Much of the world needs to work two jobs. Chris Williams write that managers should be careful in how they react to an employee working multiple jobs.
Chris Williams
When the world was abruptly forced to work from home at the start of the pandemic, it shook many managers to their core.
I've been a lifelong student of management and a leader for over 40 years, including being the VP of HR at Microsoft. The introduction of work-from-home was a fascinating time because it gave me a chance to see abject fear on the faces of managers because they suddenly lost the very control they had lived by.
Employees now working from home were relieved of a commute, office distractions, and the hawk eye of their managers. Most transitioned effectively, and many thrived. But some took advantage of their newfound freedom.
Managers writhed in horror at the lack of control. They shared viral stories of employees spending their days playing video games, working from the beach, or the ultimate horror: working two full-time jobs.
In the fall of last year, several news outlets ran breathless stories of Silicon Valley programmers making over half a million dollars a year working multiple full-time jobs — juggling Zoom calls and multiple deadlines from their home office to "cheat" the system.
The shock value was clear to many managers: these employees were getting away with something.
You know who also works two jobs? The bottom third of the labor market.
For example, a cashier at Target who also drives for Uber in the evening, a schoolteacher who cleans offices on the weekend, a McDonald's cook who tends bar at night.
Working multiple jobs is a part of the fabric of the working world — so common that it's in the origin stories of many successful people. "My mom worked two jobs to put us kids through college."
The freedom of place granted by work-from-home made this option available to more workers. It even sprouted an online community at Overemployed.com of how-to articles and people sharing tips on how to work multiple jobs remotely.
Given 168 hours in a week, an eager or financially struggling employee sees a single 40-hour job as a poor use of time. It's unrealistic to expect them to use but 25% of their week to make ends meet or to get ahead.
Just as unrealistic as it is for managers to think their claim to employees' time is exclusive.
Employers, the message is clear: You don't own your employee's lives. What they choose to do when not working for you is simply none of your business.
If you're a manager who discovers an employee is also working elsewhere, how you react is crucial. There are many ways to handle it, and the managers' reactions vary widely.
Of course, there are competitive concerns. An employee working for a competitor — or even worse, leveraging confidential information — is a problem. As an employer, you have some rights to enforce non-compete and confidentiality restrictions (although those vary by state or country and are complicated by remote arrangements).
But outside of that, an employee using their time or skills to make additional income comes down to one simple question.
The key management issue is the same as it always is: how is the employee performing in their job? Are they getting the job — your job — done?
If the employee is underperforming, address the deficit. Hold them accountable for their deliverables. Press them to provide the value you're paying them for. Treat it as you would any other performance issue.
What they are doing outside of work that might be causing a performance problem is, again, none of your business. Your response should be: I expect and am paying for these results, you're not delivering, let's solve that problem.
However, if the employee is doing well, even excelling, you can choose your reaction.
You could:
Many managers immediately overreact. They insist the employee cease all other work. They are outraged at the disloyalty, shocked by the hubris, and even personally offended.
This doesn't end well. If the employee is doing your job well and isn't working for a competitor, they are well within their rights. An overreaction destroys any relationship you might have, and likely demotivates them completely.
Your reaction has turned a high-performing employee into the enemy — someone almost certainly looking for the exit.
Other managers react by increasing the work. "If you have time to work for someone else, you can do more for me."
Except they're doing what is expected to a level that is clearly satisfactory, or at least was satisfactory until you discovered their other job.
Increasing their workload will likely decrease their performance. It will certainly lay waste to their attitude, especially if it doesn't come with additional pay.
Here again, your reaction has turned a high performer against you. You've made a good situation worse.
You've also encouraged them to look elsewhere. They found a second job; finding a replacement for yours doesn't seem like much of a stretch.
The most mature approach is to celebrate their success. Especially if they are a very high performer, you should reward their performance and acknowledge their success.
And acknowledge their second job.
If you reward their success, even increase their pay, you enhance their experience. They feel recognized and supported. You look like an enlightened leader, one who knows and acknowledges a good thing when they have it.
This approach will increase the employee's appreciation for your job and your leadership. Their performance might well increase. You might even make them abandon their second job, because it's now unnecessary.
Further, you can learn from these overachievers. If their performance is exceptional, find out why.
Many of these multiple-job workers are models to be studied. They are figuring out ways to do a week's worth of work in three days. They are unbothered by complex, competing priorities. They are, by necessity, multitasking, and are job efficiency experts.
Your reaction shouldn't be, "Great, let's give you five days' worth of work to do," as noted in number two above.
Rather it should be, "Can you teach everyone how you're doing that?"
Imagine if you had a whole team of people who could perform at that level — who could be more efficient, juggle competing priorities, be unaffected by distractions? You could increase throughput individually, and vastly increase the whole team's output.
Rather than chastise the moonlighter, celebrate the innovation of that performer. Acknowledge their creativity. And have them help the whole team excel.
If you're a manager and discover an employee is working another job on the side, how you react is key. Whether it's work-from-home or not, what matters is their performance.
If they are struggling, address the problem. If they're not meeting expectations, find a way to address the performance problem. And no, quitting the second job is not the first thing on the list.
If they are meeting expectations, even excelling, your reaction makes all the difference. You have an employee doing good work and getting fairly compensated for that work. Do not spoil that with your reaction.
If they're doing well, tell them so. If they are doing amazingly well, have them tell everyone else.
You, your team, and the employee will all be better off if you handle it with grace and support.
Remember, you are participating in a fair exchange: they give you their time, you get their results. What happens beyond that is not your business. A smart leader recognizes the situation and tries to make it work well for everyone.
Chris Williams is a former vice president of HR at Microsoft and a leadership advisor, podcaster, TikTok creator, and author.
