3 ms·

Personally I actually wish more liberal use would be made of this strategy. I've worked at a lot of companies where obstructionist employees are kept in their s

Personally I actually wish more liberal use would be made of this strategy. I've worked at a lot of companies where obstructionist employees are kept in their slots due to management's concern over the personal fallout (both for their relationship with the employee and for the employee's relationships with others). It's none of my business whether they stay on payroll or not, and I don't mind at all if they do if that's what management desires, I just want them put in a sandbox where they can't do damage anymore. Scoot them over to R&D, give them a title with a nice ring to it, heck, even give them a pay raise, but just keep them out of the way.

jsprogrammer 10y ago
I believe Amazon compensates with equity, so, if you were a co-worker of his, it would be your business if he stayed on payroll.
- 0xCMP 10y ago
  I think he means it still wouldn't matter to him because someone like the guy interviewed would have obviously already contributed/was there early/etc.
gtirloni 10y ago
That's an awful way to burn someone. Better to fire this person or really put an effort to find a better position that he/she really wants.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  It doesn't seem like more of a burn than leaving them in a position where they are regularly breaking things. Refusing to either move them into a position where they are more effective (read: less damaging) or provide the necessary training is worse than making up a new sidelined position -- it shows paralysis, inaction, and it's compounded by the negative effect such an employee has on his peers and subordinates (if he has any subordinates). Inaction on that matter can be crippling and reflects cowardice at the top. The moved person cannot be compelled to accept the position if they don't like it. Move them out of the way, or if they insist, fire them (and this has happened to me -- I wasn't upset that they were trying to sideline me as much as I was that they were not straightforward enough for me to understand the nature of our disagreement until after the arrangement had already fallen apart (for the record, I didn't accept the sideline position)). Most likely the employee would accept the new position and start to look for employment external to the company if he/she was displeased with it.
- hibikir 10y ago
  We are talking startups: Your typical early employee that didn't grow past mid level dev is out of position by year four. Even though their options are vested, chances are that can't afford to exercise them, and will be worth zero if they quit. Therefore, firing those kind of people as a matter of course is probably not what they want. You joined early for the great equity (a bad idea in the first place). Imagine how bad it would be if you risked getting fired if you don't grow into a good architect!

jsprogrammer 10y ago

I believe Amazon compensates with equity, so, if you were a co-worker of his, it would be your business if he stayed on payroll.

0xCMP 10y ago
I think he means it still wouldn't matter to him because someone like the guy interviewed would have obviously already contributed/was there early/etc.

gtirloni 10y ago

That's an awful way to burn someone. Better to fire this person or really put an effort to find a better position that he/she really wants.

cookiecaper 10y ago
It doesn't seem like more of a burn than leaving them in a position where they are regularly breaking things. Refusing to either move them into a position where they are more effective (read: less damaging) or provide the necessary training is worse than making up a new sidelined position -- it shows paralysis, inaction, and it's compounded by the negative effect such an employee has on his peers and subordinates (if he has any subordinates). Inaction on that matter can be crippling and reflects cowardice at the top. The moved person cannot be compelled to accept the position if they don't like it. Move them out of the way, or if they insist, fire them (and this has happened to me -- I wasn't upset that they were trying to sideline me as much as I was that they were not straightforward enough for me to understand the nature of our disagreement until after the arrangement had already fallen apart (for the record, I didn't accept the sideline position)). Most likely the employee would accept the new position and start to look for employment external to the company if he/she was displeased with it.
hibikir 10y ago
We are talking startups: Your typical early employee that didn't grow past mid level dev is out of position by year four. Even though their options are vested, chances are that can't afford to exercise them, and will be worth zero if they quit. Therefore, firing those kind of people as a matter of course is probably not what they want. You joined early for the great equity (a bad idea in the first place). Imagine how bad it would be if you risked getting fired if you don't grow into a good architect!