3 ms·
It's wrong because it treats people like transactions instead of living creatures. Obviously we don't know the full story, but people make mistakes, underperfo
by 23B1 3y ago
It's wrong because it treats people like transactions instead of living creatures.
Obviously we don't know the full story, but people make mistakes, underperform, or somehow lose their touch. If it's a pattern and the person obviously just doesn't want to work there anymore, fine.
But on balance, I think it's better to counsel, coach, and develop people over time, regardless of experience or tenure or attitude. Not only do I believe employee churn to be more expensive in the long run (brand reputation, institutional knowledge, handover premium) but I believe it to be ethically wrong.
This attitude has personally served me well. I can't prove it with data, but my heart is whole and I have no regrets about going above and beyond to retain and develop employees.
I'd rather die without guilt and have a packed funeral – than a trillionaire and alone.
- achates 3y agoIt sounds nice to keep failing executives around indefinitely while you try to train or mentor them, but in practice the company can't keep losing $100 million a movie and remain in business. Being nice to bad directors means laying off a lot of other people in the long run.
- 23B1 3y agoI totally think that’s fair… And again we don’t know what happened in this particular situation. I just think that there is this foolish and ultimately costly view of employees that they are interchangeable parts, when in fact there are more effective ways to improve financial performance.