This fake conversation loads of fail. "If someone is profitable (creating more value for the company than they’re costing you), then there’s only reason to eve

This fake conversation loads of fail. "If someone is profitable (creating more value for the company than they’re costing you), then there’s only reason to ever let them go: Their “payback” period is longer than your cash resources will allow." That's just wrong. A few (there are more!) reasons to let them go: - There's an opportunity cost. If you can only manage or you only want to have 1 "startup point of contact for this platform" you should have the best person in the job. - Bad people attract bad people (through both recruiting and the interviewing they do). I know nothing about Don other than his post-MSFT Google posts, but he presents himself in public like a tool. Do you really want to fill your shed with people like that? - Poor performers demoralize the rest of the team. Even if an individual is net profitable - relative to cost of capital! - if they're allowed to coast, they will have a negative impact on the performance of the rest of the team. And let's be a little thoughtful here about where he went. VicG made the "swift hire," but is the guy who was in charge of developer platform evangelism during the Longhorn/Vista and then Windows Live timeframe. Given their track records, do you think MSFT made the wrong decision in their termination or that Google/VicG made a poor decision hiring someone whom they likely didn't even send through a full interview loop? How do you think Don's new team feels about the way he was hired?