4 ms·

"I often thought they and the team would be much better off if they found work somewhere else where either they'd feel challenged to develop themselves further,

"I often thought they and the team would be much better off if they found work somewhere else where either they'd feel challenged to develop themselves further, or where their current skills were good enough." This echoes one of the chapters in Fire Someone Today, a book with a seemingly heartless title, written by the CEO of a Bible software company. They had an underperforming employee that everyone liked & no-one wanted to fire, so they moved him through different roles to find something that suited him. After moving him through the entire company with negative results, they finally conceded they had to fire him. The punch line: the employee flourished as soon as he was fired - his dream had been to join the ministry, but he'd worried about quitting a stable job to do so. The rest of the book is pretty good, about 20 anecdotes from running a software business. https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Someone-Today-Surprising-Business/dp/0785212620/ https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Someone-Today-Surprising-Busines...

potatolicious 10y ago
> "The punch line: the employee flourished as soon as he was fired - his dream had been to join the ministry, but he'd worried about quitting a stable job to do so." I'm generally in favor of firing underperforming employees, but this punchline feels uncomfortably close to ex post facto justification. Lots and lots and lots of people get fired and don't flourish, in fact they drop like a brick and hit rock bottom. While everything turned out for the best this time, I worry about the lesson being imparted here.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>Lots and lots and lots of people get fired and don't flourish, in fact they drop like a brick and hit rock bottom. Sure, but speaking from the perspective of the company and everyone else in it, it's better if those low-performers hit rock bottom outside the company, rather than hit rock bottom while employed and bring the rest of the company down.
  - outworlder 10y ago
    Usually, unless the company is really small, they won't drag it down. Unless they are CEOs, which are seldom fired. And get golden parachutes even when they do get fired.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      I disagree. Low-performers can make mistakes and cause a lot of damage, which then has to be cleaned up by someone. They are also bad for morale all around, especially if you have a team of high-performers.
    - ci5er 10y ago
      I've kept people on because they were going through a rough patch and I felt squeemish about kicking them when everything else was going wrong. Bad stuff happens to good people and I didn't want to make it worse. But it hurt group morale on every team they were shuffled to. Hard working teams quietly build up resentment against dead weight. In retrospect, I would have been better off getting the board's permission to institute 6~12 month severances for company initiated terminations instead of the 3 month one that we had. Or done an extended paid leave - or something. I think the reason I didn't (I don't even remember at this point) was one of my early employees - a star performer by every measure - said something like: "Hey! Why would you be paying them 12 months salary for being a loser?" (Not that he was incompassionate - he wasn't - but making the point the way that anyone from the Bronx might make that point.) I don't think I ever figured out what to do with that other than deciding that being the boss sucked and I never wanted to do it again.
      - brokenmachine 10y ago
        The reason being a boss sucked is because you are an empathetic person. Typical sociopathic management types have a "kill or be killed" mentality, and would not think twice about getting rid of people going through a "rough patch". Not saying that keeping dead wood on is good for anyone either, just that most management wouldn't put the feelings of an employee even in the same ballpark as the interests of the company. If it makes you feel any better, I'd rather work for you!
- hnal943 10y ago
  ...Really? Hitting rock bottom to me implies they lose everything. I don't think the majority of people that are fired lose everything; there's a reason they were hired in the first place and other companies can see that value. They will get hired by another company and have a chance to apply their experience in new ways. My father was fired after 26 years and it was the best thing that could have happened to his career. He wasn't happy with the management changes at his job and ultimately he was forced to look for work where he fit with the culture better.

potatolicious 10y ago

> "The punch line: the employee flourished as soon as he was fired - his dream had been to join the ministry, but he'd worried about quitting a stable job to do so." I'm generally in favor of firing underperforming employees, but this punchline feels uncomfortably close to ex post facto justification. Lots and lots and lots of people get fired and don't flourish, in fact they drop like a brick and hit rock bottom. While everything turned out for the best this time, I worry about the lesson being imparted here.

enraged_camel 10y ago
>>Lots and lots and lots of people get fired and don't flourish, in fact they drop like a brick and hit rock bottom. Sure, but speaking from the perspective of the company and everyone else in it, it's better if those low-performers hit rock bottom outside the company, rather than hit rock bottom while employed and bring the rest of the company down.
- outworlder 10y ago
  Usually, unless the company is really small, they won't drag it down. Unless they are CEOs, which are seldom fired. And get golden parachutes even when they do get fired.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    I disagree. Low-performers can make mistakes and cause a lot of damage, which then has to be cleaned up by someone. They are also bad for morale all around, especially if you have a team of high-performers.
  - ci5er 10y ago
    I've kept people on because they were going through a rough patch and I felt squeemish about kicking them when everything else was going wrong. Bad stuff happens to good people and I didn't want to make it worse. But it hurt group morale on every team they were shuffled to. Hard working teams quietly build up resentment against dead weight. In retrospect, I would have been better off getting the board's permission to institute 6~12 month severances for company initiated terminations instead of the 3 month one that we had. Or done an extended paid leave - or something. I think the reason I didn't (I don't even remember at this point) was one of my early employees - a star performer by every measure - said something like: "Hey! Why would you be paying them 12 months salary for being a loser?" (Not that he was incompassionate - he wasn't - but making the point the way that anyone from the Bronx might make that point.) I don't think I ever figured out what to do with that other than deciding that being the boss sucked and I never wanted to do it again.
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      The reason being a boss sucked is because you are an empathetic person. Typical sociopathic management types have a "kill or be killed" mentality, and would not think twice about getting rid of people going through a "rough patch". Not saying that keeping dead wood on is good for anyone either, just that most management wouldn't put the feelings of an employee even in the same ballpark as the interests of the company. If it makes you feel any better, I'd rather work for you!
hnal943 10y ago
...Really? Hitting rock bottom to me implies they lose everything. I don't think the majority of people that are fired lose everything; there's a reason they were hired in the first place and other companies can see that value. They will get hired by another company and have a chance to apply their experience in new ways. My father was fired after 26 years and it was the best thing that could have happened to his career. He wasn't happy with the management changes at his job and ultimately he was forced to look for work where he fit with the culture better.