27

I have a team member on my team (I am her manager) who works remote from home in another state.

This team member has 3 small kids at home with her and on more than one occasion in MS Teams video calls with our internal team and with other employees outside of my team, I can see she is distracted in tending to her kids. Some behaviors among others I saw are listed below. There were occasions in which questions or request for feedback directed at her needed to be repeated.

  • Getting her kids something such as food, stepping away from computer

  • Answering questions from her kids

  • Breaking up sibling fights.

I don't know if she has childcare options such as via a nanny or from family members. She lives in what is considered a rural state so I understand childcare options may be limited.

  • Should I be giving her feedback as to how she seems distracted? Focus during meetings along with professional behavior is important, and I don't want to be giving other team members the perception that I am giving her special treatment by turning a blind eye

  • How can I talk to her without prying into her personal life or seeming discriminatory?

6
  • 31
    How long are your video calls? For example we have one scheduled for 30min at the same time every day. I would expect an employee to make sure they can take that without interruptions. Then we have days where it's one meeting after the next and if anything happens that day, you will have to run out on a meeting, because there simply is no "yes, after the meeting" time. Is there a chance for her to organize better and do you want that? Or is it the fact that she is disturbed at all?
    – nvoigt
    Commented Jul 12 at 6:29
  • 5
    How long are the meetings? Is contributing financially towards childcare for the duration of the meeting an option? - think of how much it costs for just one minute of the combined salaries of all present. Money may make more childcare options available. Commented Jul 12 at 17:35
  • 9
    This question makes me cynical about whether corporations actually benefit our nation or make us all more miserable. Anthony - I would encourage you to be the best version of yourself that you are allowed to be, to treat your employees as people first, with grace and understanding. Here's what you're likely to find - that they will respond by being the best version of themselves that they can be, as employees and as people. If there is a small drop in productivity because you take the time to ask someone about their life, you will be more than repaid by employees going the extra mile to help o Commented Jul 12 at 21:19
  • 2
    @IsmaelMiguel, I assume what's being asked is not that the kids go without care, but that there are reasonable arrangements to be able to concentrate on work and give attention to planned meetings. On the other hand, of course, it depends on the employee's salary and what they could reasonably achieve at home - there's no point picking fights over circumstances that cannot change.
    – Steve
    Commented Jul 13 at 8:02
  • 1
    @Steve, yes, you have a correct understanding of my problem
    – Anthony
    Commented Jul 13 at 13:38

10 Answers 10

7

Address it with her in a "how can i help you" way.

  • figure out if a shift of the meeting helps her (maybe it is just an unlucky time for her, and the baby sitter is there 10 min later)
  • figure out if it is a temporary problem and a reduction of working time or partial handing over her roles for some time solve the problem
  • figure out if the roles she has are good for her, for a computational engineer this is easy to solve, but not for a project manager.
  • address the obvious issue: you are flexible, but when she tends to her kids it's not work time. You expect that she does the work later and you rely and trust her with that.
  • depending on the level of distraction and the requirement for her input/being there tell her that it may be better to briefly stop the meeting and call back later out of respect for colleagues (i very much prefer this in this situation). Tell her that to mute herself an block the camera if she just needs to listen in.
1
  • 1
    Definitely don't "thrust" her. That can get you in all sorts of trouble.
    – psmears
    Commented Jul 14 at 14:53
77

My 2¢:

No, you should not.

Now, let me explain – I know the scenario well – it is currently the school holidays, holiday programs are $$$, and I have kids of my own. I have had to put myself on mute, yell at my kids to behave whilst I am in a meeting, etc. In fact, I have probably done all of those things you listed.

Your employee probably knows that they are distracting and is probably really annoyed at them and herself for it.

Now – apart from the occasional meeting issues – is she otherwise doing good work and completing the tasks she is assigned? If the answer is "yes", then, doubly so, do not mention anything about it.

Being understanding here is the better long-term solution. Her kids are not going to be this age forever. They will grow up soon enough and not be around during work hours – they will eventually not be an issue anymore (probably in a few years or so); then the question becomes what would you like your employee to remember:

  • Being criticized for a set of circumstances where she was trying to make the best with the options she had or
  • Letting her get on with it and supporting her through a difficult time.

And she absolutely will remember which option you choose, and that will be a factor in future decision making.

17
  • 17
    The assumption with your answer is they think their behaviour is appropriate. What if all 5 people on the call were randomly doing the things mentioned. "I'm just going to walk away from the meeting to make food for my kids" WTF? Commented Jul 12 at 1:16
  • 48
    @GregoryCurrie - I have had school-holiday meetings where multiple people who are full-time remote have been interrupted by their kids - it is not ideal - and everyone knows that it is not ideal - but getting your kid some snacks so they will STFU whilst you are on a meeting in sometimes the best option. And an employee - I remember that my company is giving me leeway, so when it is 10 pm at night and an email come in, I dont mind replying to it. Commented Jul 12 at 1:29
  • 16
    @GregoryCurrie - True - the thing for me though is, if it was poor work performance in general, they would have raised that - whereas it's specifically about interruptions on Teams Meetings, which makes me think (OP feel free to correct) that this is the only area where sub-par performance is happening. Commented Jul 12 at 3:21
  • 20
    Couldn't agree more. This definitely speaks to the adage "people don't leave bad companies, they leave bad managers". By being accommodating of team members situation while conducting appropriate performance management ("You did all your tasks quickly and well" is appropriate, "You were distracted during a meeting" may well not be, especially if they took appropriate action after the meeting) we generate a large amount of goodwill in our people which really pays off when the company needs a favour (critical system is down out of hours, final push on a project etc)
    – ThaRobster
    Commented Jul 12 at 9:29
  • 9
    There is also the question of what is her impact on the rest of the people in the meeting. If this is frequent and does impact others, it becomes about more than her getting her own work done. I've seen employees who got their own work done and on time but had a negative impact on those around them. You have to evaluate all of this
    – cdkMoose
    Commented Jul 12 at 13:23
50

Ongoing issues should be acknowledged straight on. Letting the employee know that the children are an ongoing distraction is fair to everyone involved. That includes the employee.

Having a dialog about the issue includes acknowledging that perhaps nothing can be done about it at this moment. That's OK. Let the employee know that you'll accept this situation as it stands and you'd like them to work on the problem.

Ignoring the problem is a problem.

Putting up with or ignoring distractions isn't a discrimination issue. It is a poor management issue.

You don't have to be rude or heavy-handed, nor do you have to pretend that there isn't a problem.

If you don't let them know that there is a problem, you've robbed them of the opportunity to do better. They might not be able to, but give them the chance.

7
  • 4
    Don't get my point wrong. It is likely possible that nothing can be done about the problem. My point is that the problem should be acknowleged to ensure that the person involved is both aware and understands that they are not entitled. They can be accomondated. They should attempt to mitigate if possible.
    – DogBoy37
    Commented Jul 12 at 21:34
  • 15
    It's also worth considering that ‘doing something about the problem’ could involve some sort of accommodation on the manager's part too — e.g. reducing/shifting meetings, accepting an employee leaving and returning to meetings when necessary, moving some business from meetings to online chat or emails or whatever, and so on.  The important thing is that the team's work gets done; if so, then you may be able to be flexible about the details.  (This assumes that the employee has the same goals, of course.  A big sense of entitlement, as other comments consider, would make it harder.)
    – gidds
    Commented Jul 12 at 21:58
  • 7
    @MooingDuck If something like that was said to me, I'd immediately assume that you (the speaker) are having problems with it (the " someone could interpret ...") part, but are too afraid to stand behind your words or too non-confrontational and thus hide behind hypotheticals. That is not a good look IMHO. Commented Jul 13 at 7:54
  • 5
    This! There's no point ignoring the elephant in the room, and the employee may actually feel bad about it yet not dare bringing the point up. It's a manager job to help their employee out, and this starts with acknowledging the problem, and then think on it. Perhaps there are good & bad hours for meetings when kids are around; for example with small kids, it'd be easier to have a meeting when they're napping. Perhaps it's easier for the employee to spread the meetings around rather than have 2-3 back-to-back. Perhaps that employee could be involved for 30 minutes instead of the full hour... Commented Jul 13 at 17:18
  • 2
    @MooingDuck I hate when people communicate in this fashion, if this "someone" is you then just say you have a problem with it and preferably offer solutions, otherwise it's just a (poorly) veiled threat about something they likely can't do much about anyway
    – AnnaAG
    Commented Jul 15 at 9:02
10

How you remain not discriminatory is not to focus too much on what is causing the issue, but instead focus on its impacts.

First of all, you need to establish if this is indeed something worth worrying about. If you're going to have 5 meetings during school holidays and the interruptions are a mild inconvenience, you can probably just turn a blind eye.

What I would be concerned about is if the employee is actually managing to get their work done in their home environment. Are they able to accomplish their tasks?

If they are not, then yes, you should have a conversation around that.

If they are getting their work done, then I think you should just put up with the mild inconvenience.

4
  • 10
    I agree that a performance based view is what the OP should focus on. But, I'd also say that meetings are a work task that the employee is supposed to be "completing" by paying full attention to them.
    – Peter M
    Commented Jul 12 at 12:51
  • @PeterM Fair call. Commented Jul 13 at 11:05
  • I would be careful about the performance angle. First of all, we're all humans (I assume?) and thus tend to have variable outputs. In good times we're more productive than average, in bad times we're less productive than average. A few weeks of slightly lower-than-average output because the kids are at home should be fine, in the grand scheme of things. Only if performance is much lower, should this be addressed. In which case perhaps the employee could be convinced to use their vacation time, rather than "play pretend" at work. Commented Jul 13 at 17:23
  • The performance of that female worker seems to be fine. The OP seems to be more concerned that the distraction at the meeting may affect other attendees... Commented Jul 14 at 4:56
3

You should only say something if you're going to offer solutions

Overall, this question feels like it's being written by a non-parent. I don't mean that as a critique, but rather a statement of fact. If you aren't a parent, there's probably no way for you to know how hard the job is. And for the record, it's hard, and it's all the time.

As indicated in your question, these meetings sound like they're only with other employees and not clients. If these delays in responding are truly problematic, you need to present the employee with solutions that aren't requiring her to pay more money. Some ideas might include:

  • High quality, wireless headset to allow her to easily mute and unmute herself while moving about the house. If you go this route, include with it having someone come over and to teach her how it works.
  • Have the company offer onsite licensed childcare so she can work from the office while someone else watches her kids. I say licensed because you want to make sure she's not worrying about who she's leaving her kids with.

That's honestly all I can realistically think of for potential solutions.

To give some context on this, during the pandemic I worked from home and it was frankly terrible for me. Plenty of interruptions during my day because of my kids. I'd regularly find myself working 50 hours a week in order to actually just work 40 due to all the interruptions. If anyone from my company was to have given me grief over my kids yelling in the background, I probably would not be with the same company anymore. Things were hard for me back then, I didn't want people making things harder for me.

2

Should I be giving her feedback as to how she seems distracted?

I think you should only consider this if the occurrence is regular.

And I think you should first allow a generous leeway to the demands of parenting, and then consider whether the disruption is more than trivial, bearing in mind the size of the meeting, the importance and complexity of the issues in the meeting, the amount and importance of the contribution required, and the actual effect of any interruptions on the ability of others to concentrate (I mean visible or reported difficulty, not fanciful speculation).

The length of the meeting, and the amount of notice about the event and the content, should also be considered - with long, unplanned, and rambling calls obviously providing less opportunity to pre-empt or defer attention to the kids.

If you're at the point where you are sure there is a problem, then we proceed to the following question:

How do you want her to effect fewer disruptions? Are you expecting childcare to be arranged? Are you expecting stronger discipline of the children? Are you expecting her to work in a quiet room away from the children?

The amount that these things are likely to respond to managerial pressure is probably quite minor.

Any attempt by an employer to touch on money matters, or imply that a large amount of money should be spent which the majority of people on that salary are not spending, is also usually a deeply inflammatory topic from which no good can come.

Once you ask yourself what might be possible to change, it might become obvious that there is no solution. This is a mother in charge of children. So the question then would be what you are expecting to gain by raising the issue at all.

You may also want to consult gently with your HR department, set out the facts, and seek a second opinion on whether this should be treated as a problem, what policies apply to the situation of a mother in charge of children, and whether the company has an appetite for any kind of fuss over the situation.

Also just answering some specific points:

Getting her kids something such as food, stepping away from computer

This could be contemptuous if the children are older than infants, but it could also be a behaviour caused by acute embarrassment and a desire to relieve the interruption as soon as possible.

Answering questions from her kids

Breaking up sibling fights.

This is to be expected to some degree from children.

2
  • "How do you want her to effect fewer disruptions?" That is not your job, as a manager, to solve. You are not directly asking someone to spend a huge amount of money on childcare (even though, realistically, that is probably the only solution). You are asking them to be in an environment where they can concentrate fully on their job, which was always the deal with working from home. How they establish the details of that is up to them. Commented Jul 15 at 13:54
  • @JimOldfield, my point is that if there isn't a realistic solution, then you're just going to generate heat by making demands that can't or won't be met - and no sensible school of management says to demand moons on sticks or revel in ignorance. The "deal" for the company is quite likely to be that they are able to employ a mother at a salary and for hours that wouldn't be feasible if the childcare had to be delegated. I assume demanding physical attendance would just be rejected. That's partly why I suggested consulting with HR, because they may have a wider perspective on the matter.
    – Steve
    Commented Jul 15 at 14:42
1

If this situation happens regularly at many meetings, some possible solutions are as follows:

(1) First Attempt: Privately, Get Anonymous Feedbacks From Other Attendees.

You can privately ask other attendees if they feel distracted by this situation, and if they would like to you to fix this situation. The identity of the people who write feedbacks will only be known to you.

If one of them say they do want you to fix it, then you should honestly and professionally pass the feedbacks to her. (But, do not tell her the identity of the people who write feedbacks) . I am sure as a professional worker, she will find a way to fix it one way or another. This is all about professional business.

However, if all attendees say that it is OK, they don't mind, and they don't need you to fix anything, then you don't have to worry about anything, and it is all good.

(2) For important meetings that have the upper level management and clients, you definitely want to inform her in advance a few days so that she can hire a baby sitter or ask a relative or a neighbor to watch the kids during those important meetings. She should be able to find a way to make it work for these important meetings. (Obviously, you don't want to lose a client if they happen to be at that meeting).

(3) For small and regular (daily or weekly) team meetings in which people simply go around and briefly report their status like in a 5 minute daily meeting in a sprint, you can let her talk first quickly and briefly, and then ask her to mute her microphone or even turn off her camera while other team members talk (This way, she can talk to her kids and does not distract other team members). She still can turn on her headphone so that she can hear the manager and other people talk and if they want to ask her a question, then she can turn on her microphone to reply.

(4) Another suggested solution is that you can tell the whole team that from now on during the meeting, everyone should turn off their microphone when they are not talking.

This solution is applied to all team members, and there is nothing personal, and does not hurt anyone's feeling.

In many companies, it is natural to turn off the microphone when you are not talking during a video meeting. I have been in many meetings like this with different teams in many companies.

0

I think this depends on the nature of the meeting. Therefore I think you should pick your moment to express your concern, so you come across as trying to be reasonable whilst noting that you consider it to be an issue.

  1. If it is an unscheduled call, or a scheduled one-to-one meeting with another employee, distracting kids isn't a problem, and can lighten the working day.

  2. If there are a large number of people on the call and she is just a fly on the wall, then it may not be a problem. If necessary you can ask her to mute, or tell you are muting her remotely.

  3. If she is presenting to several employees, or if clients are present, then it is a problem. Bearing in mind that it is currently the school holidays, the solution is to ask her when the meeting should be scheduled so that the kids do not distract.

1
  • 2
    Regards (3), it's important to remember that there may be several people to arrange a meeting with, and the general rule is that you should be at your employer's disposal anytime during your normal working hours. There'd be a big difference between saying "can we do an hour later" compared to "can we do in six weeks when the kids return to school".
    – Steve
    Commented Jul 13 at 8:16
0

If this person is just a "fly on the wall" at these meetings then you should question whether they are even required to be there.

However, per "There were occasions in which questions or request for feedback directed at her needed to be repeated.", it is clear that their presence is important.

These recurring behaviors are not okay during a meeting:

  • Getting her kids something such as food, stepping away from computer
  • Answering questions from her kids
  • Breaking up sibling fights

They are a paid employee and should act as such. Yes, life exists and urgent issues arise but the aforementioned behaviors indicate that they deem the meeting and attendees unimportant.

It is possible that your company has a bad meeting etiquette culture; and if it doesn't then this person is going to be the seed for others to follow suit.

You should consider a company-wide remote meeting policy which can be referenced if the behavior persists.

I do not think you should speak to this person directly until you have a policy in place. If you already have a policy in place then a conversation should be had. Not a disciplinary one but rather one which is an open discussion about workload and/or meeting overload.

11
  • 12
    Are you really going to ask a mother to prioritize her boss's feelings over her childrens' well-being?
    – Corbin
    Commented Jul 12 at 16:19
  • 7
    @MonkeyZeus: It's definitely not OK! But if the children are currently fighting and you are the only adult near them, you have no other choice than to interrupt what you are currently doing. It's not "disrespecting the other meeting attendants", it's just that matters of personal safety have priority. (And no, telling small kids not to fight in the next 30 minutes because you have an important meeting doesn't work. Unfortunately.)
    – Heinzi
    Commented Jul 12 at 21:56
  • 3
    @Heinzi Working remotely is a privilege; I think many people forget that.
    – MonkeyZeus
    Commented Jul 12 at 22:25
  • 3
    @MonkeyZeus: I'd say it's part of the compensation. Finding good software developers is currently very hard; finding good software developers without offering (part-time) home office is almost impossible.
    – Heinzi
    Commented Jul 13 at 7:17
  • 7
    @MonkeyZeus Working remote or hybrid is not a privilege anymore in a lot of companies. It is now usually 100% necessary and even part of the standard contract terms (e.g. working hybrid). My employer doesn't even have enough office space to accommodate 100% office attendance (same for my previous employer), they actually have something like 35% of the space needed to accommodate us all. Commented Jul 13 at 7:59
0

Number one item that you need to realise: An employee costs the company. Basically the salary plus taxes, the office space, the management cost. On the other hand, working benefits the employee: The salary, minus taxes, minus cost of travelling, cost of childcare etc. As a reasonable employer, you want to arrange things so that the employee gets as many benefits as possible, while costing the company as little as possible. (Not saying that all employers are reasonable).

So what is your actual problem here? Do you think she is unprofessional, and repeatedly? Why do you care? Does the work get done, that’s what you should care about. Do you want to force her to hire a baby sitter at high cost? There goes a huge amount of benefit for the employee. Which means the benefits you offer are not competitive anymore. If you expect eight hours work a day, then check if you get eight hours work a day.

If she has breaks caused by children and adds the time at the end of the day, you lose nothing. Quite the opposite, if an employee says “I was able to raise my children properly because my company supported me”, you will have a good and loyal employee for a long time.

@HAapy idiot: Just plain common sense that the company will take actions if possible that have little cost to the company and lots of benefits to employees. And avoid things that are costly to employees while giving little benefit to the company.

6
  • I like your posts in general, but in this case leading with, "An employee costs the company" seems a bit slanted. My knee jerk retort is: well, just get rid of them! My car costs me money, I'll just walk everywhere. No, the point of even having employees, like having a car, is that they make stuff possible that would be impossible otherwise. For that possible from not possible we need to keep the possibility going, with sustanance. Otherwise we would work people to death for a week and then just grab another person. The change of perspective alters the plan of resources and effort. Cheers! Commented Jul 14 at 12:10
  • I remember when I was a new salaried programmer (lo these many years ago) and was told that the software development department (of a software services company!) was a "cost center", and my manager, who was also fairly young, was billed for the square feet of office space I worked in. I thought, "that's ok, the company will probably coast a couple years with no new software development..." It kind of shot my entire sense that people in business have a sane idea of getting things done. Commented Jul 14 at 12:16
  • 1
    @HappyIdiot: If your response to having a cost pointed out is a knee-jerk desire to kill the source of the cost; then you shouldn't be trusted with any kind of cost-benefit analysis as you never even bothered to weigh it against the benefits. I'm aware that later in your comment you point out the benefits of having an employee but you're still pointing out that the knee-jerk reaction to costs is needing to cut them, which is bad business management on your part and not a valid critique of the posted answer you're responding to.
    – Flater
    Commented Jul 14 at 23:29
  • @Flater it was supposed to be an absurd response that points out the absurdity of the original contention. I admit that I'm not much of an Accountant, but some things really are more important than money. (another absurdity, oops) Thinking of people as 'costs' is something I thought we gave up a long time ago. It is not really cost - benefit, it is possibility - approach. Commented Jul 14 at 23:33
  • 2
    @HappyIdiot: Comments are reserved for feedback on answers. You provided feedback on the phrasing of the answer being "slanted". Throughout the entire comment, you maintain the position with which you opened. Subsequently, in the second comment you provide anecdotal evidence that supports your interpretation of costs as expressed in the first comment. None of this reads as an absurdity, just an unusual take on cost management.
    – Flater
    Commented Jul 14 at 23:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .