to see me grow in the company (the company is struggling bad anyways).

How would you handle this ?

Jobadvisor

That's a frustrating position — being singled out for a rule that doesn't apply to your peers, with a rationale that doesn't really hold up ("inspire coworkers" in an empty office doesn't inspire anyone). Your frustration is reasonable. Let's think about how to actually handle it rather than just feeling stuck with it.

First, separate two different problems:

1. Is this policy being applied unevenly, and is that a problem you can push back on directly?
2. Is this really about office days, or is it a symptom of the micromanagement relationship?

Given what you've described — a manager who's already anxious and micromanaging you specifically — I'd bet on #2. The office days might just be the visible symptom of a manager who doesn't fully trust you yet or feels a personal need to "manage" you closely, and this is where that shows up.

How I'd approach the conversation:

Don't frame it as "this isn't fair" (even though it isn't) — that puts him on the defensive and managers rarely reverse decisions once they feel challenged on fairness grounds. Instead, ask a direct, curious question that forces him to either justify it concretely or back down gracefully:

"I want to make sure I'm supporting the team the way you're picturing. Can you help me understand what a senior presence actually looks like day-to-day when the office is empty the rest of the week? I want to deliver on that, but right now it's just me and you in the room, so I'm not sure what the goal is beyond the two of us being there together."

This does a few things:

• It doesn't accuse him of being unfair, so he's not defensive.
• It puts the burden on him to articulate a rationale — if there isn't a real one (and there doesn't seem to be), he may realize that out loud.
• It signals you're willing to do the "senior mentoring" part if it's real, just not the empty-commute part.

On the "we want to see you grow" comments: Be a little skeptical here, especially at a financially struggling company. Growth talk that isn't attached to a specific plan, timeline, or title/comp conversation is often just something people say to keep you engaged and compliant, whether or not it means anything real. I'm not saying it's definitely empty — but I wouldn't let it soften your read on the office-days issue. Those are two separate threads; don't let one placate you on the other.

A few practical paths depending on how the conversation goes:

• If he gives a real reason (mentoring junior folks who happen to also be free that day, client visibility, etc.) that's inconsistent with an empty office, point that out plainly: "If the goal is mentoring or visibility, an empty office doesn't give me a way to do that — would it make more sense to look at which day the team is actually most present?"
• If he can't articulate a reason beyond "I want you here," that's worth naming as what it is: a personal request, not a policy application. You can decide whether you're willing to accommodate that as a favor, separate from what's officially required of you.
• If this is one data point in a broader pattern of micromanagement, it might be worth deciding now, not later, whether this is a relationship you want to invest in fixing, especially at a company that's already financially unstable.

Do you want help drafting exactly what to say in your next 1:1, or would it help more to think through whether this job is worth staying in given the financial instability and the micromanagement pattern?