5 ms·

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 …

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.
    - beobab 9y ago
      "Retention isn't part of HR's role" Really? I've always seen HR as a sort of "union for un-unionised employees". They help you get stuff out of the business, and help the business get the most out of you. Perhaps I've only encountered the good kind of HR.
      - moomin 9y ago
        Take it from someone whose partner works in HR: they are not your friend. They may be nice people, they may try to help, but their _job_ is to protect the company's interests. Each time you talk to them about conflict, you're taking a bet your interests and theirs align. In other news, for a bunch of smart people, engineers are spectacularly underunionized.
        izacus 9y ago
        Well yes, but companys interest in this case is not to have a PR fail at their hands.
        Angostura 9y ago
        They are however, definitely interested in retention. They have a keen understanding of the total cost of finding and onboarding a new employee. If a particular executive is putting that in jeopardy then a good HR department will take note.
        toyg 9y ago
        > They have a keen understanding of the total cost of finding and onboarding a new employee. Because they will be involved in recruiting, they will also have a keen understanding of how much that increases their workload, which is otherwise pretty flimsy in a lot of cases. The more churn, the more they can justify their headcount.
        moomin 9y ago
        They definitely are, but in a circumstance like this the most _urgent_ problem they've got is a bunch of ex-employees with a legal action brewing. Implicitly admitting liability without a quid-pro-quo isn't going to happen. Which isn't to say HR won't want him gone. Just not yet.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Catastrophe? I doubt it will make even a dent in Salesforce's profits or that anybody of their clients will even blink about it. As for their PR, that's paid for (and customers might even like the drastic action). Except if you mean PR to prospective security hacker hires.
  - _ph_ 9y ago
    Having a major disruption in your security department can mean an upcoming disaster for a company offering cloud based services. From what this sounds, they not only got rid of 2 very competent employees, the manager doesn't seem to have acted especially brilliant, and they might have discouraged competent security people from applying at the company. What could possibly go wrong with this?
whipoodle 9y ago
Oh, gotcha. Thanks.

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.
  - beobab 9y ago
    "Retention isn't part of HR's role" Really? I've always seen HR as a sort of "union for un-unionised employees". They help you get stuff out of the business, and help the business get the most out of you. Perhaps I've only encountered the good kind of HR.
    - moomin 9y ago
      Take it from someone whose partner works in HR: they are not your friend. They may be nice people, they may try to help, but their _job_ is to protect the company's interests. Each time you talk to them about conflict, you're taking a bet your interests and theirs align. In other news, for a bunch of smart people, engineers are spectacularly underunionized.
      - izacus 9y ago
        Well yes, but companys interest in this case is not to have a PR fail at their hands.
      - Angostura 9y ago
        They are however, definitely interested in retention. They have a keen understanding of the total cost of finding and onboarding a new employee. If a particular executive is putting that in jeopardy then a good HR department will take note.
        toyg 9y ago
        > They have a keen understanding of the total cost of finding and onboarding a new employee. Because they will be involved in recruiting, they will also have a keen understanding of how much that increases their workload, which is otherwise pretty flimsy in a lot of cases. The more churn, the more they can justify their headcount.
        moomin 9y ago
        They definitely are, but in a circumstance like this the most _urgent_ problem they've got is a bunch of ex-employees with a legal action brewing. Implicitly admitting liability without a quid-pro-quo isn't going to happen. Which isn't to say HR won't want him gone. Just not yet.
coldtea 9y ago
Catastrophe? I doubt it will make even a dent in Salesforce's profits or that anybody of their clients will even blink about it. As for their PR, that's paid for (and customers might even like the drastic action). Except if you mean PR to prospective security hacker hires.
- _ph_ 9y ago
  Having a major disruption in your security department can mean an upcoming disaster for a company offering cloud based services. From what this sounds, they not only got rid of 2 very competent employees, the manager doesn't seem to have acted especially brilliant, and they might have discouraged competent security people from applying at the company. What could possibly go wrong with this?

whipoodle 9y ago

Oh, gotcha. Thanks.