5 ms·

Thanks for sharing. I don't think it's off topic. "It’s terribly difficult to manage unmotivated people. Make your job easier and don’t." It's just a really r

Thanks for sharing. I don't think it's off topic. "It’s terribly difficult to manage unmotivated people. Make your job easier and don’t." It's just a really really mean thing to say, especially coming from someone who is a manager / mentor.

pen2l 11y ago
I agree that's a shitty thing. Also, sadly, it is a norm to think in this bleakly capitalistic way. By and large, you will not see normal people viewing the providing job/no job thing as something moral.
jordigh 11y ago
I understand trying to be humane to everyone, but you cannot just decide to not fire anyone, ever. If someone does not want to be at a job, it is not an act of charity to keep them at that job. If they really do not want to be there, they can cause a lot more grief to themselves or others. It's cruel to be kind. You're not Schindler. Firing people is not a death sentence. If you fear for their mental health, fire them and direct them to services that can help. Hell, companies even do this routinely in a fashion: it's called outplacement.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  > If you fear for their mental health, fire them and direct them to services that can help. If we're talking about Americans, their health insurance is almost certainly tied to their job. So firing them will force them to choose to either pay out the nose for COBRA or individual health insurance -- which means more stress, on top of the stress of losing their job -- or to give up access to the vast majority of those "services that can help" altogether.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    > If we're talking about Americans, Oops, sorry, I forgot. I'm in Canada. I guess it is inhumane to fire people in the US, then.
- nether 11y ago
  I wonder if it's illegal to fire someone for being depressed per the American Disabilities Act, since it protects those with "mental impairments": http://www2.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4862 http://www2.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template...
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    It's a complex topic, but the way you phrase it, the answer is "yes". You cannot fire someone because they have depression (assuming a real diagnosis, etc) The real question is can you fire someone who performs poorly because of their depression
    - DanBC 11y ago
      The real question is not "can you?" but "should you?" For most people with a mental illness, even one that interferes with their work, the answer is probably no. You've invested in that person and you lose that if you fire them. You also have the costs of the new hire. You have no guarantee that the new hire isn't going to have a mental illness. (The ageist culture of hiring in SF tech firms selects strongly for people who are at about the right age to have their first episode of psychosis - 14 to 35.) Firing that one person for their mental illness related performance is very visible. The effect is to make other people with mental illness hide it from you. As a manager which do you prefer - Ann who has a predictable 2 hours for therapy per week over a 14 week period, arranged in advance; or Bob who just takes ad-hoc days off sick? And, really, the role of a manager is to help workers perform better. This includes people whose performance has dropped as a result of a mental illness. Since work-related strss is very common any manager that doesn't understand mental health is just an unprepared - probably bad - manager.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        I think this is a little glib. It's probably not reasonable to expect a manager to correct performance deficits that are a fundamental attribute of a serious mental disorder. There are coherent, reasonable, intelligent people who have disorders that are beyond even the awesome powers of the modern software team manager. Beyond, in fact, even their ability to make assessments. I think it's a little dangerous to suggest that a manager should be freelancing as a therapist --- which is what you're expecting them to do when you say that a manager should be able to help workers who are impaired by mental illness perform better. Finally, from a legal perspective, post-ADAAA, it's pretty important for managers to keep a laser focus on actual job performance, and not to casually involve themselves in employee mental health. An overt suggestion that an underperforming team member might have a mood disorder apparently has some liability/obligation implications.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 11y ago
  > You're not Schindler. Firing people is not a death sentence. If you fear for their mental health, fire them and direct them to services that can help. You just admitted to somethingthat is illegal in many countries. When someone has a mental illness you keep them at their job; you provide time and space for them to get treatment (for most people this will be an hour a week; for some people it might be more; for a small number of people it will be a hospital stay now and then). The reason you keep them in their job is because you have already invested time and money in them - the recruitment process; training; the knowledge they've gained of your product. It's also better for them - work protects mental health. Try substituting "cancer" for "mental health". Dos that make you feel differently? "If you think someone has cancer just fire them and direct them to an oncology service".
- Hilby 11y ago
  This is terrible advice, even in Canada it is not legal to fire someone due to mental health issues or a drug abuse issue unless it is impeding their job, you have offered them help, and they refuse it. If you fire someone who is having serious mental health issues you make their life worse. Even if they have access to health care. Firing someone is a big deal even if they do not have mental health issues. I fired someone once. It still weighs on my mind if I did the right thing or not.

pen2l 11y ago

I agree that's a shitty thing. Also, sadly, it is a norm to think in this bleakly capitalistic way. By and large, you will not see normal people viewing the providing job/no job thing as something moral.

jordigh 11y ago

I understand trying to be humane to everyone, but you cannot just decide to not fire anyone, ever. If someone does not want to be at a job, it is not an act of charity to keep them at that job. If they really do not want to be there, they can cause a lot more grief to themselves or others. It's cruel to be kind. You're not Schindler. Firing people is not a death sentence. If you fear for their mental health, fire them and direct them to services that can help. Hell, companies even do this routinely in a fashion: it's called outplacement.

smacktoward 11y ago
> If you fear for their mental health, fire them and direct them to services that can help. If we're talking about Americans, their health insurance is almost certainly tied to their job. So firing them will force them to choose to either pay out the nose for COBRA or individual health insurance -- which means more stress, on top of the stress of losing their job -- or to give up access to the vast majority of those "services that can help" altogether.
- jordigh 11y ago
  > If we're talking about Americans, Oops, sorry, I forgot. I'm in Canada. I guess it is inhumane to fire people in the US, then.
nether 11y ago
I wonder if it's illegal to fire someone for being depressed per the American Disabilities Act, since it protects those with "mental impairments": http://www2.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4862 http://www2.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template...
- DannyBee 11y ago
  It's a complex topic, but the way you phrase it, the answer is "yes". You cannot fire someone because they have depression (assuming a real diagnosis, etc) The real question is can you fire someone who performs poorly because of their depression
  - DanBC 11y ago
    The real question is not "can you?" but "should you?" For most people with a mental illness, even one that interferes with their work, the answer is probably no. You've invested in that person and you lose that if you fire them. You also have the costs of the new hire. You have no guarantee that the new hire isn't going to have a mental illness. (The ageist culture of hiring in SF tech firms selects strongly for people who are at about the right age to have their first episode of psychosis - 14 to 35.) Firing that one person for their mental illness related performance is very visible. The effect is to make other people with mental illness hide it from you. As a manager which do you prefer - Ann who has a predictable 2 hours for therapy per week over a 14 week period, arranged in advance; or Bob who just takes ad-hoc days off sick? And, really, the role of a manager is to help workers perform better. This includes people whose performance has dropped as a result of a mental illness. Since work-related strss is very common any manager that doesn't understand mental health is just an unprepared - probably bad - manager.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I think this is a little glib. It's probably not reasonable to expect a manager to correct performance deficits that are a fundamental attribute of a serious mental disorder. There are coherent, reasonable, intelligent people who have disorders that are beyond even the awesome powers of the modern software team manager. Beyond, in fact, even their ability to make assessments. I think it's a little dangerous to suggest that a manager should be freelancing as a therapist --- which is what you're expecting them to do when you say that a manager should be able to help workers who are impaired by mental illness perform better. Finally, from a legal perspective, post-ADAAA, it's pretty important for managers to keep a laser focus on actual job performance, and not to casually involve themselves in employee mental health. An overt suggestion that an underperforming team member might have a mood disorder apparently has some liability/obligation implications.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
DanBC 11y ago
> You're not Schindler. Firing people is not a death sentence. If you fear for their mental health, fire them and direct them to services that can help. You just admitted to somethingthat is illegal in many countries. When someone has a mental illness you keep them at their job; you provide time and space for them to get treatment (for most people this will be an hour a week; for some people it might be more; for a small number of people it will be a hospital stay now and then). The reason you keep them in their job is because you have already invested time and money in them - the recruitment process; training; the knowledge they've gained of your product. It's also better for them - work protects mental health. Try substituting "cancer" for "mental health". Dos that make you feel differently? "If you think someone has cancer just fire them and direct them to an oncology service".
Hilby 11y ago
This is terrible advice, even in Canada it is not legal to fire someone due to mental health issues or a drug abuse issue unless it is impeding their job, you have offered them help, and they refuse it. If you fire someone who is having serious mental health issues you make their life worse. Even if they have access to health care. Firing someone is a big deal even if they do not have mental health issues. I fired someone once. It still weighs on my mind if I did the right thing or not.