4 ms·

> your job can end at the whim of a boss Maybe it's a big company thing, but every time I've had to end someone's job it took several months of performance man

by 13of40 3y ago

> your job can end at the whim of a boss Maybe it's a big company thing, but every time I've had to end someone's job it took several months of performance management and about 50 to 100 pages of documentation. Imagine about a year of having your team limping and not being able to achieve its commitments, while you have to be polite and supportive to a hostile person who's obviously on their way out but can't see it, and all the while your 1:1 meetings with your boss start with "Sooooo... What's going on with Charlie? Are you documenting? I don't feel like you're documenting." Every meeting you walk into where they ask why "X" isn't done yet, you can't tell them that Charlie fundamentally can't deliver it, because any mention of that is wandering into HR territory, and you can't take Charlie off of "X" because that's going to screw up the continuity of your documentation. Meanwhile, Charlie is wandering around the halls trying to foment some kind of misguided rebellion against you, and (edit: possibly) stealing stuff. So not really a whim.

dukeyukey 3y ago
Even here in the UK, if a company is having redundancies you can be out the door in days or even hours. Firing a specific person for something non-performance needs paperwork, but that's a very specific case.
- maccard 3y ago
  > Firing a specific person for something <snip> needs paperwork Assuming they've been employed for longer than 2 years. If they've been there less than 2 years, it's pretty much in line with the US.
Night_Thastus 3y ago
Depends massively on the company. Some are like that, in others it can be at the drop of a hat with no performance reasons needed at all.
yardie 3y ago
They could fire Charlie without cause. Sounds like management just doesn't want to pay out UI or severance. So they'll let you suffer to document a cause. So Charlie is such a big problem they need to get rid of them, but not enough of a problem where the solution is money.
- 13of40 3y ago
  No, it's all about the company being averse to getting sued. Even though I'm in a state that allows that in theory, it's not uncommon for people to sue for a six figure sum and get a settlement if you don't do everything perfectly.
  - yardie 3y ago
    Yeah, that's what severance is for. Sign this paper that holds us harmless. We give you money to never see you again. This is a problem that could be solved with money. If Charlie is as bad as described the boss would pay for them to go away instead of dragging it out through a drawn-out documentation process.
  - brewdad 3y ago
    So, the problem is money just like the previous poster said. You can pay the poor employee for a few months while building documentation to CYA or you can fire them immediately and potentially owe them the 3 months (and likely more) from a settlement. Taking months to fire an underperformer is simply an exercise in risk management not a legal necessity.
PedroBatista 3y ago
One word: "Layoffs" And the "performance management" thing it's only at certain positions and certain industries. For most people, that is not a thing ( which can be a plus too ).
devnullbrain 3y ago
>and probably stealing stuff This is needless and makes me value the rest of the insight less.
- 13of40 3y ago
  Depending on the person, it can be true. I know through mutual friends that the first person I ever had to terminate walked off with a hard drive full of our IP and a prototype dev kit of a device the company was working on.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    There's a huge difference between "it can be true" and "probably stealing stuff".
throwaway2037 3y ago
Jurisdiction matters a lot. Where? If we are talking about a place with very few labour protection laws (HK/SG/US), forget it: You can layoff after a 10 min discussion. No biggie. Maybe throw a few months of severance pay. If we are talking about Japan, France, or Germany, it is a negotiation with the labour union. (Denmark is a very interesting exception due to "Flex-Security".) I cannot help but bring up the infamous "Amazon PIP" (performance improvement plan): What is the point? Just sack me with a package on Day One. Much easier and less emotionally damaging!
- sib 3y ago
  The GP was not talking about a layoff but a termination "at the whim of a boss." I've also worked at a number of big companies in the US, in "at-will" states, and the process is much like the GP describes.
wombatpm 3y ago
Thats if you want to get rid of an individual. It's easy if you can just put the problem person on the layoff list because the company is doing a 10% WFR as part of a stock market right-sizing initiative
SkyPuncher 3y ago
That's because you've worked at companies that want to protect this part of their reputation or liability. Most companies aren't massive and don't have these types of reputational or liability concerns.
dangerwill 3y ago
I like how you say this from the perspective not of a team lead but as another person on the team. Which means you actually don't have any real sense of how much documentation your boss had to do, just what your boss told you they did. "Sooooo... What's going on with Charlie? Are you documenting? I don't feel like you're documenting." sounds like you hounded your boss into firing your teammate instead of continuing to coach them.
- 13of40 3y ago
  The part in quotes is the lead's manager talking. By the time you're being performance managed, your boss, their boss, their boss, etc. know about it, and the higher you go in the chain the more you're just a line in a spreadsheet that needs to be eliminated. You're on a 100 person team that needs to figure out how to get to 97, and you're the low hanging fruit because you're already marked. What you (as an IC) assume is your boss being a dick is actually a vast mechanism behind your boss, including upper management and HR, pushing them to resolve the situation.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > By the time you're being performance managed, your boss, their boss, their boss, etc. know about it, and the higher you go in the chain the more you're just a line in a spreadsheet This is so true. I've never been "performance managed", but if I were to be, I'd immediately start looking for another job because of what you're describing. Even if I wasn't eventually fired, I know that black mark will color everyone's perception of me from then on.
    - llampx 3y ago
      That's the point, to make you quit so that you won't come back and sue them. Risk management.
mortenjorck 3y ago
One termination is a special case; a 20% layoff is just the regular course of business. (with apologies to Stalin)

by 13of40 3y ago

dukeyukey 3y ago

Even here in the UK, if a company is having redundancies you can be out the door in days or even hours. Firing a specific person for something non-performance needs paperwork, but that's a very specific case.

maccard 3y ago
> Firing a specific person for something <snip> needs paperwork Assuming they've been employed for longer than 2 years. If they've been there less than 2 years, it's pretty much in line with the US.

Night_Thastus 3y ago

Depends massively on the company. Some are like that, in others it can be at the drop of a hat with no performance reasons needed at all.

yardie 3y ago

They could fire Charlie without cause. Sounds like management just doesn't want to pay out UI or severance. So they'll let you suffer to document a cause. So Charlie is such a big problem they need to get rid of them, but not enough of a problem where the solution is money.

13of40 3y ago
No, it's all about the company being averse to getting sued. Even though I'm in a state that allows that in theory, it's not uncommon for people to sue for a six figure sum and get a settlement if you don't do everything perfectly.
- yardie 3y ago
  Yeah, that's what severance is for. Sign this paper that holds us harmless. We give you money to never see you again. This is a problem that could be solved with money. If Charlie is as bad as described the boss would pay for them to go away instead of dragging it out through a drawn-out documentation process.
- brewdad 3y ago
  So, the problem is money just like the previous poster said. You can pay the poor employee for a few months while building documentation to CYA or you can fire them immediately and potentially owe them the 3 months (and likely more) from a settlement. Taking months to fire an underperformer is simply an exercise in risk management not a legal necessity.

PedroBatista 3y ago

One word: "Layoffs" And the "performance management" thing it's only at certain positions and certain industries. For most people, that is not a thing ( which can be a plus too ).

devnullbrain 3y ago

>and probably stealing stuff This is needless and makes me value the rest of the insight less.

13of40 3y ago
Depending on the person, it can be true. I know through mutual friends that the first person I ever had to terminate walked off with a hard drive full of our IP and a prototype dev kit of a device the company was working on.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  There's a huge difference between "it can be true" and "probably stealing stuff".

throwaway2037 3y ago

Jurisdiction matters a lot. Where? If we are talking about a place with very few labour protection laws (HK/SG/US), forget it: You can layoff after a 10 min discussion. No biggie. Maybe throw a few months of severance pay. If we are talking about Japan, France, or Germany, it is a negotiation with the labour union. (Denmark is a very interesting exception due to "Flex-Security".) I cannot help but bring up the infamous "Amazon PIP" (performance improvement plan): What is the point? Just sack me with a package on Day One. Much easier and less emotionally damaging!

sib 3y ago
The GP was not talking about a layoff but a termination "at the whim of a boss." I've also worked at a number of big companies in the US, in "at-will" states, and the process is much like the GP describes.

wombatpm 3y ago

Thats if you want to get rid of an individual. It's easy if you can just put the problem person on the layoff list because the company is doing a 10% WFR as part of a stock market right-sizing initiative

SkyPuncher 3y ago

That's because you've worked at companies that want to protect this part of their reputation or liability. Most companies aren't massive and don't have these types of reputational or liability concerns.

dangerwill 3y ago

I like how you say this from the perspective not of a team lead but as another person on the team. Which means you actually don't have any real sense of how much documentation your boss had to do, just what your boss told you they did. "Sooooo... What's going on with Charlie? Are you documenting? I don't feel like you're documenting." sounds like you hounded your boss into firing your teammate instead of continuing to coach them.

13of40 3y ago
The part in quotes is the lead's manager talking. By the time you're being performance managed, your boss, their boss, their boss, etc. know about it, and the higher you go in the chain the more you're just a line in a spreadsheet that needs to be eliminated. You're on a 100 person team that needs to figure out how to get to 97, and you're the low hanging fruit because you're already marked. What you (as an IC) assume is your boss being a dick is actually a vast mechanism behind your boss, including upper management and HR, pushing them to resolve the situation.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > By the time you're being performance managed, your boss, their boss, their boss, etc. know about it, and the higher you go in the chain the more you're just a line in a spreadsheet This is so true. I've never been "performance managed", but if I were to be, I'd immediately start looking for another job because of what you're describing. Even if I wasn't eventually fired, I know that black mark will color everyone's perception of me from then on.
  - llampx 3y ago
    That's the point, to make you quit so that you won't come back and sue them. Risk management.

mortenjorck 3y ago

One termination is a special case; a 20% layoff is just the regular course of business. (with apologies to Stalin)