Firing Well(mondaynote.com)
mondaynote.com
Firing Well
http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/05/17/firing-well/
82 コメント
I've had it come up and thought it was great. In my case, the timing of other offers meant that the potential employer would have to hire me without all of their normal process. That worried them.
I explained that if it didn't work out, there was no sense for either of us in me staying on when it wasn't a good match. We then had a reasonable, adult conversation about hiring and firing and our approaches thereto.
It was honestly part of what sold me on the place. I think that companies that treat firing as some sort of spooky bogeyman are not so good at management. It's not like failing to talk about it means that firing isn't a possible outcome; it just means that people dance around it.
I explained that if it didn't work out, there was no sense for either of us in me staying on when it wasn't a good match. We then had a reasonable, adult conversation about hiring and firing and our approaches thereto.
It was honestly part of what sold me on the place. I think that companies that treat firing as some sort of spooky bogeyman are not so good at management. It's not like failing to talk about it means that firing isn't a possible outcome; it just means that people dance around it.
It's an adult approach to work. Like linkedin / Reid Hoffman's approach to career development: stop pretending you're joining a company for life; instead, treat employment as a tour of duty with limited duration. The company gets X from you, and you get Y from the company. At the end, you may or may not choose to re-up, with new goals for both sides.
ala https://hbr.org/2013/06/tours-of-duty-the-new-employer-emplo...
ala https://hbr.org/2013/06/tours-of-duty-the-new-employer-emplo...
As a small employer who has directly employed no more than 2 full-time employees at once, I make a habit to very clearly emphasize in the interview that I am running a small outfit that has a real and serious chance of vanishing overnight, or coming upon unexpected budgetary circumstances that necessitate the instantaneous layoff of some or all employees. Despite this clear warning, I've still had employees get upset when we've needed to part ways. I still think it's a good spiel to rehearse but I've stopped believing anyone will take it seriously.
Getting fired is fundamentally upsetting. It's hard to avoid.
> Wow, this company must have to deal with this quite a bit in order for it to be covered like this during an interview setting.
Or, their hiring managers are very experienced and are basing this on decades of industry experience over many different managerial positions. They have learned the best practices for employee retention and dismissal over time, so they know to mention this now.
Or, their hiring managers are very experienced and are basing this on decades of industry experience over many different managerial positions. They have learned the best practices for employee retention and dismissal over time, so they know to mention this now.
We can live in your hypothetical Or world, or we can live in the real world where most sane people would interpret a segment like this as:
"Red flag, red flag, their CEO is a complete nightmare, run away, run away".
"Red flag, red flag, their CEO is a complete nightmare, run away, run away".
>Or World
I like that phrase. I'll be using that.
I like that phrase. I'll be using that.
[deleted]
Even if this were true -- which is debatable -- I think the much more likely scenario is that the employer has had problems in the past, and very possibly in the present (whether the fault of the employer and/or employee(s)).
Regardless, I just don't think it would be worth risking highly talented candidates (rightly) misinterpreting bringing up the topic of firing during an interview as an indicator of a toxic environment, and therefore think this is not very sound advice.
Regardless, I just don't think it would be worth risking highly talented candidates (rightly) misinterpreting bringing up the topic of firing during an interview as an indicator of a toxic environment, and therefore think this is not very sound advice.
I agree, but imagine if instead of getting this speech during the interview, you got it the first day on the job.
I suppose in that case I'd still have the option of calling my old employer and asking for my job back, or maybe an employer I'd turned down to ask if the job is still available.
I suppose in that case I'd still have the option of calling my old employer and asking for my job back, or maybe an employer I'd turned down to ask if the job is still available.
I have on 2 separate occasions... when, I against my better judgement, took some consulting work with obvious clients from hell. Immediate not so subtle threats from the beginning. Turned out that all of their previous contracting experiences with others had ended up a disaster, as did my experience with them. It's the threats that pretend not to be threats that really seem to be one of the strongest indicators.
Yeah, at this point I'd assume that anyone who's making any sort of threats from the very start is going to turn into one of these employers from hell. True or not.
Actually, I'd be surprised if the OP isn't the employer from hell. Trust your first instincts on this stuff guys.
Yeah, at this point I'd assume that anyone who's making any sort of threats from the very start is going to turn into one of these employers from hell. True or not.
Actually, I'd be surprised if the OP isn't the employer from hell. Trust your first instincts on this stuff guys.
100% agreed. This would completely sour me on the position.
I read this not a general purpose guide to hiring and firing, but as a guide to hiring and firing _executives_. This is consistent with the author's background. Note references to board approval, walking over to someone's office, generous settlement packages, etc.
In this context the advice rings true to my ear. Less so for hiring and firing across all levels of an organization.
In this context the advice rings true to my ear. Less so for hiring and firing across all levels of an organization.
It's sad that there's this (reasonable, in many cases) assumption here that you have to be an executive to get treated decently (office instead of shitty cube or open-plan space, career support and severance upon termination).
I mean, I wouldn't advocate a generous severance for someone who just stops showing up, or who punches a co-worker in the face. You can cold-fire them. Programmers who do their jobs in good faith, on the other hand, belong in the "treat him well even if we don't need him" status bucket.
I mean, I wouldn't advocate a generous severance for someone who just stops showing up, or who punches a co-worker in the face. You can cold-fire them. Programmers who do their jobs in good faith, on the other hand, belong in the "treat him well even if we don't need him" status bucket.
There's a quiet but significant portion of non-executive professionals that get reasonably generous separation packages. One must consider that content people do not usually make noise (and in fact, in this circumstance, are often legally forbidden from disclosing any details related to the separation).
What does being a programmer have to do with it?
TL:DR - Sounds like it is a fearful place to work and puts all ownership on the employee and nothing on the person doing the fire with no checks or balances. Just a clear cut you disappoint me and I will fire you quickly and even pay you off instead of you suing me.
Having had to fire people this read like a lead balloon. I have fired several people and the hardest one was the first time, but after it was over it felt good for everyone in the business.
This is really managing by fear. The manager might say "It won't be a surprise for you or me implies that this is a non-verbal understanding. Well a lot of people get paranoid when it comes to job security and might have had a bad experience so anything and everything means they are on the verge of losing their job. If I was a worker on his team I would shutter any time I saw my boss walk into my office and say may I sit down. Seems very much a scare tactic. My company when we fire someone there has been several steps taken and it is dignified. (Unless you did something illegal or unethical, than it is quick and clean with an escort out the building.) You go through a written warning. You than have a performance progresses plan written by the employee and the manager together. You may have the manager sit in your work space for a few times to make sure that the person understands their roles in action and make sure that it just isn't a lack of knowledge or training. If it is our business culture we will get a co-worker to partner up with the person to help them find their place (Or see that it might not be for them and that is okay for both parties).
There doesn't seem to be a check and balance between his decision to fire and the action. As a manager I just didn't see the person's positive side since they had a trait I couldn't stand (perception of them being lazy or a bully to their co-workers) and I almost fired people which months and years later proved I was wrong in assuming they deserved to be fired. This also saves the work place from being a homogeneous Big Boys Club.
PERSONAL Opinion : Professionals (I am assuming this is a professional position and not some low hourly wage job) normally don't get fired for them not being smart enough or the ability to improve. I find that it normally is the fault of the employer for why the relationship didn't work out due to a manger or even the negative culture of the company.
Having had to fire people this read like a lead balloon. I have fired several people and the hardest one was the first time, but after it was over it felt good for everyone in the business.
This is really managing by fear. The manager might say "It won't be a surprise for you or me implies that this is a non-verbal understanding. Well a lot of people get paranoid when it comes to job security and might have had a bad experience so anything and everything means they are on the verge of losing their job. If I was a worker on his team I would shutter any time I saw my boss walk into my office and say may I sit down. Seems very much a scare tactic. My company when we fire someone there has been several steps taken and it is dignified. (Unless you did something illegal or unethical, than it is quick and clean with an escort out the building.) You go through a written warning. You than have a performance progresses plan written by the employee and the manager together. You may have the manager sit in your work space for a few times to make sure that the person understands their roles in action and make sure that it just isn't a lack of knowledge or training. If it is our business culture we will get a co-worker to partner up with the person to help them find their place (Or see that it might not be for them and that is okay for both parties).
There doesn't seem to be a check and balance between his decision to fire and the action. As a manager I just didn't see the person's positive side since they had a trait I couldn't stand (perception of them being lazy or a bully to their co-workers) and I almost fired people which months and years later proved I was wrong in assuming they deserved to be fired. This also saves the work place from being a homogeneous Big Boys Club.
PERSONAL Opinion : Professionals (I am assuming this is a professional position and not some low hourly wage job) normally don't get fired for them not being smart enough or the ability to improve. I find that it normally is the fault of the employer for why the relationship didn't work out due to a manger or even the negative culture of the company.
> Sounds like it is a fearful place to work and puts all ownership on the employee and nothing on the person doing the fire with no checks or balances. Just a clear cut you disappoint me and I will fire you quickly and even pay you off instead of you suing me.
If you were paying me hundreds of thousands—or more—of dollars a year, then that's kinda how it works: I execute well, or you sever the relationship.
> Professionals (I am assuming this is a professional position and not some low hourly wage job) normally don't get fired for them not being smart enough or the ability to improve.
I don't understand this at all. Why would an insufficiently-smart professional's employer keep him around—as window dressing? If one's not smart enough for the position, and doesn't have the ability to improve, then who would continue to employ one.
If you were paying me hundreds of thousands—or more—of dollars a year, then that's kinda how it works: I execute well, or you sever the relationship.
> Professionals (I am assuming this is a professional position and not some low hourly wage job) normally don't get fired for them not being smart enough or the ability to improve.
I don't understand this at all. Why would an insufficiently-smart professional's employer keep him around—as window dressing? If one's not smart enough for the position, and doesn't have the ability to improve, then who would continue to employ one.
"keep him around"
Its an underemployment issue. To get this CRUD web app position you need to be a top 1% rock star having passed compiler theory, database design, automata theory, linear algebra and diff eqs at an ivy league or HR won't even let your resume thru to the 8 hour whiteboard interview. The tiny microscopic subset of the population who get past that, are profoundly underemployed and will not have much of an issue with the raw brain horsepower requirement.
Its like demanding PE licensed PHD civil engineers, and actually getting them, to work as landscaping manual laborers, and then being worried they might not be smart enough to start the lawnmower. Its just not going to be an issue (edited: "in tech" "on coasts").
Its an underemployment issue. To get this CRUD web app position you need to be a top 1% rock star having passed compiler theory, database design, automata theory, linear algebra and diff eqs at an ivy league or HR won't even let your resume thru to the 8 hour whiteboard interview. The tiny microscopic subset of the population who get past that, are profoundly underemployed and will not have much of an issue with the raw brain horsepower requirement.
Its like demanding PE licensed PHD civil engineers, and actually getting them, to work as landscaping manual laborers, and then being worried they might not be smart enough to start the lawnmower. Its just not going to be an issue (edited: "in tech" "on coasts").
I believe 99% of the time people are fired for things other than the tasks of performing their duties mentally and physically. Usually it happens to be the other non-job description items that get people fired and they happen to make an error that any other person wouldn't get fired for.
I call it my "Good Will Dollar Theory." You get to save "Good Will Dollars" when you do good things for others and the company. You lose "Good Will Dollars" when you have a lapse in judgment or execution. When you are out of "Good Will Dollars" you get fired. Everyone has starts with a different amount of "Good Will Dollars" and they are often unfairly distributed to people that sometimes don't even deserve them.
I call it my "Good Will Dollar Theory." You get to save "Good Will Dollars" when you do good things for others and the company. You lose "Good Will Dollars" when you have a lapse in judgment or execution. When you are out of "Good Will Dollars" you get fired. Everyone has starts with a different amount of "Good Will Dollars" and they are often unfairly distributed to people that sometimes don't even deserve them.
Don't forget that they tend to expire, too. Even if you banked up a huge amount of GW$ last year, they're not gonna save you this year.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. First, this is a guide written by a senior executive about how to handle firing someone. Executives get fired all the time -- the bar for executives is very high, and not every executive is the right fit for every company. You also don't have time to train up an executive on how to do their job; a VP of product needs to come in knowing how to manage product teams.
And sometimes it just doesn't work out. From the perspective of the author (who is Silicon Valley royalty and has been a CEO or board member of several large companies for the last 30 years), there is no manager conference or HR process that will make an underperforming executive better. So it's better to be adult about the situation, figure out transition plans, and let the person (and the company) get on with things with a minimum of drama. If your CEO has lost faith in you for whatever reason, you're essentially done as an executive at that company anyway.
We've all seen the underperforming VP who sticks around a little too long: their organization becomes demoralized because people can sense when things aren't going well. It's better for the entire company to be definitive about executive hires and fires.
And sometimes it just doesn't work out. From the perspective of the author (who is Silicon Valley royalty and has been a CEO or board member of several large companies for the last 30 years), there is no manager conference or HR process that will make an underperforming executive better. So it's better to be adult about the situation, figure out transition plans, and let the person (and the company) get on with things with a minimum of drama. If your CEO has lost faith in you for whatever reason, you're essentially done as an executive at that company anyway.
We've all seen the underperforming VP who sticks around a little too long: their organization becomes demoralized because people can sense when things aren't going well. It's better for the entire company to be definitive about executive hires and fires.
This post is an attempt to apply rationality to a situation which is highly emotional and therefore irrational. The author's description of how he fires demonstrates a complete lack of empathy in a situation in which the person being fire needs it. It's like breaking up or getting a divorce, it's going to be ugly no matter what you do, the best thing you can do, even if you are firing, is to accept the situation is bad, and that you do need to try to connect with the person on some level.
I did not read this as a lack of empathy. He even addresses your concerns because he emphasizes that the firing process would come after multiple failures of execution or judgement, not a single instance. And he says that a single failure can be a time for a frank discussion where conflicts are outed, addressed, and resolved for good.
I have (unfairly, I believed) been on the receiving end of the normal "Well your performance isn't great, you need to change your attitude before I trigger a PIP", then a PIP...I would rather have had it the way this article describes. Expectations are made clear, opportunities are given for correction, and a gentle-but-firm push out the door is saved for when things are broken.
I have (unfairly, I believed) been on the receiving end of the normal "Well your performance isn't great, you need to change your attitude before I trigger a PIP", then a PIP...I would rather have had it the way this article describes. Expectations are made clear, opportunities are given for correction, and a gentle-but-firm push out the door is saved for when things are broken.
Yeah, if anything I think this is a more empathetic approach. While consulting, I've seen companies that are afraid of firing, or even talking about firing, because they want to be "nice". That's obviously bad for the organization, as problem people make messes and drive good employees away.
But it's also bad for the people who eventually get fired. Once the situation has soured, going in every day to face hostile or angry people and wondering if it will be your last day is a terrible experience. I've seen it warp troubled people further.
Personally, the thing I'd add to this is to try to help people find something better. Often the problem isn't "fundamentally bad human" it's "human/position mismatch". Firing someone doesn't have to feel like a funeral.
But it's also bad for the people who eventually get fired. Once the situation has soured, going in every day to face hostile or angry people and wondering if it will be your last day is a terrible experience. I've seen it warp troubled people further.
Personally, the thing I'd add to this is to try to help people find something better. Often the problem isn't "fundamentally bad human" it's "human/position mismatch". Firing someone doesn't have to feel like a funeral.
I think for most professionals, the issue is indeed "human/position mismatch". I've been in that mismatch, and trying to make it work despite myself was one of the hardest things I've ever done. One day I had to decide to move on. Then things got better, after some very painful life changes.
I would have respected management far more if they had said "You're just not a good fit here, but you will be somewhere else, and we wish you the best of luck. Let's help you find something better." Does anyone do that?
I would have respected management far more if they had said "You're just not a good fit here, but you will be somewhere else, and we wish you the best of luck. Let's help you find something better." Does anyone do that?
It might be emotional for some/most (mainly linked to the private situation of the employee?). But this doesn't mean it is irrational.
There is either a clear reason for the fire or the problem lies with the employer. This basic premise is very rational. Some divorces and breakups might be like that, a lot of others not.
Tears will dry up. The reason/facts can help the employee a lot more than a short term comforting moment.
This doesn't mean I completely agree with the author, of course some empathy sounds like a good idea. But that's second to the facts.
Tears will dry up. The reason/facts can help the employee a lot more than a short term comforting moment.
This doesn't mean I completely agree with the author, of course some empathy sounds like a good idea. But that's second to the facts.
I think this amazing post on being kind is needed by the author.
http://boz.com/articles/be-kind.html
Quote: "But believing deeply that I am responsible for how I make others feel has been life changing for me. Being kind turns out to be a long term strategy for maximizing impact."
http://boz.com/articles/be-kind.html
Quote: "But believing deeply that I am responsible for how I make others feel has been life changing for me. Being kind turns out to be a long term strategy for maximizing impact."
To a certain degree this is true, but to a much greater degree how other people feel is largely outside of your control.
Yes, being kind is one of the cornerstones of empathetic reciprocity (i.e. the Golden Rule), and being kind as a matter of personal principle is sane; but being kind because you believe you are responsible for the feelings of others... that way lies madness. It leads you into the morass of having to please all of the people all of the time (or else someone's feelings will get hurt), which simply isn't possible (nor should it be).
I find the author's tone to be matter-of-fact, and respectful of the dignity of the person being hired and fired. I know I would prefer this method of being fired, should that day ever come for me.
Yes, being kind is one of the cornerstones of empathetic reciprocity (i.e. the Golden Rule), and being kind as a matter of personal principle is sane; but being kind because you believe you are responsible for the feelings of others... that way lies madness. It leads you into the morass of having to please all of the people all of the time (or else someone's feelings will get hurt), which simply isn't possible (nor should it be).
I find the author's tone to be matter-of-fact, and respectful of the dignity of the person being hired and fired. I know I would prefer this method of being fired, should that day ever come for me.
I like this method because, if it's done as described, it detaches an evaluation of you as an employee from judgements of you as a person. Too often those become jumbled together.
> Yes, I know: California Law forbids giving bad references by phone. But we know the routine: To slam a candidate, all I have to say on the phone is “According to California Law, all I’m allowed to do is to confirm Job Title and Employment Dates”. The prospective employer promptly hangs up, fully warned.
My understanding from multiple people is that this is the only thing they will say when asked for a reference. I really hope that doesn't mean that CA companies pass over folks unfairly.
My understanding from multiple people is that this is the only thing they will say when asked for a reference. I really hope that doesn't mean that CA companies pass over folks unfairly.
California law doesn't say that at all.
But the Yishan Wong Reddit AMA fiasco showed that it does need to be fixed.
Did I miss something there? What needs to be fixed?
Very different perspective. The performance review caught me off guard in how emotionless and even apathetic it seemed. Basically- "you're doing fine. you could be doing better in these areas, but I don't care if you try to make these improvements". How can you challenge your employees with reviews like this?
Though the edges of the language are softened to make it easier to swallow, I think the message is very clear. If your boss "suggests" some changes, he/she means make some changes.
Usually I agree, a "suggestion" from a boss is more like a directive. But in this case, he is being very explicit and literal. The whole point he is making with reviews and firings like this is to be very direct and emotionless. So I truly believe he means it when he says "because you’re doing fine as things are, feel free to ignore my remarks."
My personal observations of "fine as things are" would imply the odds of promotion/advancement are much higher if you do XYZ or you can forget promotion or advancement if you'd prefer, which is fine with us.
In a pyramid structure with a possibly 1:8 ratio, or higher, that means no matter what else is going on, at least 7 of 8 can never advance beyond their current level, no matter their wants or abilities, so if someone volunteers to be one of the 7 who are prevented from advancing that's a VERY happy coincidence. There's at least one of several awkward conversation we can avoid after the interviews for the higher up position, guaranteed six or less is better than having to deliver seven disappointments. Or eight, if company policy is to never promote from within.
With the general rise of job-hopping and the death of promotion from within, it doesn't really matter anymore. "If you wanted your bosses job, you'd work on X, Y, and Z, but we aren't firing your boss anytime soon and if we did we'd hire someone from ABC company, or your bosses bosses golf partner or frat buddy anyway rather than promoting from within, so it doesn't really matter".
Also see the rise of internet job sites, if you want a promotion and your company doesn't promote, then you look at job postings and discussions for competitors and talk to recruiters and headhunters. Its not the era of newspaper classifieds anymore where corporate HR pays by the word or column inch.
In a pyramid structure with a possibly 1:8 ratio, or higher, that means no matter what else is going on, at least 7 of 8 can never advance beyond their current level, no matter their wants or abilities, so if someone volunteers to be one of the 7 who are prevented from advancing that's a VERY happy coincidence. There's at least one of several awkward conversation we can avoid after the interviews for the higher up position, guaranteed six or less is better than having to deliver seven disappointments. Or eight, if company policy is to never promote from within.
With the general rise of job-hopping and the death of promotion from within, it doesn't really matter anymore. "If you wanted your bosses job, you'd work on X, Y, and Z, but we aren't firing your boss anytime soon and if we did we'd hire someone from ABC company, or your bosses bosses golf partner or frat buddy anyway rather than promoting from within, so it doesn't really matter".
Also see the rise of internet job sites, if you want a promotion and your company doesn't promote, then you look at job postings and discussions for competitors and talk to recruiters and headhunters. Its not the era of newspaper classifieds anymore where corporate HR pays by the word or column inch.
This may seem draconian, but...
- I've been in places which have tossed people out with 2 weeks notice.
- I've been in places where people have been stiffed their earned bonuses.
- I've been in places where people haven't been let back to their desks.
This beats all of them, especially if the comp is generous. It is very hard to change a manager's mind. If they're convinced it's time to go, better to encourage the move and be generous. (To stiff the employee implies a hiring decision, which was the manager's fault to begin with.)
The one caveat is some top firms allow people to spend the next few months with an office to encourage another employer to hire them away.
- I've been in places which have tossed people out with 2 weeks notice.
- I've been in places where people have been stiffed their earned bonuses.
- I've been in places where people haven't been let back to their desks.
This beats all of them, especially if the comp is generous. It is very hard to change a manager's mind. If they're convinced it's time to go, better to encourage the move and be generous. (To stiff the employee implies a hiring decision, which was the manager's fault to begin with.)
The one caveat is some top firms allow people to spend the next few months with an office to encourage another employer to hire them away.
As most other people have mentioned bringing up firing during an interview is a poor way to set expectations (especially in the manner described). Using the gimmick of seeing how a prospective hire responds to being told "Why and How I’ll Fire You" is reductionist and shows a disturbing lack empathy, that I would probably navigate away from as a prospect once a got a whiff of what this company was cooking.
Sure, this probably works for this founder. And it actually helps them get people who they'd work well with. But as a general practice, its strikes me as a pretty clumsy and arrogant way of approaching a fellow human being to work with you.
As an aside, its things like this that I feel, contribute to the monoculture of white males in Tech, because I could see women and minorities who are already fearful that they wouldn't fit into a tech workplace being even more fearful after hearing this kind of talk from someone they're thinking of working for.
Can you imagine the kind of stress a minority would be under in a place like this, struggling to make connections and find people to help them navigate the process ... failing ... and having their performance impacted then remembering that the head of the company said
"I’ll tell you that the decision was made after thoughtful deliberation, and it won’t be reconsidered. I won’t suffer you the indignity of Why"
And wondering if its even wise to seek help from Above, because it could be taken the wrong way and they could be shown the door suddenly?
phew. Hopefully this doesn't gain traction with future startup founders. We have institutionalized processes for firing people for a reason.
Sure, this probably works for this founder. And it actually helps them get people who they'd work well with. But as a general practice, its strikes me as a pretty clumsy and arrogant way of approaching a fellow human being to work with you.
As an aside, its things like this that I feel, contribute to the monoculture of white males in Tech, because I could see women and minorities who are already fearful that they wouldn't fit into a tech workplace being even more fearful after hearing this kind of talk from someone they're thinking of working for.
Can you imagine the kind of stress a minority would be under in a place like this, struggling to make connections and find people to help them navigate the process ... failing ... and having their performance impacted then remembering that the head of the company said
"I’ll tell you that the decision was made after thoughtful deliberation, and it won’t be reconsidered. I won’t suffer you the indignity of Why"
And wondering if its even wise to seek help from Above, because it could be taken the wrong way and they could be shown the door suddenly?
phew. Hopefully this doesn't gain traction with future startup founders. We have institutionalized processes for firing people for a reason.
> you walk into the individual’s office, close the door...
I wonder how this works in open spaces -- which, regrettably, seem to be the norm nowadays...
I wonder how this works in open spaces -- which, regrettably, seem to be the norm nowadays...
Open spaces are awkward when neither you or your boss have an office. Anytime you or a coworker get pulled into a meeting room by management, it's very noticeable.
Getting into the habit of pulling someone into a meeting room any time you have a conversation that'll last more than a few minutes regardless of whether or not it needs to be private mitigates this and helps cut down on distractions.
Assuming a) you can get the people in your office to actually do that and b) your office has enough meeting rooms to make that happen.
The trick to surviving an open-plan office is to realize that everyone is paralytically distracted by anxiety for at least 75% of the time. This means that the other people aren't watching you; they're busy fretting about their own sense of being watched. It also relieves you of guilt for the low productivity that's typical of such spaces.
People in open plan offices aren't paralytically distracted by anxiety 75% of the time, or for any particular intervals of time. It's not nearly everyone, and what anxiety there is results from an accumulation of interactions and interruptions over time, much like how you shouldn't work in the same place you sleep.
[deleted]
I was going to comment how that would not be legal in most countries with decent labor protection laws, but between the lines is some cynical advise on how to circumvent that and screw your employees out of their rights.
Charming.
(Also, doubt if that's legal outside France, or will remain legal in France and/or the EU for long.)
Charming.
(Also, doubt if that's legal outside France, or will remain legal in France and/or the EU for long.)
it's a bit more complicated than that in France, the trick is giving the person enough money so they don't sue. That's the whole point. Give them more money than they would get if they were suing.
edit: as a side note there is no reference in France.
edit: as a side note there is no reference in France.
Well, at least it seems to be a fair way to do it. He says to give minimum 6 month of severance package and to give a good reference if everything went well. The thing is even in other situations someone suing his employer is never going to get a good reference out of them so I don't see how he is advising to screw the employees more than others.
I also agree with him based on experience that more often than not Performance Improvement Plans do not work and create stress and further issues on the company culture and on the coworkers.
Also based on the other linked article, he focuses more on Attitude and Judgement Failures and doesn't believe in Stack Ranking which is something I agree with.
By the way, he does mention that he implemented that too in Beos in California...
I also agree with him based on experience that more often than not Performance Improvement Plans do not work and create stress and further issues on the company culture and on the coworkers.
Also based on the other linked article, he focuses more on Attitude and Judgement Failures and doesn't believe in Stack Ranking which is something I agree with.
By the way, he does mention that he implemented that too in Beos in California...
No that's not a fair way to do it if you take info account the fact that the employee has to sign away not just their rights to sue, but their right to full unemployment benefits.
He's not actually firing people, he's pressuring and bribing them into resigning voluntarily.
It's basically a nasty way of breaking the social contract of the employer - employee relationship, shifting what should be the entrepreneurial risk of the employer to the employee, without any upside for the latter.
I take back what I said about the legality however: it's fully legal and very common in the EU, it just isn't firing people.
I've seen it used in practice. There's nothing nice about it, and almost always the result of bad hiring. Only employees that wanted to get out anyway or are easily intimidated go along with it. And it can seriously bite you in the ass if the employee tells you to shove it and forces you to take it to court instead. (Because they don't really need to sue, any firing after that conversation will be illegal.)
He's not actually firing people, he's pressuring and bribing them into resigning voluntarily.
It's basically a nasty way of breaking the social contract of the employer - employee relationship, shifting what should be the entrepreneurial risk of the employer to the employee, without any upside for the latter.
I take back what I said about the legality however: it's fully legal and very common in the EU, it just isn't firing people.
I've seen it used in practice. There's nothing nice about it, and almost always the result of bad hiring. Only employees that wanted to get out anyway or are easily intimidated go along with it. And it can seriously bite you in the ass if the employee tells you to shove it and forces you to take it to court instead. (Because they don't really need to sue, any firing after that conversation will be illegal.)
> No that's not a fair way to do it if you take info account the fact that the employee has to sign away not just their rights to sue, but their right to full unemployment benefits.
That's going to depend heavily on the jurisdiction. Where I am (Massachusetts), you cannot receive unemployment insurance for the same weeks covered by a severance package (which seems reasonable; I can't get unemployment for weeks in which I'm being paid a salary either...), unless that severance package requires the employee to sign a release of claims against the employer. If it does, then you can receive unemployment income for the same weeks covered by severance.
In every case I can think of, here in MA, employees terminated under such an arrangement have right to full employment benefits. I'm sure that will vary in other places to some degree.
That's going to depend heavily on the jurisdiction. Where I am (Massachusetts), you cannot receive unemployment insurance for the same weeks covered by a severance package (which seems reasonable; I can't get unemployment for weeks in which I'm being paid a salary either...), unless that severance package requires the employee to sign a release of claims against the employer. If it does, then you can receive unemployment income for the same weeks covered by severance.
In every case I can think of, here in MA, employees terminated under such an arrangement have right to full employment benefits. I'm sure that will vary in other places to some degree.
In many jurisdictions, unemployment only covers 6 months, and it pays much less than an actual job. It also doesn't have taxes deducted, which can screw you over later.
When I was last unemployed, I qualified for maximum benefits, which was about half my post-tax salary at the job I got laid off from, but the unemployment money was pre-tax. I suppose I should be "lucky" that this occurred during the Great Recession, when unemployment got extended to 2 years (it's back to 6 months now), but I don't feel very lucky.
6 months of my old salary would be strictly better than unemployment, especially unemployment now that extended benefits are gone.
When I was last unemployed, I qualified for maximum benefits, which was about half my post-tax salary at the job I got laid off from, but the unemployment money was pre-tax. I suppose I should be "lucky" that this occurred during the Great Recession, when unemployment got extended to 2 years (it's back to 6 months now), but I don't feel very lucky.
6 months of my old salary would be strictly better than unemployment, especially unemployment now that extended benefits are gone.
Oh, I actually didn't know that by signing such a document the employee would sign away their right to full unemployment benefits.
That's a very good point. I've just checked and, in France (where he is from originally), when an employee resigns, he's not eligible to unemployment benefits. I actually come from France but I haven't really worked there so I didn't know...
That's a very good point. I've just checked and, in France (where he is from originally), when an employee resigns, he's not eligible to unemployment benefits. I actually come from France but I haven't really worked there so I didn't know...
[deleted]
> the employee has to sign away not just their rights to sue
You can't sign away your right to sue in the US. You can always sue.
You can't sign away your right to sue in the US. You can always sue.
In the US, 6 months pay is probably better than any unemployment benefits, so...
Six months of severance is no upside to the employee?
I wouldn't mind at all this being applied to me. Multi-month severance? Brutal honesty? Not wasting two months in a demoralizing process? It's far better for my liking than the drawn-out "piecemeal firing".
The one caveat I want to add is that this should only be applied to the senior positions, not to junior ones. A junior, by definition, is relying on the management to guide his efforts, he is not expected to be managing himself, therefore he should get a fair warning and offered a process to improve. A senior, on the other hand, is expected to manage himself, including soliciting and addressing feedback on his own performance and attitude. Therefore a firing should not be a surprise to him, and if it is, that means the person wasn't pulling his "senior" weight to start with.
The one caveat I want to add is that this should only be applied to the senior positions, not to junior ones. A junior, by definition, is relying on the management to guide his efforts, he is not expected to be managing himself, therefore he should get a fair warning and offered a process to improve. A senior, on the other hand, is expected to manage himself, including soliciting and addressing feedback on his own performance and attitude. Therefore a firing should not be a surprise to him, and if it is, that means the person wasn't pulling his "senior" weight to start with.
> Your performance meets or exceeds requirements. You get to keep your job.
The second sentence seems arrogant and unnecessary, especially in the context of a meets-or-exceeds review. It seems to say the same thing as "I've decided not to fire you at this moment." What's the benefit to either the manager or employee of bringing up the possibility of the employee being fired in such a circumstance?
The second sentence seems arrogant and unnecessary, especially in the context of a meets-or-exceeds review. It seems to say the same thing as "I've decided not to fire you at this moment." What's the benefit to either the manager or employee of bringing up the possibility of the employee being fired in such a circumstance?
I think (hope) that was a writing flourish.
Could someone explain why I would want to sign an "agreement not to sue" contract while being fired? It seems like I would need to take some time to evaluate the situation externally, rather than just agreeing immediately. Asking me to sign that while in the process of being fired is making an awkward situation even more awkward. Perhaps I'm not looking at this correctly?
There's usually money attached. So you can risk a drawn out trial with all kinds of expenses, or just take some cash up front.
To both you and exelius, got it. Missed the part about there being a cash incentive not to sue. I thought it was just agreeing with no incentive on your part.
Because they are paying you not to sue them. You'll take home more money if you take the offer; hiring a lawyer to sue them is expensive.
This assumes that reasons exist to fire someone like "Attitude or Judgement failures" (whatever that exactly means). Last time I was fired because someone didn't like my visage. I guess many layoffs apart from economic crises fall into this category.
>Last time I was fired because someone didn't like my visage.
To be frank, unless you're grossly incompetent, this is how all firings work. If your bosses have an all-around positive impression of you, they'll excuse any lapses in appearance or decorum, and if they don't, they won't.
As a rational employee, your single biggest job duty is to win the popularity contest. Make sure anyone and everyone likes you and has very positive, warm, and fuzzy feelings about you, especially people in power. You will never get stable above-market compensation or advance the corporate ladder without doing this. In a corporate context, performing your actual job description should comprise 20-30% of your effort and being popular should be 70-80%. Your "paper" job is almost insignificant as it relates to corporate advancement -- your real job is to run an effective campaign and develop a cult of personality.
I make this comment after having been excused in part for "sitting wrong" -- the boss decided he didn't like my posture (after he decided he didn't like me anymore) and that this was so substantial he needed to demote and/or fire me.
To be frank, unless you're grossly incompetent, this is how all firings work. If your bosses have an all-around positive impression of you, they'll excuse any lapses in appearance or decorum, and if they don't, they won't.
As a rational employee, your single biggest job duty is to win the popularity contest. Make sure anyone and everyone likes you and has very positive, warm, and fuzzy feelings about you, especially people in power. You will never get stable above-market compensation or advance the corporate ladder without doing this. In a corporate context, performing your actual job description should comprise 20-30% of your effort and being popular should be 70-80%. Your "paper" job is almost insignificant as it relates to corporate advancement -- your real job is to run an effective campaign and develop a cult of personality.
I make this comment after having been excused in part for "sitting wrong" -- the boss decided he didn't like my posture (after he decided he didn't like me anymore) and that this was so substantial he needed to demote and/or fire me.
> As a rational employee, your single biggest job duty is to win the popularity contest.
That's my impression, too. Not everyone is a talented actor like Robert De Niro.
That's my impression, too. Not everyone is a talented actor like Robert De Niro.
> Last time I was fired because someone didn't like my visage.
Lesson learnt - never fade to grey in a work situation.
Lesson learnt - never fade to grey in a work situation.
> Last time I was fired because someone didn't like my visage
Well what kind of faces were you making at them?
Well what kind of faces were you making at them?
It would be a serious negative signal for me if I were considering a job somewhere and they started putting a lot of emphasis on this. Firing should be a rare occurrence. It's important to do it right when you need to do it, but firing doesn't and shouldn't happen often enough to need such pride of place. But, I can see that if you're dealing with a candidate for an executive position it's a different situation.
It sounds like potential employees need to start asking for employer references. Of course, many of us are. Make sure you know what you are getting into. If this person actually does as well as he claims with firing, perhaps that employee will leave a good reference for him as well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree with the spirit of what's being said here, but there are parts that are problematic. For example, explaining that someone won't get a good reference if he sues is almost certainly illegal (extortion). Of course, any reasonable person would know not to use a company that one is suing as a reference. You'd do better to say, "I'm not using them as a reference because I'm suing them" (since it's already a matter of public record) than to use them. Still, saying, "you shouldn't sue us because <retaliation>" is on the wrong side of the law.
That said, I agree that PIPs are the worst. They're a way for scummy managers in scummy companies to... well, the common explanation is that they're a lawsuit shield, but that's not really true because it's actually harder to run a lawsuit-proof PIP than to just fire someone. The real purpose of the PIP is less documented and more insidious.
Companies don't actually fear lawsuits that much. They're a black-swan risk, but less than 1% of people fired will ever litigate. They're much more worried about disparagement and impaired relationships. You write a generous severance and give a good reference (which you should, in most cases) when things don't work out because, if you do things right, the odds are good that the person's career will go unimpeded, and this pays off for you because they're likely to feel good about that episode in their careers and say good things about you in the future.
The purpose of a generous severance and positive reference is to make the fired employee feel good about the company, preventing any sort of moral indignation. The purpose of a PIP is to make the employee feel bad about himself (under a parallel theory that a humiliated employee will feel weak, not morally superior, and therefore not disparage or litigate). It has almost no legal value, because wrongful PIPs are just as common as wrongful terminations. Its purpose is to shame the employee into silence. Of course, it often doesn't work, but that's a discussion for another time.
PIPs (which, considering morale, are far more expensive than severance payments) are also a common way for HR offices to claim they "saved money" on severance payments when they're actually externalizing the costs to the manager, who has to conduct a kangaroo court, and the team, which has to deal with an already-fired employee coming into work for 2 months.
That said, I agree that PIPs are the worst. They're a way for scummy managers in scummy companies to... well, the common explanation is that they're a lawsuit shield, but that's not really true because it's actually harder to run a lawsuit-proof PIP than to just fire someone. The real purpose of the PIP is less documented and more insidious.
Companies don't actually fear lawsuits that much. They're a black-swan risk, but less than 1% of people fired will ever litigate. They're much more worried about disparagement and impaired relationships. You write a generous severance and give a good reference (which you should, in most cases) when things don't work out because, if you do things right, the odds are good that the person's career will go unimpeded, and this pays off for you because they're likely to feel good about that episode in their careers and say good things about you in the future.
The purpose of a generous severance and positive reference is to make the fired employee feel good about the company, preventing any sort of moral indignation. The purpose of a PIP is to make the employee feel bad about himself (under a parallel theory that a humiliated employee will feel weak, not morally superior, and therefore not disparage or litigate). It has almost no legal value, because wrongful PIPs are just as common as wrongful terminations. Its purpose is to shame the employee into silence. Of course, it often doesn't work, but that's a discussion for another time.
PIPs (which, considering morale, are far more expensive than severance payments) are also a common way for HR offices to claim they "saved money" on severance payments when they're actually externalizing the costs to the manager, who has to conduct a kangaroo court, and the team, which has to deal with an already-fired employee coming into work for 2 months.
I once had a wrongful PIP subjected to me, because I lost the Game of Office Politics.
The day my boss handed it to me, I began sending my resume out. Over the next few weeks, I heard back from one company I applied to, and we had a phone interview follwed by an in-person interview. The day the PIP ended, I got a formal offer from that company, and I put in my notice.
I had issues with management for a long time, and I'd been contemplating quitting for a while. The PIP served to light a fire under my ass and make me realize I needed to get out of there ASAP.
Oddly enough, now that I no longer work there, I'm totally willing to be friends with my now ex-boss: we used to get along really well, but he doesn't know how to handle stress, and he was shoved into a management position with no experience in handling people. He was the company's first technical hire, he got that position because he's a brilliant engineer, and the founders somehow thought that made him qualified to be the Director of Software.
The day my boss handed it to me, I began sending my resume out. Over the next few weeks, I heard back from one company I applied to, and we had a phone interview follwed by an in-person interview. The day the PIP ended, I got a formal offer from that company, and I put in my notice.
I had issues with management for a long time, and I'd been contemplating quitting for a while. The PIP served to light a fire under my ass and make me realize I needed to get out of there ASAP.
Oddly enough, now that I no longer work there, I'm totally willing to be friends with my now ex-boss: we used to get along really well, but he doesn't know how to handle stress, and he was shoved into a management position with no experience in handling people. He was the company's first technical hire, he got that position because he's a brilliant engineer, and the founders somehow thought that made him qualified to be the Director of Software.
> "... But repeated lapses of judgment or a habitually disruptive attitude can’t be tolerated, and we will have to part company. In plain English, I will fire you."
I'm not saying that setting expectations up front is a bad thing, but I've never had the topic of firing brought up -- ever -- in any of the many interviews I've had over my career.
And therefore, if this were brought up without my asking about their firing policies, the thought that would go through my mind would be along the lines of:
"Wow, this company must have to deal with this quite a bit in order for it to be covered like this during an interview setting. Either this place causes people's attitudes to take a major turn for the worse, or they do a terrible job at filtering out bad attitudes during the interview process."
Or...
"Was there something on my resume or something that I said during the interview that may have triggered this?"
Again, transparency is a good thing. And if I'm already asking about their firing policies during an interview, then maybe this is a good way to approach it.
But hearing it come up -- and like this -- during an interview without solicitation just reeks of a toxic environment.