Do I throw her under the bus?
November 26, 2013 8:12 PM Subscribe
My assistant is all of these things:
(1) Friendly;
(2) Good about telling us when she won’t be there for the day;
(3) Takes no initiative;
(4) Makes an error in every single document or task given to her, without fail;
(5) As a result of #4, unreliable.
We can’t do this admin work ourselves; it’s against policy and we can’t bill for it.
Assistants get reviewed by us each year. Assistant reviews are coming up. Last year, I made all positive comments except that she needed to proofread better because there was frequently a mistake on each document or task and that she needed to check in with me in my office each day to see if I needed any papers picked up. Neither of these things happened; I don’t know whether it was because that was never communicated to her by the guy who collected the reviews or if she didn’t follow through. And yeah, I didn’t call her out on it because she doesn’t seem to care too much, though I realize now I should have done this a long time ago. Maybe discussing with her these things would be the next step if reviews weren’t right around the corner, so now I come with this question:
What do I say on this year’s review? She recently committed a huge, huge, pretty much unforgivable error that I won’t get into for anonymity’s sake. I ended up catching it just before it was time, and I’ve been thinking about telling someone, and now that the review is here, it’s perfect timing. I also am fairly confident that if I tell this story, along with everything else, she will get fired. I don’t want to get her fired when she could improve and has the ability to make my life a lot easier. But truthfully, I don’t rely on her much because of her past mistakes, and because my job doesn’t require relying on her all that much (a couple of short, discrete tasks a couple times a day, plus bigger projects once every couple of weeks). It would be nice if I had an assistant who wouldn’t mess things up so much and didn't require so much hand-holding. Decisions, decisions...
We can’t do this admin work ourselves; it’s against policy and we can’t bill for it.
Assistants get reviewed by us each year. Assistant reviews are coming up. Last year, I made all positive comments except that she needed to proofread better because there was frequently a mistake on each document or task and that she needed to check in with me in my office each day to see if I needed any papers picked up. Neither of these things happened; I don’t know whether it was because that was never communicated to her by the guy who collected the reviews or if she didn’t follow through. And yeah, I didn’t call her out on it because she doesn’t seem to care too much, though I realize now I should have done this a long time ago. Maybe discussing with her these things would be the next step if reviews weren’t right around the corner, so now I come with this question:
What do I say on this year’s review? She recently committed a huge, huge, pretty much unforgivable error that I won’t get into for anonymity’s sake. I ended up catching it just before it was time, and I’ve been thinking about telling someone, and now that the review is here, it’s perfect timing. I also am fairly confident that if I tell this story, along with everything else, she will get fired. I don’t want to get her fired when she could improve and has the ability to make my life a lot easier. But truthfully, I don’t rely on her much because of her past mistakes, and because my job doesn’t require relying on her all that much (a couple of short, discrete tasks a couple times a day, plus bigger projects once every couple of weeks). It would be nice if I had an assistant who wouldn’t mess things up so much and didn't require so much hand-holding. Decisions, decisions...
I assume that a friendly and reliable assistant who doesn't make a ton of mistakes would be more helpful to you than a friendly unreliable assistant who does make a ton of mistakes? I'm not really sure why you're so eager to hold on to her. Tell the truth for her review.
posted by jaguar at 8:23 PM on November 26, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by jaguar at 8:23 PM on November 26, 2013 [5 favorites]
She recently committed a huge, huge, pretty much unforgivable error
I don’t rely on her much because of her past mistakes
Makes an error in every single document or task given to her, without fail
It would be nice if I had an assistant who wouldn’t mess things up so much and didn't require so much hand-holding
She sounds like a terrible employee. Are you looking for permission to give her a bad review? I grant you permission. If she gets fired because of her performance then that is her fault for having bad performance, not your fault for pointing it out.
posted by sacrifix at 8:26 PM on November 26, 2013 [12 favorites]
I don’t rely on her much because of her past mistakes
Makes an error in every single document or task given to her, without fail
It would be nice if I had an assistant who wouldn’t mess things up so much and didn't require so much hand-holding
She sounds like a terrible employee. Are you looking for permission to give her a bad review? I grant you permission. If she gets fired because of her performance then that is her fault for having bad performance, not your fault for pointing it out.
posted by sacrifix at 8:26 PM on November 26, 2013 [12 favorites]
If you're really conflicted, I'm sure you can come up with a way to have the review end up with probation/warning/further evaluation on these goals, something like that so that she's not just fired out of the blue (from her perspective).
But the "nice person, terrible at their job" thing is something that anyone who manages other people has to deal with sooner or later, and I prefer to give clear, objective goals that can be true/false things so that I don't have to feel like a dick when I fire people (obviously, the goals should be attainable).
posted by klangklangston at 8:28 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
But the "nice person, terrible at their job" thing is something that anyone who manages other people has to deal with sooner or later, and I prefer to give clear, objective goals that can be true/false things so that I don't have to feel like a dick when I fire people (obviously, the goals should be attainable).
posted by klangklangston at 8:28 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
I ended up catching it just before it was time, and I’ve been thinking about telling someone
Do you not give her ongoing feedback? Is she your direct report? I don't get this "guy who reviews the reports" thing. Does she have a supervisor? I ask because if that supervisor is you, you should be giving her feedback on an ongoing basis. How was she supposed to make improvements between last year and this year if they hadn't been communicated to her? And how are things going to be different with your next assistant in the absence of any communication about performance?
posted by Wordwoman at 8:29 PM on November 26, 2013 [44 favorites]
Do you not give her ongoing feedback? Is she your direct report? I don't get this "guy who reviews the reports" thing. Does she have a supervisor? I ask because if that supervisor is you, you should be giving her feedback on an ongoing basis. How was she supposed to make improvements between last year and this year if they hadn't been communicated to her? And how are things going to be different with your next assistant in the absence of any communication about performance?
posted by Wordwoman at 8:29 PM on November 26, 2013 [44 favorites]
Performance reviews should never be a surprise to the employee. If she's making errors you correct it when it happens. You don't store things up and get her fired. She should have been on a performance improvement plan so that you could work with her before her review cycle.
Now you have to do a crappy thing of putting stuff on her review which is factually correct, but you have not given her an opportunity to fix.
In the future, give employees a fair chance to fix problems by giving them consistent feedback.
posted by 26.2 at 8:31 PM on November 26, 2013 [91 favorites]
Now you have to do a crappy thing of putting stuff on her review which is factually correct, but you have not given her an opportunity to fix.
In the future, give employees a fair chance to fix problems by giving them consistent feedback.
posted by 26.2 at 8:31 PM on November 26, 2013 [91 favorites]
People may disagree with me, but I see another option.
You give a bad review, but not necessarily what just happened.
You also talk one on one in your office and tell her what a serious transgression it was (ie, if it is potentially fireable). But if it ever happens again, you will not be so lenient.
The one reason I would take this course is that I wonder if she was told the first time, so how does the person/did the person know that improvement was needed? Some pple do turn around with a "come to Jeebus" talk or specific guidance.
posted by Wolfster at 8:32 PM on November 26, 2013 [7 favorites]
You give a bad review, but not necessarily what just happened.
You also talk one on one in your office and tell her what a serious transgression it was (ie, if it is potentially fireable). But if it ever happens again, you will not be so lenient.
The one reason I would take this course is that I wonder if she was told the first time, so how does the person/did the person know that improvement was needed? Some pple do turn around with a "come to Jeebus" talk or specific guidance.
posted by Wolfster at 8:32 PM on November 26, 2013 [7 favorites]
I don’t know whether it was because that was never communicated to her by the guy who collected the reviews or if she didn’t follow through.
Is there a reason you can't ask her to make these improvements yourself?
If this was never communicated to her, well.
If this was communicated to her by a third party reviewer, while it's not really OK that she didn't follow through, I think it would carry more weight coming from her actual supervisor.
It seems fucked up to basically try to get somebody fired when you can't even be arsed to correct her mistakes or give her any direction at all. "She doesn't seem to care" is no excuse.
Putting myself in your assistant's shoes, I'd be apoplectic if I ended up getting fired with no warning for not magically discerning through telepathy that you wanted something done a certain way, but hadn't seen fit to tell me about it.
Her constant mistakes sound pretty bad, though. Has it been brought to her attention that these aren't minor annoyances but serious gaffes that can result in her being fired if she doesn't improve?
posted by Sara C. at 8:34 PM on November 26, 2013 [8 favorites]
Is there a reason you can't ask her to make these improvements yourself?
If this was never communicated to her, well.
If this was communicated to her by a third party reviewer, while it's not really OK that she didn't follow through, I think it would carry more weight coming from her actual supervisor.
It seems fucked up to basically try to get somebody fired when you can't even be arsed to correct her mistakes or give her any direction at all. "She doesn't seem to care" is no excuse.
Putting myself in your assistant's shoes, I'd be apoplectic if I ended up getting fired with no warning for not magically discerning through telepathy that you wanted something done a certain way, but hadn't seen fit to tell me about it.
Her constant mistakes sound pretty bad, though. Has it been brought to her attention that these aren't minor annoyances but serious gaffes that can result in her being fired if she doesn't improve?
posted by Sara C. at 8:34 PM on November 26, 2013 [8 favorites]
It is not throwing someone under a bus to assess their work fairly--especially if they've continued to make the type of mistake they've been explicitly told to avoid. I agree with 26.2 that a poor review should not be a surprise (though she likely has some idea of what she should have been improving after last year's review). If you're in the habit of downplaying the seriousness of her mistakes, stop now. The message doesn't have to be, "You're terrible at your job," but she needs to know, "Here are the specific things you must do in order to keep your job."
posted by Meg_Murry at 8:36 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Meg_Murry at 8:36 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
Response by poster: I'm not her supervisor. The guy who collects the performance reviews is.
The big thing just happened and I was out of town when I caught it, and now that reviews are coming up now, I figured I'd discuss it then.
As for small things, she hears from me approximately a couple of times per week that something was wrong with what she did, and she apologizes and fixes it (for that time). I also point out all of her proofing errors. She's also getting better about checking with me first before she sends materials out for me (which reduces the number of errors). So yes, we discuss each time something happens, but not in the overarching "you consistently have a lot of mistakes and need to stop making these mistakes."
posted by juliagulia at 8:36 PM on November 26, 2013
The big thing just happened and I was out of town when I caught it, and now that reviews are coming up now, I figured I'd discuss it then.
As for small things, she hears from me approximately a couple of times per week that something was wrong with what she did, and she apologizes and fixes it (for that time). I also point out all of her proofing errors. She's also getting better about checking with me first before she sends materials out for me (which reduces the number of errors). So yes, we discuss each time something happens, but not in the overarching "you consistently have a lot of mistakes and need to stop making these mistakes."
posted by juliagulia at 8:36 PM on November 26, 2013
So I guess I'll take the opposite perspective (going against the grain, so to speak) on this. I don't think she should be fired. I think her intentions has the potential to be good.
If she was not given feedback, then how can you expect her to know she's doing things wrong? I mean, if they were OBVIOUS mistakes, then... that may be grounds for firing her, but if not, then... give her another chance. This economy is difficult, and she seems like a well-meaning person who has the potential to improve. My opinion is that if she's thrown out of the door unexpectedly, then that will not help her improve. Of course, if she's really lazy, a sloth, and doesn't SEEM to have the potential to improve, then maybe firing is the only option.
As for the unforgivable mistake... does she know/is aware of the mistake? Was she given feedback on this?
Upon preview - yeah, I'd recommend pointing all her mistakes out in a constructive, positive way, and frame it as a chance for growth and improvement!
posted by dubious_dude at 8:37 PM on November 26, 2013
If she was not given feedback, then how can you expect her to know she's doing things wrong? I mean, if they were OBVIOUS mistakes, then... that may be grounds for firing her, but if not, then... give her another chance. This economy is difficult, and she seems like a well-meaning person who has the potential to improve. My opinion is that if she's thrown out of the door unexpectedly, then that will not help her improve. Of course, if she's really lazy, a sloth, and doesn't SEEM to have the potential to improve, then maybe firing is the only option.
As for the unforgivable mistake... does she know/is aware of the mistake? Was she given feedback on this?
Upon preview - yeah, I'd recommend pointing all her mistakes out in a constructive, positive way, and frame it as a chance for growth and improvement!
posted by dubious_dude at 8:37 PM on November 26, 2013
If someone else is her supervisor, you should be letting this person know of assistant's shortcoming, so supervisor can supervise - train, discipline, encourage, document, etc. It's better to give a person ongoing feedback. In any case, talk to supervisor about your concerns before you write the review, but the review should be accurate.
posted by theora55 at 8:41 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 8:41 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
I wouldn't point out the big oops. You caught it, and the buck stops with you. I would address that with her individually and tell her you aren't pointing it out in her review but it can't happen again. That should gain you points with her.
I would, however, discuss in the review that the constant small mistakes make your job more difficult because you have to check her work. That's not what you get paid to do. But it is what you will get in trouble for if something is misses. Ask if there is some way to make the work flow easier so she can re proof - can she leave things overnight and give them to you first thing the next day? Can someone else be your proofreader?
If none of it gets better by next review, well...
posted by dpx.mfx at 8:42 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
I would, however, discuss in the review that the constant small mistakes make your job more difficult because you have to check her work. That's not what you get paid to do. But it is what you will get in trouble for if something is misses. Ask if there is some way to make the work flow easier so she can re proof - can she leave things overnight and give them to you first thing the next day? Can someone else be your proofreader?
If none of it gets better by next review, well...
posted by dpx.mfx at 8:42 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Does she know that a pass from you to correct and proofread is not normal, and is a sign that she's not performing at the level she should be?
I work in an admin capacity, and there's a supervisory sign-off component to almost everything I do (precisely to head off tiny mistakes that could ruin everything). I'm experienced enough that the sign-off point is usually just a formality, but if I make a mistake it's definitely not tallied up in a book somewhere and presented as evidence I should be fired.
Does she know that corrections = failure, and that her inattention to detail could cost her the job?
For that matter, are these minor mistakes typically a fireable offense for other assistants, or is it just that you're annoyed that she hasn't improved on her own?
posted by Sara C. at 8:44 PM on November 26, 2013 [17 favorites]
I work in an admin capacity, and there's a supervisory sign-off component to almost everything I do (precisely to head off tiny mistakes that could ruin everything). I'm experienced enough that the sign-off point is usually just a formality, but if I make a mistake it's definitely not tallied up in a book somewhere and presented as evidence I should be fired.
Does she know that corrections = failure, and that her inattention to detail could cost her the job?
For that matter, are these minor mistakes typically a fireable offense for other assistants, or is it just that you're annoyed that she hasn't improved on her own?
posted by Sara C. at 8:44 PM on November 26, 2013 [17 favorites]
I ended up catching it just before it was time, and I’ve been thinking about telling someone, and now that the review is here, it’s perfect timing.
The perfect timing would have been when you actually spotted the mistake. That's true for all the mistakes you bring up, actually -- why you didn't actually tell her what you needed done and how she needed to improve, I don't know. My guess is that you don't like confrontation, so you took the easy way out of complaining under your breath while smiling to her face, and biding your time until you could complain about her in a way that will keep your hands (ostensibly) clean, ie, in her review.
Apparently, you think it's easier on you to throw the complaints in the review and get her fired than to work with her to correct her mistakes, even to the point that you haven't told her to her face what she needs to be doing in the year+ that this resentment/contempt has been building. So to be frank, I'm confident that what you're going to end up doing is to keep smiling to her face and documenting every mistake you can think of in her review, then throwing yourself a self-loathing-fueled pity party when she actually gets the boot.
Do you get my permission to give her a bad review, for not fulfilling duties that she might not know about and/or for not being reliable in circumstances in which she hasn't been told her current performance is inadequate? No, you don't from me, for what it's worth. She shouldn't be making mistakes, let alone major mistakes. She doesn't sound like a very good assistant. But not telling someone who answers to you what she needs to do in order to fulfill the requirements of her job and then getting her fired (or even just getting her raked over the coals) for not fulfilling the requirements of the job is *deplorable* management on your part. She's a bad employee, but you complaining about that in this case is the pot calling the kettle black.
I do think you have a duty to tell an employee what she needs to do before firing her for not doing it. Maybe she's incapable of fulfilling her duties regardless, but you do have to at least give her the orders before you can say she failed at them.
posted by rue72 at 8:44 PM on November 26, 2013 [8 favorites]
The perfect timing would have been when you actually spotted the mistake. That's true for all the mistakes you bring up, actually -- why you didn't actually tell her what you needed done and how she needed to improve, I don't know. My guess is that you don't like confrontation, so you took the easy way out of complaining under your breath while smiling to her face, and biding your time until you could complain about her in a way that will keep your hands (ostensibly) clean, ie, in her review.
Apparently, you think it's easier on you to throw the complaints in the review and get her fired than to work with her to correct her mistakes, even to the point that you haven't told her to her face what she needs to be doing in the year+ that this resentment/contempt has been building. So to be frank, I'm confident that what you're going to end up doing is to keep smiling to her face and documenting every mistake you can think of in her review, then throwing yourself a self-loathing-fueled pity party when she actually gets the boot.
Do you get my permission to give her a bad review, for not fulfilling duties that she might not know about and/or for not being reliable in circumstances in which she hasn't been told her current performance is inadequate? No, you don't from me, for what it's worth. She shouldn't be making mistakes, let alone major mistakes. She doesn't sound like a very good assistant. But not telling someone who answers to you what she needs to do in order to fulfill the requirements of her job and then getting her fired (or even just getting her raked over the coals) for not fulfilling the requirements of the job is *deplorable* management on your part. She's a bad employee, but you complaining about that in this case is the pot calling the kettle black.
I do think you have a duty to tell an employee what she needs to do before firing her for not doing it. Maybe she's incapable of fulfilling her duties regardless, but you do have to at least give her the orders before you can say she failed at them.
posted by rue72 at 8:44 PM on November 26, 2013 [8 favorites]
Is she keeping track of her mistakes? I mean if I knew that I messed up a certain thing repeatedly, I'd have checklist or something to check every time worked on something pertinent. If she doesn't that is a clear lack of caring.
I guess the broader question is: do you think she is going to be better at her job in a 3 months? There are people that get better at their jobs and there are people that don't get better. People that are doing poorly, but work to get better - I'll work with those people. People that know about the mistakes they commonly make, but make don't efforts (not just lip service - having a plan) to correct them - Those people are not growing and they don't want to grow. I don't think you can help people that don't want to be helped.
posted by Brent Parker at 8:45 PM on November 26, 2013
I guess the broader question is: do you think she is going to be better at her job in a 3 months? There are people that get better at their jobs and there are people that don't get better. People that are doing poorly, but work to get better - I'll work with those people. People that know about the mistakes they commonly make, but make don't efforts (not just lip service - having a plan) to correct them - Those people are not growing and they don't want to grow. I don't think you can help people that don't want to be helped.
posted by Brent Parker at 8:45 PM on November 26, 2013
Response by poster: rue72, and anyone else wondering about the recent, big mistake, I was out of town for a while and before this, gave her explicit instructions five times on exactly what to do. It was e-mailed three times and discussed twice. All she had to do was grab a document from my office and hand it to someone else (a document that couldn't be given to the third person any earlier by me). That was it. She failed to do that even after she assured me she would. I then happened to check up on it two weeks later and she hadn't done it yet. We were two hours from missing a deadline and I shouldn't have had to check during my vacation at all.
I think I need to get better about giving her broader statements and discussions on her work and I need to keep her supervisor in the loop. I still don't know if I'm going to bring up the big incident on the performance review or not, but it seems pertinent: that's the biggest reason I find her unreliable. Now I'll stop threadsitting :)
posted by juliagulia at 8:52 PM on November 26, 2013
I think I need to get better about giving her broader statements and discussions on her work and I need to keep her supervisor in the loop. I still don't know if I'm going to bring up the big incident on the performance review or not, but it seems pertinent: that's the biggest reason I find her unreliable. Now I'll stop threadsitting :)
posted by juliagulia at 8:52 PM on November 26, 2013
I will take another perspective: was she hired to be an admin, or was she hired to be an entry level employee being groomed to move on to another department in another role? Because if it is the latter, then her soft skills matter a lot more than her "attention to detail" and she needs more handholding. If it is the former-- if you hired and admin to be "the admin" -- then she is obviously totally unqualified for the job and doesn't belong there.
I don't think that typos and other small administrative mistakes are a big problem in general. But they are a big deal when the person whose job NOT to make them keeps making them. It is totally the opposite of the kind of skills someone in that position should have.
posted by deanc at 8:52 PM on November 26, 2013 [5 favorites]
I don't think that typos and other small administrative mistakes are a big problem in general. But they are a big deal when the person whose job NOT to make them keeps making them. It is totally the opposite of the kind of skills someone in that position should have.
posted by deanc at 8:52 PM on November 26, 2013 [5 favorites]
It seems to me the salient point is that She. Will. Not. Get. Better.
Nice for you that's she's friendly, not so nice for you that she makes lots of mistakes. If the friendly part is worth it, keep her and continue to micro-manage, ignore lack of initiative, hope you catch those Great Big Mistakes in time. But she's been there long enough, and you've make enough attempts to help her improve, to show that this person is not going to become an effective admin assistant.
Having been in that job, and having supervising many, many young people in that kind of job, I can tell you with 99% accuracy that what you've got is what you'll get, no matter how many helpful ways you find to encourage improvement. Some people are really bad at this kind of job. Maybe details drive them crazy. Maybe there's too much static in their head to allow them to really hear all the instructions. Whatever the reason, the job is not a good fit.
Personally, I'd vote for cutting the poor girl loose sooner rather than later, in the hope she can find a job that she enjoys and that she's good at.
posted by kestralwing at 8:57 PM on November 26, 2013 [7 favorites]
Nice for you that's she's friendly, not so nice for you that she makes lots of mistakes. If the friendly part is worth it, keep her and continue to micro-manage, ignore lack of initiative, hope you catch those Great Big Mistakes in time. But she's been there long enough, and you've make enough attempts to help her improve, to show that this person is not going to become an effective admin assistant.
Having been in that job, and having supervising many, many young people in that kind of job, I can tell you with 99% accuracy that what you've got is what you'll get, no matter how many helpful ways you find to encourage improvement. Some people are really bad at this kind of job. Maybe details drive them crazy. Maybe there's too much static in their head to allow them to really hear all the instructions. Whatever the reason, the job is not a good fit.
Personally, I'd vote for cutting the poor girl loose sooner rather than later, in the hope she can find a job that she enjoys and that she's good at.
posted by kestralwing at 8:57 PM on November 26, 2013 [7 favorites]
Intentions don't matter, results do. I'll take a morose, surly assistant who doesn't make huge, catostrophic errors over an unreliable pleasant fuck-up any day of any week. What's the point of paying her to mess up? Tell the truth. Somewhere, there's a competent person in need of this job.
posted by Ideefixe at 9:00 PM on November 26, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 9:00 PM on November 26, 2013 [4 favorites]
I guess the only question I have is whether you've communicated to her that her mistakes are not within the range of acceptable/normal, and that her unreliability is such that you feel like you can't depend on her to carry out her job. If not -- if you've avoided giving that feedback because it's awkward -- then I think it would be unkind to all of a sudden get her fired (fair, since she's an unreliable employee, but unkind.)
But if she knows it, or any reasonably person SHOULD know it, then fire away. And I also agree with kestrelwing above that it's unlikely to get better, in any case. That error with the thing she didn't grab from your office sounds like something that only someone who Really Didn't Get It would make.
posted by fingersandtoes at 9:03 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
But if she knows it, or any reasonably person SHOULD know it, then fire away. And I also agree with kestrelwing above that it's unlikely to get better, in any case. That error with the thing she didn't grab from your office sounds like something that only someone who Really Didn't Get It would make.
posted by fingersandtoes at 9:03 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
Do to her as you would wish a boss would do to you. To me that would be what Wolfster says.
posted by steinsaltz at 9:04 PM on November 26, 2013
posted by steinsaltz at 9:04 PM on November 26, 2013
I don't understand why she isn't on a structured performance plan with the explicit understanding that her performance is sub-par, and what goals she will consistently need to meet in order to keep her job. Maybe you could make that happen or talk to the person who could make that happen?
Also, if she's consistently failing to meet expectations and you are not her supervisor, perhaps you should be contacting her superviser consistently with that information- that is, as it happens. Could a sit down meeting with her supervisor happen?
posted by windykites at 9:20 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, if she's consistently failing to meet expectations and you are not her supervisor, perhaps you should be contacting her superviser consistently with that information- that is, as it happens. Could a sit down meeting with her supervisor happen?
posted by windykites at 9:20 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
I think I need to get better about giving her broader statements and discussions on her work and I need to keep her supervisor in the loop.
Somewhat agree. If I were her supervisor, I would:
1) Tell her to write down what she needs to do every single day. Every single thing. Cross it off when she does it. Check it frequently.
2) Email you when she completes a task that you imply is important, such as this "very important" thing that she fucked up. That takes the stress off of you in a should I/shouldn't I check in sort way.
I have a job similar to your assistant, and these are the things I do. I think someone needs to sit her down and say A B and C are unacceptable, and here are some ways to work on them.
On the other hand, small errors are difficult to stay on top of if your job is not a proofreader/copyeditor. If she is making big, dumb-looking mistakes, I would agree that that is also significant and she needs to work on a strategy or prepare to find another job.
posted by stoneandstar at 9:29 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Somewhat agree. If I were her supervisor, I would:
1) Tell her to write down what she needs to do every single day. Every single thing. Cross it off when she does it. Check it frequently.
2) Email you when she completes a task that you imply is important, such as this "very important" thing that she fucked up. That takes the stress off of you in a should I/shouldn't I check in sort way.
I have a job similar to your assistant, and these are the things I do. I think someone needs to sit her down and say A B and C are unacceptable, and here are some ways to work on them.
On the other hand, small errors are difficult to stay on top of if your job is not a proofreader/copyeditor. If she is making big, dumb-looking mistakes, I would agree that that is also significant and she needs to work on a strategy or prepare to find another job.
posted by stoneandstar at 9:29 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Best answer: i would discuss the seriousness of the recent incident with the guy collecting reviews, and get his guidance on whether he'd like to discuss it with her himself or if he'd prefer it to be you. the kind of thing you describe in your latest update really shouldn't be happening regardless of the job duty.
if you want to keep her on, i think you need to do some expectation setting. for example, it sounds like you expect her to be giving you things that should usually or rarely have errors. if that's your expectation for her job title it needs to be explicit in the objectives she's judged on.
delivering things to external parties without the proper review could be another example of not setting expectations. "don't send stuff until i say it's ok" is something both of you should really be on the same page about.
if i were your boss, and you came to me with this problem, and i knew nothing about it until now, i'd tell you to put her on a performance improvement plan. i.e., you will give her specific, actionable objectives to complete over the next 3 months, and if she doesn't satisfy them, she'll be fired.
posted by cupcake1337 at 9:38 PM on November 26, 2013 [3 favorites]
if you want to keep her on, i think you need to do some expectation setting. for example, it sounds like you expect her to be giving you things that should usually or rarely have errors. if that's your expectation for her job title it needs to be explicit in the objectives she's judged on.
delivering things to external parties without the proper review could be another example of not setting expectations. "don't send stuff until i say it's ok" is something both of you should really be on the same page about.
if i were your boss, and you came to me with this problem, and i knew nothing about it until now, i'd tell you to put her on a performance improvement plan. i.e., you will give her specific, actionable objectives to complete over the next 3 months, and if she doesn't satisfy them, she'll be fired.
posted by cupcake1337 at 9:38 PM on November 26, 2013 [3 favorites]
Has anyone in your office ever said to her, "The number of errors you make when proof reading and completing tasks assigned to you is too high. We need you to decrease that number by X%. What can you do to make that happen? How can we assist you in doing that? Is there a system you need or help you'd like so you can be as effective as we know you can be?"
I wonder if she's legit aware of how bad a job she's doing.
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 9:46 PM on November 26, 2013 [8 favorites]
I wonder if she's legit aware of how bad a job she's doing.
posted by These Birds of a Feather at 9:46 PM on November 26, 2013 [8 favorites]
As an admin myself (and as someone looking for a new admin job), I am curious about the salary your assistant is making. Is the salary for this position enough that you can have high expectations for the person holding the job?
I ask because I am constantly seeing ads for part-time "ROCKSTAR!" admin jobs paying something like $13/hr (in the Bay Area!) that want their admins to have a bachelor's degree and know Photoshop like the back of their hand and have 20 years' experience and be on-call 24/7 and blah, blah, blah. I mean, I know it's an employer's market, but still there seems to be a huge disconnect between what some employers think they can get with the admin salaries they offer and what they should realistically expect someone willing (or desperate enough) to work for that amount of money to be able to do.
We recently let a very friendly, responsible, non-initiative-taking and constant-mistake-making person go and hired someone awesome after advertising with a higher salary. It does make a difference. I know this is all speculative on my part, but if by any chance your company does not offer a decent wage to the person in this position, then you might have to be willing to settle.
posted by imalaowai at 9:47 PM on November 26, 2013 [31 favorites]
I ask because I am constantly seeing ads for part-time "ROCKSTAR!" admin jobs paying something like $13/hr (in the Bay Area!) that want their admins to have a bachelor's degree and know Photoshop like the back of their hand and have 20 years' experience and be on-call 24/7 and blah, blah, blah. I mean, I know it's an employer's market, but still there seems to be a huge disconnect between what some employers think they can get with the admin salaries they offer and what they should realistically expect someone willing (or desperate enough) to work for that amount of money to be able to do.
We recently let a very friendly, responsible, non-initiative-taking and constant-mistake-making person go and hired someone awesome after advertising with a higher salary. It does make a difference. I know this is all speculative on my part, but if by any chance your company does not offer a decent wage to the person in this position, then you might have to be willing to settle.
posted by imalaowai at 9:47 PM on November 26, 2013 [31 favorites]
On the Manager Tools podcast, they talk about "the shot across the bow." They suggest giving the employee the raw, unedited review with all of the feedback about his/her under-performance. But they then suggest making the "official" review that goes on file a little less scathing.
But yes, when these mistakes happen take a couple of seconds and say, "Hey, can I give you some feedback? When you do X, Y happens. Can you please not do that in the future? Or something similar.
I'm totally guilty of forgetting the goals and feedback in the annual reviews that I've received. We all need reminders. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have more frequent unofficial reviews.
posted by Ostara at 9:56 PM on November 26, 2013
But yes, when these mistakes happen take a couple of seconds and say, "Hey, can I give you some feedback? When you do X, Y happens. Can you please not do that in the future? Or something similar.
I'm totally guilty of forgetting the goals and feedback in the annual reviews that I've received. We all need reminders. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have more frequent unofficial reviews.
posted by Ostara at 9:56 PM on November 26, 2013
Are you sure that you have reasonable expectations? Are you comparing this current admin's performance to a previous assistant, or just to some platonic ideal of an administrative assistant?
posted by ablazingsaddle at 10:14 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by ablazingsaddle at 10:14 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Anyone who fails to do something as simple as handing over a document after being reminded FIVE TIMES is not failing to live up to a "platonic ideal" of an assistant, she's demonstrably screwing up important tasks.
"Do the work I tell you to do, especially after I've told you five times" is not any sort of obscure performance standard. "Do what your superiors tell you to do" is a basic, basic, basic requirement for any job.
posted by jaguar at 10:24 PM on November 26, 2013 [12 favorites]
"Do the work I tell you to do, especially after I've told you five times" is not any sort of obscure performance standard. "Do what your superiors tell you to do" is a basic, basic, basic requirement for any job.
posted by jaguar at 10:24 PM on November 26, 2013 [12 favorites]
You've screwed yourself here.
If you don't have the guts to tell her what you really think of her performance on a regular basis, you need to at least pull aside her real supervisor and have an unofficial "walk on the pier" as we call it, once in a while. Now you're at performance review time and you've painted yourself into a corner. Making her review "acceptable" would be lying. But it's totally unfair to her that she's going to be surprised by that.
I think you have to suck it up and give her a poor review WITH a written explanation that it's your fault. Specifically write on there that while her performance is poor, you are willing to keep her and work on her weaknesses (preferred) or you recommend transferring her to someone who can better assist her in her performance. Cross your fingers that they take that recommendation, or else her firing is going to be on your conscience.
Expect YOUR performance reviews to take at least a minor hit for this. Being in charge of people isn't just fun times, it's also a responsibility.
posted by ctmf at 10:39 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
If you don't have the guts to tell her what you really think of her performance on a regular basis, you need to at least pull aside her real supervisor and have an unofficial "walk on the pier" as we call it, once in a while. Now you're at performance review time and you've painted yourself into a corner. Making her review "acceptable" would be lying. But it's totally unfair to her that she's going to be surprised by that.
I think you have to suck it up and give her a poor review WITH a written explanation that it's your fault. Specifically write on there that while her performance is poor, you are willing to keep her and work on her weaknesses (preferred) or you recommend transferring her to someone who can better assist her in her performance. Cross your fingers that they take that recommendation, or else her firing is going to be on your conscience.
Expect YOUR performance reviews to take at least a minor hit for this. Being in charge of people isn't just fun times, it's also a responsibility.
posted by ctmf at 10:39 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
It sounds like you have clearly communicated the things she has to do, and she still fails to do them. She's an adult. Give straightforward feedback about what she's done. You can be endlessly patient with explaining to people how they need to improve, but at a certain point (and for adults, it shouldn't be a far point to reach) they need to improve or face the consequences of not improving.
Whether she's fired is not your concern.
posted by fatbird at 10:43 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Whether she's fired is not your concern.
posted by fatbird at 10:43 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also, write her up immediately in whatever way your company has for her failure to do what you told her to do FIVE TIMES for fucks' sake. If that's a firing offense all by itself, then it is, and that's not for you to feel guilty about. If not, ok. If you had done this in the past, you wouldn't be in this tough spot now. Start now.
Performance review isn't the time to bring all this stuff up for the first time.
posted by ctmf at 10:46 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Performance review isn't the time to bring all this stuff up for the first time.
posted by ctmf at 10:46 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
Anyone who fails to do something as simple as handing over a document after being reminded FIVE TIMES is not failing to live up to a "platonic ideal" of an assistant, she's demonstrably screwing up important tasks.
Yeah, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm a bigger hardass than others, but this is exactly what I would mention in the review. She is not UNAWARE that you asked her to do this five times -- it happened in writing three times! Not doing something you were asked to do five times is not a something that you need to be directly told is a misstep. If I had to ask an assistant to do something five times and she still didn't do it, shit would hit the fan.
You need to start being more direct about this stuff, but I would not hesitate to be honest (albeit not unkind) in discussing the realities of the situation with her supervisor. For all the people pointing out that is tough to lose a job, I completely agree -- but I also guarantee that there is amazing assistant out there looking for a job who would not need this much hand-holding.
posted by Countess Sandwich at 10:49 PM on November 26, 2013 [7 favorites]
Yeah, I'm sorry. Maybe I'm a bigger hardass than others, but this is exactly what I would mention in the review. She is not UNAWARE that you asked her to do this five times -- it happened in writing three times! Not doing something you were asked to do five times is not a something that you need to be directly told is a misstep. If I had to ask an assistant to do something five times and she still didn't do it, shit would hit the fan.
You need to start being more direct about this stuff, but I would not hesitate to be honest (albeit not unkind) in discussing the realities of the situation with her supervisor. For all the people pointing out that is tough to lose a job, I completely agree -- but I also guarantee that there is amazing assistant out there looking for a job who would not need this much hand-holding.
posted by Countess Sandwich at 10:49 PM on November 26, 2013 [7 favorites]
I'd be a lot more nuanced and careful here if you were her supervisor. But she's not your direct report. I think that when you talk to the person who is her supervisor, you ought to be honest: She made a big screwup, and nothing you said last review seems to have been addressed. This is the sort of feedback that enables the supervisor to do their job.
Presumably they'll be the one writing the final review, and tempering your input with the input of others and the knowledge of what direct orders she's been given. It's not on you. Lacking any reason to try and cover for her, it's only on you to give accurate input to her boss. And, honestly, that boss may be judging her by totally different standards than you do.
posted by tyllwin at 11:01 PM on November 26, 2013 [4 favorites]
Presumably they'll be the one writing the final review, and tempering your input with the input of others and the knowledge of what direct orders she's been given. It's not on you. Lacking any reason to try and cover for her, it's only on you to give accurate input to her boss. And, honestly, that boss may be judging her by totally different standards than you do.
posted by tyllwin at 11:01 PM on November 26, 2013 [4 favorites]
If it helps, flip the situation: you're her supervisor, and one of your coworkers has just barely saved you all from a catastrophic error because, on her vacation, she checked for a fifth time that something was done, and found out it wasn't, barely before the deadline. Wouldn't you want to know because that's pretty material to the review you're about to give?
posted by fatbird at 11:14 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by fatbird at 11:14 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
I don’t want to get her fired when she could improve and has the ability to make my life a lot easier.
Getting employees to drastically improve (what you want, as opposed to incremental improvement) is incredibly difficult. It's really, really much harder than commonly supposed. I have worked with this person (am currently, actually). There is really not much you could do that would make this person improve.
Be frank in the review. You don't want the next colossal stuff up to be one that reflects badly on you - and it will. When something major goes wrong, an assistant is not a sufficiently important head to roll. Also, it's hurting your productivity.
posted by smoke at 11:26 PM on November 26, 2013 [4 favorites]
Getting employees to drastically improve (what you want, as opposed to incremental improvement) is incredibly difficult. It's really, really much harder than commonly supposed. I have worked with this person (am currently, actually). There is really not much you could do that would make this person improve.
Be frank in the review. You don't want the next colossal stuff up to be one that reflects badly on you - and it will. When something major goes wrong, an assistant is not a sufficiently important head to roll. Also, it's hurting your productivity.
posted by smoke at 11:26 PM on November 26, 2013 [4 favorites]
What do you say on the review? That she made a mammoth mistake and her work is generally poor, hasn't shown the needed substantive improvement over the last year. Being confident that someone's gonna make a lot of mistakes is so damned tiresome.
I say she gone.
posted by ambient2 at 11:28 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
I say she gone.
posted by ambient2 at 11:28 PM on November 26, 2013 [1 favorite]
She failed to do that even after she assured me she would. I then happened to check up on it two weeks later and she hadn't done it yet. We were two hours from missing a deadline and I shouldn't have had to check during my vacation at all.
I honestly think this was your screw-up. She's the assistant and you are the professional. You know her to be unreliable and to not do tasks in the manner or time frame specified to her. Despite this, you gave her an incredibly important task and did not check to see if it was actually done in the two weeks between when she should have done it and when the actual deadline occurred and you didn't arrange for anyone to check on it in your absence. And then you didn't tell anyone that this thing happened.
You are basically reaping what you sowed. When you told her supervisor that she needed to check in with you every day for papers, and she didn't do it after her review happened, you could have checked in with either of them (preferably both together) and possibly worked on this.
It sounds like she is a group assistant? It's possible that she has too much work to do or that she is prioritizing other tasks. This might be exacerbated by the fact that you do not give her many tasks or give her much feedback on them. Since you appear to only want her to do something occasionally and to not really care how she does it, she might be paying more time/attention to work from others who give her loads of work and have exacting standards. She might also have gotten conflicting direction from her supervisor to focus on other work. Or you could be right and she could just be incompetent, in which case you have a lot of advice above on actions you can take.
posted by Snarl Furillo at 11:44 PM on November 26, 2013 [15 favorites]
I honestly think this was your screw-up. She's the assistant and you are the professional. You know her to be unreliable and to not do tasks in the manner or time frame specified to her. Despite this, you gave her an incredibly important task and did not check to see if it was actually done in the two weeks between when she should have done it and when the actual deadline occurred and you didn't arrange for anyone to check on it in your absence. And then you didn't tell anyone that this thing happened.
You are basically reaping what you sowed. When you told her supervisor that she needed to check in with you every day for papers, and she didn't do it after her review happened, you could have checked in with either of them (preferably both together) and possibly worked on this.
It sounds like she is a group assistant? It's possible that she has too much work to do or that she is prioritizing other tasks. This might be exacerbated by the fact that you do not give her many tasks or give her much feedback on them. Since you appear to only want her to do something occasionally and to not really care how she does it, she might be paying more time/attention to work from others who give her loads of work and have exacting standards. She might also have gotten conflicting direction from her supervisor to focus on other work. Or you could be right and she could just be incompetent, in which case you have a lot of advice above on actions you can take.
posted by Snarl Furillo at 11:44 PM on November 26, 2013 [15 favorites]
From your description, you've corrected her repeatedly on mistakes she makes on each and every document. Let me be blunt: this is a profile of an assistant who will NOT improve, period. It's not in within her abilities. That's how she is built.
Review is irrelevant. Fire her immediately. Your only mistake was not getting her fired after the third time she's made the same kind of mistake - on day one, or day three doesn't matter - it's proof she can't perform in a fast paced environment. Be gone. When I was an assistant at a large talent agency, such people would get fired from an agent's desk for the simple reason that they can't hack it. It is not a reflection on how nice she is, what a worthy human being, how talented in various ways, how lovely her singing voice. It is a reflection that she's a worthless assistant. Her skill set and abilities are not compatible with her position. Firing her is mandatory for two reasons: you cannot afford to have a worthless assistant in a busy job, and you cut her loose so she can find a job that's actually suitable to her abilities. I've seen dozens and dozens and dozens of assistants in this high pressure environment over the years. From extensive experience: they either have it, or not; they're either self-starters and fast learners, or they need to go away fast. Handholding doesn't work, it merely makes winnowing the field harder. The assistants who survived were sponges - you didn't need to tell them anything more than once - twice max. Third strike and you're out. But most importantly, for the talented assistant, you don't need to tell them jack - they pick up stuff by osmosis, they ask around, they are self-starters and self-learners. Throw them in the pool, sink or swim - fast and accurate method. The kind of assistant you want is one who anticipates your needs, you reads your mind, who takes initiative, who has the organizational intelligence to understand the demands of the job without you having to sit down and explain everything from the atoms up. Treasure those, fire the rest.
Not only should you not hesitate to fire her, you should insist on firing her as soon as possible. The sooner you do it, the sooner it will get better for you and for her.
posted by VikingSword at 11:47 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
Review is irrelevant. Fire her immediately. Your only mistake was not getting her fired after the third time she's made the same kind of mistake - on day one, or day three doesn't matter - it's proof she can't perform in a fast paced environment. Be gone. When I was an assistant at a large talent agency, such people would get fired from an agent's desk for the simple reason that they can't hack it. It is not a reflection on how nice she is, what a worthy human being, how talented in various ways, how lovely her singing voice. It is a reflection that she's a worthless assistant. Her skill set and abilities are not compatible with her position. Firing her is mandatory for two reasons: you cannot afford to have a worthless assistant in a busy job, and you cut her loose so she can find a job that's actually suitable to her abilities. I've seen dozens and dozens and dozens of assistants in this high pressure environment over the years. From extensive experience: they either have it, or not; they're either self-starters and fast learners, or they need to go away fast. Handholding doesn't work, it merely makes winnowing the field harder. The assistants who survived were sponges - you didn't need to tell them anything more than once - twice max. Third strike and you're out. But most importantly, for the talented assistant, you don't need to tell them jack - they pick up stuff by osmosis, they ask around, they are self-starters and self-learners. Throw them in the pool, sink or swim - fast and accurate method. The kind of assistant you want is one who anticipates your needs, you reads your mind, who takes initiative, who has the organizational intelligence to understand the demands of the job without you having to sit down and explain everything from the atoms up. Treasure those, fire the rest.
Not only should you not hesitate to fire her, you should insist on firing her as soon as possible. The sooner you do it, the sooner it will get better for you and for her.
posted by VikingSword at 11:47 PM on November 26, 2013 [2 favorites]
Anyone who fails to do something as simple as handing over a document after being reminded FIVE TIMES is not failing to live up to a "platonic ideal" of an assistant, she's demonstrably screwing up important tasks.
Sure, but the OP mentions problems with proofreading, and I know that a lot of employers have really insane expectations for proofreading accuracy from a probably over-burdened group assistant. This bit
As for small things, she hears from me approximately a couple of times per week that something was wrong with what she did, and she apologizes and fixes it (for that time).
makes me wonder if this one big screw-up was a one-time thing, and her other mistakes are relatively minor. I had a boss who would get LIVID if I made a small mistake, blow it out of proportion, and threaten to fire/demote me, but the accountants and other high-ranking people made worse mistakes that I caught all the damn time. The "Let's blame the stupid secretary game!" is a thing that happens in a lot of offices, and it sucks.
I think it's worth bringing this up at her performance review, talking with her supervisor, and setting up the steps to provide a clear paper trail leading to termination (write-ups, formal warnings, etc.) You shouldn't lie and give her a positive evaluation. Be honest and fair.
Not only should you not hesitate to fire her, you should insist on firing her as soon as possible.
I realize that you are, like, super into the idea of firing this woman, but it doesn't sound like the OP has the authority to do anything other than give the admin assistant a negative performance review. OP is "fairly confident" that the admin will get fired if she gets a negative review. I don't think making a big stink about getting someone fired is a good move, office politics-wise, but I could be wrong.
posted by ablazingsaddle at 12:12 AM on November 27, 2013 [14 favorites]
Sure, but the OP mentions problems with proofreading, and I know that a lot of employers have really insane expectations for proofreading accuracy from a probably over-burdened group assistant. This bit
As for small things, she hears from me approximately a couple of times per week that something was wrong with what she did, and she apologizes and fixes it (for that time).
makes me wonder if this one big screw-up was a one-time thing, and her other mistakes are relatively minor. I had a boss who would get LIVID if I made a small mistake, blow it out of proportion, and threaten to fire/demote me, but the accountants and other high-ranking people made worse mistakes that I caught all the damn time. The "Let's blame the stupid secretary game!" is a thing that happens in a lot of offices, and it sucks.
I think it's worth bringing this up at her performance review, talking with her supervisor, and setting up the steps to provide a clear paper trail leading to termination (write-ups, formal warnings, etc.) You shouldn't lie and give her a positive evaluation. Be honest and fair.
Not only should you not hesitate to fire her, you should insist on firing her as soon as possible.
I realize that you are, like, super into the idea of firing this woman, but it doesn't sound like the OP has the authority to do anything other than give the admin assistant a negative performance review. OP is "fairly confident" that the admin will get fired if she gets a negative review. I don't think making a big stink about getting someone fired is a good move, office politics-wise, but I could be wrong.
posted by ablazingsaddle at 12:12 AM on November 27, 2013 [14 favorites]
Last year, I made all positive comments except that she needed to proofread better because there was frequently a mistake on each document or task and that she needed to check in with me in my office each day to see if I needed any papers picked up. Neither of these things happened; I don’t know whether it was because that was never communicated to her by the guy who collected the reviews or if she didn’t follow through. And yeah, I didn’t call her out on it because she doesn’t seem to care too much, though I realize now I should have done this a long time ago.
Yeah, no. You find an issue important enough to put into her review (that she must do the specific task of picking up papers from you daily), but you don't know if this instruction was communicated to her at all, and you never communicated it to her yourself.
And then, despite the daily document pickup being important enough that you put it into her annual review, you never followed up on it when she didn't do anything about it. So, was the daily document pickup important or not? On the one hand, it's an important performance issue but on the other hand, it was so unimportant that you couldn't at any time be bothered to communicate to her that it needed to be done? And the reason you continue to say nothing about this necessary task not getting done is because "she" doesn't seem to "care" about it? From what you've written here, she doesn't seem to know about it. You are the one who doesn't seem to care about it.
You are giving mixed messages about what is important to you. You are not giving her instructions and you are withholding feedback until it becomes a disciplinary issue.
You can describe incidents that prove she really is terrible, she should have known this or done that. It was so important that she pick up a document that you had to tell her five times while you were away on vacation, but you didn't follow up on this extremely important task because you were on vacation, and only "happened" to do so right at the last minute?
She may very well be terrible at her job, I'm not defending her in any way. I don't know how good or bad she is at her job. She may, other things being equal, deserve to get the boot.
But I'm applying the same standard to you here. Sentimentality has nothing to do with this. You need to define what you want, communicate that with words of one syllable, and be consistent about priorities. You are not doing this and it is a plainly obvious area for improvement in your own work, so look to that first and see what happens to the assistant's performance as a result. Whatever comes out of that, you can submit for the next performance review, after this one. It is extremely hard to change a bad performer's work for the better, but you can do an awful lot to correct shortcomings in yourself, and that can only benefit you now.
Lastly. Sentimentality has nothing to do with this, and neither does vindictiveness. I'm assuming there is nothing more to this than your being a poor communicator and unaware of it. If you are playing a game of Now I've Got You You Son Of A Bitch with her, it's not "sentimentality" to ask yourself if you're treating her as you'd like to be treated.
posted by tel3path at 1:27 AM on November 27, 2013 [8 favorites]
Yeah, no. You find an issue important enough to put into her review (that she must do the specific task of picking up papers from you daily), but you don't know if this instruction was communicated to her at all, and you never communicated it to her yourself.
And then, despite the daily document pickup being important enough that you put it into her annual review, you never followed up on it when she didn't do anything about it. So, was the daily document pickup important or not? On the one hand, it's an important performance issue but on the other hand, it was so unimportant that you couldn't at any time be bothered to communicate to her that it needed to be done? And the reason you continue to say nothing about this necessary task not getting done is because "she" doesn't seem to "care" about it? From what you've written here, she doesn't seem to know about it. You are the one who doesn't seem to care about it.
You are giving mixed messages about what is important to you. You are not giving her instructions and you are withholding feedback until it becomes a disciplinary issue.
You can describe incidents that prove she really is terrible, she should have known this or done that. It was so important that she pick up a document that you had to tell her five times while you were away on vacation, but you didn't follow up on this extremely important task because you were on vacation, and only "happened" to do so right at the last minute?
She may very well be terrible at her job, I'm not defending her in any way. I don't know how good or bad she is at her job. She may, other things being equal, deserve to get the boot.
But I'm applying the same standard to you here. Sentimentality has nothing to do with this. You need to define what you want, communicate that with words of one syllable, and be consistent about priorities. You are not doing this and it is a plainly obvious area for improvement in your own work, so look to that first and see what happens to the assistant's performance as a result. Whatever comes out of that, you can submit for the next performance review, after this one. It is extremely hard to change a bad performer's work for the better, but you can do an awful lot to correct shortcomings in yourself, and that can only benefit you now.
Lastly. Sentimentality has nothing to do with this, and neither does vindictiveness. I'm assuming there is nothing more to this than your being a poor communicator and unaware of it. If you are playing a game of Now I've Got You You Son Of A Bitch with her, it's not "sentimentality" to ask yourself if you're treating her as you'd like to be treated.
posted by tel3path at 1:27 AM on November 27, 2013 [8 favorites]
To me it sounds like the supervisor can skip the review and just fire her. I agree no one should hear about a flaw for the first time during a review, but I don't understand why she needs the review to be fired. Generally people have the opportunity to correct flaws, but it sounds like whatever she did was so overarchingly bad she can't be trusted to do ordinary work and is a flaw that can't be corrected--the failure to understand the phrase 'this is important'.
You can't work with that.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 2:58 AM on November 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
You can't work with that.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 2:58 AM on November 27, 2013 [1 favorite]
You didn't get her fired. She got herself fired with her work quality.
posted by theichibun at 4:23 AM on November 27, 2013
posted by theichibun at 4:23 AM on November 27, 2013
The debate in this thread is insane. Just fire her, she is a terrible employee.
posted by Perplexity at 4:31 AM on November 27, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by Perplexity at 4:31 AM on November 27, 2013 [7 favorites]
I am a horrible speller (as everyone here can attest) so I run EVERYTHING through spell check to insure that errors are caught. I am aware that I have a weakness, and I address it with technology.
In my previous job, we were using some pretty jankity methods to put together spreadsheets. If one piece of data was copied and pasted into the wrong cell, the numbers wouldn't foot. Since this was a HUGE issue, we came up with an audit page on our spreadsheet, that compared certain cells, and would highlight in yellow if they didn't match.
My point is, minutiae doesn't come naturally to everyone, it certainly doesn't come naturally to me. BUT, knowing this, I have been able to address it so that it doesn't impact my work. Will I make mistakes, of course I will, but they won't be because I don't give a shit.
Why are you putting up with an Admin who can't do her job? If you can't rely upon her to prepare documents acurately, or to hand a piece of paper to someone, she's not an admin, she's a lady who comes into the office everyday and plays secretary.
Your input should read:
"While I enjoy Jean as a person and I appreciate that she's diligent about being on time and present, I cannot endorse her actual work-product and would prefer to work with someone upon whose work I can rely. As discussed in her previous review, more attention needed to be paid to proofreading her work and finding and correcting errors. As it stands today, I must personally review each document and I frequently find errors that must be corrected. I address these errors with Jean, and she will correct the errors in the moment, but they will be repeated again and again on similar documents. I find that I must remind Jean about certain tasks, both in email and in person, and even with numerous reminders, the tasks go uncompleted. I have tried my best to provide direction and coaching, and I have not seen a significant improvement since her last review."
That's the truth, and you must report it.
Next time, you need to communicate better with both your Admin AND his/her manager, because if she's not your direct report, then the person she reports to needs to know early and often that you're unhappy.
Demand more of people and you'll get what you need.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 6:07 AM on November 27, 2013 [17 favorites]
In my previous job, we were using some pretty jankity methods to put together spreadsheets. If one piece of data was copied and pasted into the wrong cell, the numbers wouldn't foot. Since this was a HUGE issue, we came up with an audit page on our spreadsheet, that compared certain cells, and would highlight in yellow if they didn't match.
My point is, minutiae doesn't come naturally to everyone, it certainly doesn't come naturally to me. BUT, knowing this, I have been able to address it so that it doesn't impact my work. Will I make mistakes, of course I will, but they won't be because I don't give a shit.
Why are you putting up with an Admin who can't do her job? If you can't rely upon her to prepare documents acurately, or to hand a piece of paper to someone, she's not an admin, she's a lady who comes into the office everyday and plays secretary.
Your input should read:
"While I enjoy Jean as a person and I appreciate that she's diligent about being on time and present, I cannot endorse her actual work-product and would prefer to work with someone upon whose work I can rely. As discussed in her previous review, more attention needed to be paid to proofreading her work and finding and correcting errors. As it stands today, I must personally review each document and I frequently find errors that must be corrected. I address these errors with Jean, and she will correct the errors in the moment, but they will be repeated again and again on similar documents. I find that I must remind Jean about certain tasks, both in email and in person, and even with numerous reminders, the tasks go uncompleted. I have tried my best to provide direction and coaching, and I have not seen a significant improvement since her last review."
That's the truth, and you must report it.
Next time, you need to communicate better with both your Admin AND his/her manager, because if she's not your direct report, then the person she reports to needs to know early and often that you're unhappy.
Demand more of people and you'll get what you need.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 6:07 AM on November 27, 2013 [17 favorites]
I'm an executive assistant and Not Making Mistakes is like the crucial, #1, most important part of my job. It's not really on you to be clear in communicating with her on a regular basis that she needs to not make mistakes. She should know that intuitively. An administrative assistant exists to do accurate administrative work so you don't have to worry about small details.
Be honest in the performance review. She isn't a good assistant. You can find another one who will be better.
posted by something something at 7:17 AM on November 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
Be honest in the performance review. She isn't a good assistant. You can find another one who will be better.
posted by something something at 7:17 AM on November 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
This? She failed to do that even after she assured me she would. I then happened to check up on it two weeks later and she hadn't done it yet. We were two hours from missing a deadline and I shouldn't have had to check during my vacation at all.
I honestly think this was your screw-up. She's the assistant and you are the professional. You know her to be unreliable and to not do tasks in the manner or time frame specified to her.
Yeah, that is just ludicrous.
The OP Was NOT at fault. The task was communicated clearly and repeatedly and its importance stressed. In a workplace, you cannot, and should not, have to treat other employees as if you are the parent and they are your children. EVERYONE needs to be professional. The assistant did not do the job, period. That is completely unacceptable.
OP, I'd personally meet with the supervisor (rather than just filling out a review). I'd let the supervisor know that you wanted to speak to them personally because you were concerned the reviews were not functioning as intended: you are unsure how (or if) the results of the reviews are communicated to the assistant, as no improvements have been made, and your work has been made more difficult as a result of the assistant's unreliability . Explain the constant proofreading errors and the significance of the huge gaffe.
Then it is up to the supervisor to decide how to rectify that situation.
posted by misha at 7:37 AM on November 27, 2013 [7 favorites]
I honestly think this was your screw-up. She's the assistant and you are the professional. You know her to be unreliable and to not do tasks in the manner or time frame specified to her.
Yeah, that is just ludicrous.
The OP Was NOT at fault. The task was communicated clearly and repeatedly and its importance stressed. In a workplace, you cannot, and should not, have to treat other employees as if you are the parent and they are your children. EVERYONE needs to be professional. The assistant did not do the job, period. That is completely unacceptable.
OP, I'd personally meet with the supervisor (rather than just filling out a review). I'd let the supervisor know that you wanted to speak to them personally because you were concerned the reviews were not functioning as intended: you are unsure how (or if) the results of the reviews are communicated to the assistant, as no improvements have been made, and your work has been made more difficult as a result of the assistant's unreliability . Explain the constant proofreading errors and the significance of the huge gaffe.
Then it is up to the supervisor to decide how to rectify that situation.
posted by misha at 7:37 AM on November 27, 2013 [7 favorites]
I think I need to clarify where I'm coming from on this.
First of all, I don't dispute that an admin assistant needs to be accurate in their work, and should not need to be told that Mistakes Are Bad. This is not what I'm contending.
Let me bring a couple of my own experiences to the table. Many years ago, I worked for an NGO in what was ostensibly a secretarial role, but which involved very heavy amounts of detailed copy editing.
Everything in that office was carried out in accordance with detailed protocols. They had a detailed protocol for filing documents, which was handed to me before I was given some filing to do. I was nonplussed, but I followed it to the letter, especially since I was warned, "They *hate* things misfiled in this place," - not that I would have been careless, but still. When, one day, someone said to me "I think we might have sent a fax to someone or other in 1996. It could have been in May?" I steeled myself to look for a needle in a haystack, but was amazed when I laid my hands on the exact document in two steps. That is to give you an idea of the levels of detail and efficiency enforced there.
Not all the protocols were documented and handed to me. I often got tasks flung at me and had to figure out the system for myself. If I asked "how do I approach this task?" I would be told "common sense".
Many of the staff had only ever worked at that organization, so their idea of "common sense" was "whatever I'm used to". Everyone's idea of "common sense" is "whatever I'm used to". I temped a lot, and I had got used to the idea that I must never touch anything on the boss's desk any more than strictly necessary, and most certainly must never move or dislodge anything. Well, one day, in a new office, the boss had a meeting and after the meeting she ripped me a new one for not having the Common Sense to know she expected me to tidy her desk before the meeting. Because that's the obvious thing to do, right? She gesticulated, "How do you think I felt, sitting there with all this shit on my desk?" To her, it was Common Sense that I should clean her desk; to everyone else up until then, it had been Common Sense that I never touch their desk. I grovelled in supplication, and from then on made sure that boss's desk was pristine.
I had some filing to do in a medical centre. I filed about a thousand files in a day IIRC. About a half-dozen of the files were in different coloured covers. I wondered if there was something different about them or if they were simply meant to be filed as normal. Since there were only a half-dozen, and everyone had gone home so there was no-one to ask, I put them in alphabetical order and set them aside in a box so that it would be the work of a moment to put them away in any case. The next morning, when I came in, I overheard the boss complaining "she's filed them, but she hasn't done it very well. When I got in I saw these files here just thrown in a box and tossed aside." What kind of person was I, to be so stupid and careless? A child can put files in alphabetical order. There's no excuse for that kind of thing, is there?
Back to the NGO. There were a great many detailed protocols for copy editing in the house style, which were communicated to me in the form of complaints as I went along. "TWO spaces after a full stop!" I used to put two spaces when I used a typewriter, but when I switched to word processing, the typeset quality fonts meant a change to just one space; it was taught to me as common practice. Nevertheless, I was expected to know that two spaces = common sense, and to do at least one pass through every document abolishing any second space characters that crept in. Okay, if that's what they wanted.
My time at that NGO progressed with much contempt and eye-rolling. One day I walked into the coffee room to find the boss spewing venom about how incompetent I was and how much she hated me. The room fell silent as I entered. I made my coffee, and left the room. Nothing specific was ever said to my face.
I finished my assignment and went elsewhere. Some months later, they called me back. The agent said they had insisted on me specifically and nobody else would do.
When I arrived, I was greeted by the same girl that had given me the filing protocols. She said that the temps they'd had after me had not been very good, and that although I was considered a complete halfwit, I did at least try to meet their standards, whereas the same could not be said of the others. "The best of a bad bunch," she said warmly. She also pulled out a seven-page document about the house editing styles that she had drawn up in my absence. "Did you see this? I suppose nobody told you."
"Nobody told me" was right. I had had no idea they wanted a tenth of those things. I accepted the document with thanks, and kept it beside me as I worked to its standards. Later on, another of the girls came in and remarked "your work, this time, has been excellent." With the more than clear implication that my work, last time, had been crap. I was tempted to reply how much it helped that, this time, they had actually told me what they wanted, but I held my tongue.
That's an extreme and long-winded example, but it was a variation on the theme of what I experienced everywhere I went. It is politically expedient to blame the temp, and absorbing a certain amount of negativity is part of the job and nothing to take personally. Still and all, people very often did not communicate as clearly as they thought they did, and at times the satisfaction of having someone to look down on must have been greater than the satisfaction of a job well done. In any case, the quality of work I was able to do was dependent, on a greater or lesser degree, to the quality of communication in any given workplace.
Above, you describe a situation where someone is displaying an open-and-shut case of incompetence from your point of view. You gave them a specific action step to remedy part of it, but you don't know if they were told about it. In the absence of any further communication about it you take your cue from the fact that she "didn't seem to care" - that, on your part, is making up stories about what she knows and what her attitude is. Either you wanted her to check in daily to get documents from you or you didn't. And if you did want this, why is it that you didn't ask for it? The way you tell the story makes her sound inexcusably careless, but it also makes me not quite trust your account and make me wonder if there's more to the story.
In any event, as Ruthless Bunny points out, you have been putting up with substandard work and asking for better is what you absolutely must do now. I am not suggesting you should need to teach an adult her ABCs, but I am questioning whether the situation is more nuanced than that.
posted by tel3path at 8:01 AM on November 27, 2013 [22 favorites]
First of all, I don't dispute that an admin assistant needs to be accurate in their work, and should not need to be told that Mistakes Are Bad. This is not what I'm contending.
Let me bring a couple of my own experiences to the table. Many years ago, I worked for an NGO in what was ostensibly a secretarial role, but which involved very heavy amounts of detailed copy editing.
Everything in that office was carried out in accordance with detailed protocols. They had a detailed protocol for filing documents, which was handed to me before I was given some filing to do. I was nonplussed, but I followed it to the letter, especially since I was warned, "They *hate* things misfiled in this place," - not that I would have been careless, but still. When, one day, someone said to me "I think we might have sent a fax to someone or other in 1996. It could have been in May?" I steeled myself to look for a needle in a haystack, but was amazed when I laid my hands on the exact document in two steps. That is to give you an idea of the levels of detail and efficiency enforced there.
Not all the protocols were documented and handed to me. I often got tasks flung at me and had to figure out the system for myself. If I asked "how do I approach this task?" I would be told "common sense".
Many of the staff had only ever worked at that organization, so their idea of "common sense" was "whatever I'm used to". Everyone's idea of "common sense" is "whatever I'm used to". I temped a lot, and I had got used to the idea that I must never touch anything on the boss's desk any more than strictly necessary, and most certainly must never move or dislodge anything. Well, one day, in a new office, the boss had a meeting and after the meeting she ripped me a new one for not having the Common Sense to know she expected me to tidy her desk before the meeting. Because that's the obvious thing to do, right? She gesticulated, "How do you think I felt, sitting there with all this shit on my desk?" To her, it was Common Sense that I should clean her desk; to everyone else up until then, it had been Common Sense that I never touch their desk. I grovelled in supplication, and from then on made sure that boss's desk was pristine.
I had some filing to do in a medical centre. I filed about a thousand files in a day IIRC. About a half-dozen of the files were in different coloured covers. I wondered if there was something different about them or if they were simply meant to be filed as normal. Since there were only a half-dozen, and everyone had gone home so there was no-one to ask, I put them in alphabetical order and set them aside in a box so that it would be the work of a moment to put them away in any case. The next morning, when I came in, I overheard the boss complaining "she's filed them, but she hasn't done it very well. When I got in I saw these files here just thrown in a box and tossed aside." What kind of person was I, to be so stupid and careless? A child can put files in alphabetical order. There's no excuse for that kind of thing, is there?
Back to the NGO. There were a great many detailed protocols for copy editing in the house style, which were communicated to me in the form of complaints as I went along. "TWO spaces after a full stop!" I used to put two spaces when I used a typewriter, but when I switched to word processing, the typeset quality fonts meant a change to just one space; it was taught to me as common practice. Nevertheless, I was expected to know that two spaces = common sense, and to do at least one pass through every document abolishing any second space characters that crept in. Okay, if that's what they wanted.
My time at that NGO progressed with much contempt and eye-rolling. One day I walked into the coffee room to find the boss spewing venom about how incompetent I was and how much she hated me. The room fell silent as I entered. I made my coffee, and left the room. Nothing specific was ever said to my face.
I finished my assignment and went elsewhere. Some months later, they called me back. The agent said they had insisted on me specifically and nobody else would do.
When I arrived, I was greeted by the same girl that had given me the filing protocols. She said that the temps they'd had after me had not been very good, and that although I was considered a complete halfwit, I did at least try to meet their standards, whereas the same could not be said of the others. "The best of a bad bunch," she said warmly. She also pulled out a seven-page document about the house editing styles that she had drawn up in my absence. "Did you see this? I suppose nobody told you."
"Nobody told me" was right. I had had no idea they wanted a tenth of those things. I accepted the document with thanks, and kept it beside me as I worked to its standards. Later on, another of the girls came in and remarked "your work, this time, has been excellent." With the more than clear implication that my work, last time, had been crap. I was tempted to reply how much it helped that, this time, they had actually told me what they wanted, but I held my tongue.
That's an extreme and long-winded example, but it was a variation on the theme of what I experienced everywhere I went. It is politically expedient to blame the temp, and absorbing a certain amount of negativity is part of the job and nothing to take personally. Still and all, people very often did not communicate as clearly as they thought they did, and at times the satisfaction of having someone to look down on must have been greater than the satisfaction of a job well done. In any case, the quality of work I was able to do was dependent, on a greater or lesser degree, to the quality of communication in any given workplace.
Above, you describe a situation where someone is displaying an open-and-shut case of incompetence from your point of view. You gave them a specific action step to remedy part of it, but you don't know if they were told about it. In the absence of any further communication about it you take your cue from the fact that she "didn't seem to care" - that, on your part, is making up stories about what she knows and what her attitude is. Either you wanted her to check in daily to get documents from you or you didn't. And if you did want this, why is it that you didn't ask for it? The way you tell the story makes her sound inexcusably careless, but it also makes me not quite trust your account and make me wonder if there's more to the story.
In any event, as Ruthless Bunny points out, you have been putting up with substandard work and asking for better is what you absolutely must do now. I am not suggesting you should need to teach an adult her ABCs, but I am questioning whether the situation is more nuanced than that.
posted by tel3path at 8:01 AM on November 27, 2013 [22 favorites]
Sounds like your assistant is supporting multiple people, of whom you are one. If that's true, I would not wait for the performance review feedback request -- I'd set up a meeting with her actual boss, in advance of the performance review. Tell her boss your concerns, and definitely tell her boss the story of the big recent screwup. Then it's up to her boss to figure out how to handle the whole thing. You are only really responsible for making sure it's understood that your needs aren't being met: you're not actually the assistant's boss, and so it's not your problem to worry about whether she should be fired or trained or put on a PIP or whatever.
But don't wait for the performance review. If input is being supplied by multiple people you risk yours getting lost in the shuffle. Be an advocate for your own needs: it doesn't and shouldn't matter to you specifically how they are met.
posted by Susan PG at 9:00 AM on November 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
But don't wait for the performance review. If input is being supplied by multiple people you risk yours getting lost in the shuffle. Be an advocate for your own needs: it doesn't and shouldn't matter to you specifically how they are met.
posted by Susan PG at 9:00 AM on November 27, 2013 [3 favorites]
All she had to do was grab a document from my office and hand it to someone else (a document that couldn't be given to the third person any earlier by me).
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but to me, this reads like: When the third person arrived, she was to go pick up a document from your office and hand it to them.
At the very least specific, it reads that her action of handing the document over was to be a response to something else outside of her control.
Something strikes me as wrong, here, and I'm not sure what it is. Did the outside thing never happen, and because it didn't, you assumed she would take the initiative and go track whoever down and deliver it anyway? Possibly concurrent with her believing that she was ONLY to do it if the outside factor occurred?
It's true, though, about attention to detail. Fast-food workers and any kind of clerical people - pay at the lowest end of the scale, expectations for perfection at the top. If software designers and car manufacturers did their jobs as accurately as the typical minimum wage employee, we'd have no need of tech support or mechanics.
posted by stormyteal at 12:46 PM on November 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but to me, this reads like: When the third person arrived, she was to go pick up a document from your office and hand it to them.
At the very least specific, it reads that her action of handing the document over was to be a response to something else outside of her control.
Something strikes me as wrong, here, and I'm not sure what it is. Did the outside thing never happen, and because it didn't, you assumed she would take the initiative and go track whoever down and deliver it anyway? Possibly concurrent with her believing that she was ONLY to do it if the outside factor occurred?
It's true, though, about attention to detail. Fast-food workers and any kind of clerical people - pay at the lowest end of the scale, expectations for perfection at the top. If software designers and car manufacturers did their jobs as accurately as the typical minimum wage employee, we'd have no need of tech support or mechanics.
posted by stormyteal at 12:46 PM on November 27, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'm confused by this quandary. It's not "throwing her under the bus" to report accurately on her performance. In every job I've ever been in, this kind of thing has been addressed. It doesn't automatically mean her dismissal, and you are doing her no favors by hiding it.
Consider if you had not realised that the document had not been handed off. Who would have been responsible for that error?
I do think it would be fair to admit that you didn't follow up on her failure to correct or acknowledge any of the things you brought up in her prior review.
Also, I once had had a job where I had to perform an unfamiliar task and was told I was doing "great" because I took initiative and things appeared to be getting done. I didn't really have any questions because the work, while challenging, appeared straightforward. It turned out that I was not given a critical piece of information that I had no way of knowing on my own, which rendered months of work moot when someone finally reviewed my work. This was a really humiliating experience for me but it was a valuable lesson.
All that is to say: It may not be your specific responsible to teach her how to be a better assistant, but as her reviewer it is your responsibility to be honest with your feedback so that she can be a better employee.
posted by sm1tten at 2:01 PM on November 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
Consider if you had not realised that the document had not been handed off. Who would have been responsible for that error?
I do think it would be fair to admit that you didn't follow up on her failure to correct or acknowledge any of the things you brought up in her prior review.
Also, I once had had a job where I had to perform an unfamiliar task and was told I was doing "great" because I took initiative and things appeared to be getting done. I didn't really have any questions because the work, while challenging, appeared straightforward. It turned out that I was not given a critical piece of information that I had no way of knowing on my own, which rendered months of work moot when someone finally reviewed my work. This was a really humiliating experience for me but it was a valuable lesson.
All that is to say: It may not be your specific responsible to teach her how to be a better assistant, but as her reviewer it is your responsibility to be honest with your feedback so that she can be a better employee.
posted by sm1tten at 2:01 PM on November 27, 2013 [4 favorites]
If you're throwing her under a bus it's one she's driving.
posted by flabdablet at 8:11 PM on November 27, 2013
posted by flabdablet at 8:11 PM on November 27, 2013
You're not her supervisor. It is not your job to coach her. You tell her several times a week she's screwed up. None of that will be a surprise if it's on the review. She knows she screwed up the deadline thing; she told you she would do it. Again, should not be a surprise to be on the review.
You could do a better job communicating with her supervisor the mistakes she makes, but "don't make errors" is not exactly an unknown expectation.
Advice telling you to give her a bad review but saying it's your fault is insane. It's not your fault. You are not her supervisor. You bring her mistakes to her attention. I repeat, it's not her fault.
Give her a bad review, recommend she be fired, and hope you get a new assistant. The job is not for everyone.
posted by spaltavian at 7:25 AM on November 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
You could do a better job communicating with her supervisor the mistakes she makes, but "don't make errors" is not exactly an unknown expectation.
Advice telling you to give her a bad review but saying it's your fault is insane. It's not your fault. You are not her supervisor. You bring her mistakes to her attention. I repeat, it's not her fault.
Give her a bad review, recommend she be fired, and hope you get a new assistant. The job is not for everyone.
posted by spaltavian at 7:25 AM on November 28, 2013 [1 favorite]
« Older News Articles about Canadian Fundamental Freedoms... | Can I take notes during a job interview? (I'm the... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by ook at 8:14 PM on November 26, 2013 [6 favorites]