5 ms·

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 wou

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?"
    - pwb25 3y ago
      i mean if you need "sensitivity training" or have a job that is called "HRBP" that proves the point of the guy you reply to? It's just a lot bullshit speak with no honesty in it
    - allarm 3y ago
      > cutting across someone to say "bullshit" would be considered "heated" in most American tech workplaces Oh, you poor things.
- jlawer 3y ago
  > She cut them off after 21 seconds and then went into a heated complaint, including calling what they're doing "bullshit" It was Bullshit, textbook bullshit : https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on-bullshit https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on....
- cstrahan 3y ago
  Before I respond to your comment: I was laid off two days ago (not at CloudFlare), and while I'll greatly miss what I was working on and everyone I was working with, and I also don't like the stress of not having an income, the news was broken to me with sincerity and tact, very much unlike how CloudFlare handled the termination in this video. > She cut them off after 21 seconds and then went into a heated complaint, including calling what they're doing "bullshit" There's nothing "heated" about confronting deception -- that's just setting healthy boundaries and, hopefully, giving the other person room to grow as a human being. She established that her supervisor's feedback for her was that she had done "a great job". If that was not the case, the people letting her go would have asserted that this claim is false. If I try to interpret their words charitably (that is, if I pretend that when they said "you have not met CloudFlare's expectations for performance" they really meant was something quite different), it would seem that they are letting her go because: 1) CloudFlare has decided that it is financially in their best interest to layoff enough people to reduce payroll by $X, and 2) They tried to pick some objective criteria (even if misguided and/or unfair in practice) to pick who to let go, and she met that criteria. For all we know, they may have taken a spreadsheet of everyone with her job title, sorted by sales per month, then sorted by name to break ties, and then laid off the bottom people. In this scenario, saying "we're letting you go because of your performance" is not only untrue, it's also an incredibly insensitive, tone-deaf cop out. Yes, performance may have been involved in the calculus of who to let go, but the actual underlying cause of her termination is that they have decided that it's in CloudFlare's best interest to reduce payroll. She wasn't under-performing, so it is, in fact, bullshit for CloudFlare to use that as the reason for her termination, and then equivocate when asked for a single example of her not meeting expectations. > Once someone becomes this heated [...] Again, she's not "heated". She is (reasonably) offended that they would lie to her face to deflect responsibility for her termination onto her. > [...] the only real option is to reschedule a followup call after the person has had time to cool down. No. The only thing to do is take ownership of the situation they have put her in and the incredibly offensive way they broke the news to her. > [...] 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. No. If they said that, it would also be a lie. The appropriate thing to say is pretty easy: you speak the truth. I can give a condensed, paraphrased version of what I was told two days ago (and, admittedly, what I was told verbatim was more tactful than what I'll produce here, but this is infinitely better than the schlock she was told): "We regret to inform you that we will be terminating your employment. It's not fair. It's not a failing on your part. We want to be clear that this termination is not a firing; your role is being eliminated as part of layoffs. Ultimately, we have decided that we have over-hired with respect to the current economic climate." You've probably noted that I didn't mention performance indicators at all, despite them (probably) being used to sort some spreadsheet and layoff people that met and/or exceeded the expectations of their title yet sorted at the bottom (vs a random sampling). Why? Because it's irrelevant in that conversation. What would mentioning it achieve? For new hires, it says nothing, as they hadn't been there long enough. For others, the implication is that if they had overworked themselves then maybe they would still have a job, which is a dick thing to imply. So really, the only positive thing that can come out mentioning it is that the people informing her that her income is about to be $0.00 can feel justified, thus soothing their conscience -- but anyone with a shred of social skill and empathy would know that this isn't the time nor place. Being laid off sucks, but the problem here isn't that she was laid off. It's clear that isn't what upset her. What's wrong in that video is one (or both) of: 1) These people copping out with bullshit, trying to spin a layoff as a firing, and/or 2) These people having such piss-poor empathy and communication skills that they can't see that what they said was a slap in her face
- wonnage 3y ago
  You've made this same comment in multiple threads, genuinely curious why you feel so strongly about this. I can only imagine you're relatively new to the working world or have never been in a layoff situation. Her reaction is perfectly normal and as a manager or HR rep you're basically there to be yelled at on behalf of the company, as the company is not actually a person and it's not satisfying to yell at the abstract concept of Cloudflare that just fired you. Scheduling a followup call feels like an incredibly low-EQ move
  - bitcharmer 3y ago
    Yeah, GP's comments are completely bizarre. My guess either a troll or an HR drone.

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?"
  - pwb25 3y ago
    i mean if you need "sensitivity training" or have a job that is called "HRBP" that proves the point of the guy you reply to? It's just a lot bullshit speak with no honesty in it
  - allarm 3y ago
    > cutting across someone to say "bullshit" would be considered "heated" in most American tech workplaces Oh, you poor things.
jlawer 3y ago
> She cut them off after 21 seconds and then went into a heated complaint, including calling what they're doing "bullshit" It was Bullshit, textbook bullshit : https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on-bullshit https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691122946/on....
cstrahan 3y ago
Before I respond to your comment: I was laid off two days ago (not at CloudFlare), and while I'll greatly miss what I was working on and everyone I was working with, and I also don't like the stress of not having an income, the news was broken to me with sincerity and tact, very much unlike how CloudFlare handled the termination in this video. > She cut them off after 21 seconds and then went into a heated complaint, including calling what they're doing "bullshit" There's nothing "heated" about confronting deception -- that's just setting healthy boundaries and, hopefully, giving the other person room to grow as a human being. She established that her supervisor's feedback for her was that she had done "a great job". If that was not the case, the people letting her go would have asserted that this claim is false. If I try to interpret their words charitably (that is, if I pretend that when they said "you have not met CloudFlare's expectations for performance" they really meant was something quite different), it would seem that they are letting her go because: 1) CloudFlare has decided that it is financially in their best interest to layoff enough people to reduce payroll by $X, and 2) They tried to pick some objective criteria (even if misguided and/or unfair in practice) to pick who to let go, and she met that criteria. For all we know, they may have taken a spreadsheet of everyone with her job title, sorted by sales per month, then sorted by name to break ties, and then laid off the bottom people. In this scenario, saying "we're letting you go because of your performance" is not only untrue, it's also an incredibly insensitive, tone-deaf cop out. Yes, performance may have been involved in the calculus of who to let go, but the actual underlying cause of her termination is that they have decided that it's in CloudFlare's best interest to reduce payroll. She wasn't under-performing, so it is, in fact, bullshit for CloudFlare to use that as the reason for her termination, and then equivocate when asked for a single example of her not meeting expectations. > Once someone becomes this heated [...] Again, she's not "heated". She is (reasonably) offended that they would lie to her face to deflect responsibility for her termination onto her. > [...] the only real option is to reschedule a followup call after the person has had time to cool down. No. The only thing to do is take ownership of the situation they have put her in and the incredibly offensive way they broke the news to her. > [...] 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. No. If they said that, it would also be a lie. The appropriate thing to say is pretty easy: you speak the truth. I can give a condensed, paraphrased version of what I was told two days ago (and, admittedly, what I was told verbatim was more tactful than what I'll produce here, but this is infinitely better than the schlock she was told): "We regret to inform you that we will be terminating your employment. It's not fair. It's not a failing on your part. We want to be clear that this termination is not a firing; your role is being eliminated as part of layoffs. Ultimately, we have decided that we have over-hired with respect to the current economic climate." You've probably noted that I didn't mention performance indicators at all, despite them (probably) being used to sort some spreadsheet and layoff people that met and/or exceeded the expectations of their title yet sorted at the bottom (vs a random sampling). Why? Because it's irrelevant in that conversation. What would mentioning it achieve? For new hires, it says nothing, as they hadn't been there long enough. For others, the implication is that if they had overworked themselves then maybe they would still have a job, which is a dick thing to imply. So really, the only positive thing that can come out mentioning it is that the people informing her that her income is about to be $0.00 can feel justified, thus soothing their conscience -- but anyone with a shred of social skill and empathy would know that this isn't the time nor place. Being laid off sucks, but the problem here isn't that she was laid off. It's clear that isn't what upset her. What's wrong in that video is one (or both) of: 1) These people copping out with bullshit, trying to spin a layoff as a firing, and/or 2) These people having such piss-poor empathy and communication skills that they can't see that what they said was a slap in her face
wonnage 3y ago
You've made this same comment in multiple threads, genuinely curious why you feel so strongly about this. I can only imagine you're relatively new to the working world or have never been in a layoff situation. Her reaction is perfectly normal and as a manager or HR rep you're basically there to be yelled at on behalf of the company, as the company is not actually a person and it's not satisfying to yell at the abstract concept of Cloudflare that just fired you. Scheduling a followup call feels like an incredibly low-EQ move
- bitcharmer 3y ago
  Yeah, GP's comments are completely bizarre. My guess either a troll or an HR drone.