5 ms·

Yes Richard Branson does this and I learnt it from one of his videos. You never fire. You move them around. If they are a good person who is honest and hard wor

Yes Richard Branson does this and I learnt it from one of his videos. You never fire. You move them around. If they are a good person who is honest and hard working, you can find a job for them.

boberoni 4y ago
Did Branson or Zapier adjust compensation based on their new roles and responsibilities?
- ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
  I do not know but in my companies I do adjust it. How much depends on how large of a change there is.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    Is there really a difference between firing someone and reassigning them with (let’s be real here) a (probably substantial) pay cut? Certainly most unemployment agencies would consider that constructive dismissal
    - ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
      This is where I feel if you hire the right person, they can very easily be equally effective in another role within a very short period of time. Business context is key. They have it, so it is much easier for both them and me. Also they don't want to leave the company, that is the critical thing here.
    - readthenotes1 4y ago
      of course there is! For the worker, it can be the difference between homelessness and merely tough times; between covered medical insurance and untreated disease; between hopelessness and a wake-up call. For the company, it can be finding that someone was put into a bad spot and they are now able to shine without having to pay for new talent acquisition.
    - LeonB 4y ago
      There are significant differences between the two, for both the employer and the employee. In terms of economic theory, you’d say that staying within “the firm” (Coase) saves both of them a lot in transaction costs. In normal terms — the employee spent time and money finding the previous job and spent time learning how to exist inside that company. Instead of immediately needing to discard and repay those costs - they can “hit the ground running” in a role that is more suited to them. And so on. To overlook all of the advantages here would be very cynical.
    - sausagefeet 4y ago
      In some countries the laws are such that it is very hard to give someone a pay cut (Sweden, for example). It can be done, but a big challenge. IMO, I think a lot of employers that I have worked with really undervalued how expensive it is to hire someone. Another option is a company like Daily has a transparent, years-of-experience based, pay structure. So if you switch to a new role, it is clear how your compensation will change: https://www.daily.co/blog/rethinking-levels-promotions-and-salaries/ https://www.daily.co/blog/rethinking-levels-promotions-and-s...
    - awb 4y ago
      Even the suggestion could also be humiliating for the employee. And if accepted, a demotion on the resume isn’t ideal. Sure, a new role with less responsibility and less pay could work, but that doesn’t mean it’s in the best interest of both parties. I could see a horizontal change being effective, but not a demotion.
    - r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
      The four times I've been seconded over the last 20 years it has always been to "act up" and come with a temporary pay bump. Usually because I'm taking over a manager's job while they're on maternity leave / until a new one can be found because they've quit, or because a team could do with one of my weird skills for a few months. In my experience people either stay at the same pay or their pay goes up while on secondment. Secondment is generally supposed to be temporary so "overpaying" someone for a few months is generally worth it, especially when you consider the costs of onboarding a new employee.
readthenotes1 4y ago
I read long ago: Firing someone is admitting to your second mistake. (Not being able to exploit the talents of someone you hired. The first mistake is hiring someone who you later have to fire.)
- fragmede 4y ago
  That's kind of a shitty saying. We all make mistakes but the way that's phrased makes it sound unforgivable. The ramifications of hiring are bigger than your everyday mistake but it still happens.
  - kaitrain87 4y ago
    I read it more as understanding the onus of the firing situation. Often the individual (or team) tie parts of their worth with being fired. But when it comes to planning and layoffs, that decision was made at the same level that made the decision to hire. The ramifications of hiring are bigger. Sometimes a firing is because of the individuals lack of performance, but I think this quote is asking the hirer to be mindful of what outcomes (layoffs) come from mistakes of their decision making.
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    I guess it is bad if you are the manager who is responsible for both mistakes. Otherwise, it is a reminder that it is a failure to hire someone that doesn't work out, and a failure to not be able to use someone as most people have some skills and firing someone is a very harsh thing to do both to the ex-employee in their ex co-workers.
LeonB 4y ago
I saw a fraction of an episode of Richard Branson’s “The Apprentice” and was struck by the fact that (unlike a different host of the US The Apprentice) he considered the act of firing someone very painful. It was an existence proof that billionaires do not have to be heartless psychopaths - even though media consistently gives us this impression. And - predictably - his version of the show did not rate very well, and was fundamentally less entertaining. It was soon cancelled I believe. (I am not saying that he is a wonderful person— I don’t know him. I just know that he doesn’t outwardly celebrate the cult of cruelty that is popularly believed to be necessary for being a billionaire.)
- awb 4y ago
  One lesson from Branson’s Apprentice that always stuck with me: He was hoisted up in a capsule with different contestants above Angel Falls. Branson encouraged the contestants to abandon their fears and press a button that would release the cables and send the capsule plunging to the water below. Whoever pressed the button was kicked off the show. The drop was high enough to kill them both and Branson said he couldn’t afford to have people around him that were afraid to tell him no.
  - pbhjpbhj 4y ago
    Seems more of a TV gimmick than a test for sycophants. You know Branson does daring activities, you know you're on a TV show where the utmost care is taken by a whole team of professionals, ... it's a cheap trick. So, instead of people who trust the proven professionals around them to do their job you get people scared of heights or averse to physical risks (who could be perfectly happy taking massive financial risks)? Do you really think it shows anything useful? [Where, when, which channel was this series shown, please?]
    - nullandvoid 4y ago
      100% this, as if Branson would have been in any danger at all. That's really shitty if they genuinely kicked off contestants for that reason, if that's the correct story.
bluedino 4y ago
> You never fire. You move them around. If they are a good person who is honest and hard working, you can find a job for them. The last part is important. Some people can't recognize/accept that the person is not a great worker. And then each department wonders what idiot is going to show up this week.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Keep in mind, if you ask a fish to climb a tree, is it the fishes’ fault when they’re flopping around on the ground? Some people are legitimately not a fit for an org, but it’s also important to be realistic about expectations. Hiring and people management in general is hard, I don’t envy anyone who has to do it at scale. Completely unrelated and shifting back closer to the thread topic, great to see this org codify this ideal explicitly. People are not fungible cogs between wildly disparate roles but they are usually somewhat adaptable under ideal conditions. This also positions the org to accelerate out of macro uncertainty properly staffed.

Yes Richard Branson does this and I learnt it from one of his videos. You never fire. You move them around. If they are a good person who is honest and hard working, you can find a job for them.

boberoni 4y ago

Did Branson or Zapier adjust compensation based on their new roles and responsibilities?

ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
I do not know but in my companies I do adjust it. How much depends on how large of a change there is.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Is there really a difference between firing someone and reassigning them with (let’s be real here) a (probably substantial) pay cut? Certainly most unemployment agencies would consider that constructive dismissal
  - ilrwbwrkhv 4y ago
    This is where I feel if you hire the right person, they can very easily be equally effective in another role within a very short period of time. Business context is key. They have it, so it is much easier for both them and me. Also they don't want to leave the company, that is the critical thing here.
  - readthenotes1 4y ago
    of course there is! For the worker, it can be the difference between homelessness and merely tough times; between covered medical insurance and untreated disease; between hopelessness and a wake-up call. For the company, it can be finding that someone was put into a bad spot and they are now able to shine without having to pay for new talent acquisition.
  - LeonB 4y ago
    There are significant differences between the two, for both the employer and the employee. In terms of economic theory, you’d say that staying within “the firm” (Coase) saves both of them a lot in transaction costs. In normal terms — the employee spent time and money finding the previous job and spent time learning how to exist inside that company. Instead of immediately needing to discard and repay those costs - they can “hit the ground running” in a role that is more suited to them. And so on. To overlook all of the advantages here would be very cynical.
  - sausagefeet 4y ago
    In some countries the laws are such that it is very hard to give someone a pay cut (Sweden, for example). It can be done, but a big challenge. IMO, I think a lot of employers that I have worked with really undervalued how expensive it is to hire someone. Another option is a company like Daily has a transparent, years-of-experience based, pay structure. So if you switch to a new role, it is clear how your compensation will change: https://www.daily.co/blog/rethinking-levels-promotions-and-salaries/ https://www.daily.co/blog/rethinking-levels-promotions-and-s...
  - awb 4y ago
    Even the suggestion could also be humiliating for the employee. And if accepted, a demotion on the resume isn’t ideal. Sure, a new role with less responsibility and less pay could work, but that doesn’t mean it’s in the best interest of both parties. I could see a horizontal change being effective, but not a demotion.
  - r_hoods_ghost 4y ago
    The four times I've been seconded over the last 20 years it has always been to "act up" and come with a temporary pay bump. Usually because I'm taking over a manager's job while they're on maternity leave / until a new one can be found because they've quit, or because a team could do with one of my weird skills for a few months. In my experience people either stay at the same pay or their pay goes up while on secondment. Secondment is generally supposed to be temporary so "overpaying" someone for a few months is generally worth it, especially when you consider the costs of onboarding a new employee.

readthenotes1 4y ago

I read long ago: Firing someone is admitting to your second mistake. (Not being able to exploit the talents of someone you hired. The first mistake is hiring someone who you later have to fire.)

fragmede 4y ago
That's kind of a shitty saying. We all make mistakes but the way that's phrased makes it sound unforgivable. The ramifications of hiring are bigger than your everyday mistake but it still happens.
- kaitrain87 4y ago
  I read it more as understanding the onus of the firing situation. Often the individual (or team) tie parts of their worth with being fired. But when it comes to planning and layoffs, that decision was made at the same level that made the decision to hire. The ramifications of hiring are bigger. Sometimes a firing is because of the individuals lack of performance, but I think this quote is asking the hirer to be mindful of what outcomes (layoffs) come from mistakes of their decision making.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  I guess it is bad if you are the manager who is responsible for both mistakes. Otherwise, it is a reminder that it is a failure to hire someone that doesn't work out, and a failure to not be able to use someone as most people have some skills and firing someone is a very harsh thing to do both to the ex-employee in their ex co-workers.

LeonB 4y ago

I saw a fraction of an episode of Richard Branson’s “The Apprentice” and was struck by the fact that (unlike a different host of the US The Apprentice) he considered the act of firing someone very painful. It was an existence proof that billionaires do not have to be heartless psychopaths - even though media consistently gives us this impression. And - predictably - his version of the show did not rate very well, and was fundamentally less entertaining. It was soon cancelled I believe. (I am not saying that he is a wonderful person— I don’t know him. I just know that he doesn’t outwardly celebrate the cult of cruelty that is popularly believed to be necessary for being a billionaire.)

awb 4y ago
One lesson from Branson’s Apprentice that always stuck with me: He was hoisted up in a capsule with different contestants above Angel Falls. Branson encouraged the contestants to abandon their fears and press a button that would release the cables and send the capsule plunging to the water below. Whoever pressed the button was kicked off the show. The drop was high enough to kill them both and Branson said he couldn’t afford to have people around him that were afraid to tell him no.
- pbhjpbhj 4y ago
  Seems more of a TV gimmick than a test for sycophants. You know Branson does daring activities, you know you're on a TV show where the utmost care is taken by a whole team of professionals, ... it's a cheap trick. So, instead of people who trust the proven professionals around them to do their job you get people scared of heights or averse to physical risks (who could be perfectly happy taking massive financial risks)? Do you really think it shows anything useful? [Where, when, which channel was this series shown, please?]
  - nullandvoid 4y ago
    100% this, as if Branson would have been in any danger at all. That's really shitty if they genuinely kicked off contestants for that reason, if that's the correct story.

bluedino 4y ago

> You never fire. You move them around. If they are a good person who is honest and hard working, you can find a job for them. The last part is important. Some people can't recognize/accept that the person is not a great worker. And then each department wonders what idiot is going to show up this week.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
Keep in mind, if you ask a fish to climb a tree, is it the fishes’ fault when they’re flopping around on the ground? Some people are legitimately not a fit for an org, but it’s also important to be realistic about expectations. Hiring and people management in general is hard, I don’t envy anyone who has to do it at scale. Completely unrelated and shifting back closer to the thread topic, great to see this org codify this ideal explicitly. People are not fungible cogs between wildly disparate roles but they are usually somewhat adaptable under ideal conditions. This also positions the org to accelerate out of macro uncertainty properly staffed.