2 ms·

I proposed to fire/transfer some of them. Management was in favor but, after talking to them, decided to give them a chance to adapt to the new reality. The te

I proposed to fire/transfer some of them. Management was in favor but, after talking to them, decided to give them a chance to adapt to the new reality. The team is the people not the org chart. You went nuclear. Threatened those people with losing their houses, access to health care, and going hungry over deploy methods and pull requests. You’ve squandered whatever goodwill and trust you might have had. It is time to learn from your mistakes and move on. That’s not how to treat people. Leaders negotiate. Good luck.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
logicalmonster 3y ago
With respect, I think your take on this particular matter sounds awful. Negotiation and persuasion are very important parts of being a wise leader in technical and creative fields, but it sounds like OP followed exactly what you advocated to no effect. None of us were in the room with OP and know both sides of the story, but it sounds like he gave them 2 months of the very kind persuasion and negotiation that you're advocating, and the employees persisted as willfully insubordinate and not following the processes that their boss wanted to enact. Do you keep negotiating for another 2 months? 2 years? Or do you have to make a choice at some point that people aren't even attempting to try and learn the processes you were hired to implement?
- brudgers 3y ago
  Two months in the OP has destroyed whatever goodwill there was and lost the backing of management…I mean management talked to the “problematic” people and sided with them. Maybe simply because firing people is expensive. But probably not solely for that. I mean they hired the OP to fix the team not destroy it. They could have fired them all instead of bringing the OP in. The OP is showing a naïveté regarding ordinary organizational reality and managing up as poorly as they are managing down. Fire the developers who aren’t using tests? Now you have two problems.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

logicalmonster 3y ago

With respect, I think your take on this particular matter sounds awful. Negotiation and persuasion are very important parts of being a wise leader in technical and creative fields, but it sounds like OP followed exactly what you advocated to no effect. None of us were in the room with OP and know both sides of the story, but it sounds like he gave them 2 months of the very kind persuasion and negotiation that you're advocating, and the employees persisted as willfully insubordinate and not following the processes that their boss wanted to enact. Do you keep negotiating for another 2 months? 2 years? Or do you have to make a choice at some point that people aren't even attempting to try and learn the processes you were hired to implement?

brudgers 3y ago
Two months in the OP has destroyed whatever goodwill there was and lost the backing of management…I mean management talked to the “problematic” people and sided with them. Maybe simply because firing people is expensive. But probably not solely for that. I mean they hired the OP to fix the team not destroy it. They could have fired them all instead of bringing the OP in. The OP is showing a naïveté regarding ordinary organizational reality and managing up as poorly as they are managing down. Fire the developers who aren’t using tests? Now you have two problems.