Hi ya party people,

Happy Friday Taylor Swift album release day! 🙌

You survived the week!!

TBH, that’s enough to be an accomplishment on its own these days, so for that, I’m proud of you. 

*Cue the sentimental music you hear in sitcoms*

Okay, now for the not-so-cute Q&A questions!

Today’s mailbag? Whew. First up: an exec told to be more “bubbly” (yes, that was the actual feedback) only to get scolded the minute they showed personality in a meeting. It’s giving “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.”

And then we’ve got a real curveball: how should HR handle an employee with charges pressed against them, but no conviction yet? Terminate immediately? Wait it out? Cue the lawyer vs. consultant tug-of-war.

So get ready, because we’re covering everything from LaCroix-level perkiness to courtroom-level seriousness over here!

Loving the question submissions BTW! KEEP EM COMING! Submit yours here for a chance to be featured in the newsletter! 🤩

---

ASK AWAY

🤨 bubbly or bustCopy anchor linkCopied

✍🏽 I was pulled into a surprise meeting with HR and CEO and asked to be more bubbly and engaged in meetings; I did what they asked and they called me out in an all staff meeting for asking too much questions. What do I do?

Context: I’m a director at a mid level company that is funded by Medicaid. I was promoted quickly and told to establish better executive presence. I took classes, and started working on how I present myself and thinking before I speak. I was then brought in and told I needed to appear bubblier and more engaged. However same week as the feedback I enrage and ask questions in a meeting and get told I am “grilling” HR. I apologized. I had 6 people at work reach out and ask if I was okay after being snapped at. I am so confused as to what the company wants from me.

📣 Cheyenne Hunter, Firm Administrator @ Bush Rudnicki Shelton:

The only way I can think to move forward productively is to ask the CEO and/or HR leader what specific behaviors they would like to see you work on or change. "Be more bubbly" is incredibly vague and open to interpretation. 

Getting a clearer view of their expectations from this feedback is a good first step, but I'd also suggest bringing up the way they have handled things. By calling you out in a public setting, they have undermined the authority they want you to exert, and it sounds like you're dealing with some toxic leadership.

In my experience, it's very difficult to fix problems at the top and these attitudes tend to trickle down and affect company-wide culture.

📣 Stephanie Slysz, Director of People & Culture @ Galvanize USA:

When feedback feels contradictory like this, the best thing you can do is ask directly what they’re really talking about.

You could ask things like:

- When you say “bubbly and engaged,” what does that look like in practice?

- Can you share examples of colleagues who you feel strike the right balance so I have something to model?

- Are the concerns you’re raising about conduct (tone/approach in meetings) or about performance (the substance of my work)?

- What does success look like here?

If their answers stay vague or keep shifting, that tells you something too. Sometimes it’s less about your work and more about company culture or politics. The goal is to show you’re open to learning while also getting clarity so you’re not set up to fail.

 📣 Jordan Giddens, Head of People in Operations @ Rice & Kendig:

I’m really sorry you’re dealing with that—it sounds incredibly frustrating. From what you shared, it’s clear you’re making a genuine effort to implement feedback, even though the guidance has been vague.

It might be helpful to ask your leadership for more specific examples of what they do want to see—like, “What behaviors signal to you that someone is engaged and demonstrating strong presence?” or “What are some things I might be doing now that give the opposite impression?” That way you’re not trying to hit a moving target.

I’ve been in a similar spot—once told to give “more emotional feedback” in meetings, and I had no clue what that meant until I finally asked. Turned out my boss felt I was disengaged because I paused to think instead of answering right away. He’s an external processor; I’m more internal. Once we named that, we found a middle ground: I started saying “Let me think on that” instead of going silent, and it helped.

You’re not alone in this—navigating mixed signals while trying to grow is a real challenge, and I think you’re handling it with a lot of grace.

Safe Space members can join this discussion here. Not a member yet? Apply to join here.

✍🏽 Could you please give an HR perspective regarding the difference (if any) between an employee having charges pressed against them and an actual conviction? How would you handle the situation for a charge that would make this employee ineligible for further work with your company/agency?

Context: We are a small, non-profit agency who recently found out (through a third party) that one of our employees was charged (not arrested) with something that would make them ineligible to work for us. To further complicate matters, this employee is currently laid off due to funding issues - but will eventually be recalled. An HR consultant we spoke with said that, since there is no liability at the moment, they would recommend at least waiting until the preliminary hearing to see if the charges are even pursued. They also recommended a potential suspension, if they return to work, until the final hearing. However, our attorney has recommended immediate termination due to the seriousness of the charges. I'm more inclined to follow the 'wait and see' strategy because I would hate to lose a good employee if nothing comes from this situation, but my leadership is taking steps towards termination. Can you offer any insight on how to decide what's best in this situation? Thanks!

📣 Amanda Jesenof, Director, HRBP @ iA:

I'm surprised to hear that your attorney has recommended immediate termination. Is this your organization's in-house counsel? Or is this an employment attorney that you go to specifically for issues like this one? If the former, I would strongly recommend that you seek an opinion from an employment attorney here.

Your location probably matters, and we don't know where the company and the employee in question are located, so it's hard to give blanket advice.

That said, I believe that your approach is the right one - wait and see. Especially since the employee is currently laid off, I do not see the harm in waiting. I think it's important to remember that there is a difference between being charged with a crime and being convicted of a crime. In the court of law, this person is innocent until proven guilty - by terminating now, your company is presuming they are already guilty, and you may open yourself up to a wrongful termination suit if the charges are either dropped or the employee is cleared.

📣 Melissa Stough, HR Coordinator @ Project Genesis:

I agree with Amanda. Take the "wait and see" approach especially since they are actively employed and on layoff, and right now, the employee is only charged with a crime, not convicted. 

It might also be prudent to have a conversation with the employee about the situation, to explain why if there is no update or progress by the time the layoff ends, you may need to keep them on suspension. This may eventually lead to a termination because you can't keep employees on payroll indefinitely, and our legal system is slow, but in that situation, you could inform the employee to reach out once everything is resolved/finalized. I've found that employees tend to be very understanding when you explain things from the beginning.

If your non-profit provides services in the community (I work for a non-profit that provides 1 on 1 services to people with disabilities), you have to take the cautious approach while also respecting that the employee is innocent until proven guilty. There is also financial risk for terminating them immediately because, as the HR consultant implied, the charges could be dropped and now you could have a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Safe Space members can join this discussion here. Not a member yet? Apply to join here.

---

🚨 ON YOUR RADAR

🎧 I Hate It Here Podcast: I'm always dropping new episodes with your favorite People Ops leaders! Until we return with a new season of guests, enjoy some of the greatest hits! Check it out on Spotify or Apple Podcasts!

🤔 Who owns Employee Experience: HR or Internal Comms? On Oct 9th, Workvivo is hosting a live debate with Chuck Gose and me to cut through the myths, call out the BS, and show how HR and Comms can actually build EX together. Register for free and bring your hot takes!

💰 Pay Transparency matters (but it's also difficult). That's why I created this course. Join the Safe Space community to access it, plus everything else you need to stay ahead of the curve.

---

📝 RESOURCE OF THE WEEK

Each week I feature a resource I love from the Safe Space library that I believe would be relatable to this week's newsletter topic.

This week, we’ll revisit communication using Brene Brown’s BRAVING acronym. Check it out HERE ⬇️

---

FRIDAY FUN

🛑 PLEASE STOP NOW PLEASE!!Copy anchor linkCopied

There are just some things HR DOES NOT need to know about employees. 

---

That's all for this week! I hope you enjoyed! If you have any thoughts, please let me know. I'm allll ears.

Reminder: Today is FRIDAY. 🙏