6 ms·

The author might as well be a sociopath. The only reason he pays severance is because if he doesn't, then society will realize he is a dick. Most people have

The author might as well be a sociopath. The only reason he pays severance is because if he doesn't, then society will realize he is a dick. Most people have empathy for the people they fire, and that is reason enough to provide severance.

underwater 13y ago
Not necessarily. He says "the thought of paying someone I was forced to fire because he (or she) is incompetent burns me up inside." It's more the thought of paying someone more than you're legally required too when you know they don't deserve it.
- maurycy 13y ago
  The productivity does not depend alone on the worker.
- brnstz 13y ago
  How do you know they don't "deserve" it? There are many reasons an employee could be underperforming. It could just be a bad fit / poor communication prior to starting. If you're hired to do X and you end up doing Y (maybe the company changed directions), the employee may be "incompetent" (another loaded word) at that task, or might not be interested in that work. I'm incompetent at lots of things. It doesn't mean I am incompetent. If a business owner lets paying severance "burn [him] up inside", he's going to be pinching pennies to an early grave.
- rhizome 13y ago
  He does not even hint that the firing could be due to management and hiring process failures. Does he fire the people who approved the hire of a person who winds up not working out? They failed, too, and you don't want a company built upon the wood of a poisoned tree.
  - rrwhite 13y ago
    I did not mean to imply that all firings are the result of employee incompetence or poor performance. Because that's clearly not true. There are often other factors that lead to a bad "fit". And yes, the first thing you should do post-firing is examine your hiring process to see if it could have been foreseen and prevented. But in some cases it does come down to someone just not having the experience, the talent or the work ethic to meet the performance required. It's those cases, especially with tech workers, where founders are apt to ask "do I really need to provide severance to HIM (or her)". Writing at $20K check to someone to walk out the door is never an easy thing to do especially at a startup where that $20K could go a long way. That's what I was addressing here.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      But in some cases it does come down to someone just not having the experience, the talent or the work ethic to meet the performance required This is all predictated on "some" cases? "On Severance (in some cases)?" From the way you describe it, some cases are those in which the employee was able to rook the entire hiring process despite their inability to do the job, but how did they get an offer in the first place? This brings up a secondary point: is "the performance required" something that changed between hiring and the decision to fire, i.e. a leadership issue? Without having illustrated these scenarios, it sounds more like "Ready, Fire, Aim," sweeping employees to the side when it turns out a little-informed guess was wrong.
      - rrwhite 13y ago
        My assertion is that you should provide severance in all cases. I chose to attack the most contentious case (poor performance) where one might think not to provide it to prove that point.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
baddox 13y ago
Why would not paying an optional severance imply a lack of empathy, let alone sociopathy? You could just as easily call me a sociopath for not giving an optional donation to some charity.
prostoalex 13y ago
I think empathy is reserved for people getting laid off (i.e. doing their jobs, but macro events forcing a headcount cut). Getting fired is usually tied up with poor performance or some unethical act, so it's harder to bring empathy into equation here.
- UK-AL 13y ago
  90% of the time poor performance is caused by the managers not really taking time to understand what's wrong or to consider their own attitude. I've been fired for poor performance(or bad attitude as they said because i disagreed with their decisions. No one would disagree with my level of technical ability), only be promoted within 2 months at my next job because I took intuitive and had my own ideas. I've introduced a lot new processes, and ways of doing things. They've liked that here. What i'm trying to say is another mans bad employee could be a good employee somewhere else. It's very subjective, and depends on what they are expecting. A short order cook to implement the managers vision? Or someone with a vision of his own?
  - benihana 13y ago
    >90% of the time poor performance is caused by the managers not really taking time to understand what's wrong or to consider their own attitude. Oh phew. Some random person on the internet said a vast percentage of poor performance is the fault of managers and provided no context, information or stats to back it up. Glad we can finally put that debate to rest.
    - UK-AL 13y ago
      Well technically its 100% because they hired them.
- toomuchtodo 13y ago
  I have never fired someone for poor performance and have not felt bad about it. I even helped one person with their Cobra payments out of my own pocket. Remember everyone. 10, 50, 100 years from now, none of this work is really going to matter. How you treat people? That's what matters.
calibraxis 13y ago
I agree he sounds like a sociopath, but that's the nature of his job. I have a friend (company founder) who once told me about learning to use people as tools. It's something he had to consciously learn, because he previously disdained that way of thinking. (In that role, you may come to classify some as founder-type people like you, while others are meant to be used.) To build a successful corporation, it can be helpful to be able to see (and act) as an ideal, rational sociopath. (That is, having that as one perspective.) And programmers have it easy. Consider people in food service (or even adjunct profs or something). Their bosses often cheat and screw them bluntly. No need to actually be a sociopath. Their bosses merely have to latch onto some half-baked reason to justify their behavior. In this sense, sociopaths are less pathetic.
benihana 13y ago
Wow... just wow. A sociopath? Hyperbole much? So not paying someone a severance he's not contractually obligated to provide is sociopathy? That's like saying not tipping the contractor who installed his cabinets is sociopathy because you think it's a nice convention to tip people, regardless of the contract both parties agreed upon beforehand. Skipping on severance isn't sociopathy. Cutting people's throats because you enjoy the look of panic on their face is. Get a grip.
- jcampbell1 13y ago
  True. I was being a bit hyperbolic. I just didn't detect one shred of empathy in the post. My guess is he is actually a fine guy with fine character, but was making an argument on a mailing list along the lines of, "even if you totally lack empathy, it is still rational to pay severance". "I hate severance. Hate it." - Assuming he is of good character, it is more likely that he was also hyperbolic. Surely helping someone land on their feet provides him some emotional satisfaction.
tbrownaw 13y ago
1. What's wrong with being a sociopath? As long as you follow the rules, why does it matter whether it's because you feel bad about not following them vs because bad things will happen to you if you don't? 2. How does not liking to pay off people who trick him into hiring them, make him a dick?
jfarmer 13y ago
Have you met Richard? What you're saying is so far off the mark it's not even offensive, it's just funny. :D I think he's just making an effective argument. If Richard's position is "you should always pay severance" and he wants to convince everyone of that, he needs to beat the other side's best argument. That best argument is something like "Capital is scarce in a startup and this employee was fired because they were incompetent. You're telling me that some of that capital should go towards paying a severance for someone I regret hiring in the first place?" He's trying to convince everyone, not just "most people" who "have empathy for the people they fire." Those folks don't need much convincing, if any, and even they might have a hard time paying severance when they fire someone who made their blood boil. If you ought to pay severance in the worst scenario imaginable then you ought to pay severance in every scenario. Case closed.
- rhizome 13y ago
  Eh, I can see where you get that, but the level of support for that conclusion does not rise to "effective argument."
  - jfarmer 13y ago
    I see no evidence to the contrary, either. As long as we're drawing conclusions about the author's personality and intentions, why not be charitable? Otherwise, we should just keep our commentary to the argument as written rather than what's going on in the author's head.
    - rhizome 13y ago
      I see no evidence to the contrary Which would be proving a negative. Charitability has nothing to do with an effective argument, which depends on actual words engaging the actual subject at hand. If you have to clarify by saying "I was only talking about some people," it wasn't an effective argument, because you left out the entire scope of the subject you're describing.
      - deleted 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

underwater 13y ago

Not necessarily. He says "the thought of paying someone I was forced to fire because he (or she) is incompetent burns me up inside." It's more the thought of paying someone more than you're legally required too when you know they don't deserve it.

maurycy 13y ago
The productivity does not depend alone on the worker.
brnstz 13y ago
How do you know they don't "deserve" it? There are many reasons an employee could be underperforming. It could just be a bad fit / poor communication prior to starting. If you're hired to do X and you end up doing Y (maybe the company changed directions), the employee may be "incompetent" (another loaded word) at that task, or might not be interested in that work. I'm incompetent at lots of things. It doesn't mean I am incompetent. If a business owner lets paying severance "burn [him] up inside", he's going to be pinching pennies to an early grave.
rhizome 13y ago
He does not even hint that the firing could be due to management and hiring process failures. Does he fire the people who approved the hire of a person who winds up not working out? They failed, too, and you don't want a company built upon the wood of a poisoned tree.
- rrwhite 13y ago
  I did not mean to imply that all firings are the result of employee incompetence or poor performance. Because that's clearly not true. There are often other factors that lead to a bad "fit". And yes, the first thing you should do post-firing is examine your hiring process to see if it could have been foreseen and prevented. But in some cases it does come down to someone just not having the experience, the talent or the work ethic to meet the performance required. It's those cases, especially with tech workers, where founders are apt to ask "do I really need to provide severance to HIM (or her)". Writing at $20K check to someone to walk out the door is never an easy thing to do especially at a startup where that $20K could go a long way. That's what I was addressing here.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    But in some cases it does come down to someone just not having the experience, the talent or the work ethic to meet the performance required This is all predictated on "some" cases? "On Severance (in some cases)?" From the way you describe it, some cases are those in which the employee was able to rook the entire hiring process despite their inability to do the job, but how did they get an offer in the first place? This brings up a secondary point: is "the performance required" something that changed between hiring and the decision to fire, i.e. a leadership issue? Without having illustrated these scenarios, it sounds more like "Ready, Fire, Aim," sweeping employees to the side when it turns out a little-informed guess was wrong.
    - rrwhite 13y ago
      My assertion is that you should provide severance in all cases. I chose to attack the most contentious case (poor performance) where one might think not to provide it to prove that point.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

baddox 13y ago

Why would not paying an optional severance imply a lack of empathy, let alone sociopathy? You could just as easily call me a sociopath for not giving an optional donation to some charity.

prostoalex 13y ago

I think empathy is reserved for people getting laid off (i.e. doing their jobs, but macro events forcing a headcount cut). Getting fired is usually tied up with poor performance or some unethical act, so it's harder to bring empathy into equation here.

UK-AL 13y ago
90% of the time poor performance is caused by the managers not really taking time to understand what's wrong or to consider their own attitude. I've been fired for poor performance(or bad attitude as they said because i disagreed with their decisions. No one would disagree with my level of technical ability), only be promoted within 2 months at my next job because I took intuitive and had my own ideas. I've introduced a lot new processes, and ways of doing things. They've liked that here. What i'm trying to say is another mans bad employee could be a good employee somewhere else. It's very subjective, and depends on what they are expecting. A short order cook to implement the managers vision? Or someone with a vision of his own?
- benihana 13y ago
  >90% of the time poor performance is caused by the managers not really taking time to understand what's wrong or to consider their own attitude. Oh phew. Some random person on the internet said a vast percentage of poor performance is the fault of managers and provided no context, information or stats to back it up. Glad we can finally put that debate to rest.
  - UK-AL 13y ago
    Well technically its 100% because they hired them.
toomuchtodo 13y ago
I have never fired someone for poor performance and have not felt bad about it. I even helped one person with their Cobra payments out of my own pocket. Remember everyone. 10, 50, 100 years from now, none of this work is really going to matter. How you treat people? That's what matters.

calibraxis 13y ago

I agree he sounds like a sociopath, but that's the nature of his job. I have a friend (company founder) who once told me about learning to use people as tools. It's something he had to consciously learn, because he previously disdained that way of thinking. (In that role, you may come to classify some as founder-type people like you, while others are meant to be used.) To build a successful corporation, it can be helpful to be able to see (and act) as an ideal, rational sociopath. (That is, having that as one perspective.) And programmers have it easy. Consider people in food service (or even adjunct profs or something). Their bosses often cheat and screw them bluntly. No need to actually be a sociopath. Their bosses merely have to latch onto some half-baked reason to justify their behavior. In this sense, sociopaths are less pathetic.

benihana 13y ago

Wow... just wow. A sociopath? Hyperbole much? So not paying someone a severance he's not contractually obligated to provide is sociopathy? That's like saying not tipping the contractor who installed his cabinets is sociopathy because you think it's a nice convention to tip people, regardless of the contract both parties agreed upon beforehand. Skipping on severance isn't sociopathy. Cutting people's throats because you enjoy the look of panic on their face is. Get a grip.

jcampbell1 13y ago
True. I was being a bit hyperbolic. I just didn't detect one shred of empathy in the post. My guess is he is actually a fine guy with fine character, but was making an argument on a mailing list along the lines of, "even if you totally lack empathy, it is still rational to pay severance". "I hate severance. Hate it." - Assuming he is of good character, it is more likely that he was also hyperbolic. Surely helping someone land on their feet provides him some emotional satisfaction.

tbrownaw 13y ago

1. What's wrong with being a sociopath? As long as you follow the rules, why does it matter whether it's because you feel bad about not following them vs because bad things will happen to you if you don't? 2. How does not liking to pay off people who trick him into hiring them, make him a dick?

jfarmer 13y ago

Have you met Richard? What you're saying is so far off the mark it's not even offensive, it's just funny. :D I think he's just making an effective argument. If Richard's position is "you should always pay severance" and he wants to convince everyone of that, he needs to beat the other side's best argument. That best argument is something like "Capital is scarce in a startup and this employee was fired because they were incompetent. You're telling me that some of that capital should go towards paying a severance for someone I regret hiring in the first place?" He's trying to convince everyone, not just "most people" who "have empathy for the people they fire." Those folks don't need much convincing, if any, and even they might have a hard time paying severance when they fire someone who made their blood boil. If you ought to pay severance in the worst scenario imaginable then you ought to pay severance in every scenario. Case closed.

rhizome 13y ago
Eh, I can see where you get that, but the level of support for that conclusion does not rise to "effective argument."
- jfarmer 13y ago
  I see no evidence to the contrary, either. As long as we're drawing conclusions about the author's personality and intentions, why not be charitable? Otherwise, we should just keep our commentary to the argument as written rather than what's going on in the author's head.
  - rhizome 13y ago
    I see no evidence to the contrary Which would be proving a negative. Charitability has nothing to do with an effective argument, which depends on actual words engaging the actual subject at hand. If you have to clarify by saying "I was only talking about some people," it wasn't an effective argument, because you left out the entire scope of the subject you're describing.
    - deleted 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]