5 ms·

> “ It is practically impossible to fire someone for the basic reason that you don't need this role any more or there is a better person out there or just plain

by mlthoughts2018 6y ago

> “ It is practically impossible to fire someone for the basic reason that you don't need this role any more or there is a better person out there or just plain old - you are not doing a great job. This neuters managers and does not lead to great teams, driven by mission, pushing each other to do better.” Ugh, this refuted myth again? The “insecure, bad leader who blames subordinates for their own failures” meter is going off the charts with this one.

Traster 6y ago
I would like to hear the refutation because I've witnessed this myself in corporate environments. Corporate HR are difficult to deal with, they're very process orientated and risk averse, getting rid of someone reflects poorly on you and your management structure basically doesn't care if there's 1 useless person in your team. You have to put a huge amount of work in to document and justify why the person is not qualified for the job and (in my country) you've got to make a reasonable effort to find another role for them, and if you do start this process with HR it creates documentation that means no one will ever take them if they do want to transfer. Start to end you're probably talking about ~6 months to get rid of someone and over that time you need an intense process of setting them targets and documenting failing to meet expectations. The result is that most managers are more likely to try and shuffle their bad engineers into other teams than to actually give up a big chunk of their time doing this process. Not to mention the fact it puts you in a very awkward positioning having a working relationship with the person you're getting rid of.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  “Putting effort into helping low performers improve or find better fitting roles” is called “leadership.” It’s mind-blowing that you see a 6 month investment in just doing basic leadership 101 as a massive bureaucratic hassle. I think it’s safe to say that the low performer you’re referring to is not actually the real problem.

Traster 6y ago

I would like to hear the refutation because I've witnessed this myself in corporate environments. Corporate HR are difficult to deal with, they're very process orientated and risk averse, getting rid of someone reflects poorly on you and your management structure basically doesn't care if there's 1 useless person in your team. You have to put a huge amount of work in to document and justify why the person is not qualified for the job and (in my country) you've got to make a reasonable effort to find another role for them, and if you do start this process with HR it creates documentation that means no one will ever take them if they do want to transfer. Start to end you're probably talking about ~6 months to get rid of someone and over that time you need an intense process of setting them targets and documenting failing to meet expectations. The result is that most managers are more likely to try and shuffle their bad engineers into other teams than to actually give up a big chunk of their time doing this process. Not to mention the fact it puts you in a very awkward positioning having a working relationship with the person you're getting rid of.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
“Putting effort into helping low performers improve or find better fitting roles” is called “leadership.” It’s mind-blowing that you see a 6 month investment in just doing basic leadership 101 as a massive bureaucratic hassle. I think it’s safe to say that the low performer you’re referring to is not actually the real problem.