3 ms·

In the US, that does not happen. The expectation is someone only gets terminated in the first year if they are terrible. Unless it’s a tiny startup, such a stin

by fvrghl 3y ago

In the US, that does not happen. The expectation is someone only gets terminated in the first year if they are terrible. Unless it’s a tiny startup, such a stint would raise concerns.

smabie 3y ago
Yeah feels quite the opposite: as long as you're not actively harming the business seems like you usually get a year.
ceuk 3y ago
What an interesting difference, I had no idea. Seems like a good system given the context in the US. Classic American hands off approach that it's more of an unspoken rule than legislation etc :) But anyway, in many ways I can see a system that like working very well for some of the types of people that need it most (e.g. entry level, neurodiverse etc). Makes the 6 month probation system look harsher by comparison.
smallerfish 3y ago
> The expectation is someone only gets terminated in the first year if they are terrible That's an over generalization. I've walked a few people out the door within the first 3-6 months who weren't performing that well. They weren't terrible, just ultimately not a fit for one reason or another.
kkielhofner 3y ago
There's actually a debate in the biz/MBA world on "hire slow, fire fast"[0]. I believe Reed Hastings at Netflix has advocated in the past for a hybrid approach "hire fast, fire fast" - interviews can be nearly useless and unfair. See people who are excellent employees but poor "test takers" vs people who are actually terrible and incompetent but can crush an interview. In my experience you just don't know what's going to happen until "the rubber meets the road". [0] - https://hbr.org/2014/03/hire-slow-fire-fast https://hbr.org/2014/03/hire-slow-fire-fast
- csdreamer7 3y ago
  You know, I was expected to hate that part from Reed Hastings when I first started reading it, but he is right. Interviews are nearly useless and unfair. Giving people a chance to learn technical and professional skills when you are starting out, even if you terminated later, is important.
ameister14 3y ago
That's interesting - I have always treated the first 3-6 months as a period to make sure the person is a fit and is ramping at the right speed, and letting them go if there is an issue within that period makes way more sense to me than keeping them on to struggle for a year. It's not a greater red flag for me to see someone got fired two months in than a year and a half in - in fact, the year and a half would cause me to ask a lot more questions.

by fvrghl 3y ago

In the US, that does not happen. The expectation is someone only gets terminated in the first year if they are terrible. Unless it’s a tiny startup, such a stint would raise concerns.

smabie 3y ago

Yeah feels quite the opposite: as long as you're not actively harming the business seems like you usually get a year.

ceuk 3y ago

What an interesting difference, I had no idea. Seems like a good system given the context in the US. Classic American hands off approach that it's more of an unspoken rule than legislation etc :) But anyway, in many ways I can see a system that like working very well for some of the types of people that need it most (e.g. entry level, neurodiverse etc). Makes the 6 month probation system look harsher by comparison.

smallerfish 3y ago

> The expectation is someone only gets terminated in the first year if they are terrible That's an over generalization. I've walked a few people out the door within the first 3-6 months who weren't performing that well. They weren't terrible, just ultimately not a fit for one reason or another.

kkielhofner 3y ago

There's actually a debate in the biz/MBA world on "hire slow, fire fast"[0]. I believe Reed Hastings at Netflix has advocated in the past for a hybrid approach "hire fast, fire fast" - interviews can be nearly useless and unfair. See people who are excellent employees but poor "test takers" vs people who are actually terrible and incompetent but can crush an interview. In my experience you just don't know what's going to happen until "the rubber meets the road". [0] - https://hbr.org/2014/03/hire-slow-fire-fast https://hbr.org/2014/03/hire-slow-fire-fast

csdreamer7 3y ago
You know, I was expected to hate that part from Reed Hastings when I first started reading it, but he is right. Interviews are nearly useless and unfair. Giving people a chance to learn technical and professional skills when you are starting out, even if you terminated later, is important.

ameister14 3y ago

That's interesting - I have always treated the first 3-6 months as a period to make sure the person is a fit and is ramping at the right speed, and letting them go if there is an issue within that period makes way more sense to me than keeping them on to struggle for a year. It's not a greater red flag for me to see someone got fired two months in than a year and a half in - in fact, the year and a half would cause me to ask a lot more questions.