5 ms·

I disagree. Firing via email or pre-recorded voicemail saves YOU the embarrassment of having to sit through the employees sobs. In my opinion, firing is a failu

I disagree. Firing via email or pre-recorded voicemail saves YOU the embarrassment of having to sit through the employees sobs. In my opinion, firing is a failure of management, and one of the consequences and fixes to ensure a failure like that doesn't occur again is to witness the very real fall out the error has on real people; that is your failure was so grand as to have a grown man in tears. Firing via email or pre-recorded message is a way to avoid looking your failure of responsibility in the eye

eropple 12y ago
Agreed. Short of termination for criminal or grossly inappropriate behavior--that is, the kind of action that is not within an employer's mandate to handle--a firing is management trying to fix management's mistakes at as little cost to management as possible. The literal least you can do in that position is wield the axe yourself and take a good look at the consequences of your screwup.
cookiecaper 12y ago
I mean, you're welcome to feel that way if you want. I know a lot of people do feel that way. I also know a lot of people would rather not have those personal moments visible to their boss just to prove a point that he failed and that's why he has to watch a grown man cry. I didn't say it's always better to fire asynchronously, I just said it's not objectively worse. I also understand that your platitude on firing is transparent propaganda, but that's neither here nor there to this discussion -- whoever did or didn't do things that precipitated or mandated the firing, the fact is that it must happen, and that not everyone reacts the same way or prefers the same style. I should note I also state this from the perspective of one who has been fired (in all occurrences, I'm using "fired" as a catch-all for all instances where a job is involuntarily terminated; this can mean the contract ends, the company or unit is closing, or performance was unsatisfactory to the bosses). I think I would've preferred to be fired remotely in all instances except one (where I wasn't really fired, but my already-turned-in two weeks notice was prematurely ended). I wouldn't think the bosses were "cowards" for depriving me of the opportunity to personally and physically guilt them, but like I said, to each his own. The takeaway here is that the people doing the firing shouldn't concern themselves too abundantly about whether the employee is going to appreciate the atmosphere of the firing or not, because news flash: they won't.
- bad_user 12y ago
  @cookiecaper, you've basically ignored the argument. > whoever did or didn't do things that precipitated or mandated the firing, the fact is that it must happen Oh, but you can't call that a fact, because it fails the verifiability test. I mean, firing is a decision made by management, the same management that placed the company in this position in the first place. And it amuses me that in big corporations, management almost never gets fired. > not everyone reacts the same way or prefers the same style This is not subjective, as having the common decency to look a person in the eyes before stabbing is something one should learn at home in order to pass for a human. Truth be told, I would get pretty mad about such things, but fortunately such companies are usually ran by incompetents and so most of them either go out of business or become completely irrelevant and for me that's justice enough.
  - filoeleven 12y ago
    > [H]aving the common decency to look a person in the eyes before stabbing is something one should learn at home in order to pass for a human. You must have had a very interesting childhood.
    - lightbritefight 12y ago
      Its a take on an Oscar Wilde quote: "A true friend stabs you in the front."
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    >@cookiecaper, you've basically ignored the argument. There is no argument. There is only the dogmatic belief that there is some cosmic moral code that states persons must be fired in person. As I've said probably four times now, I accept whole-heartedly there are times when that is the best course of action, and I've acted accordingly and fired these people face-to-face. But I don't believe there is a cosmic moral law violated by considering or performing the firing via alternate, asynchronous means. I believe that circumstances can make this a better option sometimes. >Oh, but you can't call that a fact, because it fails the verifiability test. I mean, firing is a decision made by management, the same management that placed the company in this position in the first place. This is nitpicking at semantics. I understand that firing is usually a subjective judgment call, obviously. I guess better phrasing would've been "whoever did or didn't do things... the decision has been made and needs to be executed". >Truth be told, I would get pretty mad about such things, but fortunately such companies are usually ran by incompetents and so most of them either go out of business or become completely irrelevant and for me that's justice enough. As I alluded elsewhere, I think it is silly to state that the C-levels at all of these big companies are "incompetents" because they don't meet with every employee individually to fire them. It's a routine way to do mass layoffs and it's easy for employees to say "That guy couldn't look me in the eye", but it's also easy for employees to find all kinds of other things to complain about. Since your employees are going to be unhappy when they're fired anyway, I believe it should be done in the most objectively logical and considerate way, even if it leaves room for petty complaints about the venue, because people who want to complain are going to find something to complain about even if you fire them in the most stately of palaces and most well-pressed of designer suits, with braces that keep your eyelids open so that there is no doubt that you were willing to "look them in the eye" when you fired them. Sometimes there is no good alternative; like others are saying in this thread, it's often impossible to concoct a graceful firing experience. Saying that people are incompetent for remote firings is ascribing far too much value to what is ultimately a subjective presentation, and ignoring the serious and real logistical issues sometimes involved with a "look-me-in-the-eye" firing.

eropple 12y ago

Agreed. Short of termination for criminal or grossly inappropriate behavior--that is, the kind of action that is not within an employer's mandate to handle--a firing is management trying to fix management's mistakes at as little cost to management as possible. The literal least you can do in that position is wield the axe yourself and take a good look at the consequences of your screwup.

cookiecaper 12y ago

I mean, you're welcome to feel that way if you want. I know a lot of people do feel that way. I also know a lot of people would rather not have those personal moments visible to their boss just to prove a point that he failed and that's why he has to watch a grown man cry. I didn't say it's always better to fire asynchronously, I just said it's not objectively worse. I also understand that your platitude on firing is transparent propaganda, but that's neither here nor there to this discussion -- whoever did or didn't do things that precipitated or mandated the firing, the fact is that it must happen, and that not everyone reacts the same way or prefers the same style. I should note I also state this from the perspective of one who has been fired (in all occurrences, I'm using "fired" as a catch-all for all instances where a job is involuntarily terminated; this can mean the contract ends, the company or unit is closing, or performance was unsatisfactory to the bosses). I think I would've preferred to be fired remotely in all instances except one (where I wasn't really fired, but my already-turned-in two weeks notice was prematurely ended). I wouldn't think the bosses were "cowards" for depriving me of the opportunity to personally and physically guilt them, but like I said, to each his own. The takeaway here is that the people doing the firing shouldn't concern themselves too abundantly about whether the employee is going to appreciate the atmosphere of the firing or not, because news flash: they won't.

bad_user 12y ago
@cookiecaper, you've basically ignored the argument. > whoever did or didn't do things that precipitated or mandated the firing, the fact is that it must happen Oh, but you can't call that a fact, because it fails the verifiability test. I mean, firing is a decision made by management, the same management that placed the company in this position in the first place. And it amuses me that in big corporations, management almost never gets fired. > not everyone reacts the same way or prefers the same style This is not subjective, as having the common decency to look a person in the eyes before stabbing is something one should learn at home in order to pass for a human. Truth be told, I would get pretty mad about such things, but fortunately such companies are usually ran by incompetents and so most of them either go out of business or become completely irrelevant and for me that's justice enough.
- filoeleven 12y ago
  > [H]aving the common decency to look a person in the eyes before stabbing is something one should learn at home in order to pass for a human. You must have had a very interesting childhood.
  - lightbritefight 12y ago
    Its a take on an Oscar Wilde quote: "A true friend stabs you in the front."
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  >@cookiecaper, you've basically ignored the argument. There is no argument. There is only the dogmatic belief that there is some cosmic moral code that states persons must be fired in person. As I've said probably four times now, I accept whole-heartedly there are times when that is the best course of action, and I've acted accordingly and fired these people face-to-face. But I don't believe there is a cosmic moral law violated by considering or performing the firing via alternate, asynchronous means. I believe that circumstances can make this a better option sometimes. >Oh, but you can't call that a fact, because it fails the verifiability test. I mean, firing is a decision made by management, the same management that placed the company in this position in the first place. This is nitpicking at semantics. I understand that firing is usually a subjective judgment call, obviously. I guess better phrasing would've been "whoever did or didn't do things... the decision has been made and needs to be executed". >Truth be told, I would get pretty mad about such things, but fortunately such companies are usually ran by incompetents and so most of them either go out of business or become completely irrelevant and for me that's justice enough. As I alluded elsewhere, I think it is silly to state that the C-levels at all of these big companies are "incompetents" because they don't meet with every employee individually to fire them. It's a routine way to do mass layoffs and it's easy for employees to say "That guy couldn't look me in the eye", but it's also easy for employees to find all kinds of other things to complain about. Since your employees are going to be unhappy when they're fired anyway, I believe it should be done in the most objectively logical and considerate way, even if it leaves room for petty complaints about the venue, because people who want to complain are going to find something to complain about even if you fire them in the most stately of palaces and most well-pressed of designer suits, with braces that keep your eyelids open so that there is no doubt that you were willing to "look them in the eye" when you fired them. Sometimes there is no good alternative; like others are saying in this thread, it's often impossible to concoct a graceful firing experience. Saying that people are incompetent for remote firings is ascribing far too much value to what is ultimately a subjective presentation, and ignoring the serious and real logistical issues sometimes involved with a "look-me-in-the-eye" firing.