5 ms·

Some times the way to make the company happier is to fire all the unhappy people.

by ldiracdelta 5y ago

ironmagma 5y ago
The unhappy people didn’t get that way by virtue of their genetics.
- luckylion 5y ago
  It doesn't matter how they got unhappy and activist. Unless you want to spend your time making them happy (instead of building products), what matters is to get them out. I'm a firm believer that you can help toxic people become normal (again). But it takes a lot of time and effort that you can't spend otherwise, and you might alienate others over it who don't want to suffer under the (maybe reforming) toxic person. The question is whether you want to help someone, or build products. Basecamp seems to have opted for not turning themselves into a SuperPAC/self-help group.
  - ironmagma 5y ago
    The trouble is, what made a senior group of people unhappy will also make a less senior group of people unhappy as they become more senior. Just like it’s good to be improving yourself personally, even though it takes a bit of effort and you can’t please everyone, so too should companies be trying to improve themselves. This is because there are such things as both a high-functioning company and a low-functioning company, and the difference isn’t that one wants to build product more than the other.
    - luckylion 5y ago
      > This is because there are such things as both a high-functioning company and a low-functioning company, and the difference isn’t that one wants to build product more than the other. I'm not sure about that. In my experience, it's about priorities, and some people find e.g. political activism more important than building products. When they have to decide between "more activism" or "more products", they value activism higher. I don't think it's a junior/senior thing, and not everybody will end up where they feel like they + the company have "grown apart". In this case, from afar, it looks like most in the company (including the founders) where pretty political, but some employees got more radicalized and the founders (who essentially set the company direction) did not. It's a kind of schism, but it's best for everyone involved to let it happen. I find that kind of generous buy-out a very good way to do it. Some have suggested that it's some kind of demonstration of power, but I don't see that: in a power play, they would've fired the problematic employees (and having worked with activist employees, I'm confident that everyone knew who they were), not given them a large bonus for leaving. They've extended the bonus to everyone (which is great as well, you're not rewarding the bad apples, to so speak), and I wouldn't be surprised if some took the offer purely because of the money.
pydry 5y ago
Those unhappy people had friends who were probably on the edge. Firing them is a good way to tip them over it.

Some times the way to make the company happier is to fire all the unhappy people.

ironmagma 5y ago

The unhappy people didn’t get that way by virtue of their genetics.

luckylion 5y ago
It doesn't matter how they got unhappy and activist. Unless you want to spend your time making them happy (instead of building products), what matters is to get them out. I'm a firm believer that you can help toxic people become normal (again). But it takes a lot of time and effort that you can't spend otherwise, and you might alienate others over it who don't want to suffer under the (maybe reforming) toxic person. The question is whether you want to help someone, or build products. Basecamp seems to have opted for not turning themselves into a SuperPAC/self-help group.
- ironmagma 5y ago
  The trouble is, what made a senior group of people unhappy will also make a less senior group of people unhappy as they become more senior. Just like it’s good to be improving yourself personally, even though it takes a bit of effort and you can’t please everyone, so too should companies be trying to improve themselves. This is because there are such things as both a high-functioning company and a low-functioning company, and the difference isn’t that one wants to build product more than the other.
  - luckylion 5y ago
    > This is because there are such things as both a high-functioning company and a low-functioning company, and the difference isn’t that one wants to build product more than the other. I'm not sure about that. In my experience, it's about priorities, and some people find e.g. political activism more important than building products. When they have to decide between "more activism" or "more products", they value activism higher. I don't think it's a junior/senior thing, and not everybody will end up where they feel like they + the company have "grown apart". In this case, from afar, it looks like most in the company (including the founders) where pretty political, but some employees got more radicalized and the founders (who essentially set the company direction) did not. It's a kind of schism, but it's best for everyone involved to let it happen. I find that kind of generous buy-out a very good way to do it. Some have suggested that it's some kind of demonstration of power, but I don't see that: in a power play, they would've fired the problematic employees (and having worked with activist employees, I'm confident that everyone knew who they were), not given them a large bonus for leaving. They've extended the bonus to everyone (which is great as well, you're not rewarding the bad apples, to so speak), and I wouldn't be surprised if some took the offer purely because of the money.

pydry 5y ago

Those unhappy people had friends who were probably on the edge. Firing them is a good way to tip them over it.