5 ms·

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 sho

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.
    - cma 14y ago
      Some of his comments are great, but many just repeat the same talking points. You can't be saying that as long as someone says something insightful they can copy/paste it into as many HN threads as they like, so long as it is on topic.
      - Evbn 14y ago
        Tokenadult is consistently the top ranked commenter when he pastes her boilrplate into every education or hiring discussion.

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.
  - cma 14y ago
    Some of his comments are great, but many just repeat the same talking points. You can't be saying that as long as someone says something insightful they can copy/paste it into as many HN threads as they like, so long as it is on topic.
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Tokenadult is consistently the top ranked commenter when he pastes her boilrplate into every education or hiring discussion.