The Right Thing

Sunday, May 24, 2026

Should you work for free to get a job?

Is it ever OK for a prospective employer to ask a candidate to do work for free?

A reader we’re calling Rosmerta is currently a finalist for several jobs. Two of the prospective employers have asked her to create materials for projects the companies might otherwise have had an employee complete. One company offered to compensate her for the work. The other expected her to complete the assignment without pay. Rosmerta wonders if it was wrong for the second company to ask for her time and effort without compensation.

t’s not unusual for job candidates to provide materials that demonstrate they can do the job and have the necessary skills. It’s reasonable for employers to want to see how applicants might approach the kind of work they’d be expected to do.

But it’s wrong for an employer to go beyond reasonably evaluating a prospective employee’s skills and instead use the situation as an opportunity to get unpaid labor.

It’s fair, for example, to ask for a short writing sample or an analysis of a problem. If the goal is to understand how a candidate works, rather than to have them create materials the company would otherwise have to pay for, then the request is reasonable. Prospective employers should remember that candidates are not yet paid employees.

If a company asks a candidate to develop a marketing campaign, draft detailed proposals or produce materials that could be put into practice, it should expect to compensate the candidate for their time and expertise. Once significant time, expertise and originality are required, it’s difficult to justify not paying for that work.

In Rosmerta’s experience, one company recognized the value of what it was asking by offering compensation. The other did not. It would be reasonable for Rosmerta to use that difference to gauge how each company approaches fairness and respect.

Candidates do not have to accept the premise that their time and expertise aren’t worth anything to a prospective employer. At a minimum, Rosmerta should ask whether her work will be used solely to evaluate her or if it could be used for actual company projects. She can also propose alternatives, such as providing examples of prior work or explaining her approach in an interview. If what a company asks her to do resembles work she would typically be paid for, she can ask about compensation or decline the request.

Employers should also remember that while they are evaluating candidates, candidates are evaluating them. How a company treats people during the interview process sends a message about whether it’s the kind of place someone would want to work.

Rosmerta shouldn’t automatically rule out the company that made the unpaid request. But she should weigh that request—and any offer that follows—carefully. The company that offered to pay her demonstrated respect for her time and expertise. The one that didn’t sent a different message.

Employers are entitled to assess candidates, but the right thing is not to benefit from their labor without acknowledgment or compensation. When companies cross that line, candidates like Rosmerta are right to question it—and to let the answer guide their decisions.

Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.

Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.

Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.

Sunday, May 17, 2026

What dictionaries make of our words, right or wrong

In a Right Thing column I wrote about five years ago, I responded to a former student who asked whether I had really used the word “jamoke” in a 1998 Inc. magazine column about laptop cases. I had. She and a friend had debated whether “jamoke” carried any derogatory connotation. When they looked it up in Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, she was surprised to find one of my sentences used as an example. I reassured her there was nothing derogatory about the word.

Since then, I’ve discovered that Merriam-Webster has used other sentences I wrote long ago to illustrate how it defines certain words. In that same laptop case article, I had used the word “schmear.” The dictionary also cites two words from a sentence I wrote in a 2019 Right Thing column: “peddle” and “condone.” In that column, I wrote: “There’s no excuse for items promoting racist tropes to be peddled to the public nor for the rest of us to condone them.” I was responding to a reader who had found an item at a big-box office-supply store bearing a supposedly inspirational quotation that could be interpreted as an ethnic slur.

When I wrote that sentence about racist tropes, I meant it. But does it matter that that sentence was later used, on its own, to illustrate a dictionary definition? I didn’t write it for a dictionary. I wrote it in a specific context, for a particular audience, and with the purpose of responding to a reader’s experience.

Now that the sentence stands on its own, it might carry a broader authority than I originally intended. Does the editor (or algorithm) who selected it know that I stand behind the broad moral judgment expressed in that sentence, even though it was written about a particular incident? I don’t believe the editor knows me, so that seems unlikely, although the algorithm might have a good idea of where I stand based on scouring the internet for other things I’ve written.

Most writers give considerable thought to the words they choose. When I used “jamoke” and “schmear” in that earlier column, I did so deliberately, aiming for a particular tone with a particular audience in mind. Word choice is rarely accidental by most writers.

I appreciate the credibility that comes with being cited by Merriam-Webster. Still, I find myself wondering what happens when our words take on a life of their own beyond their original purpose. A sentence pulled from a column to serve as a general example of usage may carry more weight than it did when it first appeared. Within a column, I have some control over how my words are understood. Outside of that, I have very little.

That loss of control raises an interesting challenge. We can’t anticipate every way our words might be reused, nor should we become timid or overly cautious in writing. Yet this experience is a reminder that what we write can have a long shelf life, reaching audiences and serving purposes we never imagined.

We can’t control how our words will be reused. But we can try to control whether they hold up when they are. The right thing is to write as if any sentence might one day stand alone, and to make sure that if it does, it still says what we believe.

Sunday, May 10, 2026

What do you owe someone who helped you?

If you do a favor for someone should you be disappointed when you receive no favor in return?

That’s the question that a reader I’m calling Nigel asked. For about a decade, he helped a former colleague find work. When that colleague was between jobs or looking to supplement his income, Nigel made introductions, passed along leads, and even helped him secure occasional work at his own workplace.

The colleague has now had a steady job for about two years and appears to be in a position to help Nigel find similar opportunities. Nigel says he made clear he’d welcome any leads, yet the colleague has made no effort to assist.

Expecting some measure of reciprocity isn’t unusual. When someone has been consistently supportive, it’s natural to hope that support might be returned. Professional relationships, like personal ones, often rely on a sense of reciprocity, even if it’s not formally stated.

But favors don’t always create clear obligations. While it would have been thoughtful and generous for the colleague to return the help, he may not view Nigel’s past support as something that requires repayment. People don’t always keep track of these exchanges in the same way, and some may simply not recognize when an opportunity to reciprocate presents itself.

Once Nigel expressed interest in finding additional work, however, the absence of any response becomes harder to ignore. Even if the colleague wasn’t in a position to help, a brief acknowledgment would have been thoughtful. Nigel may have taken his silence to be dismissive.

If this lack of reciprocity nags at Nigel, he could try talking to his former colleague. He could tell him that he’s tried to be supportive over the years and had hoped for similar consideration. There’s a chance that the colleague simply hasn’t thought about the situation from that perspective.

If being helpful is part of how Nigel wants to be, his former colleague’s inaction doesn’t have to change that. He’s not required, however, to keep engaging in a relationship that feels one-sided. Setting limits seems a reasonable response to any relationship that seems out of whack when it comes to mutual concern.

If his colleague asks for help again, Nigel can choose to help as he has in the past, lessen how much assistance he offers, or just decline to help. He could tell the colleague that he’s hoping for more mutual support in the future. The right thing is to set expectations without turning past generosity into a running tally. That would allow Nigel to continue to be helpful but also let his colleague know that he hopes for occasional help in return.

A challenge of being generous and kind to others is that it works best if you truly want to be generous or kind rather than expect something in return. Don’t get me wrong: Receiving generosity and kindness from others can spark all kinds of joy. But doling it out with the expectation that it will always be given back in equal measure is bound to be disappointing.

Sunday, May 03, 2026

When fair isn’t equal in family giving

What’s the right thing to do when an aging parent, still mentally sharp and financially secure, gives one adult child tens of thousands of dollars over time, but gives nothing to another?

A reader we’re calling Louise says that for years her mother has been quietly handing her cash gifts: $1,000 here, $1,200 there, despite repeated objections. Louise estimates the total has exceeded $25,000. Each time she protests, telling her mother she doesn’t need the money. But her mother insists, sometimes angrily, that she wants to give it and expects it to be accepted.

Complicating matters is that her mother has chosen not to give similar gifts to Louise’s sister. When Louise has pointed this out, her mother responds that the sister is well-off and “doesn’t need it.”

Louise believes the arrangement is unfair. She also worries about the potential strain such gifts could create between her and her sister once they are discovered. If these gifts aren’t openly acknowledged to both Louise and her sister, they could result in misunderstanding or resentment.

She has considered returning the money without her mother’s knowledge or, after her mother’s death, trying to square things up so both sisters will have received equal amounts. That either action would go against her mother’s wishes gives Louise pause.

Louise’s mother has the right to decide how to distribute her money, even if Louise finds those decisions inequitable. Many families strive for equal treatment among children, but others define fairness differently, based on need, circumstance or personal judgment. Whether or not Louise agrees, her mother has been clear about her intent.

Louise may not be able to change her mother’s behavior, and it may not be her place to do so. She can, however, decide how to respond. If accepting future gifts feels wrong or potentially harmful to her relationship with her sister, she might choose to say so clearly and consistently, even if her mother disagrees.

If Louise feels strongly that accepting the money is inconsistent with her values, she might also choose to refuse future gifts. If she takes that path, the right thing would be to do so with kindness and directness. Her mother may respond that giving brings her joy. Louise can acknowledge that generosity with gratitude while still explaining that accepting the money does not bring her joy, but makes her uncomfortable.

Waiting to try to “fix” the imbalance later by redistributing the money after her mother’s death might result in causing her sister to resent that such an action needed to take place. It would also not honor Louise’s mother’s wishes. That’s why choosing to be honest and direct with her mother in refusing to take the gifts could be her best choice.

Perfect fairness might be impossible to achieve. But if Louise can find a way to respect her mother while being honest with her about her reasons for refusing these gifts, it could help get closer to the level of fairness Louise desires. It might not be a perfect response and it could result in some challenging conversations with her mother. But by being honest with her mother, she might come closer to a resolution with which they both can live.

Sunday, April 26, 2026

Should you trust a 'one-of-a-kind' Facebook ad?

Should you be concerned if an advertisement on Facebook for a "unique" product seems to feature the same product from at least a dozen different companies?

That’s a concern for a reader we’re calling Nona. It’s a good question that raises a concern about the often murky ethics of online marketing.

Nona wrote that she noticed that not only were similar products being offered as exclusively manufactured for a store, but also that the stories being told about the store were remarkably similar. Recently, she’s noticed quite a few stories about a mother and daughter operation that is slashing its prices because it is forced to shut its (often virtual) doors after 10 years or five years or whatever.

There’s nothing wrong with the same or similar product being sold by different companies. Duplication is OK. But promoting the items as unique offerings crosses the line into being deceptive.

If a product is being promoted as unique or exclusive when it’s clear that identical versions of the product are available elsewhere under a different name, that can be deliberately misleading for consumers. Granted, companies have embellished stories about their products for years, like the fictional J. Peterman on the sitcom "Seinfeld." But they should never lie about their wares or the availability or exclusivity of them. Lying rarely builds trust with a prospective customer.

Given the prevalence of online scams, consumers would be wise to have a healthy skepticism of anything offered online that appears too good or too cheap to be true.

If a seller on Facebook claims to be shutting down a decades-old business, it’s worth checking to see how long ago its Facebook page was created. If reviews for products on sites other than Facebook don’t seem available, that too can be a sign that something fishy is up. If the reviews are all glowing and pretty much the same, be suspect.

It’s also possible to check websites like Trustpilot.com and look up a company’s name to see if there are reviews available. Consumers can also try to go to the merchandiser’s actual website. If one doesn’t exist, red flag alert. If one exists but there’s no physical address given and no phone number provided, another red flag.

If it seems like a photo of an “exclusive” product shows up from more than one company, it’s simple enough to do a reverse image lookup on Google to see where else the same item appears. It’s also simple enough to search for the company’s name along with the word “scam” on a search engine to see if others have reported on the company’s legitimacy.

If you find something you truly like online that is offered elsewhere, you don’t have to rule out purchasing it. But the right thing is to be careful when doing so and do as much due diligence on a company before you hand over your credit card information.

Again, it’s OK if many companies sell the same item at various prices. If they are misleading about who they are, that’s when it’s worth asking if they might be misleading you about other aspects of their business, such as quality and customer service.

Sunday, April 19, 2026

Are you just paying for service, or for attention too?

When you pay for a personal service, are you only buying the result? Or are you also buying attention from the provider while it’s happening?

A reader from California, whom I’m calling J.J., believes the answer is obvious. If someone is cutting your hair, treating an injury or doing your nails, they should focus on you, not chatting with coworkers.

Is it wrong, J.J. asked in an email, to feel that not focusing on the customer is rude and unprofessional?

J.J. does have a point. In such personal services where human physical contact is essential, you are paying for competent, safe and professional service. That should include enough attention to do the job well and respond to your needs. If distractions affect the provider’s work, that’s not acceptable.

We should not, however, expect that our providers will engage in lively conversation. Some clients want chatter while others crave silence. A good service provider often will try to gauge a client’s preference. They might even ask. But just because they don’t engage in conversation while doing good work doesn’t violate any rules.

Chatting nonstop with a coworker, however, rather than paying attention to a client may send a message to the client that you’re not paying attention to him or her or them, even if the provider does an OK job. When someone has a scissors or a straight razor working in the vicinity of your head, it’s fair to expect their undivided attention. A quick exchange with a co-worker is OK. Engaging in a heated discussion as if the client is invisible goes too far.

If J.J. wants more engagement, he should say so. If he prefers to be told about the work the provider is doing, it’s OK and good for him to indicate such. If he prefers quiet, it’s OK for him to tell the provider that. He should not, however, expect the provider to read his mind.

A provider should not be expected to entertain his or her clients, but they should be expected to acknowledge the person in their chair. Some eye contact, occasional check-ins, or a brief explanation of the work being done might show respect without slowing down the work.

In the end, you’re paying for a service. But you’re also paying to be treated like you matter—at least a little—while it’s happening. That doesn’t require constant conversation, but it does require some awareness.

Ultimately, clients such as J.J. have a right to choose service providers based on whether the service they receive is the type of service they want. If someone gets a great haircut but can’t stand how he’s treated while in the barber’s chair, he’s unlikely to return. Some clients stay loyal to a barber or a therapist for years based on the quality of service. Some move on after a single visit because of how off-putting they found it.

Finding someone who provides a comfortable level of attention can build loyalty and trust. Total absence of attention is unlikely to do either. It’s fair to judge a service, particularly a hands-on type of service, on more than just results.

The right thing is to tell your service provider what you want. If he or she can’t deliver, then find someone who can.

Sunday, April 12, 2026

How much nonprofit follow-up is too much?

Is it wrong for not-for-profit organizations to send volumes of follow-up mail and overwhelm inboxes with messages after a donor has given their first donation?

That question comes from a reader we’re calling Sheila who recently made a cash donation to a group she admired and soon found her mailbox and inbox flooded with follow-up solicitations.

My first response to Sheila’s question was: What did you expect?

Nonprofits want your money. That’s not a character flaw. It’s their operating model. If someone gives once, it’s not surprising for the organization to ask again.

At first glance, Sheila’s concern seemed a nonissue. A donor gives. A nonprofit asks for more. End of story.

Then I thought more about what happened to Sheila. Within minutes of her donation, her inbox alerted her with a thank you. Appropriate. Then came a message suggesting she could make even more of a difference with a second gift. By nightfall, she’d received a survey, a newsletter she hadn’t known she’d subscribed to, and an invitation to join a circle of larger, more consistent donors.

By week’s end, Sheila wasn’t feeling appreciated. She was feeling pestered.

The issue isn’t whether nonprofits should follow up. They should. Donors are their lifeblood, and building relationships is appropriate. A thank you, updates on how contributions are used, and occasional appeals all make sense.

But when does “follow-up” become “flood”?

Organizations rely on data that encourages more outreach, not less. If repeat donors are more valuable, and engagement increases retention, the temptation is to communicate frequently. It’s easy to send a stream of messages without asking how it feels on the receiving end.

That’s when the question of how much is too much arises.

A single donation is not the same as consent to ongoing, high-volume solicitation. Yet many organizations act as if it were. The line between stewardship and saturation gets blurred, and donors who intended to support a cause find themselves managing an unexpected relationship with their inbox.

Organizations might start by asking themselves if they would be up front with prospective donors about their communications practices, including their email habits. Would they really want to tell a donor that they will be in touch every day or so whether the donor likes it or not? If not, nonprofits may want to reexamine the frequency of their solicitations.

Beyond being thoughtful to donors, nonprofits should recognize that donors who feel overwhelmed may unsubscribe, disengage or decide their initial act of generosity has come with too many strings attached. In trying too aggressively to secure a second gift, organizations risk losing the donor altogether.

My initial instinct reaction may have been to shrug off Sheila’s question as the natural order of fundraising, but I’ve come to appreciate her concern The right thing isn’t for nonprofits to stop communicating, but they should do so by being clear with donors how they will communicate and then do so with moderation.

Tell donors what they can expect. Give them choices about how often they receive solicitations. Nonprofits may be wise to resist treating every act of generosity as an invitation to inundate a donor’s inbox.

Sheila still supports the organization. But she also has unsubscribed to their emails that simply took up too much of her inbox and her day.

Nonprofits depend on donors. Donors like Sheila depend on nonprofits to know when enough is enough.