7 ms·

> and fire fast. I'd straight up not work for a place that took this approach. Seems like a great way to fuck over the folks who made a big life change to join

> and fire fast. I'd straight up not work for a place that took this approach. Seems like a great way to fuck over the folks who made a big life change to join you. Though this philosophy is probably super effective, as long as you're willing to not think about the effects it has on others. Yikes!

forbiddenvoid 5y ago
Yep. Power dynamics are a real thing. The relative risk for an employee joining a new company is WAY higher than it is for that company.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  Not in software. At least not in the US. I have very little fear of being let go. If it's not a good fit, I'd personally rather spend my time elsewhere.
  - 8note 5y ago
    If you're working on a visa, that means you're in rush mode to find a new company and a new visa, otherwise you need to start moving country
  - Bud 5y ago
    You left out the vital third part of that, which is "not for you in your particular set of applicable privileges and life circumstances".
    - BobbyJo 5y ago
      I believe the post was mostly aimed at employers seeking highly paid, highly skilled, professionals. I was responding in the same vein.
      - jlokier 5y ago
        I believe the thrust of the GP's point is that your position is quite particular to you, as there are plenty of highly-skilled, highly-paid professional software developers, even in the US, who struggle to find good, well-paid work quickly after being laid off, so have legitimate reason to worry about being let go. For example, that may be due to any combination of age, skin colour, geography, ethnicity, visa/citizenship, neurodivergence, gender, family dependents, or other factors outside the person's control, helpfully summarised by the umbrella word "privilege". After all, as is often said here, hiring is broken. It's not enough to be highly skilled.
        BobbyJo 5y ago
        I was refuting an absolute. I did not intend to posit my own. Obviously, not the case for everyone.
        jlokier 5y ago
        > I was refuting an absolute. I stand corrected, thank you. I had to re-read both your comments carefully to understand them from that perspective. Though you didn't intend to generalise, your refutation can be (and clearly was) parsed as an assertion about a whole category of people not having the high relative risk, rather than a singular counteraxample to say not everyone in the category has that risk. Your followup comment could also be parsed that way, unfortunately. I think what motivated Bud's reply, and then mine because your followed appeared to entrench the position, is that it's common around here for people to talk as though virtually all software professionals are paid well and can easily slide into great new jobs as and when they want to, when really there's a huge "underclass" of software professionals who feel shut out of that nice world.
        BobbyJo 5y ago
        I understand. Sorry if I was unnecessarily curt in the reply. Most of the disagreements I get in replies are reacting to an extrapolation, implication, or association I did not intend to make. > I think what motivated Bud's reply, and then mine because your followed appeared to entrench the position, is that it's common around here for people to talk as though virtually all software professionals are paid well and can easily slide into great new jobs as and when they want to, when really there's a huge "underclass" of software professionals who feel shut out of that nice world. I get it. I was once in a similar boat, so I understand the feeling.
simulate-me 5y ago
This is typical breakup scenario. Yes getting fired sucks, but it’s probably best in the long run. Wasting an employee’s time in an environment where they’re definitely not going to succeed is not good for anyone.
- markkanof 5y ago
  There is an important nuance here in that it assumes that all employers understand that someone being fired can just mean that they weren't a good fit for that particular position. I'm not sure that is universally understood. I would be that most people still look at firing as an indication that the employee is no good. That isn't necessarily correct at all, but unfortunately I do think it's how the majority of people perceive things.
  - actually_a_dog 5y ago
    I have some issues with the "fire fast" philosophy, but this is not really one of them. Companies don't generally even divulge that they fired someone when giving a reference. They will say the employee is "not eligible for rehire," which is frequently code for "we fired this person for cause," and is generally interpreted that way. I do wish they would just come out and say that the person was terminated for cause, so others wouldn't have to guess, but that's not even really related to the "fire fast" issue.
    - GavinMcG 5y ago
      Resumes have employment dates on them, which will be interpreted long before past employers are asked about anything.
      - actually_a_dog 5y ago
        So? Just don't list the position if the tenure was too short.
        5y ago
MattGaiser 5y ago
Pair it with remote work and a decent severance package and it is far more acceptable.
devmunchies 5y ago
> I'd straight up not work for a place that took this approach that's "quitting fast"—quitting before you even take the job. impressive, you're hired.
lkxijlewlf 5y ago
Yeah, the stigma of getting fired is bad for the employee. They may not have been a good fit for your team, but now other companies will automatically feel they're not a good fit for their team either.
- smolder 5y ago
  I see that as a problem with hiring, though not an easy one to solve... since even with lazy heuristics, it's a lot of work to hire.
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Seems to work for Netflix, who is very up front about this philosophy. Of course, a big part of this is they do pair it with an incredibly generous severance package. Personally, I would jump at the chance to work at a company with this philosophy, even if I ended up being the one getting canned. I don't think I've ever worked at a company that fired "too fast", if anything it was clear that some folks were clearly not going to succeed, but hard decisions were avoided, which took down the productivity of everyone involved, and when the folks were eventually let go or left on their own they usually ended up still being super bitter. A reluctance to fire, in my experience, just really translates into a company that has difficulty making hard decisions.
- majormajor 5y ago
  Yeah, Netflix appears to do it in a reasonable way. I would be perfectly fine taking an offer to work there. But I've more frequently heard stories of others who see "fire fast" solely as a way to save money and also avoid having to ever train or mentor. That's bad for the employee, and not a place I'd work, if I knew it in advance. If you're looking to structure your employees' comp with a heavy equity component that takes a while to vest, "fire fast" becomes especially dangerous for the employee.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    People are fired who cost more than the value they provide. To not get fired: 1. provide more value than you cost the company 2. make sure the boss knows (1) for you
    - majormajor 5y ago
      "People are fired when they underperform their peers [over some time window]" is much more common, since most organizations have a very fuzzy grasp exactly on value returned per employee. Candidates should try to be aware of companies that won't give new hires much of a time window to prove their performance level or value creation. Especially if large amounts of their compensation depend on going at least 12 months without getting fired.
BobbyJo 5y ago
> Seems like a great way to fuck over the folks who made a big life change to join you. Most companies are motivated by profit, and will, therefore, gladly pay someone to fill a role that earns them more money than it costs. I don't see severing a non-mutually beneficial relationship as fucking someone over. If you are in a position that being let go would be horribly detrimental to your personal and financial goals, looking for a company that is very slow to fire may be a good way to go. However, that is for your benefit, not the company's. I was targeting my advice at employers.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
Not firing fast is like cutting the dog's tail piece by piece. Every time I have tried to give an employee another chance, I have ultimately regretted it in the end.
AlchemistCamp 5y ago
He's been pretty up front that he's looking for young people, both in this podcast and on the previous messaging of Pioneer. The cost to someone in their early 20s to take a job for a month or two and then hop to another one isn't very high compared to someone far enough into their career to likely be making changes for their family and possibly face more judgement for a short stint from future interviewers.
pdkl95 5y ago
Using language like "fire fast" might presuppose a situation where someone is going to be "hired" - possibly involving a lot of work, life changes, and moving/other expenses - only to have their effort/money wasted when they are "fired fast". What if instead of "fire fast", the idea was re-framed/restructured into the new employee initially working as some sort of consultant with a short term contract? Use telecommuting/work-from-home or other temporary workarounds to defer expensive/disruptive things like moving to live near the company until after the defined "trial" period. Instead of "firing fast", you either let the temporary consulting contract expire or you proceed with the actual hiring process and the deferred tasks. Maybe this isn't possible in practice, but it seems like we could design a workaround to this problem if were sufficiently creative. > think about the effects it has on others Unfortunately, that takes proactive effort. Unless there is a mechanism to actively incentivize spending time and energy to protect others, most of the time that effort will be spent on "more important" things. ~sigh~

forbiddenvoid 5y ago

Yep. Power dynamics are a real thing. The relative risk for an employee joining a new company is WAY higher than it is for that company.

BobbyJo 5y ago
Not in software. At least not in the US. I have very little fear of being let go. If it's not a good fit, I'd personally rather spend my time elsewhere.
- 8note 5y ago
  If you're working on a visa, that means you're in rush mode to find a new company and a new visa, otherwise you need to start moving country
- Bud 5y ago
  You left out the vital third part of that, which is "not for you in your particular set of applicable privileges and life circumstances".
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    I believe the post was mostly aimed at employers seeking highly paid, highly skilled, professionals. I was responding in the same vein.
    - jlokier 5y ago
      I believe the thrust of the GP's point is that your position is quite particular to you, as there are plenty of highly-skilled, highly-paid professional software developers, even in the US, who struggle to find good, well-paid work quickly after being laid off, so have legitimate reason to worry about being let go. For example, that may be due to any combination of age, skin colour, geography, ethnicity, visa/citizenship, neurodivergence, gender, family dependents, or other factors outside the person's control, helpfully summarised by the umbrella word "privilege". After all, as is often said here, hiring is broken. It's not enough to be highly skilled.
      - BobbyJo 5y ago
        I was refuting an absolute. I did not intend to posit my own. Obviously, not the case for everyone.
        jlokier 5y ago
        > I was refuting an absolute. I stand corrected, thank you. I had to re-read both your comments carefully to understand them from that perspective. Though you didn't intend to generalise, your refutation can be (and clearly was) parsed as an assertion about a whole category of people not having the high relative risk, rather than a singular counteraxample to say not everyone in the category has that risk. Your followup comment could also be parsed that way, unfortunately. I think what motivated Bud's reply, and then mine because your followed appeared to entrench the position, is that it's common around here for people to talk as though virtually all software professionals are paid well and can easily slide into great new jobs as and when they want to, when really there's a huge "underclass" of software professionals who feel shut out of that nice world.
        BobbyJo 5y ago
        I understand. Sorry if I was unnecessarily curt in the reply. Most of the disagreements I get in replies are reacting to an extrapolation, implication, or association I did not intend to make. > I think what motivated Bud's reply, and then mine because your followed appeared to entrench the position, is that it's common around here for people to talk as though virtually all software professionals are paid well and can easily slide into great new jobs as and when they want to, when really there's a huge "underclass" of software professionals who feel shut out of that nice world. I get it. I was once in a similar boat, so I understand the feeling.

simulate-me 5y ago

This is typical breakup scenario. Yes getting fired sucks, but it’s probably best in the long run. Wasting an employee’s time in an environment where they’re definitely not going to succeed is not good for anyone.

markkanof 5y ago
There is an important nuance here in that it assumes that all employers understand that someone being fired can just mean that they weren't a good fit for that particular position. I'm not sure that is universally understood. I would be that most people still look at firing as an indication that the employee is no good. That isn't necessarily correct at all, but unfortunately I do think it's how the majority of people perceive things.
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  I have some issues with the "fire fast" philosophy, but this is not really one of them. Companies don't generally even divulge that they fired someone when giving a reference. They will say the employee is "not eligible for rehire," which is frequently code for "we fired this person for cause," and is generally interpreted that way. I do wish they would just come out and say that the person was terminated for cause, so others wouldn't have to guess, but that's not even really related to the "fire fast" issue.
  - GavinMcG 5y ago
    Resumes have employment dates on them, which will be interpreted long before past employers are asked about anything.
    - actually_a_dog 5y ago
      So? Just don't list the position if the tenure was too short.
      - 5y ago

MattGaiser 5y ago

Pair it with remote work and a decent severance package and it is far more acceptable.

devmunchies 5y ago

> I'd straight up not work for a place that took this approach that's "quitting fast"—quitting before you even take the job. impressive, you're hired.

lkxijlewlf 5y ago

Yeah, the stigma of getting fired is bad for the employee. They may not have been a good fit for your team, but now other companies will automatically feel they're not a good fit for their team either.

smolder 5y ago
I see that as a problem with hiring, though not an easy one to solve... since even with lazy heuristics, it's a lot of work to hire.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Seems to work for Netflix, who is very up front about this philosophy. Of course, a big part of this is they do pair it with an incredibly generous severance package. Personally, I would jump at the chance to work at a company with this philosophy, even if I ended up being the one getting canned. I don't think I've ever worked at a company that fired "too fast", if anything it was clear that some folks were clearly not going to succeed, but hard decisions were avoided, which took down the productivity of everyone involved, and when the folks were eventually let go or left on their own they usually ended up still being super bitter. A reluctance to fire, in my experience, just really translates into a company that has difficulty making hard decisions.

majormajor 5y ago
Yeah, Netflix appears to do it in a reasonable way. I would be perfectly fine taking an offer to work there. But I've more frequently heard stories of others who see "fire fast" solely as a way to save money and also avoid having to ever train or mentor. That's bad for the employee, and not a place I'd work, if I knew it in advance. If you're looking to structure your employees' comp with a heavy equity component that takes a while to vest, "fire fast" becomes especially dangerous for the employee.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  People are fired who cost more than the value they provide. To not get fired: 1. provide more value than you cost the company 2. make sure the boss knows (1) for you
  - majormajor 5y ago
    "People are fired when they underperform their peers [over some time window]" is much more common, since most organizations have a very fuzzy grasp exactly on value returned per employee. Candidates should try to be aware of companies that won't give new hires much of a time window to prove their performance level or value creation. Especially if large amounts of their compensation depend on going at least 12 months without getting fired.

BobbyJo 5y ago

> Seems like a great way to fuck over the folks who made a big life change to join you. Most companies are motivated by profit, and will, therefore, gladly pay someone to fill a role that earns them more money than it costs. I don't see severing a non-mutually beneficial relationship as fucking someone over. If you are in a position that being let go would be horribly detrimental to your personal and financial goals, looking for a company that is very slow to fire may be a good way to go. However, that is for your benefit, not the company's. I was targeting my advice at employers.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

Not firing fast is like cutting the dog's tail piece by piece. Every time I have tried to give an employee another chance, I have ultimately regretted it in the end.

AlchemistCamp 5y ago

He's been pretty up front that he's looking for young people, both in this podcast and on the previous messaging of Pioneer. The cost to someone in their early 20s to take a job for a month or two and then hop to another one isn't very high compared to someone far enough into their career to likely be making changes for their family and possibly face more judgement for a short stint from future interviewers.

pdkl95 5y ago

Using language like "fire fast" might presuppose a situation where someone is going to be "hired" - possibly involving a lot of work, life changes, and moving/other expenses - only to have their effort/money wasted when they are "fired fast". What if instead of "fire fast", the idea was re-framed/restructured into the new employee initially working as some sort of consultant with a short term contract? Use telecommuting/work-from-home or other temporary workarounds to defer expensive/disruptive things like moving to live near the company until after the defined "trial" period. Instead of "firing fast", you either let the temporary consulting contract expire or you proceed with the actual hiring process and the deferred tasks. Maybe this isn't possible in practice, but it seems like we could design a workaround to this problem if were sufficiently creative. > think about the effects it has on others Unfortunately, that takes proactive effort. Unless there is a mechanism to actively incentivize spending time and energy to protect others, most of the time that effort will be spent on "more important" things. ~sigh~