5 ms·

Accepting the resignation explicitly declines the ultimatum. Again, negotiating with a bazooka is a bad move. It's a highly emotions-driven action from someone

by 0xy 6y ago

Accepting the resignation explicitly declines the ultimatum. Again, negotiating with a bazooka is a bad move. It's a highly emotions-driven action from someone who's more angry and upset than they are determined to enact change. The most effective negotiation involves zero explosive ultimatums. >If instead they found the ultimatum so offensive that they deemed her worth firing, they should say that Saying anything opens them up to lawsuits and social media smearing (especially from this individual, who was already in a habit of slandering her colleagues on Twitter).

worker767424 6y ago
> especially from this individual And that's why you take away their corporate email access immediately.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  That should be SOP everywhere under every circumstance. When I quit my prior job on good terms my email was immediately disabled and someone politely kept an eye on me to make sure I actually exited the security doors after my exit interview. And that was with a voluntary exit without acrimony. Google’s management and HR work here seems incredibly sloppy, especially for handling such a high pressure firing.
ashtonkem 6y ago
> Accepting the resignation explicitly declines the ultimatum. Hilariously, that is implicitly declining the ultimatum. You have it literally backwards. You have to at least mention the ultimatum for it to be explicit. They also didn’t “accept her resignation”, they jumped from the ultimatum straight to informing her colleagues without actually declining her request or calling her bluff. That’s precisely the problem I’ve been talking about. > Again, negotiating with a bazooka is a bad move ... The most effective negotiation involves zero explosive ultimatums. Sure. But that’s completely unrelated to what I’m talking about. > Saying anything opens them up to lawsuits Nonsense. If anything else, lying about the precise terms of her exit increases their legal risk, if any exists. Most states are at-will, if they wanted to reduce their legal risk they should’ve either fired her without explanation, or said “yes, I would like that resignation letter you threatened to provide”. > and social media smearing What a ridiculous excuse. If you can’t handle some mean tweets, don’t become an executive at Google. Turn off your notifications or something, seriously. And since we’re still here talking about it, I think we can all agree that the executives absolutely failed in this goal. > especially from this individual, who was already in a habit of slandering her colleagues on Twitter Assuming this is true, then the way they fired her was one of the most bone-headed things I have ever heard. If you have an employee who’s toxic and famous on Twitter, the last thing you should do is get caught in a trivial lie when firing them. It absolutely torches any credibility you have in this context and it gives ammunition to someone that you know has an audience, a willingness to throw flames, and now has a serious axe to grind. The fallout from this should have been predictable to them. It’s especially stupid since she offered them an easy out on a silver platter. All they had to do was request her resignation! She literally offered it! Then if she tried to claim that she’d been fired, they could produce her resignation letter and make her tank her public credibility. Instead they got caught in a dumb lie which damaged their credibility and gave her an easy way to get out ahead of them on the story and paint herself as the victim. I’d say “<bleeping> amateurs”, but I happen to know that these executives are getting paid for this, a lot.

by 0xy 6y ago

worker767424 6y ago

> especially from this individual And that's why you take away their corporate email access immediately.

ashtonkem 6y ago
That should be SOP everywhere under every circumstance. When I quit my prior job on good terms my email was immediately disabled and someone politely kept an eye on me to make sure I actually exited the security doors after my exit interview. And that was with a voluntary exit without acrimony. Google’s management and HR work here seems incredibly sloppy, especially for handling such a high pressure firing.

ashtonkem 6y ago

> Accepting the resignation explicitly declines the ultimatum. Hilariously, that is implicitly declining the ultimatum. You have it literally backwards. You have to at least mention the ultimatum for it to be explicit. They also didn’t “accept her resignation”, they jumped from the ultimatum straight to informing her colleagues without actually declining her request or calling her bluff. That’s precisely the problem I’ve been talking about. > Again, negotiating with a bazooka is a bad move ... The most effective negotiation involves zero explosive ultimatums. Sure. But that’s completely unrelated to what I’m talking about. > Saying anything opens them up to lawsuits Nonsense. If anything else, lying about the precise terms of her exit increases their legal risk, if any exists. Most states are at-will, if they wanted to reduce their legal risk they should’ve either fired her without explanation, or said “yes, I would like that resignation letter you threatened to provide”. > and social media smearing What a ridiculous excuse. If you can’t handle some mean tweets, don’t become an executive at Google. Turn off your notifications or something, seriously. And since we’re still here talking about it, I think we can all agree that the executives absolutely failed in this goal. > especially from this individual, who was already in a habit of slandering her colleagues on Twitter Assuming this is true, then the way they fired her was one of the most bone-headed things I have ever heard. If you have an employee who’s toxic and famous on Twitter, the last thing you should do is get caught in a trivial lie when firing them. It absolutely torches any credibility you have in this context and it gives ammunition to someone that you know has an audience, a willingness to throw flames, and now has a serious axe to grind. The fallout from this should have been predictable to them. It’s especially stupid since she offered them an easy out on a silver platter. All they had to do was request her resignation! She literally offered it! Then if she tried to claim that she’d been fired, they could produce her resignation letter and make her tank her public credibility. Instead they got caught in a dumb lie which damaged their credibility and gave her an easy way to get out ahead of them on the story and paint herself as the victim. I’d say “<bleeping> amateurs”, but I happen to know that these executives are getting paid for this, a lot.