A reader writes:
I have a low-level employee who has always volunteered in nonprofits and worked in academia, and I’d love some tips on helping him change his budget awareness. He is very used to saving every penny of the organization’s money, at the expense of significant amounts of time, which makes sense if the money is scarce and the time is volunteered, but makes absolutely no sense if the money is adequate and the time is paid for.
I’ve explained sticker price vs time costs (multiple times, in multiple ways with multiple examples), and yet any amount of money over about $50 basically sends him into an anxiety spiral where nothing I say makes an impact. I’m willing to shut it down the next time he opens this discussion, since it’s been explained from every angle and isn’t making a difference, but I do need him to be capable of watching the company spend money on (for example) office supplies, IT infrastructure, furniture, advertising, etc. without getting somewhat panicked and suggesting high-effort, high-salary-cost ways of saving minor amounts of money. (For what it’s worth: he doesn’t come from a poor family, so the money anxiety seems to be entirely work-related. He also talks about having anxiety but refuses to seek treatment.)
Is there a framing for this that might sink in, given the work background? I’d rather encourage understanding than just shut it down, but at this point I’ve done what I can think of and I’ll shut it down and lock it up if I have to.
I wrote back and asked, “When you talked to him about it, did you explicitly tell him he needs to stop, or was it more trying to explain why it’s unnecessary? And how directly involved with money/purchasing is his job?” The reply:
About 15% of his job involves either researching options/solutions to issues we are having (for example: find me an email system that can do the following four things, or find me companies that sell this specific thing and book me demos), or interfacing with external suppliers (and therefore seeing the invoices go by). The rest of his job is not directly related to money at all.
I have discussed with him both why specific expenses are necessary AND that this pattern is untenable, which he agrees on when it’s not actively something he’s preoccupied about. But then as soon as something new pops up, he says he’s anxious for a specific new reason, and the spiral starts again.
He agrees when I say something like, “The company finances are being handled. Spending more time to save money is not efficient or lucrative, and company expenses are both planned and approved, and I need you to understand that and manage your feeling about the expenses. I can’t have this discussion every time we buy something. It’s a problem.”
But the second something pops up, he genuinely thinks we don’t understand that there are cheaper options, and even when pointed to the original discussion, doesn’t relate it to his behavior — he basically flips it from “I’m doing The Thing About Money” to “my boss is not listening to me and is going to drive the company into the ground, ANXIETY!” — and and I’m like … dude. It’s a replacement office chair. It’s a MID-RANGE OFFICE CHAIR, not even a fancy one! — complete disconnect, even when pointed out.
And then thing is that when he’s not actively anxious, he’s good at his job. But the spirals are killing it.
At this point, barring moving him to a role where there is no knowledge of finance involved at all, I’m at my wits end.
Well, you’ve done the right thing: You’ve told him this is a pattern, it’s untenable, and it needs to stop. Often in these situations, when I ask a manager how direct they’ve been about a problem, it turns out they haven’t been that direct. They’ve said “you really don’t need to do X” or “it would be great if you could try doing Y,” but they haven’t directly said “X is a serious problem and I need you to stop doing X.” But you’ve said that, so we can check that off the list.
Since you’ve done that and it’s still happening, it’s time to talk with him again and this time escalate the seriousness. Your message this time should be: “We’ve talked about this previously, but it’s still happening. It’s disruptive and it’s getting in the way of you being able to perform your job effectively. It’s become a serious issue, to the point that I’m having to think about whether we can keep you in this role or not. So I want to make sure you’re absolutely clear about the behaviors that cannot continue. You cannot (fill in specific behaviors here). Can you agree to that going forward?”
You might also say, “You’ve mentioned that you struggle with anxiety. If you need time off for appointments for treatment, I can work with you to ensure you get that time.” If your company has an EAP, mention it here. (Also, because he’s mentioned anxiety, it’s possible that the Americans with Disabilities Act could be in play, so you should talk with your HR people before you have this conversation to make sure you’re navigating this legally.)
But from there … if he has untreated, clinical anxiety, there probably isn’t any framing you can find that will solve this, because anxiety isn’t rational. So yes, it’s very reasonable to focus on shutting it down rather than trying to reason or cajole him into seeing things differently. So that might mean saying things like:
* “As we’ve talked about, this isn’t up for discussion. The company is going to purchase X and isn’t going to do Y to spend less. We need to move on now.”
* “Please order the chair I’ve marked. We’re not going to discuss lower-cost options.”
* “As you know, I’m not going to discuss this again. Is there anything else you need from me?”
… and so forth.
These sorts of comments would normally feel overly brusque, but in a situation like this one — where the problem has been discussed and it’s not improving — that’s okay. You could certainly give him a warning that you’re going to be doing that (“Since this is continuing to be disruptive, I want you to know that I’m going to have to shut it down when it happens and will need you to move on when I do”). But you’re on solid ground in simply shutting it down.
If that doesn’t mostly solve it, at that point you’d need to think about whether he can succeed in the job as it’s currently configured and, if not, whether there are ways to restructure his role without significant inconvenience to you or others. (If the ADA is in play, you’d need to look at whether he can do the “essential functions” of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. You’d want HR involved for that.)
Read an update to this letter here.
