7 ms·

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 b

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.
  - cma 14y ago
    You are spamming the thread (and every other thread that is even tangentially related to open allocation). You've literally made hundreds of posts about open allocation in the last few months. Give other people a chance to talk.
    - Nav_Panel 14y ago
      So what? He's contributing reasonably decent comments, who cares if he posts a lot? Comment sections are essentially infinite, and if the comments are good, I don't see any reason to tell him to stop. However, if the comments are not insightful/interesting, that's another story.
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.

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.
- cma 14y ago
  You are spamming the thread (and every other thread that is even tangentially related to open allocation). You've literally made hundreds of posts about open allocation in the last few months. Give other people a chance to talk.
  - Nav_Panel 14y ago
    So what? He's contributing reasonably decent comments, who cares if he posts a lot? Comment sections are essentially infinite, and if the comments are good, I don't see any reason to tell him to stop. However, if the comments are not insightful/interesting, that's another story.

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.