4 ms·

In a company with a well known lack of traditional corporate hierarchy, who does the firing? I'm genuinely curious. None of the reports I've read have mention

In a company with a well known lack of traditional corporate hierarchy, who does the firing? I'm genuinely curious. None of the reports I've read have mentioned it, which leads you to assume Gabe. This would imply an informal hierarchy.

ars 14y ago
Somebody owns the company no? Someone writes the checks? That person does the firing.
LandoCalrissian 14y ago
I recall reading a while back that they have a procedure for this. I think they actually decide it through group consensus, so I would imagine the reasons for being fired would have to be pretty real.
- trdtaylor 14y ago
  Yes, it's in the employee handbook posted last year. Peer evaluations that actually work compared to the Microsoft system Gabe left behind.
  - danso 14y ago
    IIRC, the employee handbook pretty much said that you can work on whatever you want, and choose your own departments. So when doing layoffs, are peer evaluation scores compared companywide (as opposed to just saying, we're letting you go because we're shutting down your department/project).
- mercuryrising 14y ago
  That kind of sucks actually... If I was getting fired from a job, knowing that more than half (or whatever percent) of the people felt I was incompetent and should be fired would really rock the friendships I made. Having a manager fire you gives you a lightning rod to point the feelings at, rather than an entire group of people.
  - campnic 14y ago
    If i was designing it, you'd need to make it focused on the products. Maybe 50% of people feel these products are not 'viable'. If thats the feeling, I think that those fired can walk away feeling ok about the situation (obviously not great).
    - avar 14y ago
      That's a horrible criteria. Maybe you have a really talented employee who just happens to be working on a doomed product. The right thing to do is to move that employee to a more viable project, not to fire them just because they're working on a dead project.
  - michaelochurch 14y ago
    Firing by group consensus is, I agree, not tenable. This is one point in time where the CEO needs to step up and take a "buck stops here" attitude. There are generally 3 types of job loss: 1. People who are unethical or obviously toxic. Here, management can step in and fire the person without much blowback. If someone steals, or is a direct threat to your culture (e.g. he starts playing politics and trying to set himself up as the executive empire-builder you don't want) then it's not very controversial. 2. Good employees who run afoul of political nonsense or parochial managerial politics. This is what companies like Valve are trying to avoid, because it poisons the culture. 3. Layoffs for economic reasons. I assume this is a case of #3. The CEO needs to explain what happened, why it happened, take responsibility for the decision, and assure people that the company will be better after the change than before.
    - x3sphere 14y ago
      Doubtful. Valve has higher revenue per employee than Google or Apple. If there's anything Valve lacks, money is last on the list.
      - michaelochurch 14y ago
        Economic reasons != money problems. It seems possible that there's a long-term strategic change going on.
- epsylon 14y ago
  In the present case, it's a massive layoff and the decision seems to have staid secret internally (https://twitter.com/tom_forsyth/status/301586785899782144 https://twitter.com/tom_forsyth/status/301586785899782144), so I'd guess it's a hierarchical decision, with no internal consultation.
michaelochurch 14y ago
This is one time when, even for an anti-hierarchical company, you can't afford to be a democracy. You need a strong leader to communicate the layoff, the reasoning, and the strategic ramifications going forward. Another element to the art of layoffs is that you get about one shot every 5 years. One large cut can be painful, but it's not damaging to morale if it's well-justified by business or economic concerns. If you do a series of small cuts, that's when you get people paranoid and the alliances and intrigues start to form. So, I think the best way to do a layoff in a Valve-style corporation is this: (1) Fair severance, including career support (positive reference, right to represent self as employed). People will find out what kinds of packages people are getting. (2) CEO communicates the decision to the whole company and takes full responsibility. No mystical "calibration scores" or HR indirections. He gets up and says, "This is what I did, and here's why I had to do it." I'm not talking about traditional hierarchy, but "buck stops here" leadership. That's needed when layoffs are happening. (3) Unless the people actually are being fired, explain that it is a layoff and that the people will be eligible to re-apply when you start hiring. (Most won't come back, but this lets the rest of the team feel better about the whole thing.) (4) Err on the side of a larger layoff, because a series of small cuts is more damaging. (5) Impose a hiring freeze externally, but keep internal mobility as it is. Many companies impose internal hiring freezes during layoffs and that's actually more damaging. ETA (6) Make it very clear that these aren't performance-based firings. The worst is when a company tries to depict a layoff as performance-based. Layoffs are understandable, but trying to depict one as a performance-based firing is being a dick.

ars 14y ago

Somebody owns the company no? Someone writes the checks? That person does the firing.

LandoCalrissian 14y ago

I recall reading a while back that they have a procedure for this. I think they actually decide it through group consensus, so I would imagine the reasons for being fired would have to be pretty real.

trdtaylor 14y ago
Yes, it's in the employee handbook posted last year. Peer evaluations that actually work compared to the Microsoft system Gabe left behind.
- danso 14y ago
  IIRC, the employee handbook pretty much said that you can work on whatever you want, and choose your own departments. So when doing layoffs, are peer evaluation scores compared companywide (as opposed to just saying, we're letting you go because we're shutting down your department/project).
mercuryrising 14y ago
That kind of sucks actually... If I was getting fired from a job, knowing that more than half (or whatever percent) of the people felt I was incompetent and should be fired would really rock the friendships I made. Having a manager fire you gives you a lightning rod to point the feelings at, rather than an entire group of people.
- campnic 14y ago
  If i was designing it, you'd need to make it focused on the products. Maybe 50% of people feel these products are not 'viable'. If thats the feeling, I think that those fired can walk away feeling ok about the situation (obviously not great).
  - avar 14y ago
    That's a horrible criteria. Maybe you have a really talented employee who just happens to be working on a doomed product. The right thing to do is to move that employee to a more viable project, not to fire them just because they're working on a dead project.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  Firing by group consensus is, I agree, not tenable. This is one point in time where the CEO needs to step up and take a "buck stops here" attitude. There are generally 3 types of job loss: 1. People who are unethical or obviously toxic. Here, management can step in and fire the person without much blowback. If someone steals, or is a direct threat to your culture (e.g. he starts playing politics and trying to set himself up as the executive empire-builder you don't want) then it's not very controversial. 2. Good employees who run afoul of political nonsense or parochial managerial politics. This is what companies like Valve are trying to avoid, because it poisons the culture. 3. Layoffs for economic reasons. I assume this is a case of #3. The CEO needs to explain what happened, why it happened, take responsibility for the decision, and assure people that the company will be better after the change than before.
  - x3sphere 14y ago
    Doubtful. Valve has higher revenue per employee than Google or Apple. If there's anything Valve lacks, money is last on the list.
    - michaelochurch 14y ago
      Economic reasons != money problems. It seems possible that there's a long-term strategic change going on.
epsylon 14y ago
In the present case, it's a massive layoff and the decision seems to have staid secret internally (https://twitter.com/tom_forsyth/status/301586785899782144 https://twitter.com/tom_forsyth/status/301586785899782144), so I'd guess it's a hierarchical decision, with no internal consultation.

michaelochurch 14y ago

This is one time when, even for an anti-hierarchical company, you can't afford to be a democracy. You need a strong leader to communicate the layoff, the reasoning, and the strategic ramifications going forward. Another element to the art of layoffs is that you get about one shot every 5 years. One large cut can be painful, but it's not damaging to morale if it's well-justified by business or economic concerns. If you do a series of small cuts, that's when you get people paranoid and the alliances and intrigues start to form. So, I think the best way to do a layoff in a Valve-style corporation is this: (1) Fair severance, including career support (positive reference, right to represent self as employed). People will find out what kinds of packages people are getting. (2) CEO communicates the decision to the whole company and takes full responsibility. No mystical "calibration scores" or HR indirections. He gets up and says, "This is what I did, and here's why I had to do it." I'm not talking about traditional hierarchy, but "buck stops here" leadership. That's needed when layoffs are happening. (3) Unless the people actually are being fired, explain that it is a layoff and that the people will be eligible to re-apply when you start hiring. (Most won't come back, but this lets the rest of the team feel better about the whole thing.) (4) Err on the side of a larger layoff, because a series of small cuts is more damaging. (5) Impose a hiring freeze externally, but keep internal mobility as it is. Many companies impose internal hiring freezes during layoffs and that's actually more damaging. ETA (6) Make it very clear that these aren't performance-based firings. The worst is when a company tries to depict a layoff as performance-based. Layoffs are understandable, but trying to depict one as a performance-based firing is being a dick.