As a manager, if someone gives an ultimatum, you basically have to fire them. There's no real option; Ben Horowitz covered it somewhere, but the bottom line is that if you yield, you've given up all control.
> but the bottom line is that if you yield, you've given up all control.
This doesn't seem logical to me. I don't doubt there are indeed scenarios where this is true, but as an absolute, this doesn't resemble my real world experience at all. It seems like kind of the opposite of how human interaction should work.
This sounds incredibly inhumane.
Uh, or you could compromise with them and act like two adults? This isn't a zero sum game.
If someone wants to negotiate, they don't use an ultimatum.
If someone is using an ultimatum, they don't request an in-person discussion.
The narratives from the participants on the actual communication differ on key points relevant to evaluating whether it was really an ultimatum.
Her description, quoted from a Wired article which she has re-tweeted (which I interpret as an endorsement) is as follows:
"Tuesday Gebru emailed back offering a deal: If she received a full explanation of what happened, and the research team met with management to agree on a process for fair handling of future research, she would remove her name from the paper. If not, she would arrange to depart the company at a later date, leaving her free to publish the paper without the company’s affiliation."
I read that as an explicit ultimatum.
https://www.wired.com/story/prominent-ai-ethics-researcher-says-google-fired-her/ https://www.wired.com/story/prominent-ai-ethics-researcher-s...
I understand your sentiment, but in my experience ultimatums are a common negotiation tactic and are rarely "true" ultimatums.
"X is the lowest price I can sell for, take it or leave it" "How about X-10?" "Done"
"I want to read 5 books!" "You can either read one book before bedtime or go to bed now" "How about 2 books?" "Okay, but then straight to bed!"
Well there are a few factors which make this situation different. If the ultimatum had been made in person, I'd think there might be room for negotiation, depending on the relationship between manager and subordinate.
Putting the ultimatum in e-mail form really raises the stakes, because there may be other people CC-ed or BCC-ed, and any response could later be weaponized.
If the relationship was already troubled, anything like an ultimatum is an opportunity for the manager to be rid of all their troubles.
The level of the threat also comes into play, and more severe threats increase the risk/tension. If the guardian had threatened to disown the child rather than send them to bed, we would read the situation differently.
Isn't the definition of "ultimatum" that no further compromise is possible? You can try or offer different alternatives, but if the other person is really at the ultimatum stage then you've both already lost.
Your point seems to be that not willing to compromise on a specific point means the employee is lost forever.
There’s tons of issues I wouldn’t compromise on, and better leave the company if I had to. Does that mean I’ll be fired the very second these subjects become remotely relevant and/if I make clear where my boundaries are ?
> Isn't the definition of "ultimatum" that no further compromise is possible?
Given that, at least in Timnit's narrative, the email included a request to discuss the issue in person when she returned from vacation, I don't think that the "ultimatum" characterization is uncontroversially accurate for the immediate case.
I'm responding narrowly to the subthread here, which is about firing someone who gives an ultimatum in the abstract. I don't know enough about the specifics of Timnit/Google's situation to pass judgment. (I'm also an employee there, so doing so would be unwise and a potential violation of confidentiality rules if I did know anything.) To me I'm filing it under "Everybody sees through their emotions, and different people will have different perceptions of what actually happened and what people actually intended."
It's also not a static one-period game. You can ask them to reconsider.
That is a psychotic reaction that assumes the world is just a Hobbesian nightmare of domination or death.
I understand some of the reasons why some managers think that way, but you can't have such simplistic rules.
An ultimatum like this is an opportunity for a responsible manager to talk and rethink, but it seems like Google jumped at the opportunity to double-down on their mistake and then send out cowardly emails claiming the employee had actually resigned.
If I were to apply a simplistic rule here, I would actually invert it - if you get to a point where you are sufficiently undervalued that you feel the need to issue an ultimatum, you basically have to resign.
The problem with accepting anti-social behavior is that you encourage it. This individual or another will use the same strategy against you in the future, and it will create antagonism and toxicity.
No, an ultimatum is a choice between two options; she offered Google a choice, and they selected. Expecting them to try to carve out a 'third way' is just unrealistic.
I agree that you can frame this many ways; she could have portrayed this as her resigning in protest, instead of blaming Google for being vindictive.
> No, an ultimatum is a choice between two options; she offered Google a choice, and they selected. Expecting them to try to carve out a 'third way' is just unrealistic.
But you're claiming that for a company there shouldn't be a choice, it should just lead to termination.
Well, the company is in slightly different position from the manager. They can abrogate the manager's authority, but that would permanently undermine that individual. On the other hand, they can also choose to accept the subordinate's resignation. They could try to transfer the subordinate somewhere else, but that's also risky, and wouldn't really address the ultimatum in this case.
Accepting a resignation achieves three separate objectives:
-resolves the ultimatum
-discourages future ultimatums
-preserves the status quo ante
This is rubbish. At Intel we called it "badge on the table". It's a statement of complete commitment (and I've been the beneficiary of someone going 'badge on the table' at least once, under circumstances I can't disclose).
It doesn't imply that if a manager or VP or CEO concedes the point at issue once, then the person can now go around "putting their badge on the table" and getting their own way over and over again on other issues; probably making a habit of issuing ultimatums (ultimata?) will get you fired PDQ.
As a manager, it's your job not to push people to a corner where they need to make an ultimatim. If your company is ethical, you should be able to navigate this.
Well, you're assuming she was pushed in 'to a corner where they need to make an ultimatim [sic]'. All I know is that she used an ultimatum to challenge/corner her manager, and he decided to discontinue their working relationship.
I told my boss I won't work past 6pm and that I won't bring my work phone on vacation. I've had reports tell me they'd leave the team unless they can see a certain rate of career growth. No instant firings on either side.
Maybe in certain situations. But as an engineer on more than a couple of occasions I have pushed back on safety concerns and I was adamant that certain things be fixed for the company's reputation and for safety reasons. I did go over my manager's head because he wouldn't listen. Should I have been fired? Ultimately on one occasion I went up 4 layers of org chart to a VP who finally had the sense to listen because my concern was going to cost the company a lot to fix. I didn't get fired and actually got a bonus and raise that year because I stood my ground. However I never threatened to resign, they would have had to fire me to get me out of there :)
Sorry, I strenuously disagree. I'm also a manager and think setting boundaries is essential, up, down, and sideways.
Speaking as another manager, it sounds like you just can't handle a hard conversation.
I once worked on a federal IT contract where the project manager for the team was from another company. He was a dishonest, backstabbing snake, and it reached a point where I was quite fed up.
I told my company that I was fed up and the only way I would continue in that situation is if I was given a sizable raise because I wasn't paid enough to put up with him. They gave me the raise rather than having me walk. I worked there for several more years after that.
I never issued an ultimatum before or since. Maybe there are people issuing threats all the time, bug it seems to me that people usually do that if they're frustrated but they want to stay at the company. For IT folks with desirable skills it's far easier to just get another job.
Hey, just so you know, regardless of whether things work this way under /today's environment/ and/or whoever has said it as some "management wisdom", the words you have typed here represent some blatant power-tripping BS to anyone with half a brain.
I hope you've said it with the intention to make a point about how dysfunctional certain managers can become, rather than illustrating a belief. If you can't lead other human beings without having control over them, then please hang up your leadership hat and go do something else for a living.
-Another manager.
Well, I agree that if you're weak and need yes-men working for you, that's certainly the way to manage. Another way to do it is hire dumb & docile.
I'm sorry, but that's no more true than when the ultimatum is the other way around.
I think that statement presumes some degree of unreasonableness. Honestly, I value having employees that have principles and clear boundaries, if for no other reason than I can rest assured that when I'm not observing/involved, those principles and clear boundaries are still there. Now, if those principles are, "I won't accept that paying me gives you any kind of authority over what I do", then you know that's not going to work out for anyone involved. However, if it is something like, "You can't pay me enough to do X", and I have no desire for them to do X, I'm really okay with that.
I don't want to work for a manager who will never think: "Huh, this situation is serious enough for someone to make this kind of ultimatum. Who is right and why? Let me take a moment to think about it with an open mind and pick the most appropriate reaction regardless of what I previously thought."
Sometimes the person making an ultimatum is right, sometimes they're wrong. It shouldn't be as adversarial as viewing yielding as weak. Insisting on always "winning" is in my view the weak position.
Additionally, firing someone is not always legal in some countries, even after an ultimatum, assuming they pick the wording of their ultimatum carefully (e.g. "I may very well resign if/unless [desired condition]") to retain control over whether they will later finalize their conditional decision to resign.
As one example, in Quebec, employees who don't qualify as "senior management" and who have been employed at a company there for an uninterrupted period of at least 2 years cannot legally be fired without what the law considers good cause, period, not even if the company gives them a notice period or pay in lieu. Any alleged noncompliance or misconduct that falls short of the most extreme examples must be first dealt with a graduated process of progressively stronger discipline, and it must be possible for someone to recover from that instead of having the outcome of the process as a foregone conclusion. There is a government tribunal to which an aggrieved party can appeal if they aren't happy with the outcome, with the power to order remedies including back pay and even reinstatement.
Similar things are found in many European countries, though certainly not all.
Of course, ultimatums with more definitive wording like "I resign if/unless [condition that the listener has control over]" -- note the absence of hesitating words like "may very well" -- can irreversibly become an effective resignation worldwide, based on choice of the listener on whether to satisfy or reject the condition.
Can you post a reference? Some people are doing a lot of ultimatum with me these times
As a manager, your job is to manage people to get results, and if you are insecure enough about managing those people that you feel you have to enforce some sort of idiotic one size fits all policy then you shouldn't be a manager and should resign yourself, immediately.