4 ms·
I'm reading between the lines a lot, and therefore am probably wrong, but I suspect what happened was one of the two following scenarios: 1. (Less likely) She
by eqdw 9y ago
I'm reading between the lines a lot, and therefore am probably wrong, but I suspect what happened was one of the two following scenarios:
1. (Less likely) She did a lot of work, but it was not high priority work. It was good engineering but on things that the company did not consider important. She was given this freedom and then, in the company's eyes (fairly or unfairly) considered to have wasted it.
2. (More likely) She had good technical skills and bad social skills. When she was able to go heads-down and crank out PRs and tickets, everyone was happy, but she was socially abrasive and alienated her coworkers. This could be because she is an unpleasant person, or because they are unpleasant people, or it could be an honest misunderstanding or personality conflict, but in every case it detracts from the productivity of everyone, generally.
I suspect (2) played a big part, mostly because I've seen this same dynamic play out at other places before. As a borderline autist, I'm highly sympathetic to people in that position, and generally believe that it's better for everyone involved if management can find a way to work to their strengths. However, drastic differences in interaction style are what they are, and at the end of the day, your employer's priority is their productivity, not your happiness. Sometimes these things happen. They suck. At least we're fortunate enough to work in an industry where we have half a dozen other options for work at any time
- pyre 9y ago> This could be because she is an unpleasant person, or because they are > unpleasant people, or it could be an honest misunderstanding or personality > conflict, but in every case it detracts from the productivity of everyone, > generally. This could also become a "Tyranny of the Majority" type situation though. If all of the other people are unpleasant, and they are being unpleasant because the new hire is a minority, then the company's easiest course of action (i.e. fire the one person rather than fire the many) becomes oppressive and enabling. I'm not saying that it's necessarily the case here, but the behaviour of "well let's just fire this one person, no matter who was in the wrong" is only good from a "anything for the company's bottomline" perspective.
- eqdw 9y agoThis is a good point, and one I didn't consider. But > I'm not saying that it's necessarily the case here, but the behaviour of "well let's just fire this one person, no matter who was in the wrong" is only good from a "anything for the company's bottomline" perspective. Regardless of one's opinions on ethics, this is the attitude your employer _will_ take and it will _never_ change unless they are forced to do so. Tech companies are the shepherds of billions of dollars worth of assets, and they are going to protect those assets over you, when push comes to shove. Consequently, it is important to always keep this in mind, to expect it, and to proceed accordingly. Ignoring this doesn't make it untrue
- erikpukinskis 9y agoNo, not all companies put their bottom line above their principles. In fact, some people coming consider it an inalienable part of their masculinity, personality, religion, etc, that they will put their principles above their checkbook. In fact, some people start companies specifically because they want to put their principles above their paycheck.