4 ms·

Note that tech, and especially the tech examined on Hacker News, is an outlier in American business. If this were Civil Engineer News or Actuary News, you'd see

Note that tech, and especially the tech examined on Hacker News, is an outlier in American business. If this were Civil Engineer News or Actuary News, you'd see a very different attitude toward hiring and firing. Startups are quick to hire and fire because hiring exactly the right person is important, and hiring the wrong person can cripple the company. Everyone who applies for a position at a startup knows how this works, and I'd argue that if you aren't okay with this atmosphere, you need to avoid the startup scene and go work for a big company with some decent HR policies. The bullshit shows up when a startup succeeds, and the company tries to preserve its startup culture because they want to keep growing like a startup. You then get BigCo politics with startup arbitrariness, and that's a recipe for disaster. Similarly, sometimes the Good Idea Fairy whispers in the ear of a high-up executive, and he tries to institute startup attitudes toward hiring and firing at a BigCo. This also goes poorly.

halbritt 8y ago
Another characteristic of tech is that it is comprised of very, very many people that effectively have no idea how to accomplish the task they were hired to do. For example, a civil engineer would need to have a degree in their field and then pass a series of stringent examinations to get an FE and finally a PE. Most will require a PE to practice their trade. In tech an "engineer" may or may not have a degree and there may be certifications, but very few that I know of have ever provided any value. In my experience, there's also not as strong a correlation between a degree in CS for example and one's ability to produce software. Lots of folks in tech come out of Enterprise IT where projects usually fail and the modus operandi is to purchase technology from vendors and blame them when it doesn't work out.
- Aeolun 8y ago
  Projects do not fail. They get cancelled before they are finished, because they are not meeting expectations. This is just a different form of success, since you identified that the project was failing before you wasted any money on it. Or something like that anyway. The other big group of fail that I’d point to is bootcamp developers.
ck425 8y ago
Even then why is such culture legal? Over here you're legally required to let someone know they're under performing and give them a minimal time (I think 6 months in the UK?) to improve before you can fire them.
- omegaham 8y ago
  > Even then why is such culture legal? In general, Americans see this protection as none of the government's business. If the business wants to provide it, or unions want to demand it, that's fine, but it's not going to be applied as a blanket policy. Many businesses do apply some sort of lengthy process for firing people, for the simple reason that experienced talent is valuable and removing it capriciously is a terrible idea, but it's not required. In my experience, however, even these processes are just drawn-out kabuki dances. By the time that you've been formally notified that your performance is deficient, the decision has already been made to fire you and nothing will change their minds. --- As for whether this attitude is a good idea, I'm mixed. On the one hand, it allows businesses to take a risk and hire inexperienced or otherwise dubious prospects without fear that they'll be stuck paying a useless body for months after it's been found that they're a bad fit. On the other hand, it allows shitty managers to be thundering assholes and capriciously fuck with people's livelihoods. However, I'd assert that the American attitude toward employment is critical to startups. A BigCo can be indifferent to keeping a shitty employee around for months. A startup has much, much less margin for error.

halbritt 8y ago

Another characteristic of tech is that it is comprised of very, very many people that effectively have no idea how to accomplish the task they were hired to do. For example, a civil engineer would need to have a degree in their field and then pass a series of stringent examinations to get an FE and finally a PE. Most will require a PE to practice their trade. In tech an "engineer" may or may not have a degree and there may be certifications, but very few that I know of have ever provided any value. In my experience, there's also not as strong a correlation between a degree in CS for example and one's ability to produce software. Lots of folks in tech come out of Enterprise IT where projects usually fail and the modus operandi is to purchase technology from vendors and blame them when it doesn't work out.

Aeolun 8y ago
Projects do not fail. They get cancelled before they are finished, because they are not meeting expectations. This is just a different form of success, since you identified that the project was failing before you wasted any money on it. Or something like that anyway. The other big group of fail that I’d point to is bootcamp developers.

ck425 8y ago

Even then why is such culture legal? Over here you're legally required to let someone know they're under performing and give them a minimal time (I think 6 months in the UK?) to improve before you can fire them.

omegaham 8y ago
> Even then why is such culture legal? In general, Americans see this protection as none of the government's business. If the business wants to provide it, or unions want to demand it, that's fine, but it's not going to be applied as a blanket policy. Many businesses do apply some sort of lengthy process for firing people, for the simple reason that experienced talent is valuable and removing it capriciously is a terrible idea, but it's not required. In my experience, however, even these processes are just drawn-out kabuki dances. By the time that you've been formally notified that your performance is deficient, the decision has already been made to fire you and nothing will change their minds. --- As for whether this attitude is a good idea, I'm mixed. On the one hand, it allows businesses to take a risk and hire inexperienced or otherwise dubious prospects without fear that they'll be stuck paying a useless body for months after it's been found that they're a bad fit. On the other hand, it allows shitty managers to be thundering assholes and capriciously fuck with people's livelihoods. However, I'd assert that the American attitude toward employment is critical to startups. A BigCo can be indifferent to keeping a shitty employee around for months. A startup has much, much less margin for error.