6 ms·

Sounds like a toxic environment. Whatever the employee may have done to deserve separation, it is profoundly weird and troubling (and also, implicitly threateni

Sounds like a toxic environment. Whatever the employee may have done to deserve separation, it is profoundly weird and troubling (and also, implicitly threatening to all employees, whatever their rank or standing) to see a CEO discuss those reasons in public.

e40 12y ago
Seems the employee forced the issue, yes?
- gkmoyn 12y ago
  He could have also been professional and only stated that the employees statements are generally false, and left it at that.
- smileysteve 12y ago
  The response went into far too much detail. Wrongful termination lawsuits happen all of the time, defamation can be found when any term you use can not be evidenced. A pro would have either ignored this AMA or issued blanket, definable statements, such as "You were fired for performance related reasons."
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  No. If anything it's up to the company leadership to be tactful, level-headed, and importantly, magnanimous in the face of petty slights and provocations -- like those of the severed employee, in this case. And that's what's so tragically stupid about this whole thing -- what happened at the outset (the employee's remarks in a public forum) was a very little thing. And what did Yishan do? He want out of his way to make it a big thing. It's like he sees a fire in the wastebasket, and his natural instinct is to throw more oil on it.
- CamperBob2 12y ago
  In the sense that he seems to have successfully trolled a CEO, yes, he "forced" the issue.
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    Which is of course the fault of the CEO... not the troll.
    - CamperBob2 12y ago
      Correct.
opendais 12y ago
No. If you make accusations in a public forum (as that employee did) the company is going to respond. That is a given and perfectly normal. The guy basically said he was "laid off" followed by "because I pissed off management with my feedback". Claiming it was a retaliatory firing forces a response.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  "because I pissed off management with my feedback" Umm -- did he say that, in the words you are using (and took the trouble to put in quotes)? If so, where? It doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the comment thread.
  - opendais 12y ago
    I was paraphrasing: "Officially: no reason. And I get this; I vaguely know how CA employment law works and that you limit your liability by not stating a reason. It's also really hard to work through in your mind. The best theory I have is that, two weeks earlier, I raised concerns about donating 10% of ad revenue to charity. Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't. ..." When you make a statement like "Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't." in relation to being laid off, you are implying it was retaliatory. I'm pretty sure Yishan saw it as that hence his reply.
    - dreamweapon 12y ago
      Paraphrasing? I think you meant to say, "Sorry, I was just making that up."
      - opendais 12y ago
        > "The best theory I have is that, two weeks earlier, I raised concerns about donating 10% of ad revenue to charity. Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't." How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off?
at-fates-hands 12y ago
This was my response as well. If anything, he should have someone else respond. The fact it irked the CEO enough to stop whatever important things he was doing to log in and craft a fairly long rebuttal is telling. I know plenty of people in PR and most would look at this and say this situation was completely mishandled. The CEO's comments actually makes him look worse than the whining ex-employee.
- general_failure 12y ago
  Huh? He is the CEO of the website. It's great that he takes these thing personally.
  - ktsmith 12y ago
    It's really not. It's business and this is potentially very bad for the business. Rather than an ex employees AMA being discussed the discussion has turned roundly onto the response of the CEO. Rather than talking about the $50 million in investment or what they plan to do with it everyone is busy talking about Yishan and his response to this thread, how he mishandled the relocation mandate to their employees and other things he's mishandled recently. Honestly if I were an investor in Reddit I'd be concerned about who's steering the ship.
pXMzR2A 12y ago
I read over the employee's comments. I agree with your position but also, they seemed calm and composed. Unless he deleted his "bad" ones, I didn't get why the CEO was out there + harsh.
lectrick 12y ago
Performance is not necessarily a death sentence. I've had jobs where I've performed poorly and jobs where I've performed excellently. I've also had years I was "on" and years I was a little "off." Businesses are not charities. They need to get things done. If you can't do the things, then they don't have to continue to pay you. Like it or not, that's how it works.
- UK-AL 12y ago
  That's because performance is easily gamed. A manager could make someones performance look bad, or good regardless of reality. That's why you can suddenly be a good performer or bad performer just by changing companies. It doesn't even have to be a conscious thing. Everybody is subconsciously biased. If you like don't like someone, you performance managament them out by like giving them lots of terrible tasks or stupidly high targets. This is a well known technique, recommend by most HR people. Anyone who's been work for a decent amount of time, knows this. Workplaces can be more like high school playground the with popular kids and the outcasts, then a merit based thing.
  - lectrick 12y ago
    In my first job out of college, 2 years in or so, the amount of web work was slumping (it was the first web bust). My boss and lead developer all went on vacation the same week and my boss gave me a fairly impossible job to do without the both of them helping out in some fashion. I was not successful. So I'm quite familiar with the technique. Basically, if you get the vibe that you're not well-liked, you should just leave or figure out how to.
irremediable 12y ago
I don't know. When the employee publicly disparages the business, I feel like a swift and decisive rebuttal might be a good idea. I'm not saying I definitely disagree with you, but I can't really see why what reddit's CEO did was bad. Risky, sure, but it strikes me as a justified and effective response.
- peterwwillis 12y ago
  Any time someone 'attacks' you in public, the wisest move is either to say nothing, or address it, depending on what the probability is that action or inaction will incur a good (or the best) outcome. In this case, they probably did not need to respond, since the 'attack' was merely an insinuation that disagreeing with management led to termination, which isn't the strangest idea in the world, nor defamatory. But if they did have to respond, this is one of the worst possible ways to do it: negatively, by senior management, in public, on a forum, discussing personal private details about an ex-employee. If there is a textbook somewhere on "How to deal with employee firing", this is the example of what not to do. The proper response is to address the main point in contention without emotion or judgment and point out the business's policies and values. Short, sweet and impartial.
ufmace 12y ago
In a vacuum, it could seem that way. But according to another of his posts, linked in another comment here, there was supposedly a demand by other employees who felt wronged by this guy's statements for him to state their truth, on the record. If we take that at its word, then it's more like a CEO that is willing to put his own reputation and professionalism on the line to defend the quality of his employees.

e40 12y ago

Seems the employee forced the issue, yes?

gkmoyn 12y ago
He could have also been professional and only stated that the employees statements are generally false, and left it at that.
smileysteve 12y ago
The response went into far too much detail. Wrongful termination lawsuits happen all of the time, defamation can be found when any term you use can not be evidenced. A pro would have either ignored this AMA or issued blanket, definable statements, such as "You were fired for performance related reasons."
dreamweapon 12y ago
No. If anything it's up to the company leadership to be tactful, level-headed, and importantly, magnanimous in the face of petty slights and provocations -- like those of the severed employee, in this case. And that's what's so tragically stupid about this whole thing -- what happened at the outset (the employee's remarks in a public forum) was a very little thing. And what did Yishan do? He want out of his way to make it a big thing. It's like he sees a fire in the wastebasket, and his natural instinct is to throw more oil on it.
CamperBob2 12y ago
In the sense that he seems to have successfully trolled a CEO, yes, he "forced" the issue.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  Which is of course the fault of the CEO... not the troll.
  - CamperBob2 12y ago
    Correct.

opendais 12y ago

No. If you make accusations in a public forum (as that employee did) the company is going to respond. That is a given and perfectly normal. The guy basically said he was "laid off" followed by "because I pissed off management with my feedback". Claiming it was a retaliatory firing forces a response.

dreamweapon 12y ago
"because I pissed off management with my feedback" Umm -- did he say that, in the words you are using (and took the trouble to put in quotes)? If so, where? It doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the comment thread.
- opendais 12y ago
  I was paraphrasing: "Officially: no reason. And I get this; I vaguely know how CA employment law works and that you limit your liability by not stating a reason. It's also really hard to work through in your mind. The best theory I have is that, two weeks earlier, I raised concerns about donating 10% of ad revenue to charity. Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't. ..." When you make a statement like "Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't." in relation to being laid off, you are implying it was retaliatory. I'm pretty sure Yishan saw it as that hence his reply.
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    Paraphrasing? I think you meant to say, "Sorry, I was just making that up."
    - opendais 12y ago
      > "The best theory I have is that, two weeks earlier, I raised concerns about donating 10% of ad revenue to charity. Some management likes getting feedback, some doesn't." How else could you possibly interpret this rationally in a conversation about being laid off?

at-fates-hands 12y ago

This was my response as well. If anything, he should have someone else respond. The fact it irked the CEO enough to stop whatever important things he was doing to log in and craft a fairly long rebuttal is telling. I know plenty of people in PR and most would look at this and say this situation was completely mishandled. The CEO's comments actually makes him look worse than the whining ex-employee.

general_failure 12y ago
Huh? He is the CEO of the website. It's great that he takes these thing personally.
- ktsmith 12y ago
  It's really not. It's business and this is potentially very bad for the business. Rather than an ex employees AMA being discussed the discussion has turned roundly onto the response of the CEO. Rather than talking about the $50 million in investment or what they plan to do with it everyone is busy talking about Yishan and his response to this thread, how he mishandled the relocation mandate to their employees and other things he's mishandled recently. Honestly if I were an investor in Reddit I'd be concerned about who's steering the ship.

pXMzR2A 12y ago

I read over the employee's comments. I agree with your position but also, they seemed calm and composed. Unless he deleted his "bad" ones, I didn't get why the CEO was out there + harsh.

lectrick 12y ago

Performance is not necessarily a death sentence. I've had jobs where I've performed poorly and jobs where I've performed excellently. I've also had years I was "on" and years I was a little "off." Businesses are not charities. They need to get things done. If you can't do the things, then they don't have to continue to pay you. Like it or not, that's how it works.

UK-AL 12y ago
That's because performance is easily gamed. A manager could make someones performance look bad, or good regardless of reality. That's why you can suddenly be a good performer or bad performer just by changing companies. It doesn't even have to be a conscious thing. Everybody is subconsciously biased. If you like don't like someone, you performance managament them out by like giving them lots of terrible tasks or stupidly high targets. This is a well known technique, recommend by most HR people. Anyone who's been work for a decent amount of time, knows this. Workplaces can be more like high school playground the with popular kids and the outcasts, then a merit based thing.
- lectrick 12y ago
  In my first job out of college, 2 years in or so, the amount of web work was slumping (it was the first web bust). My boss and lead developer all went on vacation the same week and my boss gave me a fairly impossible job to do without the both of them helping out in some fashion. I was not successful. So I'm quite familiar with the technique. Basically, if you get the vibe that you're not well-liked, you should just leave or figure out how to.

irremediable 12y ago

I don't know. When the employee publicly disparages the business, I feel like a swift and decisive rebuttal might be a good idea. I'm not saying I definitely disagree with you, but I can't really see why what reddit's CEO did was bad. Risky, sure, but it strikes me as a justified and effective response.

peterwwillis 12y ago
Any time someone 'attacks' you in public, the wisest move is either to say nothing, or address it, depending on what the probability is that action or inaction will incur a good (or the best) outcome. In this case, they probably did not need to respond, since the 'attack' was merely an insinuation that disagreeing with management led to termination, which isn't the strangest idea in the world, nor defamatory. But if they did have to respond, this is one of the worst possible ways to do it: negatively, by senior management, in public, on a forum, discussing personal private details about an ex-employee. If there is a textbook somewhere on "How to deal with employee firing", this is the example of what not to do. The proper response is to address the main point in contention without emotion or judgment and point out the business's policies and values. Short, sweet and impartial.

ufmace 12y ago

In a vacuum, it could seem that way. But according to another of his posts, linked in another comment here, there was supposedly a demand by other employees who felt wronged by this guy's statements for him to state their truth, on the record. If we take that at its word, then it's more like a CEO that is willing to put his own reputation and professionalism on the line to defend the quality of his employees.