4 ms·

And what about what’s best for the person being fired? Or are they just a cog in the machine, unworthy of empathy or decent treatment?

malvosenior 8y ago
If someone can't perform the job, the only option is to let them go. As I said in my original post, it rarely happens because it's actually not that difficult to vet someone without forcing them to write tons of code. In order of importance a manager should put the company first, then team, then individual employees, then themselves. Poor performers hurt everyone on that list.
- itsdrewmiller 8y ago
  If you hire someone who is currently employed and then fire them, you are doing very real damage to their finances and career. Empathy for employees is a valid reason to err on the side of avoiding bad hires over easy in/easy out.
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    I disagree. By optimizing to protect poor performers, you jeopardize all employees. It's more important that the company succeed and that people who are good at their job get to work unencumbered.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      Framing the decision to fire someone as a trolley problem (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) doesn't make you look any less cold-blooded :)
      - malvosenior 8y ago
        Have you ever been a manager? Again, it's not being cold blooded, it's one of the main responsibilities of the job. Being a leader isn't easy and you often have to make tough decisions and sacrifice in the name of the team. This has been well known throughout the history of leadership.
mnm1 8y ago
You think people who can't perform on the job should be kept on so their feelings aren't hurt? Are you fucking kidding me? That's just bad management. No wonder people think the wrong hire can cost so much even in at-will employment states. It's terrible attitudes like this making it into management.
carimura 8y ago
It shouldn't be looked at that way and it's not black and white. Ideally they're treated like people, not cogs, and the manager and company does what it can to either get the person the skills they need to succeed, move them to a role they can succeed in, or give them a path out in a reasonable amount of time. Most of the time the under-performer will be happier after any of these scenarios than they would knowing they're under-performing in their current role. It just takes a bit of time and maturity to realize.

malvosenior 8y ago

If someone can't perform the job, the only option is to let them go. As I said in my original post, it rarely happens because it's actually not that difficult to vet someone without forcing them to write tons of code. In order of importance a manager should put the company first, then team, then individual employees, then themselves. Poor performers hurt everyone on that list.

itsdrewmiller 8y ago
If you hire someone who is currently employed and then fire them, you are doing very real damage to their finances and career. Empathy for employees is a valid reason to err on the side of avoiding bad hires over easy in/easy out.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  I disagree. By optimizing to protect poor performers, you jeopardize all employees. It's more important that the company succeed and that people who are good at their job get to work unencumbered.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    Framing the decision to fire someone as a trolley problem (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) doesn't make you look any less cold-blooded :)
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      Have you ever been a manager? Again, it's not being cold blooded, it's one of the main responsibilities of the job. Being a leader isn't easy and you often have to make tough decisions and sacrifice in the name of the team. This has been well known throughout the history of leadership.

mnm1 8y ago

You think people who can't perform on the job should be kept on so their feelings aren't hurt? Are you fucking kidding me? That's just bad management. No wonder people think the wrong hire can cost so much even in at-will employment states. It's terrible attitudes like this making it into management.

carimura 8y ago

It shouldn't be looked at that way and it's not black and white. Ideally they're treated like people, not cogs, and the manager and company does what it can to either get the person the skills they need to succeed, move them to a role they can succeed in, or give them a path out in a reasonable amount of time. Most of the time the under-performer will be happier after any of these scenarios than they would knowing they're under-performing in their current role. It just takes a bit of time and maturity to realize.