3 ms·

You're probably right that the whole thing was vetted by lawyers, but it's still lame. I've never been fired, but I've fired other people, and I've always beli

by tsotha 12y ago

You're probably right that the whole thing was vetted by lawyers, but it's still lame. I've never been fired, but I've fired other people, and I've always believed it's something you should do when looking someone in the eye. That's the way I'd want it done if I were the one packing my stuff. Every time I did it I think there was more stress for me than the person getting fired, but if I were still managing people I'd still do it that way. The only time I didn't do it that way was when I worked for this sleazy field services body shop that was worried the managers would say something out of school and get the company sued. They had someone from HR who was trained in firing people (love to put that on my resume) by legal do it. And we were not allowed to comment on anything. I worked at a place where the first inkling something wasn't right is your badge doesn't open the door any more. You go to security to get a replacement (because you think it's broken), and they have all your stuff in a box by the security desk. See ya. Didn't stay there long, though. I kept expecting someone with a broken badge to off himself before he realized he still had a job. Who wants to work at a place like that?

cookiecaper 12y ago
>You're probably right that the whole thing was vetted by lawyers, but it's still lame. It's lame because firing, both being fired and doing the firing, is lame. Any way it's done, it's going to be lame. "Look me in the eye when you fire me, see if you can stare me down" is really just machismo bloviation, as far as I can tell. Perhaps some people walk away saying "Well, he had the respect to look me in the eye", but somehow I feel that people that get stuck on this would be more inclined to say "That heartless bastard looked me right in the eye as he fired me." It's a no-win situation. Is it really better to expose the company and the remaining employees to liability by having that meeting 1000 times in one day, repeating the same boilerplate, just so that a few of your ex-employees may walk away with a slightly-more-hospitable opinion of you? Even if they don't have this to mark against you, assuming they were the type of employee inclined to do so, they're still probably not going to like you, because, well, you fired them.
- tsotha 12y ago
  >"Look me in the eye when you fire me, see if you can stare me down" is really just machismo bloviation, as far as I can tell. Not to me. To me it's a question of respect. To do it by email even over the phone sends the message you didn't think he was worth enough, as a person, to waste any time on.
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    It takes a lot longer to craft a gracious email than it does to have an in-person meeting. In my experience, termination meetings are very brief (for a couple of reasons that shouldn't be too hard to figure out). All I'm saying is that it's circumstantial. There are definitely cases where an in-person firing is an important part of showing respect; maybe we'll even say it's the default case. But there are cases where it's more respectful, dependent on circumstances and personalities, to do it in an asynchronous communication channel (taped message, email, etc). Walk through the logistics of firing 900 people individually, one at a time, looking each in the eye individually each time (and/or having your highest-ranking representative do it at various offices), and you'll notice there are some serious problems with this solution too. Is it better to leave the employee in agony all day, wondering when or if he's going to get called, getting increasingly more angry as his friends drop out one by one while he retains access to internal company systems, etc., just so you can walk around and tell everyone "I looked 'im straight in the eye!" If you think beyond this weird hangup that some people have, you'll see that there is really every reason to do the firing in a more efficient way in these cases. The only thing lost is the good vibes from any recently-fired employees that decide the opportunity to stare down their boss before they get terminated is a critical part of their self-worth, which honestly, probably scarcely existed in the first place. We should do the best thing for all involved, not the most politically correct thing. It's politically correct to have a final showdown where you stare down the person you're about to fire, but it's not always actually the best option.

by tsotha 12y ago

cookiecaper 12y ago

>You're probably right that the whole thing was vetted by lawyers, but it's still lame. It's lame because firing, both being fired and doing the firing, is lame. Any way it's done, it's going to be lame. "Look me in the eye when you fire me, see if you can stare me down" is really just machismo bloviation, as far as I can tell. Perhaps some people walk away saying "Well, he had the respect to look me in the eye", but somehow I feel that people that get stuck on this would be more inclined to say "That heartless bastard looked me right in the eye as he fired me." It's a no-win situation. Is it really better to expose the company and the remaining employees to liability by having that meeting 1000 times in one day, repeating the same boilerplate, just so that a few of your ex-employees may walk away with a slightly-more-hospitable opinion of you? Even if they don't have this to mark against you, assuming they were the type of employee inclined to do so, they're still probably not going to like you, because, well, you fired them.

tsotha 12y ago
>"Look me in the eye when you fire me, see if you can stare me down" is really just machismo bloviation, as far as I can tell. Not to me. To me it's a question of respect. To do it by email even over the phone sends the message you didn't think he was worth enough, as a person, to waste any time on.
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  It takes a lot longer to craft a gracious email than it does to have an in-person meeting. In my experience, termination meetings are very brief (for a couple of reasons that shouldn't be too hard to figure out). All I'm saying is that it's circumstantial. There are definitely cases where an in-person firing is an important part of showing respect; maybe we'll even say it's the default case. But there are cases where it's more respectful, dependent on circumstances and personalities, to do it in an asynchronous communication channel (taped message, email, etc). Walk through the logistics of firing 900 people individually, one at a time, looking each in the eye individually each time (and/or having your highest-ranking representative do it at various offices), and you'll notice there are some serious problems with this solution too. Is it better to leave the employee in agony all day, wondering when or if he's going to get called, getting increasingly more angry as his friends drop out one by one while he retains access to internal company systems, etc., just so you can walk around and tell everyone "I looked 'im straight in the eye!" If you think beyond this weird hangup that some people have, you'll see that there is really every reason to do the firing in a more efficient way in these cases. The only thing lost is the good vibes from any recently-fired employees that decide the opportunity to stare down their boss before they get terminated is a critical part of their self-worth, which honestly, probably scarcely existed in the first place. We should do the best thing for all involved, not the most politically correct thing. It's politically correct to have a final showdown where you stare down the person you're about to fire, but it's not always actually the best option.