5 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoIf 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 agoI 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 agoFraming 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 agoHave 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.