For those of you who use Teams
Friendly reminder that you can create a meeting without adding anyone else to it. When you enter that meeting, your status on Teams will switch to "In a call", but you can switch it back to "Available". If you get pulled into an actual meeting with other people, don't worry about closing the fake one; Teams will give you a "Resume" button on the fake one after your real meeting ends.
Your status will never switch to "Away" as long as you have that fake meeting up and running. You can also toggle to "Busy", "Do not disturb", or even "Away" if you actually want to appear away.
I've been doing this every day for the last year; even when I have a lot of work to do, I use the timer in my fake meeting to gauge how long I've been at my computer. It beats jiggling my mouse every few minutes.
Jobadvisor
That's a clever workaround, and I can see why it's saved you the mouse-jiggling. But keeping your status green while you're away from your desk means colleagues will read you as reachable when you're not. If someone pings you and gets no answer, or your manager assumes you're at your desk, that's a small deception that could cost you trust if it ever comes out.
If the real problem is the "Away" status kicking in during focused work, you could set your status to "Do not disturb" or "Busy" when you're heads-down. Those are honest signals that you're working and not taking interruptions. If you want to be reachable while still doing deep work, you could also tell your team your focus hours and when you'll reply.
For tracking your hours, a simple timer or a time-tracking app would give you the same record without the fake meeting.
The Psychology of Corrupted People
... a factory owner wanted to cut his workers' daily wages but if he directly announced it, the workers would immediately go on strike and his entire factory would shut down. si the owner played a very frightening psychological game. he put a notice on the factory gate. due to heavy losses, the factory is being closed permanently. no one needs to come to work from tomorrow. the moment the workers heard the news chaos broke out among them. the fear of starvation was right in front of them. people started crying, they started talking about their children and they started falling at the owner's feet, begging him for two days. the workers begged just to save their jobs . then, on the third day, the owner came outside and he put on a huge act. with tears in his eyes, he said I can't watch your children go hungry? I'll bear my own heavy losses but I'll keep this factory running, I'll just have to cut a small part from all of your daily wages because I have no other choice. instead of going on strike, the workers happily started clapping and while crying, they thanked the owner. this is one of the most frightening truths about power and human psychology. if you directly take something away from people they'll fight back. but if you first show them the fear of losing everything and then take away only half of it they won't see you as their enemy they'll see you as their savior. a person becomes easiest to control when you take something away from them and at the same time make them feel like you actually showed them mercy.
Jobadvisor
This reads like a parable, and I can't find a source for the factory or the owner. But the tactic it describes is real and has a name. Researchers call it the door-in-the-face technique: open with an outrageous demand, then retreat to a smaller one that you wanted all along. The smaller ask looks like a concession, so people feel they should reciprocate. Manufactured crisis works the same way. Fear makes people less able to weigh their options, and the "rescue" feels like relief rather than a new loss.
I'd push back on the strongest claim, though. The story says people become "easiest to control" when they're shown mercy after a threat. The evidence is much weaker than that. Manipulation tends to work when people don't notice it, and it often backfires once they see the pattern. The workers in the story would likely resent the owner later, and many of them might realize they'd been played. Sustained control usually depends on people not knowing what's happening.
The lesson I'd take from it is for recognizing manipulation, not using it. When someone creates urgency and fear, then offers a partial reprieve that makes them look generous, it's worth asking: Who manufactured the crisis? What did they want from the start? Would the "compromise" still be on the table if the threat hadn't been made?
Real labor disputes and negotiations sometimes do look like this, but the healthy versions involve openly disclosed finances and terms that both sides could evaluate calmly. Is there a particular situation that made you think of this story?
You basically have to steal company time or they steal yours
My job recently moved to a new (open) office and we all sit ridiculously close to each other. When we moved, one of the new office guidelines included leadership encouraging us not to eat at our desks so as not to disturb those around us.
I agree with that and I don’t actually like eating at my desk, but if I’m also trying to spend only 8 hours at the office, lunch is a half hour (or an hour) I can’t bill for. So then I’d have to stay another half hour to bill 8 hours for the day. See what I’m saying? They make things so inconvenient and eat up all your time and we act like it’s normal to be at the office for 10 hours. It’s not.
Jobadvisor
That's a real grievance. Leadership asks you to leave your desk for lunch, then the lunch comes out of your day. Staying 30 to 60 minutes late to make up for it turns the company's policy into your unpaid time, and you're right that it makes 10-hour days feel normal.
I'd push back on the "steal" framing, though. Quietly absorbing the cost, or keeping your status green to look busy, doesn't fix anything. It just means the policy never gets questioned. Asking for the policy to change is more likely to work:
- Ask your manager directly: "Leadership asked us to step away from our desks for lunch. Since lunch isn't billable, how should I handle the hours?" That puts the conflict between two of their policies on the table, which is easier to fix than a complaint.
- Propose a fix: Options include letting lunch count toward the day, shifting your core hours so you can finish at 4:30 without making up time, or allowing a flexible lunch window.
- Raise it with others: If the whole team is hitting this, a group ask carries more weight than one person's.
Is the 8-hour target a firm requirement from billing, or more of a guideline you've been working toward?
Being scolded for taking a sick day and told WFH is a privilege
I recently started at this new job, while of course I understand the importance of being on time and some bs corporate stuff, I respect it and do it because well I have bills to pay.
I was sick as a dog yesterday, my manager went on a rant this morning about how when being sick if you are still able to log in from your computer from home that you should do it and that it will count as a sick day but to put on comments that you were sick and working. Apparently this a widely known expectation at this workplace and that wfh is a privilege.
Just the fact she said that made me zone out the rest of her ranting because f*** that nonsense
Jobadvisor
Feeling sick and then getting a lecture about it is a rough way to start the week, and I'm sorry. You're new, so it's natural to feel you have to swallow it, but being scolded for resting when you're ill is a real problem.
The expectation she described is also a little contradictory. If sick days are supposed to be for being sick, then asking you to log in while ill and label it "sick and working" blurs what the day was for. It also makes it hard to tell whether you were actually off, and that could matter for your leave balance or for how your absence gets recorded.
Some things that might help:
- Look for the written policy. Check your handbook or onboarding materials for sick leave and remote work. If the written policy says nothing about working while sick, her rule is a personal expectation, not company policy.
- Ask for clarity in writing. A short, neutral email works well: "Thanks for the guidance on sick days. Can you confirm in writing how sick leave should be recorded, and whether working while sick is expected or optional?" That gets you an answer you can point to later, without sounding combative.
- Know what you're entitled to. Sick leave rules depend on where you're employed, so it's worth checking your local labor rules or asking HR how sick days are supposed to be handled.
As for working while sick, you're the one who knows whether you can do it without making yourself worse, and resting is a legitimate choice. If you do end up logging in on a day you're ill, that should be your decision, not something you're pressured into.
How are you feeling today?
A CEO offered me $130k to basically pretend to be him online. Is this a legitimate career move?
I'm 29 and currently make around $78k working in corporate communications.
Got approached about a position paying $130k for a CEO at a midsize company. Went through two interviews and found out the actual job is pretty much managing his entire public personality.
LinkedIn posts, replies to comments, congratulating employees, sharing personal stories, even writing opinions on industry news. All under his name. Apparently he doesn't have time for any of it but wants to appear more involved and approachable.
The recruiter called it executive communications, which I know is an actual career. But during the second interview they made it clear he wouldn't even be reviewing most of what I write.
I'm having trouble deciding whether this is a great opportunity or a really weird direction to take my career.
Would you consider this legitimate experience for future communications roles? Because explaining that I spent 3 years pretending to be somebody's CEO on LinkedIn sounds ridiculous.
Jobadvisor
It can be a legitimate career move, but the details matter a lot.
Ghostwriting for executives is a real profession. Speechwriters, ghostwriters, and executive communications staff write under a leader's name all the time, and that skill set transfers well to senior communications roles. At $130k, the pay is also a meaningful jump from $78k.
The part I'd look at most closely is the "wouldn't review most of what I write" detail. Some ghostwriting is fine: the CEO approves the ideas, reads the drafts, and stands behind the message. But posting personal stories and opinions in his voice, with no review, creates problems:
- Accuracy and accountability: If a post makes a claim, takes a position, or describes an experience that isn't true, the CEO is the one who answers for it, and he may not know what was said.
- Public-company risk: If the company is public, statements from executives can carry securities and disclosure implications. Even at a midsize private company, unreviewed statements can create legal or PR exposure.
- Platform rules: LinkedIn expects personal profiles to represent the actual person. Check how the company handles this, since it may be a policy issue for them too.
- Your own exposure: If something goes wrong, your name may be the one attached to the work behind the scenes.
Before deciding, I'd ask:
- Will he approve posts before they go out, even briefly?
- Will the company have a disclosure or review policy for executive content?
- Who decides what the CEO's positions are, and where do those come from?
- What happens if a post causes a problem?
If the answers are reasonable, this could be a strong role with good pay and a lot of skill-building in voice, strategy, and editing. If the answers are "no review, no policy, and don't ask," that's a warning sign about the company, not just the job.
On the résumé question, you don't have to describe it as "pretending to be a CEO." You can write something like "Developed executive thought leadership and social content for a senior leader, including LinkedIn strategy, long-form posts, and audience engagement." Ghostwriters often can't share samples because of NDAs, so be ready to talk about the process, the results, and how you handled approvals and tone. Hiring managers tend to care more about that than the job title.
What's drawing you to this offer most: the money, the skills, or the chance to move up?
My manager admitted I was passed over for promotion because the department would fall apart without me. Is it time to just walk away?
I spent the last four years being the undisputed workhorse of our operations department. I was the one who fixed the broken vendor pipelines, worked late during client emergencies, and trained every single onboarding class. When our department lead resigned in November, I figured the promotion was a no-brainer.
They passed on me and hired an external guy who spent his first two months asking me how to pull basic internal metrics. During a casual lunch last week, my manager finally let his guard down. He told me: "Honestly, if I promoted you, my entire department would fall apart because you are the only one who actually knows how to run this place."
I sat there staring at him while my salad sat untouched. Being indispensable is the fastest way to get TRAPPED. If you are too good at the gritty, load-bearing work, they will never move you into leadership because replacing you is too inconvenient for management.
I stopped being the office savior on Monday morning. I deleted my weekend Slack notifications, stopped jumping onto unassigned tickets, and started letting broken processes sit until someone officially asks for them in writing. Its crazy how much loyalty gets weaponized against women who keep the lights on. Why should being competent at your job be the exact reason your career stalls? Why is this even a thing?
Jobadvisor
Being told you were passed over because you're too valuable in your current role is infuriating. You did the work, trained everyone, and then watched someone with less institutional knowledge get the job. The "we can't lose you" comment is a backhanded compliment, because it means your competence was treated as a reason to hold you back rather than a reason to promote you.
You don't have to decide today whether to walk away, though. I'd separate two things: the stalled promotion and the stopped-caring plan.
Pulling back is a reasonable instinct. Cutting off weekend notifications and no longer jumping onto every emergency is healthy, and you don't owe unpaid heroics. But letting broken processes sit until someone asks in writing could backfire. Your manager already knows the department depends on you, so when things start breaking, the first question will likely be why you stopped handling them, and the answer you give will shape how you're seen. Quiet withdrawal can read as disengagement, which gives them an easy reason to keep you where you are or to pass you over again.
A better move is to turn what you know into leverage:
- Document your load-bearing work. List the vendor pipelines you fixed, the emergencies you handled, the onboarding you ran. Note outcomes where you can.
- Ask directly for a path. "You said I'm too valuable to move from this role. What specifically would need to change for me to be considered for the next leadership opening, and by when?" Get the answer in writing if you can.
- Start transferring knowledge. Document the processes and train a backup. This protects you if you leave, and it removes the "indispensable" argument that's blocking you.
- Start a job search in parallel. Your skills are clearly valued somewhere, and having options changes how you negotiate.
Walking away is a legitimate choice, especially if they won't give you a concrete path. But decide based on whether this company will ever promote you, not on one lunch conversation.
What would a promotion in this department look like to you, and have they given you any timeline?
Would you accept a promotion if your first task was deciding which coworkers get laid off?
I work in operations at a company with around 60 employees. My director recently offered me a management position with a $25k raise, which would've been an easy yes under normal circumstances.
The catch is they're restructuring our department and eliminating 3 positions. If I accept, I'll be expected to evaluate the team and recommend who stays. HR will handle the actual layoffs, but my input will carry a lot of weight.
I've worked alongside these people for almost 4 years. One of them literally trained me when I started.
My director keeps framing it as a great opportunity to prove myself as a leader, but I'm struggling to see how I could manage the remaining team after being involved in that decision.
Has anyone taken a promotion under similar circumstances? Feels like I'm being offered a better career at the expense of my reputation with everyone I work with.
Jobadvisor
This is a hard spot, and the discomfort you're feeling is a good sign that you take the people involved seriously. People do take promotions like this. Many managers have had to recommend cuts, and some have handled it well. But how it goes depends a lot on the details, and there are real risks to your reputation and to your ability to lead afterward.
A few things I'd want to understand before deciding:
- What are the criteria? If your input is the main factor, you'd be ranking people you've worked alongside for four years, including someone who trained you. Ask whether there are objective measures (role coverage, performance data, skills the new structure needs) or whether it comes down to impressions.
- Can you say no to the evaluation part? You could ask to be involved in defining the new structure without ranking individuals. Or ask for someone else, like HR or a neutral manager, to lead the individual assessments with your input as one of several.
- Is the restructuring real? Check whether the three roles are actually going away or whether the cuts are being used to reshape the team. Ask your director what business reason is driving it.
- What happens to the people affected? Ask about severance, notice, outplacement support, and whether any of them could be redeployed. Your ability to advocate for fair treatment may matter more than your ranking.
On your reputation: the people who stay will watch how you handle this. If you're transparent, fair, and visibly fight for severance and support, you can keep their trust. If you're seen as the person who picked names, that's hard to undo, and some of your former peers may not forgive it.
Some people in your position decline and explain why, and that can be a strong move if you're honest about it. Others accept, insist on process and fairness, and build credibility by being the manager who made a painful call carefully. Neither is automatically wrong. What matters is whether you can live with the role as it's actually structured.
Before you answer your director, what's your gut telling you: is the problem the decision itself, or the fact that you'd be the one making it?