4 ms·

That is the one thing I really don't like about the whole fire fast mentality that is starting to pop up, particularly the extreme examples of "fire for any rea

by jghn 12y ago

That is the one thing I really don't like about the whole fire fast mentality that is starting to pop up, particularly the extreme examples of "fire for any reason as soon as the person isn't a perfect fit, regardless of overall quality". I'm fine with that, but make sure that I know it's likely coming well in advance. Make sure I understand that I'm not pulling my weight. Make sure I understand that the company is moving in a different direction and you'd rather part ways with me than let me retool. It's all good, just don't drop a bomb on me one day.

shostack 12y ago
Honestly, if the fired employees manager hasn't been giving them feedback that pretty clearly spells out where the current path is heading, that is a major failure of the manager. But some companies aren't great at feedback, particularly young ones where the mechanisms for regular, structured feedback aren't really in place yet. That said, I was laid off once at a company that was not doing well and had to make cuts across the board. They were very sad to have to let me go, but did one of the classiest things I've seen a company do in my entire career...as part of my 2 weeks severance, they let me continue telling companies I was currently employed there still. I had three competitive offers in a week, and I feel I was in a much stronger position because of how they handled that.
- crpatino 12y ago
  Not that major management failure is ever punished, is it?
  - shostack 12y ago
    Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If a manager has to fire a lot of people under them, and there is consistent feedback that it is a surprise, etc. that signals two things to that manager's bosses: 1. This person is having to fire a lot of people, something is up that needs to be investigated. 2. People are surprised, this person may not be the best manager. The specific details are everything in this case, so it really depends. It can definitely come back and screw the manager though if it is indeed their own fault. Often times it may not be theirs alone though.
geweke 12y ago
YES. Everybody deserves this. As a manager, I try extremely hard to make sure this happens. The way I think of it is this. On the day you are fired, when you get called in a room, if I ask you, "why do you think you're here?", you'd reply: "I think I'm getting fired". Because I want us to have had so many conversations about it, and been so direct, that the actual firing is incredibly unsurprising. I think any manager owes this to their employees, as a matter of basic human decency.
- jghn 12y ago
  Absolutely agree, it's just that it doesn't always happen. I tell every new boss that I'll be completely upfront w/ them regarding my thoughts on how things are going, if I'm thinking of jumping ship, etc - but in return I expect them to do the same. Ideally both sides are on the same page at any point of time as to what the situation is.
  - spinlock 12y ago
    Wow. I would never say I was going to jump ship until I had my plans set out. In the past I've given 6 weeks notice when it was asked for but I just wouldn't put myself in a situation where they might fire me before I fund my next gig.
    - jghn 12y ago
      There's a difference between saying "I'm jumping ship" and "I'm thinking about looking around in the next few months". The former is implying it's definitely going to happen, the latter is saying that it's a fungible situation. I'd like to think (and try to only work for) people would be professional enough on both sides to realize that not everyone (either side) is going to be happy 100% of the time but a) both sides can work on it to make it better and b) if it doesn't work out, try to be supportive of each other so that both come out stronger overall.
      - spinlock 12y ago
        It still sounds sketchy to me. Threatening to leave is giving your employer an ultimatum. Personally, I think the rational response to this is to placate you, find your replacement, then fire you. If you actually have issues with your work environment, you should address those head on without the threat of leaving the company.
rdtsc 12y ago
> I'm fine with that, but make sure that I know it's likely coming well in advance What's missing from the equation is what it does to others. Sure one person got fired, bam! easy peasy. Well not so easy because everyone else in the company witnessed that. It becomes a message to everyone else. "As soon you hit the first bump, or maybe you are sick, or have a family emergency we'll throw you under a bus". Everyone pays attention to that message. Actions speak louder than words is a cliche, but it is true. Especially because management is used to talk in superlatives and in market-speak. "We are doing great! We are a people's company. We value our employees. We are a meritocracy. We are here to help you grow, blah, blah,...", but then they fire Steve because his code hit a segfault in production twice that week. Which message will people listen to?
- davidu 12y ago
  If you are terminating employment seemingly for minor things or if you are even sending that message when you fire someone you have no business being in a position to fire someone. If you work at a company where you believe this is the case, you should leave so you are leaving on your terms and on your timeline.
- 67726e 12y ago
  It's certainly important to make sure your employees understand the real message. At a previous company, lots of folks were fired or "resigned" and a lot of us in the engineering side would comment on it from time to time, and of course worry a little. One day we had a frank conversation with our boss about it, and the thing we didn't quit grok when seeing these firings were that it was sales/marketing - where you can't as easily check out someone's GitHub or have them solve some programming assignments.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- brianpgordon 12y ago
  And, on the other hand, when managers are flexible they can be rewarded with loyalty worth many times the value of any lost productivity: > Erik Wolpaw, a writer at Valve fell ill (diagnosed with ulcerative colitis) in 2004. He knew he couldn’t fulfil his duties at work and made the choice to leave Valve. Erik tried to quit, Gabe refused to accept his resignation and said “Your job is to get better. That is your job description at Valve. So go home to your wife and come back when you are better.” On leaving Erik turned to fellow Valver Chet and said “Well, I guess we know where we’re working for the rest of our lives.”
platz 12y ago
I think in Germany there is less of a problem with firing because there are less laws around it and more support structures for those who are let go. Makes companies more likely to hire as well knowing they aren't as locked in.
- EvaK_de 12y ago
  The opposite is true. It is very hard to fire someone in Germany, at least compared to the US. When you compare the situation in Germany with that in Italy however - yeah, then you're right.
api 12y ago
It seems to stand in stark conflict with the difficulty of finding good people. If you have to let someone go for other than cash flow or pivot reasons, it seems to me like an admission that you made a mistake hiring them. Obviously this happens, but every time it does you probably ought to self-examine and ask why you hired them to begin with and tweak your interview/recruiting process accordingly. Firing should not be a drop of the hat common thing unless something is wrong, unless I am missing something or not sufficiently ValleyTrendy.
aturek 12y ago
This is a great rule of thumb for employees and managers both: neither side should ever be too surprised. Whether it's performance evaluations or firing/quitting decisions, let the other side know if you're unhappy, and talk about it regularly (at least, one-on-one). Every time I haven't talked to managers about this sort of thing, I've regretted it. If you're leaving a company, you might not have told the manager that you were interviewing around, but you certainly should have talked to them about being unhappy. If you're firing an employee, they should have known (almost as long as you've known) that there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations, or whatever. There are of course always exceptions, where you think someone is crazy or an asshole, but most people are reasonable and can handle hearing that things aren't great.
- zhte415 12y ago
  > If you're firing an employee, they should have known (almost as long as you've known) that there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations, or whatever. >> there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations I had trouble reading this: culture, or performance. If their performance was good, but they didn't match the 'culture' then it is arbitrary in the greatest order. If 'culture; is important, as I agree it is but in qualifiable ways, so culture is qualifiable, and if an organization cannot put 'culture; into its performance expections, it is likely doomed or very very young, but likely doomed.
matwood 12y ago
If more and more companies start going to the fire fast as soon as you're not a fit, then expect salary requests to start going up. Taking a new job is a risk, and a fire fast mentality adds to that risk that must be compensated with a salary premium.
- whyaduck 12y ago
  A hiring bonus would be a better impedance match - both sides are taking a significant risk. A candidate quitting a job is a significant, generally irreversible, risky step, while handing a new hire a 5 figure sum on day one is similar.
  - chrisbennet 12y ago
    If the risk of getting fired after a couple of weeks is high, I think the balance of risk is such that the employee should get a bonus or big severance for risking all his income. The company takes a much smaller risk comparatively.
tsotha 12y ago
IMO Fire fast is a mistake, even from a purely green-eye shades perspective. It takes time to bring a new employee up to speed, and while they're coming up to speed they need attention from other people who are supposed to be working on their own projects. Beyond that it creates a morale problem. People who work together form social attachments and get upset when a coworker disappears. People who are in no actual danger of being fired will assume they're next. People who make mistakes or miss deadlines will start looking for new jobs because job-hunting is easier when you have a job. And good people will start to leave because it's just not a fun place to work with the black cloud hanging over the office. That is not to say you should never fire someone. Sometimes it's unavoidable. But it's not something you should do lightly.
- jghn 12y ago
  I probably shouldn't have said "the one thing" - I totally agree that I think it is a silly policy and not the right to be doing at all. I guess I meant "the one thing that bothers me from the perspective of someone who might be fired at any moment" :) - I could survive in a fire fast iff they were open about everything, although I probably wouldn't choose to work there in the first place, if that makes sense.
  - tsotha 12y ago
    Why would anyone work at a place like that? Even if you were somehow special in that they couldn't fire you, the whole thing would be inefficient and depressing.
mhomde 12y ago
I guess that's the other side of labour laws, firing someone who's been employeed more than six months in Sweden requires talking to the union (if you have one), given a valid reason, if it's "lack of work" they have to offer the position back to you if it changes. The amount of months's notice you get changes with your age and years of employement as well. Sometimes you have to sack entire departments just to defeat the LIFO policy. Now I think Sweden's laws can be a bit too strict, companies are deathly afraid to hire the wrong people (after the six month trial period) since they can't get rid of them, and companies should be able to get rid of underperformers, but living in a country where your boss can go Donald Trump on your ass on a whim isn't exactly ideal either...
EdwardDiego 12y ago
> the whole fire fast mentality that is starting to pop up I am going to hug my country's employment law. "Fire fast" sounds inherently abusive towards employees.
dbenhur 12y ago
> the whole fire fast mentality Zach was there for five years. Why are we talking about "fire fast"?

by jghn 12y ago

shostack 12y ago

Honestly, if the fired employees manager hasn't been giving them feedback that pretty clearly spells out where the current path is heading, that is a major failure of the manager. But some companies aren't great at feedback, particularly young ones where the mechanisms for regular, structured feedback aren't really in place yet. That said, I was laid off once at a company that was not doing well and had to make cuts across the board. They were very sad to have to let me go, but did one of the classiest things I've seen a company do in my entire career...as part of my 2 weeks severance, they let me continue telling companies I was currently employed there still. I had three competitive offers in a week, and I feel I was in a much stronger position because of how they handled that.

crpatino 12y ago
Not that major management failure is ever punished, is it?
- shostack 12y ago
  Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If a manager has to fire a lot of people under them, and there is consistent feedback that it is a surprise, etc. that signals two things to that manager's bosses: 1. This person is having to fire a lot of people, something is up that needs to be investigated. 2. People are surprised, this person may not be the best manager. The specific details are everything in this case, so it really depends. It can definitely come back and screw the manager though if it is indeed their own fault. Often times it may not be theirs alone though.

geweke 12y ago

YES. Everybody deserves this. As a manager, I try extremely hard to make sure this happens. The way I think of it is this. On the day you are fired, when you get called in a room, if I ask you, "why do you think you're here?", you'd reply: "I think I'm getting fired". Because I want us to have had so many conversations about it, and been so direct, that the actual firing is incredibly unsurprising. I think any manager owes this to their employees, as a matter of basic human decency.

jghn 12y ago
Absolutely agree, it's just that it doesn't always happen. I tell every new boss that I'll be completely upfront w/ them regarding my thoughts on how things are going, if I'm thinking of jumping ship, etc - but in return I expect them to do the same. Ideally both sides are on the same page at any point of time as to what the situation is.
- spinlock 12y ago
  Wow. I would never say I was going to jump ship until I had my plans set out. In the past I've given 6 weeks notice when it was asked for but I just wouldn't put myself in a situation where they might fire me before I fund my next gig.
  - jghn 12y ago
    There's a difference between saying "I'm jumping ship" and "I'm thinking about looking around in the next few months". The former is implying it's definitely going to happen, the latter is saying that it's a fungible situation. I'd like to think (and try to only work for) people would be professional enough on both sides to realize that not everyone (either side) is going to be happy 100% of the time but a) both sides can work on it to make it better and b) if it doesn't work out, try to be supportive of each other so that both come out stronger overall.
    - spinlock 12y ago
      It still sounds sketchy to me. Threatening to leave is giving your employer an ultimatum. Personally, I think the rational response to this is to placate you, find your replacement, then fire you. If you actually have issues with your work environment, you should address those head on without the threat of leaving the company.

rdtsc 12y ago

> I'm fine with that, but make sure that I know it's likely coming well in advance What's missing from the equation is what it does to others. Sure one person got fired, bam! easy peasy. Well not so easy because everyone else in the company witnessed that. It becomes a message to everyone else. "As soon you hit the first bump, or maybe you are sick, or have a family emergency we'll throw you under a bus". Everyone pays attention to that message. Actions speak louder than words is a cliche, but it is true. Especially because management is used to talk in superlatives and in market-speak. "We are doing great! We are a people's company. We value our employees. We are a meritocracy. We are here to help you grow, blah, blah,...", but then they fire Steve because his code hit a segfault in production twice that week. Which message will people listen to?

davidu 12y ago
If you are terminating employment seemingly for minor things or if you are even sending that message when you fire someone you have no business being in a position to fire someone. If you work at a company where you believe this is the case, you should leave so you are leaving on your terms and on your timeline.
67726e 12y ago
It's certainly important to make sure your employees understand the real message. At a previous company, lots of folks were fired or "resigned" and a lot of us in the engineering side would comment on it from time to time, and of course worry a little. One day we had a frank conversation with our boss about it, and the thing we didn't quit grok when seeing these firings were that it was sales/marketing - where you can't as easily check out someone's GitHub or have them solve some programming assignments.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
brianpgordon 12y ago
And, on the other hand, when managers are flexible they can be rewarded with loyalty worth many times the value of any lost productivity: > Erik Wolpaw, a writer at Valve fell ill (diagnosed with ulcerative colitis) in 2004. He knew he couldn’t fulfil his duties at work and made the choice to leave Valve. Erik tried to quit, Gabe refused to accept his resignation and said “Your job is to get better. That is your job description at Valve. So go home to your wife and come back when you are better.” On leaving Erik turned to fellow Valver Chet and said “Well, I guess we know where we’re working for the rest of our lives.”

platz 12y ago

I think in Germany there is less of a problem with firing because there are less laws around it and more support structures for those who are let go. Makes companies more likely to hire as well knowing they aren't as locked in.

EvaK_de 12y ago
The opposite is true. It is very hard to fire someone in Germany, at least compared to the US. When you compare the situation in Germany with that in Italy however - yeah, then you're right.

api 12y ago

It seems to stand in stark conflict with the difficulty of finding good people. If you have to let someone go for other than cash flow or pivot reasons, it seems to me like an admission that you made a mistake hiring them. Obviously this happens, but every time it does you probably ought to self-examine and ask why you hired them to begin with and tweak your interview/recruiting process accordingly. Firing should not be a drop of the hat common thing unless something is wrong, unless I am missing something or not sufficiently ValleyTrendy.

aturek 12y ago

This is a great rule of thumb for employees and managers both: neither side should ever be too surprised. Whether it's performance evaluations or firing/quitting decisions, let the other side know if you're unhappy, and talk about it regularly (at least, one-on-one). Every time I haven't talked to managers about this sort of thing, I've regretted it. If you're leaving a company, you might not have told the manager that you were interviewing around, but you certainly should have talked to them about being unhappy. If you're firing an employee, they should have known (almost as long as you've known) that there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations, or whatever. There are of course always exceptions, where you think someone is crazy or an asshole, but most people are reasonable and can handle hearing that things aren't great.

zhte415 12y ago
> If you're firing an employee, they should have known (almost as long as you've known) that there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations, or whatever. >> there was some culture mismatch, or that their performance wasn't meeting expectations I had trouble reading this: culture, or performance. If their performance was good, but they didn't match the 'culture' then it is arbitrary in the greatest order. If 'culture; is important, as I agree it is but in qualifiable ways, so culture is qualifiable, and if an organization cannot put 'culture; into its performance expections, it is likely doomed or very very young, but likely doomed.

matwood 12y ago

If more and more companies start going to the fire fast as soon as you're not a fit, then expect salary requests to start going up. Taking a new job is a risk, and a fire fast mentality adds to that risk that must be compensated with a salary premium.

whyaduck 12y ago
A hiring bonus would be a better impedance match - both sides are taking a significant risk. A candidate quitting a job is a significant, generally irreversible, risky step, while handing a new hire a 5 figure sum on day one is similar.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  If the risk of getting fired after a couple of weeks is high, I think the balance of risk is such that the employee should get a bonus or big severance for risking all his income. The company takes a much smaller risk comparatively.

tsotha 12y ago

IMO Fire fast is a mistake, even from a purely green-eye shades perspective. It takes time to bring a new employee up to speed, and while they're coming up to speed they need attention from other people who are supposed to be working on their own projects. Beyond that it creates a morale problem. People who work together form social attachments and get upset when a coworker disappears. People who are in no actual danger of being fired will assume they're next. People who make mistakes or miss deadlines will start looking for new jobs because job-hunting is easier when you have a job. And good people will start to leave because it's just not a fun place to work with the black cloud hanging over the office. That is not to say you should never fire someone. Sometimes it's unavoidable. But it's not something you should do lightly.

jghn 12y ago
I probably shouldn't have said "the one thing" - I totally agree that I think it is a silly policy and not the right to be doing at all. I guess I meant "the one thing that bothers me from the perspective of someone who might be fired at any moment" :) - I could survive in a fire fast iff they were open about everything, although I probably wouldn't choose to work there in the first place, if that makes sense.
- tsotha 12y ago
  Why would anyone work at a place like that? Even if you were somehow special in that they couldn't fire you, the whole thing would be inefficient and depressing.

mhomde 12y ago

I guess that's the other side of labour laws, firing someone who's been employeed more than six months in Sweden requires talking to the union (if you have one), given a valid reason, if it's "lack of work" they have to offer the position back to you if it changes. The amount of months's notice you get changes with your age and years of employement as well. Sometimes you have to sack entire departments just to defeat the LIFO policy. Now I think Sweden's laws can be a bit too strict, companies are deathly afraid to hire the wrong people (after the six month trial period) since they can't get rid of them, and companies should be able to get rid of underperformers, but living in a country where your boss can go Donald Trump on your ass on a whim isn't exactly ideal either...

EdwardDiego 12y ago

> the whole fire fast mentality that is starting to pop up I am going to hug my country's employment law. "Fire fast" sounds inherently abusive towards employees.

dbenhur 12y ago

> the whole fire fast mentality Zach was there for five years. Why are we talking about "fire fast"?