10 ms·

The Best Approach to the Worst Conversation: "You're Fired"

51 points by ca98am79 13y ago

rfnslyr 13y ago
"But there’s something off. He’s not productive. He’s not a culture fit." I've interviewed at a company before for about a week. 4 interviews later they tell me they won't go through with me for undisclosed reasons. This was before I had seen the company or anyone besides the immediate people interviewing. I then asked just to see what the company layout was like and they gave me a tour of the offices. Jesus fucking H christ, everyone was the same. It was all 20-25 year olds, glasses, beards, tshirts, jeans, all white males. If that's ever a reason to not hire someone or even fire someone it's not a company you want to work at in the first place. If the word "culture" is in any sentence when you're hiring/firing me, I'm punching you right in the fucking face (not actually though) and leaving. It's basically saying "for some arbitrary reason we're going to fire you, but we don't really know why and neither do you, bye!" Sorry for not having a beard, thick rim glasses, and not liking the same N64 video games as you. I'm probably just bitter though.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  I get the sentiment, but don't you think punching someone in the face is a bit too much?
  - packetslave 13y ago
    Only if you're under the impression Mr. Internet Tough-guy would actually do it.
  - msandford 13y ago
    I doubt he'd actually punch someone in the face, it's a bit of bravado to make a point: a lot of the "company culture" doesn't have anything to do with making the business work and more to do with people's personal preferences.
  - rfnslyr 13y ago
    Obviously yes I'm kidding. I think it's extremely insulting to disregard the years I have put into perfecting my craft because I don't have the same outward appearance/attitude as everyone else. No matter how much of a cultural fit you are, that doesn't get the work done, the expertise does. I work at a team right now that has: Indian men/women in their mid 40's. Young teenage interns from. People ranging from Indian, to Asian, to White, to Jewish, to men, to women, to gay, to straight, you name it. We have not gotten along better. It really doesn't matter. "Culture fit" is just a poor patch to cover up insecurity.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - anoncowherd 13y ago
      Yep, and obviously I figured you wouldn't actually go punch someone in the face. It's just that I'd like to see that declaration made less often :)
- leothekim 13y ago
  In the U.S., we have 'at-will employment' laws. So, unless you're caught stealing, engaging in racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, doing drugs, or committing some felonious criminal offense (though even then those last two cases it is still arguable), you can be fired without just cause and without warning, and any court will dismiss any standing claims against the employer. Thus, if you're told you're not a 'culture fit', that's actually more than most companies need to tell you when they boot you out the door.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    At-will employment: very complicated. http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/what-is-at-will-employment/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/what-is-at-wi... Laws on termination are very complex in general. You need a lawyer to navigate that stuff. There are a lot of things that it's illegal to fire someone for doing (including, for example, discussing salary with co-workers). If you're under threat of a PIP/firing you can usually make one apply in the 30-90 days of the PIP. More than a lawsuit, companies fear disparagement (unless their reputations are in the toilet already) and that's a good enough reason, in general, to write decent severance packages. Warning: never explicitly threat disparagement in a severance negotiation. That gets into extortion territory and while you're unlikely to be taken to jail, you've lost all leverage. Generally, you should aim for a fair (not unreasonably high) severance and more important try to work out a good reference even when let go. Always, after any termination, check your own references. Employment suits become he-said/she-said affairs very quickly, so the behavior of the people involved will determine a lot. If they're giving good references, reasonable severance offers, etc. then the odds are very strongly in their favor. If they give a bad reference, the situation is much to your advantage and your argument that you were fired 2 days after disclosing migraines suddenly finds a more receptive audience.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    (Obligatory disclaimer: this isn't legal advice, I'm not your lawyer, etc): It doesn't quite work like that. You can fire someone for any reason at all, as long as it isn't one of the disallowed reasons (discrimination on the basis race, gender, religion, age, etc). However, the reason you give need not be taken at face value. A jury is entitled to conclude that your stated reason is pretextual, and a discriminatory reason is the real one. There's an evidentiary showing the plaintiff must meet first, but it can be purely circumstantial and pretext is often what the claim really boils down to. That's where shit like "he's not a cultural fit" can get you into trouble. It's basically begging the jury (or a judge at summary judgment) to disbelieve you and conclude that you really fired someone for a discriminatory reason. I.e. "he's not a cultural fit... because he's black and we're all white" or "she's not a cultural fit... because she's a woman and we're all men." A sibling comment to yours recasts "culture" to "process and management structure." That's much more firm ground. "He's ineffective at his job because he can't work well with our internal processes" or "she's ineffective at her job because she doesn't take direction from our management." Also, this isn't just a legal issue. Talking about "process and management structure," which is specific and grounded in the ultimate question of whether someone is doing a good job, instead of culture, which is amorphous and can encompass things that have nothing to do with the work, focuses your thinking on factors that you should actually care about.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- asolove 13y ago
  I agree that some companies use "culture fit" as an excuse to eliminate diversity. But that doesn't mean that "culture fit" isn't a real thing when not abused in this way. I have found "culture fit" to often mean problems with adjusting to the process and management structure of an organization. I have worked with folks from corporate environments who never adjusted to having to find their own work and set their own goals in the startup world. And I have worked (briefly) at companies where I liked the people and the work but could not be productive or happy with the kind of micro-management I was expected to put up with. That's why it's valuable to interview for "culture" (both when hiring and being hired). You need to talk out loud about expectations of how we work together and how we decide what to do. Have this conversation enough times, both in interviews and just chatting with peers, and you'll see things you agree with, things you disagree with but don't mind, and things that are absolute warning signs of toxic environments.
  - protonfish 13y ago
    I disagree with your definition. If you can't get your work done because you need micromanagement then it is simply a case of not doing your job, and there is no value bringing "culture" into the discussion. The term "cultural fit" is a contrast to competency and productivity, not a subsection. Any business that's sole focus is not accomplishing their mission is dysfunctional. "Cultural Fit" is always toxic - unfairly discriminatory in hiring and non productive in practice.
    - southpawgirl 13y ago
      > "Cultural Fit" is always toxic You clearly never had to put up with The Angry Guy. Cultural fit, I agree, it's a catchall term that covers everything from blatant aesthetic discrimination to merciful removal of toxic characters.
      - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
        In my experience, with rare exceptions, "toxic characters" is a kind of dogwhistle for "that guy is not in our clique." It's born of the kind of immaturity and never-left-high-school mentality I've come to associate with lingerers especially at large organizations. "The Angry Guy" in these cases is often "angry" only by projection, or frankly with cause.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- yawz 13y ago
  If we believe that companies have their culture (I certainly do) then it's not so surprising that someone may or may not be "culture-fit". However, I'd question the health of the organization if the so-called culture is in the way that people dress or trim their facial hair. It is hopefully much more related to things like company's structure, employee's attitude and interpersonal skills, people's approach to team management, problem solving methods, work ethics etc.
- southpawgirl 13y ago
  I've never worked in a very small company, but I've been working in very small teams. While claiming a 'culture clash' seems pretty much of a copt-out from the employer's part, it's true that one single person can make or break a small team. Sometimes the clash is purely of personality (an example I've witnessed: one very competitive and personal-win-orientated alpha male in a group of laid back, traditional geeks), sometimes it's procedural (i.e. a former start-up guy in a corporate environment) but I do see potential so-called culture problems as very real and potentially unsolvable, if not by the removal of the "offending" party. Having said that, the threat of an established monoculture is probably much worse for productivity, morale and sheer fairness that having to put up with one sour (or clashing) apple.
- btilly 13y ago
  If the word "culture" is in any sentence when you're hiring/firing me, I'm punching you right in the fucking face (not actually though) and leaving. It's basically saying "for some arbitrary reason we're going to fire you, but we don't really know why and neither do you, bye!" Sorry for not having a beard, thick rim glasses, and not liking the same N64 video games as you. The last interview that I was on where someone was not hired because of "culture" was because when an experienced devop was asked for an interesting disaster story, he had none. Then, when pushed, he had one, but one with parenthetical comments about how he had told them not to make the mistake. We said "culture" but what we really meant was, "He's showing the kind of defensive behavior that you REALLY do not want in a devop when things go pear shaped." And, given defensive behavior was already seen, do you think we really want to try to justify what was clear to us?
  - msandford 13y ago
    Or maybe he was exactly right and management was extremely foolish not to listen to him. If your plan is to have excellent punching bags for when things go south who you can blame and who will not fight back early on, then your not hiring him was a good plan. If you wanted to avoid disasters, well, perhaps you should think about it. I can't blame the guy for not wanting to talk badly about his former management; it's not a way to win friends in a job interview.
    - btilly 13y ago
      If your plan is to have excellent punching bags for when things go south who you can blame and who will not fight back early on, then your not hiring him was a good plan. If your culture is sick enough that this is what happens, then no good devop should want to work for you. Defensive behavior goes hand in hand with cultures where you need to defend yourself. Nobody is good enough that they never make mistakes. What matters is what happens after the mistake. In a good culture, whoever knows what the problem might actually be - who was often the cause of said problem - will immediately speak up and suffer no consequences for doing so. But the person who screws up and then tries to hide it will get fired. I do admit that there are too few good cultures. But those that exist have to filter out defensive behavior if they wish to remain good.
- logicallee 13y ago
  Look, a startup can't afford not to look like that. We'll likely hire a male college swim team[1] to put on decorative glasses - yes all of them will - and wear our t-shirt in a group photo. Then we'll put it on our Team page with a satirical heading "Just a typical startup team" with a very small disclaimer that the photo is representative, satirical, and contains none of our employees. Anyone who "needs" to see it will see it, and immediately check it off in their head then click through our other tabs. Meanwhile we can continue hiring the best people from all over the world regardless of age, gender, looks, or location. They also don't have to spend two thirds of their salary on rent, pizza, gaming gear, and lattes to fit in, and you will be more than welcome wherever you are located or if we open a regional office. Keep us in mind. [1] representative picture: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/oakl/sports/c-swim/auto_original/6643423.jpeg http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/oakl/sports/c-swim/auto_...
- codegeek 13y ago
  " everyone was the same. It was all 20-25 year olds, glasses, beards, tshirts, jeans, all white males." Culture is not just about ethnicity or how you look like or what hobbies do you have ? At work, culture is about how you work together with the team to accomplish the same goal that the company has. Whether it is making shitload of money for shareholders or building the most beautiful product, you should ideally believe in that culture. I care less if all co-workers around me are white or black or orange, what I do care about is how they treat me, their work, their company, their attitude. What kind of work environment does the company promote ? Open door ? Face to face conversations ? These are the examples of "culture".
- georgeecollins 13y ago
  I worry that "culture fit" leads to group think.
auggierose 13y ago
What a load of bull. The best part: "Take the threat out of it". Yeah. If the employee does not realise the threat imposed by a PIP then he/she is an idiot and should be fired immediately.
- ash 13y ago
  I think the speaker said it's better to try to fix things for 3 months without signing any formal agreement at first (== threat).
  - invalidOrTaken 13y ago
    > ...formal agreement (== threat). Sorry, it just ain't so. Like the grandparent said, the employee's probably not an idiot, and threat is present from the very beginning, even if unintentionally.
- joshyeager 13y ago
  I think his point is that a formal PIP ratchets up the pressure and reduces the employee's ability to focus on actually improving. If delaying the formal PIP helps them improve their performance enough so that you don't have to fire them, that is a great outcome.
japaget 13y ago
Site appears to be down, Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://firstround.com/article/The-Best-Approach-to-the-Worst-Conversation http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...
michaelochurch 13y ago
Formal PIP is a bad idea. Once things are at that point, fire immediately but with severance. A 3-month severance is much cheaper than a 1-month PIP, while this "walking dead" employee pisses all over morale and has divider effects all around him. From the OP: 50% of people who are put on performance improvement plans become repeat offenders. Even when someone recovers from a PIP, they can't transfer internally in most companies-- they're not blocked, but no one wants them-- and the stink never goes away. Promotion is out of the question, too, even 2-3 years later. Good people (wrongly PIP'd, it happens) leave and bad people stay. Most "repeat offenders" on PIPs are people the manager still wanted to fire. HR said "no, we're not willing to take the legal risk of firing this person." PIPs are rarely passed. Either they fail (leading to termination) or are ruled "inconclusive"-- which makes the manager look bad (HR declined his firing request) and more pissed off. The only time PIPs seem to be "successful" is when there's a change of manager (or, if possible, the team). Why do PIPs persist? Two words: externalized costs. An HR department can claim it saved money on severance payments, while the cost is externalized (and multiplied) to that employee's team and manager. It may be counterintuitive that "rewarding failure" is the best strategy, but it's just another cost of doing business.
- buckbova 13y ago
  > Once things are at that point, fire immediately but with severance. A 3-month severance is much cheaper than a 1-month PIP, Just fire on the spot with no severance. I've never known anyone to go on a PIP and remain at a company. They are either fired "eventually" or they find another job.
  - danielweber 13y ago
    Severance takes all legal threat off the table.
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    Just fire on the spot with no severance. Bad play, risk-wise. Severance requires them to sign a non-litigation agreement and usually non-disparagement as well. PIP provides a paper trail and insures you somewhat against lawsuit (but not disparagement)-- they could argue for a "wrongful PIP", but you have paper. I don't recommend going that way, but it is better (risk-wise) than just cold-firing. If you cold-fire, you're taking a major risk. With no severance and no warning, he will be pissed off-- and it's not hard to damage a company's reputation. It's also not as hard as you think to build a termination case, although I'm not getting into the details here. Let's just say that some people (esp. termination lawyers) are as good at playing that game as we are at programming. Even if you win, he can make it a pyrrhic victory. I've never known anyone to go on a PIP and remain at a company. They are either fired "eventually" or they find another job. Agree. I covered that. You're 100% right.
001sky 13y ago
I only made it 3/4 through this, but this seems like paint-by-numbers advice, and lacks the real-world flavour that make "following a textbook" in these cases <actually hard>. Feedback needs to be immediate. As soon as someone steps off the path or veers into dangerous territory, let them know. Ideally during the first 90 days, give people “an exorbitant amount of feedback,” Lopp says. “Just think, you could have fixed it six or nine months earlier by pulling Jeff aside and saying, hey you really frustrated people in that last meeting because you weren’t listening.” People that are being "jerks" are typically not leaving obvious footprints when they "step off the path" nor do they tend to make obvious and transparent mistakes or mis-steps in pubic. You are typically dealting with people well versed in passive agression. Plausibly deniability, and adding unwanted "drama" by abusing their authority, or bullying their staff or doing a whole range of things which if the junior staff report to (skip-level) management, they (not the mid-level-manager) will be on the hook for "insubordination" to the business discretion of the middle boss. This is the type of opaque, catch-22 that many people face in reality and dealing with it is a PITA, time consuming and risky (for senior and junior staff). Its not a paint-by-numbers situation at all, those are ovbious and people with blatant incompetence tend to not make past interviews. The types of problems that tend to result after effective interviewing are rightly seens as variations of incompetence, and bad leadership though... because they impair the ability to "get shit done". But dealing with them requires more than a nudge on the tiller when something is headed off course. It requires (1) a system and approach to make performance transparent; (2) a system to compartmentalize risk; and (3) a system that generates enough observations to for reliable systemic data on performance and accountability. Without such a struture in place in these fronts, "bad apples" will underperform without consequence for long periods of time, because they will cover their tracks, blend in, and otherwise obfuscate situations to manipulative effect. If all this seems "overly complicated" and not anything like following an HR handbook, that's probably about par for the course !!
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- leokun 13y ago
  Eh, if someone is being a problem and is creating negativity, as manager you should be able to pick up on it. It shouldn't be that hard, that's most of your job as a manager is to be able to read the people that work for you and evaluate them. You don't need proof of passive aggressive behavior to fire anyone. Just fire them and wish them the best on their next venture.
serverascode 13y ago
I think it's interesting that he says if it gets to this point then it's your fault, but then doesn't say fire yourself. ;)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
auctiontheory 13y ago
What percentage of employees improve to acceptability (from the employer's perspective) after being put on a PIP or a pre-PIP? 10%? 50% 90%? If it's on the low end of the range, then a generous severance would seem to be the better choice for all concerned.

51 points by ca98am79 13y ago

"But there’s something off. He’s not productive. He’s not a culture fit." I've interviewed at a company before for about a week. 4 interviews later they tell me they won't go through with me for undisclosed reasons. This was before I had seen the company or anyone besides the immediate people interviewing. I then asked just to see what the company layout was like and they gave me a tour of the offices. Jesus fucking H christ, everyone was the same. It was all 20-25 year olds, glasses, beards, tshirts, jeans, all white males. If that's ever a reason to not hire someone or even fire someone it's not a company you want to work at in the first place. If the word "culture" is in any sentence when you're hiring/firing me, I'm punching you right in the fucking face (not actually though) and leaving. It's basically saying "for some arbitrary reason we're going to fire you, but we don't really know why and neither do you, bye!" Sorry for not having a beard, thick rim glasses, and not liking the same N64 video games as you. I'm probably just bitter though.

anoncowherd 13y ago
I get the sentiment, but don't you think punching someone in the face is a bit too much?
- packetslave 13y ago
  Only if you're under the impression Mr. Internet Tough-guy would actually do it.
- msandford 13y ago
  I doubt he'd actually punch someone in the face, it's a bit of bravado to make a point: a lot of the "company culture" doesn't have anything to do with making the business work and more to do with people's personal preferences.
- rfnslyr 13y ago
  Obviously yes I'm kidding. I think it's extremely insulting to disregard the years I have put into perfecting my craft because I don't have the same outward appearance/attitude as everyone else. No matter how much of a cultural fit you are, that doesn't get the work done, the expertise does. I work at a team right now that has: Indian men/women in their mid 40's. Young teenage interns from. People ranging from Indian, to Asian, to White, to Jewish, to men, to women, to gay, to straight, you name it. We have not gotten along better. It really doesn't matter. "Culture fit" is just a poor patch to cover up insecurity.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    Yep, and obviously I figured you wouldn't actually go punch someone in the face. It's just that I'd like to see that declaration made less often :)
leothekim 13y ago
In the U.S., we have 'at-will employment' laws. So, unless you're caught stealing, engaging in racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, doing drugs, or committing some felonious criminal offense (though even then those last two cases it is still arguable), you can be fired without just cause and without warning, and any court will dismiss any standing claims against the employer. Thus, if you're told you're not a 'culture fit', that's actually more than most companies need to tell you when they boot you out the door.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  At-will employment: very complicated. http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/what-is-at-will-employment/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/what-is-at-wi... Laws on termination are very complex in general. You need a lawyer to navigate that stuff. There are a lot of things that it's illegal to fire someone for doing (including, for example, discussing salary with co-workers). If you're under threat of a PIP/firing you can usually make one apply in the 30-90 days of the PIP. More than a lawsuit, companies fear disparagement (unless their reputations are in the toilet already) and that's a good enough reason, in general, to write decent severance packages. Warning: never explicitly threat disparagement in a severance negotiation. That gets into extortion territory and while you're unlikely to be taken to jail, you've lost all leverage. Generally, you should aim for a fair (not unreasonably high) severance and more important try to work out a good reference even when let go. Always, after any termination, check your own references. Employment suits become he-said/she-said affairs very quickly, so the behavior of the people involved will determine a lot. If they're giving good references, reasonable severance offers, etc. then the odds are very strongly in their favor. If they give a bad reference, the situation is much to your advantage and your argument that you were fired 2 days after disclosing migraines suddenly finds a more receptive audience.
- rayiner 13y ago
  (Obligatory disclaimer: this isn't legal advice, I'm not your lawyer, etc): It doesn't quite work like that. You can fire someone for any reason at all, as long as it isn't one of the disallowed reasons (discrimination on the basis race, gender, religion, age, etc). However, the reason you give need not be taken at face value. A jury is entitled to conclude that your stated reason is pretextual, and a discriminatory reason is the real one. There's an evidentiary showing the plaintiff must meet first, but it can be purely circumstantial and pretext is often what the claim really boils down to. That's where shit like "he's not a cultural fit" can get you into trouble. It's basically begging the jury (or a judge at summary judgment) to disbelieve you and conclude that you really fired someone for a discriminatory reason. I.e. "he's not a cultural fit... because he's black and we're all white" or "she's not a cultural fit... because she's a woman and we're all men." A sibling comment to yours recasts "culture" to "process and management structure." That's much more firm ground. "He's ineffective at his job because he can't work well with our internal processes" or "she's ineffective at her job because she doesn't take direction from our management." Also, this isn't just a legal issue. Talking about "process and management structure," which is specific and grounded in the ultimate question of whether someone is doing a good job, instead of culture, which is amorphous and can encompass things that have nothing to do with the work, focuses your thinking on factors that you should actually care about.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
asolove 13y ago
I agree that some companies use "culture fit" as an excuse to eliminate diversity. But that doesn't mean that "culture fit" isn't a real thing when not abused in this way. I have found "culture fit" to often mean problems with adjusting to the process and management structure of an organization. I have worked with folks from corporate environments who never adjusted to having to find their own work and set their own goals in the startup world. And I have worked (briefly) at companies where I liked the people and the work but could not be productive or happy with the kind of micro-management I was expected to put up with. That's why it's valuable to interview for "culture" (both when hiring and being hired). You need to talk out loud about expectations of how we work together and how we decide what to do. Have this conversation enough times, both in interviews and just chatting with peers, and you'll see things you agree with, things you disagree with but don't mind, and things that are absolute warning signs of toxic environments.
- protonfish 13y ago
  I disagree with your definition. If you can't get your work done because you need micromanagement then it is simply a case of not doing your job, and there is no value bringing "culture" into the discussion. The term "cultural fit" is a contrast to competency and productivity, not a subsection. Any business that's sole focus is not accomplishing their mission is dysfunctional. "Cultural Fit" is always toxic - unfairly discriminatory in hiring and non productive in practice.
  - southpawgirl 13y ago
    > "Cultural Fit" is always toxic You clearly never had to put up with The Angry Guy. Cultural fit, I agree, it's a catchall term that covers everything from blatant aesthetic discrimination to merciful removal of toxic characters.
    - Iftheshoefits 13y ago
      In my experience, with rare exceptions, "toxic characters" is a kind of dogwhistle for "that guy is not in our clique." It's born of the kind of immaturity and never-left-high-school mentality I've come to associate with lingerers especially at large organizations. "The Angry Guy" in these cases is often "angry" only by projection, or frankly with cause.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
yawz 13y ago
If we believe that companies have their culture (I certainly do) then it's not so surprising that someone may or may not be "culture-fit". However, I'd question the health of the organization if the so-called culture is in the way that people dress or trim their facial hair. It is hopefully much more related to things like company's structure, employee's attitude and interpersonal skills, people's approach to team management, problem solving methods, work ethics etc.
southpawgirl 13y ago
I've never worked in a very small company, but I've been working in very small teams. While claiming a 'culture clash' seems pretty much of a copt-out from the employer's part, it's true that one single person can make or break a small team. Sometimes the clash is purely of personality (an example I've witnessed: one very competitive and personal-win-orientated alpha male in a group of laid back, traditional geeks), sometimes it's procedural (i.e. a former start-up guy in a corporate environment) but I do see potential so-called culture problems as very real and potentially unsolvable, if not by the removal of the "offending" party. Having said that, the threat of an established monoculture is probably much worse for productivity, morale and sheer fairness that having to put up with one sour (or clashing) apple.
btilly 13y ago
If the word "culture" is in any sentence when you're hiring/firing me, I'm punching you right in the fucking face (not actually though) and leaving. It's basically saying "for some arbitrary reason we're going to fire you, but we don't really know why and neither do you, bye!" Sorry for not having a beard, thick rim glasses, and not liking the same N64 video games as you. The last interview that I was on where someone was not hired because of "culture" was because when an experienced devop was asked for an interesting disaster story, he had none. Then, when pushed, he had one, but one with parenthetical comments about how he had told them not to make the mistake. We said "culture" but what we really meant was, "He's showing the kind of defensive behavior that you REALLY do not want in a devop when things go pear shaped." And, given defensive behavior was already seen, do you think we really want to try to justify what was clear to us?
- msandford 13y ago
  Or maybe he was exactly right and management was extremely foolish not to listen to him. If your plan is to have excellent punching bags for when things go south who you can blame and who will not fight back early on, then your not hiring him was a good plan. If you wanted to avoid disasters, well, perhaps you should think about it. I can't blame the guy for not wanting to talk badly about his former management; it's not a way to win friends in a job interview.
  - btilly 13y ago
    If your plan is to have excellent punching bags for when things go south who you can blame and who will not fight back early on, then your not hiring him was a good plan. If your culture is sick enough that this is what happens, then no good devop should want to work for you. Defensive behavior goes hand in hand with cultures where you need to defend yourself. Nobody is good enough that they never make mistakes. What matters is what happens after the mistake. In a good culture, whoever knows what the problem might actually be - who was often the cause of said problem - will immediately speak up and suffer no consequences for doing so. But the person who screws up and then tries to hide it will get fired. I do admit that there are too few good cultures. But those that exist have to filter out defensive behavior if they wish to remain good.
logicallee 13y ago
Look, a startup can't afford not to look like that. We'll likely hire a male college swim team[1] to put on decorative glasses - yes all of them will - and wear our t-shirt in a group photo. Then we'll put it on our Team page with a satirical heading "Just a typical startup team" with a very small disclaimer that the photo is representative, satirical, and contains none of our employees. Anyone who "needs" to see it will see it, and immediately check it off in their head then click through our other tabs. Meanwhile we can continue hiring the best people from all over the world regardless of age, gender, looks, or location. They also don't have to spend two thirds of their salary on rent, pizza, gaming gear, and lattes to fit in, and you will be more than welcome wherever you are located or if we open a regional office. Keep us in mind. [1] representative picture: http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/oakl/sports/c-swim/auto_original/6643423.jpeg http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/oakl/sports/c-swim/auto_...
codegeek 13y ago
" everyone was the same. It was all 20-25 year olds, glasses, beards, tshirts, jeans, all white males." Culture is not just about ethnicity or how you look like or what hobbies do you have ? At work, culture is about how you work together with the team to accomplish the same goal that the company has. Whether it is making shitload of money for shareholders or building the most beautiful product, you should ideally believe in that culture. I care less if all co-workers around me are white or black or orange, what I do care about is how they treat me, their work, their company, their attitude. What kind of work environment does the company promote ? Open door ? Face to face conversations ? These are the examples of "culture".
georgeecollins 13y ago
I worry that "culture fit" leads to group think.

auggierose 13y ago

What a load of bull. The best part: "Take the threat out of it". Yeah. If the employee does not realise the threat imposed by a PIP then he/she is an idiot and should be fired immediately.

ash 13y ago
I think the speaker said it's better to try to fix things for 3 months without signing any formal agreement at first (== threat).
- invalidOrTaken 13y ago
  > ...formal agreement (== threat). Sorry, it just ain't so. Like the grandparent said, the employee's probably not an idiot, and threat is present from the very beginning, even if unintentionally.
joshyeager 13y ago
I think his point is that a formal PIP ratchets up the pressure and reduces the employee's ability to focus on actually improving. If delaying the formal PIP helps them improve their performance enough so that you don't have to fire them, that is a great outcome.

japaget 13y ago

Site appears to be down, Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://firstround.com/article/The-Best-Approach-to-the-Worst-Conversation http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

michaelochurch 13y ago

Formal PIP is a bad idea. Once things are at that point, fire immediately but with severance. A 3-month severance is much cheaper than a 1-month PIP, while this "walking dead" employee pisses all over morale and has divider effects all around him. From the OP: 50% of people who are put on performance improvement plans become repeat offenders. Even when someone recovers from a PIP, they can't transfer internally in most companies-- they're not blocked, but no one wants them-- and the stink never goes away. Promotion is out of the question, too, even 2-3 years later. Good people (wrongly PIP'd, it happens) leave and bad people stay. Most "repeat offenders" on PIPs are people the manager still wanted to fire. HR said "no, we're not willing to take the legal risk of firing this person." PIPs are rarely passed. Either they fail (leading to termination) or are ruled "inconclusive"-- which makes the manager look bad (HR declined his firing request) and more pissed off. The only time PIPs seem to be "successful" is when there's a change of manager (or, if possible, the team). Why do PIPs persist? Two words: externalized costs. An HR department can claim it saved money on severance payments, while the cost is externalized (and multiplied) to that employee's team and manager. It may be counterintuitive that "rewarding failure" is the best strategy, but it's just another cost of doing business.

buckbova 13y ago
> Once things are at that point, fire immediately but with severance. A 3-month severance is much cheaper than a 1-month PIP, Just fire on the spot with no severance. I've never known anyone to go on a PIP and remain at a company. They are either fired "eventually" or they find another job.
- danielweber 13y ago
  Severance takes all legal threat off the table.
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Just fire on the spot with no severance. Bad play, risk-wise. Severance requires them to sign a non-litigation agreement and usually non-disparagement as well. PIP provides a paper trail and insures you somewhat against lawsuit (but not disparagement)-- they could argue for a "wrongful PIP", but you have paper. I don't recommend going that way, but it is better (risk-wise) than just cold-firing. If you cold-fire, you're taking a major risk. With no severance and no warning, he will be pissed off-- and it's not hard to damage a company's reputation. It's also not as hard as you think to build a termination case, although I'm not getting into the details here. Let's just say that some people (esp. termination lawyers) are as good at playing that game as we are at programming. Even if you win, he can make it a pyrrhic victory. I've never known anyone to go on a PIP and remain at a company. They are either fired "eventually" or they find another job. Agree. I covered that. You're 100% right.

001sky 13y ago

I only made it 3/4 through this, but this seems like paint-by-numbers advice, and lacks the real-world flavour that make "following a textbook" in these cases <actually hard>. Feedback needs to be immediate. As soon as someone steps off the path or veers into dangerous territory, let them know. Ideally during the first 90 days, give people “an exorbitant amount of feedback,” Lopp says. “Just think, you could have fixed it six or nine months earlier by pulling Jeff aside and saying, hey you really frustrated people in that last meeting because you weren’t listening.” People that are being "jerks" are typically not leaving obvious footprints when they "step off the path" nor do they tend to make obvious and transparent mistakes or mis-steps in pubic. You are typically dealting with people well versed in passive agression. Plausibly deniability, and adding unwanted "drama" by abusing their authority, or bullying their staff or doing a whole range of things which if the junior staff report to (skip-level) management, they (not the mid-level-manager) will be on the hook for "insubordination" to the business discretion of the middle boss. This is the type of opaque, catch-22 that many people face in reality and dealing with it is a PITA, time consuming and risky (for senior and junior staff). Its not a paint-by-numbers situation at all, those are ovbious and people with blatant incompetence tend to not make past interviews. The types of problems that tend to result after effective interviewing are rightly seens as variations of incompetence, and bad leadership though... because they impair the ability to "get shit done". But dealing with them requires more than a nudge on the tiller when something is headed off course. It requires (1) a system and approach to make performance transparent; (2) a system to compartmentalize risk; and (3) a system that generates enough observations to for reliable systemic data on performance and accountability. Without such a struture in place in these fronts, "bad apples" will underperform without consequence for long periods of time, because they will cover their tracks, blend in, and otherwise obfuscate situations to manipulative effect. If all this seems "overly complicated" and not anything like following an HR handbook, that's probably about par for the course !!

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
leokun 13y ago
Eh, if someone is being a problem and is creating negativity, as manager you should be able to pick up on it. It shouldn't be that hard, that's most of your job as a manager is to be able to read the people that work for you and evaluate them. You don't need proof of passive aggressive behavior to fire anyone. Just fire them and wish them the best on their next venture.

serverascode 13y ago

I think it's interesting that he says if it gets to this point then it's your fault, but then doesn't say fire yourself. ;)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

auctiontheory 13y ago

What percentage of employees improve to acceptability (from the employer's perspective) after being put on a PIP or a pre-PIP? 10%? 50% 90%? If it's on the low end of the range, then a generous severance would seem to be the better choice for all concerned.