3 ms·

"Culturally retarded" wasn't intended for offense. Retarded means "delayed" or "behind the times" and I couldn't think of a better word. I am no fan of the coll

"Culturally retarded" wasn't intended for offense. Retarded means "delayed" or "behind the times" and I couldn't think of a better word. I am no fan of the colloquial use of "retarded" (making a slight on people who, through no fault of their own, have congenital cognitive problems) but that's not what I was going for. How do you convince them that a) cultural innovation is a winning move and b) you're the guy to get it done? These VC darlings grow too fast and hire before they trust. That's their original sin. If you can't trust someone with his own time and effort (open allocation) then don't fucking hire that person.

cma 14y ago
If you are going to retain the ability to fire people, you are still subjecting them to hierarchy. Except now you have a narrower channel of communication--they can only ask: was I fired today or not? And if you open more communication with the implied threat of firing, you are back to a traditional managerial relationship.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Well, I'm a fan of open allocation. People aren't beholden to one manager. They work for the company. Two cases of firing that I see: 1. Objectively unethical or toxic. Leakers, people who arrogate power in power vacuums, people who insult colleagues, people who break the law. Fire them. Don't wait a day. This is less than 1%. 2. People who can't fit anywhere in the organization. You need to get rid of them, but you have time. They might be a solid "5" or "6", but they'll never be a "8". There's just no fit. Give them a generous severance and a good reference. Let them use the office and represent themselves as employed during the search. Treat them as alumni and leave them feeling good about the company. 3. People who are not doing great where they are. Let them find a better fit (open allocation). If they don't have the initiative for that-- not everyone does-- see #2. That's the right way to fire people. It's a serious and important function and it shouldn't be used as punishment. You fire because you have no other choice. Then firing isn't about power. It's a necessary and unpleasant duty that keeps the company from falling to pieces.

cma 14y ago

If you are going to retain the ability to fire people, you are still subjecting them to hierarchy. Except now you have a narrower channel of communication--they can only ask: was I fired today or not? And if you open more communication with the implied threat of firing, you are back to a traditional managerial relationship.

michaelochurch 14y ago
Well, I'm a fan of open allocation. People aren't beholden to one manager. They work for the company. Two cases of firing that I see: 1. Objectively unethical or toxic. Leakers, people who arrogate power in power vacuums, people who insult colleagues, people who break the law. Fire them. Don't wait a day. This is less than 1%. 2. People who can't fit anywhere in the organization. You need to get rid of them, but you have time. They might be a solid "5" or "6", but they'll never be a "8". There's just no fit. Give them a generous severance and a good reference. Let them use the office and represent themselves as employed during the search. Treat them as alumni and leave them feeling good about the company. 3. People who are not doing great where they are. Let them find a better fit (open allocation). If they don't have the initiative for that-- not everyone does-- see #2. That's the right way to fire people. It's a serious and important function and it shouldn't be used as punishment. You fire because you have no other choice. Then firing isn't about power. It's a necessary and unpleasant duty that keeps the company from falling to pieces.