7 ms·

Wait, what's the reason for that rule? Sounds interesting.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
spydum 9y ago
Executives who make hasty hot headed decisions are not the guys you want steering the ship, regardless of what the popular caricatures you see on TV.
bsder 9y ago
Well, in this case: 1) The PR backlash is going to be gigantic. 2) If you fire someone on the spot (I have), you'd better have a damn good reason (I did--repository sabotage) as the company is now going to have to pay money to defend/payoff this. 3) Suddenly firing important people disrupts daily business functions for weeks or months. 4) Unless you think they are going to actively sabotage something, you can wait until they get home to reprimand or fire people. All told, some manager is getting thrown under the bus for this.
- paulcole 9y ago
  > The PR backlash is going to be gigantic. The Google thing was gigantic. This is a blip.
  - fencepost 9y ago
    The Google thing is a medium splash in a big pond. This is a small splash, but arguably in a much smaller and more concentrated pond. Within the community of red teams and DEFCON regulars I wouldn't be surprised if this is much better known than the (now) ex Googler is within the more general tech community.
  - fl0wenol 9y ago
    What Google thing?
    - TOMDM 9y ago
      In the off chance you're not making a point/being funny, they're most likely referring to the diversity manifesto
      - fl0wenol 9y ago
        Sorry, I thought it was a vulnerability/technique impacting Google services that dropped at the convention. Now I get the connection was being made to widely reported staff behavior.
    - inopinatus 9y ago
      An internal memo with astonishingly poor typography was leaked. Since Google sell a word processor and are a font vendor this made them look bad. So he was fired. (I'm only half joking. People don't talk about how poor the layout of that document was, but it was my first and lasting impression)
      - lugg 9y ago
        Surely there is more context to that story. It's unbelievable that it was only the memo. And quite likely just the last straw. I can easily imagine someone that produces poor quality once publically probably did so many times privately and likely more of a symptom of underlying inadequacy than the actual reason for firing. But you know, headlines.. And yes, have no previous experience or knowledge about this so sorry if I'm armchairing a bit.
        VHRanger 9y ago
        No, it was just the memo. Larry Summers (a leading economist with often controversial opinions) got fired from his position as the president of harvard for effectively making the same point [1] except, you know, well argued unlike in the Google manifesto. If Larry Summers gets fired for that, a random engineer is definitely getting the boot. [1] http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber....
  - lawless123 9y ago
    >The Google thing was gigantic A dick got fired. No bggie
elgenie 9y ago
Firing someone on the spot in a public setting is either a drastic overreaction (and why that's fireable is obvious), or a response to a complete blindsiding … at a level at which the job is to not get blindsided.
- throwanem 9y ago
  Either way, it's a complete PR catastrophe, at a level at which the job is not to do those.
  - gboudrias 9y ago
    How does one even make this mistake? There seems to be nothing strategic about this...
    - morgante 9y ago
      People aren't fully strategic 100% of the time. When clouded by emotion, suboptimal decisions can look strategic. (Ex. establishing/asserting their authority.)
  - schwarrrtz 9y ago
    It's also a complete HR catastrophe. How could anyone feel comfortable in their position, knowing they could be fired at any moment, publicly and without warning? Terrorizing your employees is completely unacceptable as a manager. Edit: I guess I don't have much experience with HR at large companies - I use the term to refer to aspects of management related to maintaining employee wellbeing, workplace culture etc.
    - throwanem 9y ago
      HR doesn't care about that! Not unless it's actionable. Good way to lose your star contributors, sure, but past a certain basic point retention isn't really part of HR's role.
      - 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Executives who make hasty hot headed decisions are not the guys you want steering the ship, regardless of what the popular caricatures you see on TV.

bsder 9y ago

Well, in this case: 1) The PR backlash is going to be gigantic. 2) If you fire someone on the spot (I have), you'd better have a damn good reason (I did--repository sabotage) as the company is now going to have to pay money to defend/payoff this. 3) Suddenly firing important people disrupts daily business functions for weeks or months. 4) Unless you think they are going to actively sabotage something, you can wait until they get home to reprimand or fire people. All told, some manager is getting thrown under the bus for this.

paulcole 9y ago
> The PR backlash is going to be gigantic. The Google thing was gigantic. This is a blip.
- fencepost 9y ago
  The Google thing is a medium splash in a big pond. This is a small splash, but arguably in a much smaller and more concentrated pond. Within the community of red teams and DEFCON regulars I wouldn't be surprised if this is much better known than the (now) ex Googler is within the more general tech community.
- fl0wenol 9y ago
  What Google thing?
  - TOMDM 9y ago
    In the off chance you're not making a point/being funny, they're most likely referring to the diversity manifesto
    - fl0wenol 9y ago
      Sorry, I thought it was a vulnerability/technique impacting Google services that dropped at the convention. Now I get the connection was being made to widely reported staff behavior.
  - inopinatus 9y ago
    An internal memo with astonishingly poor typography was leaked. Since Google sell a word processor and are a font vendor this made them look bad. So he was fired. (I'm only half joking. People don't talk about how poor the layout of that document was, but it was my first and lasting impression)
    - lugg 9y ago
      Surely there is more context to that story. It's unbelievable that it was only the memo. And quite likely just the last straw. I can easily imagine someone that produces poor quality once publically probably did so many times privately and likely more of a symptom of underlying inadequacy than the actual reason for firing. But you know, headlines.. And yes, have no previous experience or knowledge about this so sorry if I'm armchairing a bit.
      - VHRanger 9y ago
        No, it was just the memo. Larry Summers (a leading economist with often controversial opinions) got fired from his position as the president of harvard for effectively making the same point [1] except, you know, well argued unlike in the Google manifesto. If Larry Summers gets fired for that, a random engineer is definitely getting the boot. [1] http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php http://www.harvard.edu/president/speeches/summers_2005/nber....
- lawless123 9y ago
  >The Google thing was gigantic A dick got fired. No bggie

elgenie 9y ago

Firing someone on the spot in a public setting is either a drastic overreaction (and why that's fireable is obvious), or a response to a complete blindsiding … at a level at which the job is to not get blindsided.

throwanem 9y ago
Either way, it's a complete PR catastrophe, at a level at which the job is not to do those.
- gboudrias 9y ago
  How does one even make this mistake? There seems to be nothing strategic about this...
  - morgante 9y ago
    People aren't fully strategic 100% of the time. When clouded by emotion, suboptimal decisions can look strategic. (Ex. establishing/asserting their authority.)
- schwarrrtz 9y ago
  It's also a complete HR catastrophe. How could anyone feel comfortable in their position, knowing they could be fired at any moment, publicly and without warning? Terrorizing your employees is completely unacceptable as a manager. Edit: I guess I don't have much experience with HR at large companies - I use the term to refer to aspects of management related to maintaining employee wellbeing, workplace culture etc.
  - throwanem 9y ago
    HR doesn't care about that! Not unless it's actionable. Good way to lose your star contributors, sure, but past a certain basic point retention isn't really part of HR's role.
    - 9y ago