3 ms·

If I were on the board / an investor of the company, I’d let the managers go and hire back that engineer. The goal of a company is to serve its customers and m

If I were on the board / an investor of the company, I’d let the managers go and hire back that engineer. The goal of a company is to serve its customers and make a profit, not stroke managements egos. And it sounds more like this guy pointed out what was wrong and maybe embarrassed people, but that doesn’t make him an asshole. It’s one thing to be mean or call people names, that’s an asshole. But this guy was an “asshole” because he was right and it embarrassed people? I’ve seen the type of management that is so insecure they can’t be pointed out what they are doing wrong, sounds more like what happened here. A good company has management that has a thick skin and acknowledges its missteps and raises up talent. If you can’t admit an employee “lower” than you can point out your flaws and give you criticism, then you’re the problem.

kstrauser 1y ago
It depends on so much that wasn’t covered here. If you tell me I’m wrong and show me why, I’ll thank you. If you tell me my idea is stupid and make it a point to maximally humiliate me for the mistake, I may have to bury your body in the desert. It’s never a good idea to make someone feel extra embarrassed for an error. That’s how you get them to loathe you and to make them hide future mistakes from you.
Simon_O_Rourke 1y ago
Yes but once the guy is sacked for cause, or trumped up poor performance, bad attitude etc. the remaining narrative is crafted by the layer of management that remains.
Ancapistani 1y ago
> A good company has management that has a thick skin and acknowledges its missteps and raises up talent. I've worked in companies where "thick skin" was a critical requirement. It worked OK, but the stress level was high and it was pretty toxic (even for someone with very thick skin). I've worked in companies where empathy was the critical requirement. That was a better environment to work in, but it wasn't effective. Those companies died. Where I work now is a mix of both: empathetic, but coupled with intellectual curiosity and respect. We challenge each other's ideas, but it's clear that we aren't attacking each others as people. It honestly seems to be the best of both worlds. "Thick skin" isn't exactly the right way to put it, though. I'd say "vulnerability" describes it better.

kstrauser 1y ago

It depends on so much that wasn’t covered here. If you tell me I’m wrong and show me why, I’ll thank you. If you tell me my idea is stupid and make it a point to maximally humiliate me for the mistake, I may have to bury your body in the desert. It’s never a good idea to make someone feel extra embarrassed for an error. That’s how you get them to loathe you and to make them hide future mistakes from you.

Simon_O_Rourke 1y ago

Yes but once the guy is sacked for cause, or trumped up poor performance, bad attitude etc. the remaining narrative is crafted by the layer of management that remains.

Ancapistani 1y ago

> A good company has management that has a thick skin and acknowledges its missteps and raises up talent. I've worked in companies where "thick skin" was a critical requirement. It worked OK, but the stress level was high and it was pretty toxic (even for someone with very thick skin). I've worked in companies where empathy was the critical requirement. That was a better environment to work in, but it wasn't effective. Those companies died. Where I work now is a mix of both: empathetic, but coupled with intellectual curiosity and respect. We challenge each other's ideas, but it's clear that we aren't attacking each others as people. It honestly seems to be the best of both worlds. "Thick skin" isn't exactly the right way to put it, though. I'd say "vulnerability" describes it better.