6 ms·

If that's the case, then they should just say that.

Aurornis 3y ago
They did. They said it was for performance reasons and offered to book a longer, second call to talk about it. Did you watch the video? She cuts them off several seconds into the call and doesn't let them even speak before she starts talking about her situation (hire date, no sales closed). They didn't even have a chance to say anything. Once someone reaches this level of intensity (cutting people off, not allowing them to speak, cursing, making accusations before the other party has even spoken) it's better to slow down and reschedule a follow-up meeting after some time to cool off. I know this is a difficult topic for HN, but this video is a good example of a TikTok performance designed to maximize engagement and outrage. I'm surprised to see TikTok outrage videos working their way into HN comments and that people are taking the situation as presented without stopping to listen to the facts.
- aestetix 3y ago
  That's not entirely true. She did cut them off when they were giving out corporate speak. She asked for details, and they didn't have any details for her. I would have expected them to have a list of specific reasons, possibly prepared by her manager, and if she wanted to challenge them, then schedule a follow up meeting. But the "follow up meeting" is often just a way to make the complaint go away, rather than addressing it.
  - Aurornis 3y ago
    > She did cut them off when they were giving out corporate speak. She cut them off after 21 seconds and then went into a heated complaint, including calling what they're doing "bullshit" > She asked for details, and they didn't have any details for her. Once someone becomes this heated, the only real option is to reschedule a followup call after the person has had time to cool down. Nothing good would have come from delving into details of her performance, even though she already admitted and acknowledged that she hadn't closed any sales. I don't think anything will make HN commenters happy, but what would you actually have wanted to hear? If they had instead said "We're cutting you for no good reason" the comments section would be complaining about that instead.
    - aestetix 3y ago
      A few things. First, if they are doing layoffs, shouldn't they expect people to be pissed off, and be prepared to handle that? I don't think the call was heated at all, but maybe it's a cultural difference. It could be that American corporate drones in general are less tolerant of conflict. Second, why not include someone she knew on the call, instead of two people she had never met before? It's a total power move. If they had her direct boss included, or started out with a reason why it was just the two of them, that probably would have helped. Third, the fact that others were getting laid off besides just her tells me that it was not solely a performance issue. It was a corporate level cost saving measure, combined with a performance issue. Had they admitted to that, instead of laying the blame on her, it would have been fine for me. She probably would not have been happy, but I personally would not agree with her posting a video where they said that. Finally, I'm not sure what this stereotypical "HN commenter" is, but if you bring it up again, I may have to consider that you're not actually trying to engage with my arguments and instead dismissing me as a sockpuppet or something.
      - baumy 3y ago
        First - Cultural differences are almost certainly at play here if you're not American. My only exposure to non-American workplace culture is a single German friend, and familiarity with how Linus Torvalds operates. Suffice it to say, cutting across someone to say "bullshit" would be considered "heated" in most American tech workplaces, no matter how calm your tone of voice and body language is. I'm struggling to find a way to say this without sparking a discussion I definitely don't want, but this kind of goes hand in hand with all the inclusion and sensitivity training that was very popular in American corporations until very recently. You can't really emphasize the importance of always being kind and inclusive and butterflies and rainbows without creating a culture that's a bit more sensitive about people acting in any way pissed off. Second - I'm not sure I'd call the choice of call participants a "power move", just standard American hyper-legally-conscious practice. Surprise layoffs or pip firings are usually done with an HRBP you've probably never met before leading the call. Sometimes the manager may be there but frequently they won't talk much or at all. Third - Not necessarily. The others may have been struggling to close sales as well. The only things I know about this whole thing come from reading the text in the OP and watching the tiktok video so I could easily be missing it, but is there any evidence that this is anything other than letting go of sales people who aren't performing? I think this is extremely common in sales, it's pretty cutthroat. You close deals or you don't, and companies are always asking "what have you done for me lately?"
- tiew9Vii 3y ago
  > Once someone reaches this level of intensity Not sure if I watched the same video shared here as you did. It obviously came as a surprise but she seemed calm given the circumstances and was asking straight direct reasonable questions given the circumstances with the people on the other end responded back with gobbledygook avoiding answering straight direct questions. In no way was she loud, abusive, threatening. At best she got agitated she wasn’t being given any real answer, just meaningless words avoiding answering a simple direct question.
  - Aurornis 3y ago
    > Not sure if I watched the same video shared here as you did. > but she seemed calm She only let them speak for 21 seconds before "I'm going to stop you right there" and you she also referred to their words as "bullshit". I don't know what level of business discourse you're accustomed to, but if someone is cutting you off 21 seconds into the conversation, speaking over you, and calling things "bullshit" then it's time to slow down and let them cool off.
    - tiew9Vii 3y ago
      I dunno. That didn’t even register as a one on a scale of one out of ten of heated business discussions. The word bullshit didn’t even register, never mind offensive in its usage or delivery. If anything it was direct and succinct. She was being given generic spiel which where just words with no information likely from a script to close the call meeting minimal obligations as soon as possible then forget about that person. The woman had just lost her job with others unexpectedly, she was shocked but calm and wanted a clear simple answer. If that was classed as heated the people delivering the news were clearly out of their depth and unprepared. There response served nothing other than agitating the woman as they wanted out of a hard conversation instead of having and managing a hard conversation. They could have been honest “We’re sorry, we don’t personally know you, we’ve never met or spoke before. We’ve been given a list of people to call the company has had to make redundant which has come as a shock to us as much as you. We personally do not know the information you are asking as it hasn’t been provided to us personally at this time, we know as much as you. We’ll try to provide and find the information you are asking and contact you as soon as we have it, in the meantime here are my contact details feel free to contact me if you have and questions in the meantime”. Straight talking honesty goes a long way instead avoiding hard conversations at all costs.
- infamia 3y ago
  > They did. They said it was for performance reasons and offered to book a longer, second call to talk about it. Who shows up to fire someone without any specifics at all? That is utterly incompetent and completely unprofessional, even for a very large company. Who shows up this unprepared and 100% scripted? HR knows good and well that after being terminated that almost no one will want or will have time for such a follow-up call. edit: I would also note, that when a company gives an employee positive checkpoints like her manager did throughout, and then you lay that person off, you should expect them to react strongly -- cos said company messed up very badly. Do better Cloudflare.
  - itsdrewmiller 3y ago
    The bigger the company the less likely anyone will attempt to give you specific information about why you are being terminated during the termination meeting - I think your expectations of how things should work don't match the reality of how they do work. Competent organizations will have given longer term employee more prior feedback about their performance issues, but in this case the employee was likely still in their probationary period. Even then you'd expect them to get SOME feedback about not hitting their numbers, but we only have one side of the story here - she may have gotten feedback and ignored it.
    - infamia 3y ago
      > The bigger the company the less likely anyone will attempt to give you specific information about why you are being terminated during the termination meeting - I think your expectations of how things should work don't match the reality of how they do work. I don't doubt that has been your experience, but that's a terribly low bar that only some companies fail to clear. I've worked for several very large organizations, and had the exact opposite experience. They were all way more thoughtful and compassionate during terminations than what we saw from Cloudflare (who is supposedly a modern and innovative company). Being too forthcoming is a risk, but as we've seen by this video and lots of other situations, going to the extreme of being an impersonal robot is a reputational risk. Any decent HR Department would be able to handle this situation with more grace, and general reasons why it didn't work out without introducing risk to the company. Cloudflare was so risk averse during this process, they damaged Cloudflare's reputation. This is doubly troublesome since Cloudflare positions themselves as an exceptional and innovative company. They should be a lot better than this, and the CEO has said as much. [1] > Even then you'd expect them to get SOME feedback about not hitting their numbers, but we only have one side of the story here - she may have gotten feedback and ignored it. Thanks for mentioning that. It's a definite possibility! However, based on the employee being generally aware of at least one of her deficiencies (not closing a sale), the operational incompetence of Cloudflare in this instance, and particularly the manager not being present, I genuinely wonder if it is reasonable to give Cloudflare the benefit of the doubt? It is possible she ignored warning signs, and I'm open to new information. That said, I haven't seen anything to make me feel like the person being terminated is the problem. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38969065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38969065
- 6bb32646d83d 3y ago
  There would have been no follow up meeting. That's the meeting where they need to be prepared to give answers. Her account most likely was being scheduled to be disabled by the end of that meeting
- bitcharmer 3y ago
  > I know this is a difficult topic for HN, but this video is a good example of a TikTok performance designed to maximize engagement and outrage. You're either trolling or work in HR. The process was completely dehumanised and they conducted mass layoffs under the guise of performance driven workforce correction to avoid paying severance. Let's call a spade a spade.
- valval 3y ago
  After spending some time on HN, I’d be terribly surprised if the reaction wasn’t exactly like it is in these threads. If there’s one thing I’d bet big money on in the world, it’s the gullibility of HN users. Or Reddit users, since this is just a Reddit clone with the same user base (despite the rules pointing out that saying this is totally lame and not even true, dawg).

They did. They said it was for performance reasons and offered to book a longer, second call to talk about it. Did you watch the video? She cuts them off several seconds into the call and doesn't let them even speak before she starts talking about her situation (hire date, no sales closed). They didn't even have a chance to say anything. Once someone reaches this level of intensity (cutting people off, not allowing them to speak, cursing, making accusations before the other party has even spoken) it's better to slow down and reschedule a follow-up meeting after some time to cool off. I know this is a difficult topic for HN, but this video is a good example of a TikTok performance designed to maximize engagement and outrage. I'm surprised to see TikTok outrage videos working their way into HN comments and that people are taking the situation as presented without stopping to listen to the facts.

aestetix 3y ago
That's not entirely true. She did cut them off when they were giving out corporate speak. She asked for details, and they didn't have any details for her. I would have expected them to have a list of specific reasons, possibly prepared by her manager, and if she wanted to challenge them, then schedule a follow up meeting. But the "follow up meeting" is often just a way to make the complaint go away, rather than addressing it.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > She did cut them off when they were giving out corporate speak. She cut them off after 21 seconds and then went into a heated complaint, including calling what they're doing "bullshit" > She asked for details, and they didn't have any details for her. Once someone becomes this heated, the only real option is to reschedule a followup call after the person has had time to cool down. Nothing good would have come from delving into details of her performance, even though she already admitted and acknowledged that she hadn't closed any sales. I don't think anything will make HN commenters happy, but what would you actually have wanted to hear? If they had instead said "We're cutting you for no good reason" the comments section would be complaining about that instead.
  - aestetix 3y ago
    A few things. First, if they are doing layoffs, shouldn't they expect people to be pissed off, and be prepared to handle that? I don't think the call was heated at all, but maybe it's a cultural difference. It could be that American corporate drones in general are less tolerant of conflict. Second, why not include someone she knew on the call, instead of two people she had never met before? It's a total power move. If they had her direct boss included, or started out with a reason why it was just the two of them, that probably would have helped. Third, the fact that others were getting laid off besides just her tells me that it was not solely a performance issue. It was a corporate level cost saving measure, combined with a performance issue. Had they admitted to that, instead of laying the blame on her, it would have been fine for me. She probably would not have been happy, but I personally would not agree with her posting a video where they said that. Finally, I'm not sure what this stereotypical "HN commenter" is, but if you bring it up again, I may have to consider that you're not actually trying to engage with my arguments and instead dismissing me as a sockpuppet or something.
    - baumy 3y ago
      First - Cultural differences are almost certainly at play here if you're not American. My only exposure to non-American workplace culture is a single German friend, and familiarity with how Linus Torvalds operates. Suffice it to say, cutting across someone to say "bullshit" would be considered "heated" in most American tech workplaces, no matter how calm your tone of voice and body language is. I'm struggling to find a way to say this without sparking a discussion I definitely don't want, but this kind of goes hand in hand with all the inclusion and sensitivity training that was very popular in American corporations until very recently. You can't really emphasize the importance of always being kind and inclusive and butterflies and rainbows without creating a culture that's a bit more sensitive about people acting in any way pissed off. Second - I'm not sure I'd call the choice of call participants a "power move", just standard American hyper-legally-conscious practice. Surprise layoffs or pip firings are usually done with an HRBP you've probably never met before leading the call. Sometimes the manager may be there but frequently they won't talk much or at all. Third - Not necessarily. The others may have been struggling to close sales as well. The only things I know about this whole thing come from reading the text in the OP and watching the tiktok video so I could easily be missing it, but is there any evidence that this is anything other than letting go of sales people who aren't performing? I think this is extremely common in sales, it's pretty cutthroat. You close deals or you don't, and companies are always asking "what have you done for me lately?"
tiew9Vii 3y ago
> Once someone reaches this level of intensity Not sure if I watched the same video shared here as you did. It obviously came as a surprise but she seemed calm given the circumstances and was asking straight direct reasonable questions given the circumstances with the people on the other end responded back with gobbledygook avoiding answering straight direct questions. In no way was she loud, abusive, threatening. At best she got agitated she wasn’t being given any real answer, just meaningless words avoiding answering a simple direct question.
- Aurornis 3y ago
  > Not sure if I watched the same video shared here as you did. > but she seemed calm She only let them speak for 21 seconds before "I'm going to stop you right there" and you she also referred to their words as "bullshit". I don't know what level of business discourse you're accustomed to, but if someone is cutting you off 21 seconds into the conversation, speaking over you, and calling things "bullshit" then it's time to slow down and let them cool off.
  - tiew9Vii 3y ago
    I dunno. That didn’t even register as a one on a scale of one out of ten of heated business discussions. The word bullshit didn’t even register, never mind offensive in its usage or delivery. If anything it was direct and succinct. She was being given generic spiel which where just words with no information likely from a script to close the call meeting minimal obligations as soon as possible then forget about that person. The woman had just lost her job with others unexpectedly, she was shocked but calm and wanted a clear simple answer. If that was classed as heated the people delivering the news were clearly out of their depth and unprepared. There response served nothing other than agitating the woman as they wanted out of a hard conversation instead of having and managing a hard conversation. They could have been honest “We’re sorry, we don’t personally know you, we’ve never met or spoke before. We’ve been given a list of people to call the company has had to make redundant which has come as a shock to us as much as you. We personally do not know the information you are asking as it hasn’t been provided to us personally at this time, we know as much as you. We’ll try to provide and find the information you are asking and contact you as soon as we have it, in the meantime here are my contact details feel free to contact me if you have and questions in the meantime”. Straight talking honesty goes a long way instead avoiding hard conversations at all costs.
infamia 3y ago
> They did. They said it was for performance reasons and offered to book a longer, second call to talk about it. Who shows up to fire someone without any specifics at all? That is utterly incompetent and completely unprofessional, even for a very large company. Who shows up this unprepared and 100% scripted? HR knows good and well that after being terminated that almost no one will want or will have time for such a follow-up call. edit: I would also note, that when a company gives an employee positive checkpoints like her manager did throughout, and then you lay that person off, you should expect them to react strongly -- cos said company messed up very badly. Do better Cloudflare.
- itsdrewmiller 3y ago
  The bigger the company the less likely anyone will attempt to give you specific information about why you are being terminated during the termination meeting - I think your expectations of how things should work don't match the reality of how they do work. Competent organizations will have given longer term employee more prior feedback about their performance issues, but in this case the employee was likely still in their probationary period. Even then you'd expect them to get SOME feedback about not hitting their numbers, but we only have one side of the story here - she may have gotten feedback and ignored it.
  - infamia 3y ago
    > The bigger the company the less likely anyone will attempt to give you specific information about why you are being terminated during the termination meeting - I think your expectations of how things should work don't match the reality of how they do work. I don't doubt that has been your experience, but that's a terribly low bar that only some companies fail to clear. I've worked for several very large organizations, and had the exact opposite experience. They were all way more thoughtful and compassionate during terminations than what we saw from Cloudflare (who is supposedly a modern and innovative company). Being too forthcoming is a risk, but as we've seen by this video and lots of other situations, going to the extreme of being an impersonal robot is a reputational risk. Any decent HR Department would be able to handle this situation with more grace, and general reasons why it didn't work out without introducing risk to the company. Cloudflare was so risk averse during this process, they damaged Cloudflare's reputation. This is doubly troublesome since Cloudflare positions themselves as an exceptional and innovative company. They should be a lot better than this, and the CEO has said as much. [1] > Even then you'd expect them to get SOME feedback about not hitting their numbers, but we only have one side of the story here - she may have gotten feedback and ignored it. Thanks for mentioning that. It's a definite possibility! However, based on the employee being generally aware of at least one of her deficiencies (not closing a sale), the operational incompetence of Cloudflare in this instance, and particularly the manager not being present, I genuinely wonder if it is reasonable to give Cloudflare the benefit of the doubt? It is possible she ignored warning signs, and I'm open to new information. That said, I haven't seen anything to make me feel like the person being terminated is the problem. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38969065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38969065
6bb32646d83d 3y ago
There would have been no follow up meeting. That's the meeting where they need to be prepared to give answers. Her account most likely was being scheduled to be disabled by the end of that meeting
bitcharmer 3y ago
> I know this is a difficult topic for HN, but this video is a good example of a TikTok performance designed to maximize engagement and outrage. You're either trolling or work in HR. The process was completely dehumanised and they conducted mass layoffs under the guise of performance driven workforce correction to avoid paying severance. Let's call a spade a spade.
valval 3y ago
After spending some time on HN, I’d be terribly surprised if the reaction wasn’t exactly like it is in these threads. If there’s one thing I’d bet big money on in the world, it’s the gullibility of HN users. Or Reddit users, since this is just a Reddit clone with the same user base (despite the rules pointing out that saying this is totally lame and not even true, dawg).