5 ms·

CEO fucked up, get rid of him/her. Why'd you hire so many people if you don't need it? Sounds like C-suite made the wrong call, in that case.

redeeman 3y ago
yes, CEO fucked up, should he now fuck up more by not firing them? you come home from the grocery store, you bought frozen goods. you are unpacking, and think you're done, so you sit down in your couch to relax, a couple of minutes later you realize you forgot to put the frozen stuff in the freezer, do you just go "oh well i dun fucked up, nothing to be done here, i'd best just admit defeat and let my wife fire me from grocery duty"
- SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
  Well, it depends, did you blow the budget on meat because of your mistake? If so, yeah I think the grocery budget should be coming out your fun money personally.
  - redeeman 3y ago
    and if i didnt blow my budget?
lotsofpulp 3y ago
Getting rid of someone because of a fuck up is amateur leadership (or politics to appease the mob). The relevant question is whether or not a decision was appropriate, given the information and parameters at the time of making the decision. No one is perfect.
- cudgy 3y ago
  If anyone is held to a perfect standard, shouldn’t it be someone making $220 million in a year?
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    >If anyone is held to a perfect standard The premise does not make sense to me. See: >No one is perfect.
    - cudgy 3y ago
      Ok. Can we agree that some people are expected to be more perfect than others? Say the janitor versus the brain surgeon? Or the CEO versus the staff software engineer?
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        Sure, different people can be expected to have different capabilities. But I don not see how that relates to the context of this comment chain. Specifically being able to predict the future a few years during and after an unprecedented pandemic.
        cudgy 3y ago
        Who’s job is it to predict the future hiring needs at companies? The staff software engineer or the CEO’s and executives? This is a primary role of a CEO and failure to predict this is a failure of their primary role.
- capableweb 3y ago
  > Getting rid of someone because of a fuck up is amateur leadership So you're saying that all these people who were mistakenly hired by Google and were now let go, shouldn't have been let go?
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Not at all. Ending someone's employment because they are predicted to be insufficiently beneficial to the organization is a different topic than terminating someone because they made a decision that turned out to be suboptimal, which may have been unreasonable to be able to forecast. It is possible that the suboptimal decision of overhearing was made in such a manner such that indicates the decision maker may not be beneficial to the organization, but not necessarily.
    - oblio 3y ago
      The amount of self loathing in display here is astounding. Or I guess, "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" syndrome? A hiring decision is a huge change in an employee's life. People uproot their lives, may have to move away from friends and family. They might need visas. For a big company CEO, getting fired changes basically nothing material. They still have millions of dollars, they most definitely aren't on a work visa. A rich, profitable company for sure can afford and should try to salvage every suboptimal hiring decision, at least once. Except for the CEO, that basically gets all the money and no real risk. A CEO will never starve, will never get kicked out of the country, etc.
mihaic 3y ago
But why not then fire both parties was my question?

redeeman 3y ago

yes, CEO fucked up, should he now fuck up more by not firing them? you come home from the grocery store, you bought frozen goods. you are unpacking, and think you're done, so you sit down in your couch to relax, a couple of minutes later you realize you forgot to put the frozen stuff in the freezer, do you just go "oh well i dun fucked up, nothing to be done here, i'd best just admit defeat and let my wife fire me from grocery duty"

SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
Well, it depends, did you blow the budget on meat because of your mistake? If so, yeah I think the grocery budget should be coming out your fun money personally.
- redeeman 3y ago
  and if i didnt blow my budget?

lotsofpulp 3y ago

Getting rid of someone because of a fuck up is amateur leadership (or politics to appease the mob). The relevant question is whether or not a decision was appropriate, given the information and parameters at the time of making the decision. No one is perfect.

cudgy 3y ago
If anyone is held to a perfect standard, shouldn’t it be someone making $220 million in a year?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  >If anyone is held to a perfect standard The premise does not make sense to me. See: >No one is perfect.
  - cudgy 3y ago
    Ok. Can we agree that some people are expected to be more perfect than others? Say the janitor versus the brain surgeon? Or the CEO versus the staff software engineer?
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      Sure, different people can be expected to have different capabilities. But I don not see how that relates to the context of this comment chain. Specifically being able to predict the future a few years during and after an unprecedented pandemic.
      - cudgy 3y ago
        Who’s job is it to predict the future hiring needs at companies? The staff software engineer or the CEO’s and executives? This is a primary role of a CEO and failure to predict this is a failure of their primary role.
capableweb 3y ago
> Getting rid of someone because of a fuck up is amateur leadership So you're saying that all these people who were mistakenly hired by Google and were now let go, shouldn't have been let go?
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Not at all. Ending someone's employment because they are predicted to be insufficiently beneficial to the organization is a different topic than terminating someone because they made a decision that turned out to be suboptimal, which may have been unreasonable to be able to forecast. It is possible that the suboptimal decision of overhearing was made in such a manner such that indicates the decision maker may not be beneficial to the organization, but not necessarily.
  - oblio 3y ago
    The amount of self loathing in display here is astounding. Or I guess, "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" syndrome? A hiring decision is a huge change in an employee's life. People uproot their lives, may have to move away from friends and family. They might need visas. For a big company CEO, getting fired changes basically nothing material. They still have millions of dollars, they most definitely aren't on a work visa. A rich, profitable company for sure can afford and should try to salvage every suboptimal hiring decision, at least once. Except for the CEO, that basically gets all the money and no real risk. A CEO will never starve, will never get kicked out of the country, etc.

mihaic 3y ago

But why not then fire both parties was my question?