4 ms·

I hope there's more to it than that. Firing "really nice, hard-working people" is stupid. There are far better things to do with such people than firing them. A

by talmand 10y ago

I hope there's more to it than that. Firing "really nice, hard-working people" is stupid. There are far better things to do with such people than firing them. All that teaches people is to have no loyalty whatsoever to their company since the company's leader directly gives them a reason not to. All that leads to is "really nice, hard-working people" you would not fire jumping ship at the first sign of a slightly better deal, because why not?

mc32 10y ago
One thing that pops up is that it does not include the context of the other people in the organization and how they work as a whole. That's to say you may have it where the most efficient organization is made up of non individually optimum components rather than it being comprised of the most optimum individual components.
aianus 10y ago
> All that leads to is "really nice, hard-working people" you would not fire jumping ship at the first sign of a slightly better deal, because why not? If you combine this behavior with really high compensation for those you keep, you'll likely be the best deal. Most companies' compensation does not match their rhetoric about 'hiring the best' and will balk at the cost to poach from you. That and the fact that high-performers want to work with other high-performers so they wouldn't risk a crappier work environment without a big raise.
- asimuvPR 10y ago
  From experience: high performers tend to want to work alone. Most wise up and open their own company.
- talmand 10y ago
  A positive work environment and satisfaction is not just about compensation. Working with other high-performers is good, I agree, except the company policy is that high-performers can be shown the door at any moment due to various changes outside the control of that high-performer. That's not a good work environment.
  - aianus 10y ago
    That's a critique that may or may not apply to a given implementation of this idea. However, if the people being fired are treated with respect, severance, good references and if there's a general consensus amongst those remaining that the individuals were, in fact, low performers, I imagine there would be high morale.
    - talmand 10y ago
      If the definition of low performer is "really nice, hard-working people", then I suppose you have a point. But it would still suck to be hard-working and be let go because the company failed to provide you proper tasks to be considered a high performer. If you give a high performer nothing to do, or something outside their expertise, are they still a high performer?
amyjess 10y ago
I agree. While it's nice that they're honest about it, and I'm glad they also have a policy against hiring "brilliant jerks", it's still not a company I would ever work for. i'd rather get paid less and work at a place where I don't constantly have a sword hanging over my neck. I'd take job security over more pay in a heartbeat, and I'd rather work at a company where being "nice" and "hard-working" is more valuable than performance. It's a problem with the whole Silicon Valley culture; like, I'm not interested in doing something world-changing at my job, so I don't care about working at a big household name like "Netflix", and this whole culture is something that can only exist in SV -- your company wouldn't get far firing so many people in any other place -- and it's one of the reasons why I have no desire to ever set foot in NorCal. Honestly, the next time I end up looking for a job, I'm thinking about getting out of the private sector and doing government work, just to avoid this kind of scenario.

by talmand 10y ago

mc32 10y ago

One thing that pops up is that it does not include the context of the other people in the organization and how they work as a whole. That's to say you may have it where the most efficient organization is made up of non individually optimum components rather than it being comprised of the most optimum individual components.

aianus 10y ago

> All that leads to is "really nice, hard-working people" you would not fire jumping ship at the first sign of a slightly better deal, because why not? If you combine this behavior with really high compensation for those you keep, you'll likely be the best deal. Most companies' compensation does not match their rhetoric about 'hiring the best' and will balk at the cost to poach from you. That and the fact that high-performers want to work with other high-performers so they wouldn't risk a crappier work environment without a big raise.

asimuvPR 10y ago
From experience: high performers tend to want to work alone. Most wise up and open their own company.
talmand 10y ago
A positive work environment and satisfaction is not just about compensation. Working with other high-performers is good, I agree, except the company policy is that high-performers can be shown the door at any moment due to various changes outside the control of that high-performer. That's not a good work environment.
- aianus 10y ago
  That's a critique that may or may not apply to a given implementation of this idea. However, if the people being fired are treated with respect, severance, good references and if there's a general consensus amongst those remaining that the individuals were, in fact, low performers, I imagine there would be high morale.
  - talmand 10y ago
    If the definition of low performer is "really nice, hard-working people", then I suppose you have a point. But it would still suck to be hard-working and be let go because the company failed to provide you proper tasks to be considered a high performer. If you give a high performer nothing to do, or something outside their expertise, are they still a high performer?

amyjess 10y ago

I agree. While it's nice that they're honest about it, and I'm glad they also have a policy against hiring "brilliant jerks", it's still not a company I would ever work for. i'd rather get paid less and work at a place where I don't constantly have a sword hanging over my neck. I'd take job security over more pay in a heartbeat, and I'd rather work at a company where being "nice" and "hard-working" is more valuable than performance. It's a problem with the whole Silicon Valley culture; like, I'm not interested in doing something world-changing at my job, so I don't care about working at a big household name like "Netflix", and this whole culture is something that can only exist in SV -- your company wouldn't get far firing so many people in any other place -- and it's one of the reasons why I have no desire to ever set foot in NorCal. Honestly, the next time I end up looking for a job, I'm thinking about getting out of the private sector and doing government work, just to avoid this kind of scenario.