4 ms·

> I don't think that profile is unusual for senior people in our industry. This doesn't make much sense from a numbers perspective. If entrepreneurs and manage

> I don't think that profile is unusual for senior people in our industry. This doesn't make much sense from a numbers perspective. If entrepreneurs and managers manage more than one person then at the very least there should be double the amount of engineers then there are leaders, meaning at best your statements apply to only a third of all software employees if managers all manage 2 people. Usually this isn't the case. Managers manage up to 5 people so your statements apply to on average 1/6th of all employees. >As such I'm likely to look at solving problems from all sides and negotiating with a union to "prove" that I need to lay people off sounds extremely troubling from an operational and efficiency standpoint. The efficiency standpoint is equivalent to the corporate standpoint. There's an additional standpoint you failed to consider. The moral standpoint. A 47 year old father of 3 kids depends on his job as an engineer to support his kids then you come along and fire him to replace him with a kid fresh out of stanford because this kid knows reactjs and will code 12 hour days for half pay. There is no question, the scenario above is more efficient but it is also ethically wrong. Managers need to take steps to help the employee improve and managers should have their power limited so they cannot fire a father of three just because they don't get along or the kid straight out of stanford is his cousin. Engineers make up the majority and backbone of a company they are not sheep for you to herd, hire and slaughter based off of operational efficiency. >As a high performing IC I'm never at risk of being laid off unless the company really is in existential danger. Good for you. I admire managers who care about the people they employ over managers who are efficient. The best managers are the ones who take underperformers and make them great.

malvosenior 7y ago
Honestly this is a pretty naive view of management. The moral solution is to do what's best for the team. It's also not ethical to keep someone due to their demographics. If someone is performing well, you keep them if you can afford them (and reward them well!). If they're not doing good, you let them go. That's the same if the employee is 21 or 51. Game theory plays a huge role in successful operations. Even from a ethical perspective, it's bad to make everyone suffer (or lose their jobs) just to save one poorly performing person. > The best managers are the ones who take underperformers and make them great. In my experience (successfully managing a large amount of people) you can't really turn around underperformers in most cases and expending the energy to do so is harmful to the rest of the team. You should focus on your best employees and let the underperformers go asap. As an IC I also appreciate this strategy as I strive to be a top performer.
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  >Honestly this is a pretty naive view of management. The moral solution is to do what's best for the team. It's also not ethical to keep someone due to their demographics. Not saying use their demographics as a metric to keep them. I'm using that as an empathetic example of the potential damage you are inflicting when you let someone go. Obviously that blew right over your head as if you're some psychopathic robot. >Game theory plays a huge role in successful operations. Even from a ethical perspective, it's bad to make everyone suffer (or lose their jobs) just to save one poorly performing person. Who the heck calls management a process out of game theory? Sure let one person go to save others but this is not the case I'm talking about nor was it the case you were talking about previously. We were talking about efficiency. Letting someone go for efficiency reasons without giving him a chance to improve is not ethical at all. You should note that people of your rank often don't play fair. They let people go if they perceive a threat to their rank or if they have personal problems with an employee. Measures must be put in place to protect employee livelihood from gross misuse of power. Additionally in most cases keeping an underperformer does not actually harm the team. they're salaries don't change whether you fire or keep the underperformer. The only thing that changes is your budget. Of course as I said before if your company is doing so poorly that you have to lay people off, do it, but until then they all deserve a shot at improvement. > As an IC I also appreciate this strategy as I strive to be a top performer. Your language displays a severe lack of empathy. "As an IC." As a top performing software engineer, I would never ever want to work for someone with your attitude. One day you'll eat your own medicine.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    This is an overly rude and personal reply, but I'll respond anyway. Efficiency is important to the survival of a company. You're not taking an organizational view of the situation. If you're inefficient, your competitors will eat your lunch and the whole company will be looking for new jobs. It happens all the time. You have to run the organization in the most efficient state that you can. It's the only ethical thing to do (it's also your job description as a manager). > Additionally in most cases keeping an underperformer does not actually harm the team. they're salaries don't change whether you fire or keep the underperformer. The only thing that changes is your budget. You're grossly underestimating the cost of keeping someone who's not very productive employed. People get paid out of that budget, it's not for the manager to pocket themselves. If I can repurpose that salary to someone who works hard and performs well I'll do it every time because it's what's fair to that individual, the rest of the team and the company at large. > One day you'll eat your own medicine. The key to success is understanding the real mechanics behind business. It's not personal, it's just the reality of living in a world with limited resources and competition.

malvosenior 7y ago

Honestly this is a pretty naive view of management. The moral solution is to do what's best for the team. It's also not ethical to keep someone due to their demographics. If someone is performing well, you keep them if you can afford them (and reward them well!). If they're not doing good, you let them go. That's the same if the employee is 21 or 51. Game theory plays a huge role in successful operations. Even from a ethical perspective, it's bad to make everyone suffer (or lose their jobs) just to save one poorly performing person. > The best managers are the ones who take underperformers and make them great. In my experience (successfully managing a large amount of people) you can't really turn around underperformers in most cases and expending the energy to do so is harmful to the rest of the team. You should focus on your best employees and let the underperformers go asap. As an IC I also appreciate this strategy as I strive to be a top performer.

crimsonalucard 7y ago
>Honestly this is a pretty naive view of management. The moral solution is to do what's best for the team. It's also not ethical to keep someone due to their demographics. Not saying use their demographics as a metric to keep them. I'm using that as an empathetic example of the potential damage you are inflicting when you let someone go. Obviously that blew right over your head as if you're some psychopathic robot. >Game theory plays a huge role in successful operations. Even from a ethical perspective, it's bad to make everyone suffer (or lose their jobs) just to save one poorly performing person. Who the heck calls management a process out of game theory? Sure let one person go to save others but this is not the case I'm talking about nor was it the case you were talking about previously. We were talking about efficiency. Letting someone go for efficiency reasons without giving him a chance to improve is not ethical at all. You should note that people of your rank often don't play fair. They let people go if they perceive a threat to their rank or if they have personal problems with an employee. Measures must be put in place to protect employee livelihood from gross misuse of power. Additionally in most cases keeping an underperformer does not actually harm the team. they're salaries don't change whether you fire or keep the underperformer. The only thing that changes is your budget. Of course as I said before if your company is doing so poorly that you have to lay people off, do it, but until then they all deserve a shot at improvement. > As an IC I also appreciate this strategy as I strive to be a top performer. Your language displays a severe lack of empathy. "As an IC." As a top performing software engineer, I would never ever want to work for someone with your attitude. One day you'll eat your own medicine.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  This is an overly rude and personal reply, but I'll respond anyway. Efficiency is important to the survival of a company. You're not taking an organizational view of the situation. If you're inefficient, your competitors will eat your lunch and the whole company will be looking for new jobs. It happens all the time. You have to run the organization in the most efficient state that you can. It's the only ethical thing to do (it's also your job description as a manager). > Additionally in most cases keeping an underperformer does not actually harm the team. they're salaries don't change whether you fire or keep the underperformer. The only thing that changes is your budget. You're grossly underestimating the cost of keeping someone who's not very productive employed. People get paid out of that budget, it's not for the manager to pocket themselves. If I can repurpose that salary to someone who works hard and performs well I'll do it every time because it's what's fair to that individual, the rest of the team and the company at large. > One day you'll eat your own medicine. The key to success is understanding the real mechanics behind business. It's not personal, it's just the reality of living in a world with limited resources and competition.