5 ms·

Do you have significant amount of control? Maybe I've been lucky to be part of mostly healthy organizations, but even managers have to justify/explain decision

by dudul 6y ago

Do you have significant amount of control? Maybe I've been lucky to be part of mostly healthy organizations, but even managers have to justify/explain decisions. Either be for termination, compensation adjustment, reassigning to a different team, etc. I always had to document and explain why I thought an employee deserved a raise, or should not get a bonus, etc. Even as a director with ~20 reports I don't have unlimited firing power and I still need to regroup with HR when it comes to that. Yes, of course you have some control, but it's not unchecked.

toyg 6y ago
You know that, but your underlings really don't. Yeah you can try telling them you're very constrained, but they'll think you're just passing the buck (which a lot of managers do, "it's out of my hands" etc etc). And I'm sure you can still influence things like who goes on holiday when, and stuff like that.
groby_b 6y ago
But your people don't see the checks in action. For all they know, you've passed those already. The main thing is, there is a power differential, and "firing" jokes are, at their core, saying "I have power over you". It's just not that funny. And for new managers who feel compelled to make them, "why does my power make me giddy" is a good introspective question to ask. No, that doesn't imply they are bad people. New power does things to everybody's mood. But asking the question helps remind yourself. (For an entire framework to keep that impulse in check, servant leadership works pretty well, IME)
rco8786 6y ago
Yea of course but the employee generally has no visibility into those processes, especially when it comes to job termination.
munchbunny 6y ago
I always had to document and explain why I thought an employee deserved a raise, or should not get a bonus, etc. Even as a director with ~20 reports I don't have unlimited firing power and I still need to regroup with HR when it comes to that. Having that system in place isn't enough. You need that system to have teeth, and you need to have someone with as much power as you who will review your decisions and play devil's advocate. In many teams I've seen with documentation and HR hurdles, they're not real hurdles, they're just there so that there's a paper trail at all. That's because: 1. Most people in the company including the manager's boss and possibly even most teammates of the employee don't see enough of the employee's work, so it's often the manager's word vs. employee's. A bad manager will exploit that, intentionally or unintentionally. 2. When in doubt, the management hierarchy tends to side with the manager on things, because they by default trust the manager more than the employee and their view of the facts of the situation usually comes from the manager. A bad manager will intentionally or unintentionally editorialize the facts on their way up the hierarchy. 3. HR tends to avoid making waves. The only time I've seen HR (excuse the metaphor) plant the flag on the hill they intend to die on, it's because the person being fired or managed out was a protected class of worker. I have never seen HR push back just because the manager had insufficient reasons or suspect reasoning. A bad manager will just shove decisions through HR, intentionally or unintentionally. In all of those places, there were systems in place where managers had to document those decisions, but there wasn't real accountability, so the systems were nominal at best.
- OJFord 6y ago
  What's a 'protected class of worker'? I'm aware of 'protected characteristics', but they cut both ways, not something you can be or not be.
  - munchbunny 6y ago
    "Characteristics" works too. I meant the categories that fall under employment description in general: https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/what-employment-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/what-employment-discrimination Specifically, I meant that when you're firing someone who falls into those categories, HR will often require you to document extra well why it's not employment discrimination, in case there's a lawsuit.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > What's a 'protected class of worker'? > I'm aware of 'protected characteristics', but they cut both ways, not something you can be or not be. The legal term of art is “protected class” and not all of them cut both ways (age over 40, disability, and veteran status are all one-sided protected classes.)
    - OJFord 6y ago
      Ok, well I suppose it should have been obvious this varies with jurisdiction. In mine, it is indeed 'characteristics', and it is 'age', not 'over 40'.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > HR tends to avoid making waves. The only time I've seen HR (excuse the metaphor) plant the flag on the hill they intend to die on, it's because the person being fired or managed out was a protected class of worker. I have never seen HR push back just because the manager had insufficient reasons or suspect reasoning. Second guessing management hiring/firing decisions that don't expose the company to unacceptable risk of liability for labor law violations generally isn't HR’s function.
wpietri 6y ago
You must work at a pretty healthy company. Because those checks also exist at unhealthy companies, but there managers just know how to work the system. E.g., I know somebody whose manager was pushed out for political reasons. Their first meeting with their new boss, the one who did the pushing, was a 90-minute series of accusations and critiques. In the second meeting, they were presented with a letter documenting the critiques and their poor response. Their third meeting was a no-notice, no-severance layoff and a security escort to the door. It turned out the people "laid off" were all the ones hired by the old boss, even though the company was hiring for the same roles at the same time. So the new boss was just cleaning house, making sure the people in key positions were loyal to him. But it was all documented and justified.
- BuckRogers 6y ago
  And that is why I want a union or professional organization. That level of nonsense needs a mechanism to resist with. How many lives and marriages, families suffered for political moves mostly for nothing by some lunatic.
  - pc86 6y ago
    I would rather live with the risk of a political firing than make it unnecessarily difficult to fire poor performers.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Is it possible you've been brainwashed? I've never worked at a job that was so important as to make firing so vital. Most corporations are littered with deadwood. If firing "poor performers" is of no importance, how could it be more important than my comfort at my job? In fact, pretty much the only jobs that remain unionized are the ones we all pretend are really extra super important, like police and teachers.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      Then maybe help unionize your workplace and advocate for that. Unions don't have to protect poor performers. They could just as well be stringent about them. I think a lot of the impression people have of unions is from places with really hostile labor/manager relationships. Under those conditions, it's easy to treat the workplace as a zero-sum battleground. But especially in tech, where we have a culture of shared gain and literal shared ownership, it's possible for workers to advocate for things like improved efficiency.

by dudul 6y ago

toyg 6y ago

You know that, but your underlings really don't. Yeah you can try telling them you're very constrained, but they'll think you're just passing the buck (which a lot of managers do, "it's out of my hands" etc etc). And I'm sure you can still influence things like who goes on holiday when, and stuff like that.

groby_b 6y ago

But your people don't see the checks in action. For all they know, you've passed those already. The main thing is, there is a power differential, and "firing" jokes are, at their core, saying "I have power over you". It's just not that funny. And for new managers who feel compelled to make them, "why does my power make me giddy" is a good introspective question to ask. No, that doesn't imply they are bad people. New power does things to everybody's mood. But asking the question helps remind yourself. (For an entire framework to keep that impulse in check, servant leadership works pretty well, IME)

rco8786 6y ago

Yea of course but the employee generally has no visibility into those processes, especially when it comes to job termination.

munchbunny 6y ago

I always had to document and explain why I thought an employee deserved a raise, or should not get a bonus, etc. Even as a director with ~20 reports I don't have unlimited firing power and I still need to regroup with HR when it comes to that. Having that system in place isn't enough. You need that system to have teeth, and you need to have someone with as much power as you who will review your decisions and play devil's advocate. In many teams I've seen with documentation and HR hurdles, they're not real hurdles, they're just there so that there's a paper trail at all. That's because: 1. Most people in the company including the manager's boss and possibly even most teammates of the employee don't see enough of the employee's work, so it's often the manager's word vs. employee's. A bad manager will exploit that, intentionally or unintentionally. 2. When in doubt, the management hierarchy tends to side with the manager on things, because they by default trust the manager more than the employee and their view of the facts of the situation usually comes from the manager. A bad manager will intentionally or unintentionally editorialize the facts on their way up the hierarchy. 3. HR tends to avoid making waves. The only time I've seen HR (excuse the metaphor) plant the flag on the hill they intend to die on, it's because the person being fired or managed out was a protected class of worker. I have never seen HR push back just because the manager had insufficient reasons or suspect reasoning. A bad manager will just shove decisions through HR, intentionally or unintentionally. In all of those places, there were systems in place where managers had to document those decisions, but there wasn't real accountability, so the systems were nominal at best.

OJFord 6y ago
What's a 'protected class of worker'? I'm aware of 'protected characteristics', but they cut both ways, not something you can be or not be.
- munchbunny 6y ago
  "Characteristics" works too. I meant the categories that fall under employment description in general: https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/what-employment-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/what-employment-discrimination Specifically, I meant that when you're firing someone who falls into those categories, HR will often require you to document extra well why it's not employment discrimination, in case there's a lawsuit.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > What's a 'protected class of worker'? > I'm aware of 'protected characteristics', but they cut both ways, not something you can be or not be. The legal term of art is “protected class” and not all of them cut both ways (age over 40, disability, and veteran status are all one-sided protected classes.)
  - OJFord 6y ago
    Ok, well I suppose it should have been obvious this varies with jurisdiction. In mine, it is indeed 'characteristics', and it is 'age', not 'over 40'.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> HR tends to avoid making waves. The only time I've seen HR (excuse the metaphor) plant the flag on the hill they intend to die on, it's because the person being fired or managed out was a protected class of worker. I have never seen HR push back just because the manager had insufficient reasons or suspect reasoning. Second guessing management hiring/firing decisions that don't expose the company to unacceptable risk of liability for labor law violations generally isn't HR’s function.

wpietri 6y ago

You must work at a pretty healthy company. Because those checks also exist at unhealthy companies, but there managers just know how to work the system. E.g., I know somebody whose manager was pushed out for political reasons. Their first meeting with their new boss, the one who did the pushing, was a 90-minute series of accusations and critiques. In the second meeting, they were presented with a letter documenting the critiques and their poor response. Their third meeting was a no-notice, no-severance layoff and a security escort to the door. It turned out the people "laid off" were all the ones hired by the old boss, even though the company was hiring for the same roles at the same time. So the new boss was just cleaning house, making sure the people in key positions were loyal to him. But it was all documented and justified.

BuckRogers 6y ago
And that is why I want a union or professional organization. That level of nonsense needs a mechanism to resist with. How many lives and marriages, families suffered for political moves mostly for nothing by some lunatic.
- pc86 6y ago
  I would rather live with the risk of a political firing than make it unnecessarily difficult to fire poor performers.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Is it possible you've been brainwashed? I've never worked at a job that was so important as to make firing so vital. Most corporations are littered with deadwood. If firing "poor performers" is of no importance, how could it be more important than my comfort at my job? In fact, pretty much the only jobs that remain unionized are the ones we all pretend are really extra super important, like police and teachers.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    Then maybe help unionize your workplace and advocate for that. Unions don't have to protect poor performers. They could just as well be stringent about them. I think a lot of the impression people have of unions is from places with really hostile labor/manager relationships. Under those conditions, it's easy to treat the workplace as a zero-sum battleground. But especially in tech, where we have a culture of shared gain and literal shared ownership, it's possible for workers to advocate for things like improved efficiency.