
Fired - rdegges
http://zachholman.com/posts/fired/
======
davidu
There are people who were at OpenDNS in the early days who were incredible,
and as we grew, became less and less incredible, largely because the things
that made them incredible actually started to be really frustrating as the
company grew and they didn't want to change those things. So they had to
leave. Usually it was a series of conversations about how the person, their
peers, and the company were all unhappy, and why should we perpetuate the
pain. We'd do our best to have them leave in a way that made them feel
dignified and like they controlled their destiny, and but once in a while,
there wasn't a meeting of the minds and we had to say "well, it's not gonna be
fixed and it's time to go do something else." Even in those cases, I always
thought so highly of the work I did with those people over the long haul, even
if it was painful at the end.

The point being, if I started a new company tomorrow, I would, without a
doubt, go and try to hire some of those same people to help me start it. And
maybe now, as a more capable manager than I was then, maybe some would make it
longer, or maybe some would realize as the company goes from 10 to 100, that
they are just much more satisfied at really early stages. Maybe we'd even
define their comp and equity to reflect the fact that they might not be on
board for the long haul, but might be key for the early innings.

The same thing is true for hiring bigger company people too early... without
structure and process, some folks go crazy too and have to leave. You need the
right people at the right time. This is hard to do. I messed up a bunch of
times. Some people grow with the company through stages, and some don't. I
think it's a responsibility of the company to help people grow if they want,
or to end the misery and let them go back to what they love if they don't want
to change.

Finally -- For what it's worth, people are fired all the time ( as I have been
) for all kinds of reasons, and so it's not a reason not to hire someone.
Professional hiring managers know this.

~~~
smacktoward
In his classic book _Accidental Empires_ ([http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-
Empires-Silicon-Millions-Co...](http://www.amazon.com/Accidental-Empires-
Silicon-Millions-Competition/dp/0887308554)), Robert X. Cringely wrote that if
you think of a market as an invasion beach you can think of three kinds of
employees at tech companies: commandos, infantry, and police.

 _Commandos_ are people who love challenges and hate structure. They'll
happily take on missions that other people think are crazy or impossible,
because doing things other people think are crazy or impossible is what turns
them on. They get you your critical early beachhead by swimming in at midnight
with a knife in their teeth and slitting throats till morning.

 _Infantry_ are what most people are. Most people are not Rambo; crazy suicide
missions don't turn them on. But at this point you have your foothold on the
beach, so suicide missions are few; what you need now is lots of people to
take that foothold and widen it into a big enough space to sustain yourself on
indefinitely. This work is kind of a grind, so it doesn't appeal to the
commandos, who start falling away looking for a new beach to storm. But it's
critical for turning the company from a proof-of-concept into a real, going
concern.

Eventually the fight for the beach ends, and the battle moves inland. But you
still need to have some people there to maintain order, which is where the
_police_ come in. Police are even more risk-averse than infantry; they're
caretakers who see their job less as expanding the market the commandos and
infantry have won then as making sure it doesn't fall apart. Commandos and
infantry fight to win; police fight to _not lose._

All of these personality types are important at varying stages in a company's
life, he writes, but the big challenge is making sure you have the right ones
at the right stages, and that you manage the transitions between those stages
well. A mostly-commandos startup that takes off but tries to still keep itself
mostly commandos will choke on its own success. A larger company that still
has growth opportunities but phases out its infantry in favor of police too
early will miss those opportunities and get ground down by more aggressive
competitors. A company that's grown as much as it can grow but resists
bringing on police will run itself down launching futile new products that the
market isn't asking for. Etc.

~~~
0xdeadbeefbabe
I feel like this story ignores something important, something about the market
being the same in spite of changes in the company.

~~~
nekopa
Off the cuff, doesn't a company being in a market change the market?
Especially if they're doing well, i.e. Apple changed the smartphone market...

~~~
nijiko
Just because you changed the market doesn't mean you'll stay in the market
forever.

------
halostatue
I’ve been fired three times.

The first time was early in my career. A site manager decided to impose
working hours that (a) were in opposition to how I was recruited and (b) not
what the client wanted, but (c) didn’t matter anyway because the site manager
had the power to do that. This was no great loss. I was better off out of
there than working under those circumstances. I had a new job a month later
paying 50% more.‡

The second time was a few years ago. Another employee screwed over the entire
team. He did something really stupid that caused him to be fired, the
executive sponsor to be fired, and then a week later, me to be fired—just
three weeks after I had started. Again, this was no great loss, but the
company handled the whole situation very badly (they were one of two options I
had when being recruited; they won, but they treated me like crap when I was
fired). I was far better of out of there because it turned out that the
management team without that executive sponsor was pretty stupid when it came
to technology.

The third time was last fall. A new head of engineering had come in and he
decided that (a) he was the only person who could be bombastic about
technology opinions, (b) he didn’t like my technology opinions and (c) he
didn’t like me. I wasn’t better off out of there—this was one of the best
teams I had ever worked with. I was better off not working for him, for sure.
In the end, what he did was truly stupid: he isn’t there anymore and neither
are the three other senior software engineers that were there when I was
there. Those departures probably wouldn’t have happened if he hadn’t done
that.•

At the same time, I had a job doing something more clearly two months later.
Less pay, but much more opportunity to learn, grown, and shape a team the way
that I want to shape the team.

Being fired hurts. Each of those times was depressing, because either I had
just wound down a job search and didn’t want to spin it up again or I wasn’t
ready for a job search. It sounds like Zach is doing the right thing—he’s got
the tools and a bit of time to pull himself together, and he’s figuring out
what he wants to do with the next phase of his career. Best of luck.

‡ More importantly, during that job search, I came to Canada the first time
and met the woman who encouraged me to immigrate to Canada and whom I would
eventually marry.

• This last job search was interesting because the middle one was so short
that it could clearly be seen as Not My Fault. This one…I had to address why I
was no longer at the company clearly, directly, and without evasion or
disparagement. I handled it very well, I think. I also figured out that I
didn’t want to just be the “seniormost” person; I wanted to be the
acknowledged team lead/dev manager. That changed the job search substantially.

~~~
kelnos
_This one…I had to address why I was no longer at the company clearly,
directly, and without evasion or disparagement. I handled it very well, I
think._

Can you elaborate on this a bit? I could sometimes use some lessons in
diplomacy...

~~~
halostatue
Sure. I’m only able to answer in the case where you’ve been fired without
cause. Depending on the “cause”, it may be easy to apply these rules, too—but
if you have been dismissed because of something that you did that put the
company in a bad legal situation (for example), there won’t be much help with
this. The fundamental rule of interviewing is not to lie. You don’t have to
tell _all_ of the truth about getting fired (nor should you—more in a moment),
but you shouldn’t hide anything major. Lying—even by omission—will often lose
you the job.

The most common way I was asked this was “why did you move on from COMPANY?”
Of course, the truth is that you didn’t move on. Someone else decided to move
you on. Say that, without rancor. In my case, it was easy. I usually said
something like “I didn’t really choose to move on; COMPANY decided to let me
go.” Let’s be clear: you cannot avoid saying this in some form.

You’ll probably be asked why, and there are a couple of choices here. Most
companies—especially startups—want to avoid any legal entanglement and so will
give you the “changing needs of the business” line. It may even be true, but
depending on the quality of your interviewer, that may not be sufficient and
you may be asked to speculate on why you were let go. It’s a dangerous line of
questioning, because it can sound like an opportunity to be bitter about being
let go and letting that bitterness show. Avoid the temptation.

In my case, I generally followed on with something like: “The official reason
was because of the changing needs of the business. I personally think that it
was because the new MANAGER and I disagreed on the way that a development team
should work.” This was _perfect_ for me, because I could expand on my thoughts
about how a development team should work and how an extremely senior member of
that team (if not the team lead/development manager) should interact with the
more junior members of the team.

Depending on the nature of the discussion that I was having, I might be asked
a bit more about the situation. In my case, I was able to express my regret
for not being with one of the best teams that I had ever worked with and I was
able to get into just how differently the MANAGER wanted to run development
and how much that showed he didn’t understand the high-performing team.

In that discussion, I never named names and I also expressed some level of
uncertainty as to how much my own style could have affected how MANAGER and I
interacted leading to my untimely departure. This was important because it
helped the interviewer realize that I don’t think myself infallible.

If you have friends from the old job, talk with them to exhaust your
bitterness over the departure. Work with people on how you can figure out how
to say you regret having been let go because of the lost opportunities, but
how you’re moving forward and learning from the experience. Me, I learned that
I absolutely don’t want to work for that type of MANAGER ever again and want
to make sure that I never turn into that type of manager as I get back into
running a team. So far, I’m succeeding.

Note: I have also been laid off once due to a cash crunch—which I didn’t
include on my original post. It’s just as much of a gut punch, but I was able
to leave that place on good terms, and _much_ easier to explain. People just
nod their heads and go “ah”.

~~~
clebio
This is really on-point. You echo a lot of how I think about interviewing:
always tell the truth, but highlight pieces of the truth to craft the
narrative you want. Be fallible. Don't speculate, and pay close attention to
whether a line of discussion is fact-based or speculative. Don't disparage
your previous (or current) employer.

Your comment is the sort of nuanced experience that makes reading through this
thread worth the time.

------
ChuckMcM
I have often said that companies rarely take it personally when you decide to
leave them, so don't take it personally when they decide to leave you. Easy to
say and hard to do, like a lot of things in life.

Mostly it is the illusion of control, you don't have it, you only have choices
you can make in the face of unfolding events. At Zach points out, companies
change as they grow, they are some weird strange attractor function that
emerges from the collective personality of everyone working there. When I
joined Sun for example it was the coolest place I could ever imagine being,
when I left it was a enterprise focused sales engine. Same company but
different places.

I will say though that when I meet someone who has been fired or "let go"
repeatedly from job after job, then it is a different situation entirely.
Something I doubt Zach will experience.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>I have often said that companies rarely take it personally when you decide
to leave them, so don't take it personally when they decide to leave you. Easy
to say and hard to do, like a lot of things in life.

People take getting fired personally because, at least in America, a person's
job is a huge part of not just their self-identity, but also their social
image. So when they lose that job, it's like they lose a part of themselves.

~~~
ChuckMcM

       > at least in America, a person's job is a huge part of
       > not just their self-identity, but also their 
       > social image.
    

I agree with this statement, and I believe it to be wrong. Not incorrect,
which would say that I thought it was false, but wrong in that it does people
a disservice to themselves when they construct their self-identity in this
way.

My wife is a software engineering manager, my wife is a home maker. Both true
(not simultaneously) and both interpreted wildly differently externally. We
were fortunate that when we had kids, either one of us could choose to stay
home while the other continued to work, she opted to be that person. And she
took some external heat for it from her peers, but it wasn't part of her self-
identity. Looking back on that choice, pretty much everyone who knew us then
and now understands that it was a better choice than that of continuing to
work, however they are split nearly evenly on whether or not I could have done
as well being the primary interface to the kids during their most formative
years :-).

It sounded from reading Zach's essay that he didn't know if he should take it
personally or not, but came around to realizing that he should not. That is a
good thing and it will serve him well going forward. I think that is a great
message. I hope that others reading it can avoid feeling like they lost a part
of themselves when they are fired, and instead come to understand that they
are all still there, just as they were before they were fired.

~~~
enraged_camel
I agree that it is wrong for people to construct their self-identity based on
their job. Unfortunately though, that's what society teaches us: that one must
work to _earn_ their living, and if they are unemployed then there is
something wrong with them.

Still, there's a big difference between voluntary and involuntary
unemployment. Your wife's situation was the former: she quit her job
voluntarily, _and_ she had you (versus, e.g. the government) to lean on
financially. Furthermore, she didn't have to quit. She had the power to
choose, and she chose being a home-maker. Whatever external heat she got from
her peers probably paled in comparison to the stigma she would have faced if
she were fired instead. And she would probably have felt differently about
herself as well, at least for a while.

------
coderintherye
If nothing else, I'm thankful to Zach for a lot of the guidance he's provided
on his blog over the years. When we did a "field trip" to Github thanks to
Scott, I shared Zach's quote with the engineers here:

"We’re currently at 35 employees and growing, and this approach still works
great. But managers love to assign hours for a reason: it gives them the
illusion that hours can measure performance. If you don’t go hard on hours,
you do have to look at different metrics. How good is their code? Are they
fixing bugs? Are they involved in work, or is the greater flexibility not
motivating them? It’s difficult to make these qualitative judgements, but
they’re still going to be more valuable than “did this guy put in his ten
hours of work today”. Because as soon as you make it about hours, their job
becomes less about code and more about hours."

4 years ago a lot of us had just come to Kiva from corporate gigs and such and
were building a culture of meritocracy rather than bureaucracy and even though
this advice seems obvious now, they were truly inspiring words at the time.
Thanks Zach for all the writing!

~~~
icefox
How is Kiva after the Amazon acquisition?

~~~
nowarninglabel
Different Kiva, [http://www.kiva.org](http://www.kiva.org) :)

------
lchengify
Re: Zach's COBRA question.

For those who don't know, COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act) is a law passed in 1985 [1] that compels companies to offer "continuing
health insurance" to employees that leave the company for any reason other
than "gross misconduct".

Basically it means that you can pay the company directly for your employer's
health plan for a period of time, typically 18 months. The out-of-pocket will
be more expensive, because your employer probably covered some of the premium
cost. However, the premium as a whole is often cheaper than "individual
coverage", since the company negotiates lower premiums with the insurance
company.

The company will typically mail you the form to fill out. It's pretty short,
basically just a "opt-in" box to continue getting health insurance through the
company's plan.

One important detail: depending on your employer, health coverage probably
ends on the last day of employment or the immediate end of the next month.
However if something happens between you leaving and you filling out the form,
COBRA still covers you because the law states that as long as you sign up
within 60 days, it's "retroactive back to the event", the event being you
leaving [2]. This covers the case of a catastrophe happening in the gap, e.g.,
getting hit by a car between the event and you mailing in the form.

Caveat: IANAL, so always check with a legal professional when evaluating these
options. But COBRA is generally a useful thing and I typically recommend
people take it unless they have another gig lined up already.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Omnibus_Budget_Rec...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consolidated_Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1985)

[2] [http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-
cobra.html](http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-cobra.html)

~~~
NateDad
Just to clarify.... it's retroactive for 60 days. That means you don't
_really_ have to do anything for the first 45-ish, and if you don't need
insurance in that time, and you get a new job, you're done.

If you do need insurance (break a leg or something), then you can apply then,
and it'll take effect retroactively to your departure date.

If you get to 45-ish days and still don't have a new job that'll start before
the 60 day mark, you'll need to sign up, or you risk getting hurt after the 60
day mark, when you then can't get insurance, and you'll be SOL.

I am not a lawyer, I've just been between jobs many times in my career :)

~~~
rbobby
Hopefully on day 45 you don't end up in a coma for the next 16 days.

Don't mess with your health insurance.

~~~
chris_wot
It's posts like these that make me thankful to be in a country with a free
health care system.

------
mrb
Human nature is really amazing. After the reading the first 4 paragraph I saw
his openness and honesty. I felt compassion and trust. And I was already
thinking to myself "Zach really looks like a cool guy; if he is skilled I
would probably hire him", without attaching any significance whatsoever to the
fact he was fired. If you are reading this, Zach, continue to be open, honest,
accept your mistakes, show you do learn from them to continuously become a
better person, and you will have a good life :)

~~~
MollyR
I agree. I felt the exact same way. Also Zach somehow sounds extremely
professional and personal at the same time too. Got to say I'm impressed, and
I too know the pain of getting laid off.Reading this article makes me feel
alot better about the shame and guilt I felt from being fired.

------
MCRed
Incompetent management is a plague on the industry. And the cause of it is
that programmers are relatively low status.

In so many businesses, there are "business guys" who end up managing the
engineering staff-- at one level or another, but too often it's the direct
manager role--and these business guys are incompetent at engineering.

When you don't know whether a direct report is doing good or not because you
don't understand what their doing, by definition you cannot manage them. What
are you going to do? Listen to the other programmers opinion of their code? It
immediately becomes political.

The real tragedy is, learning business is not hard. Any programmer can do it.
Biz guys can't learn programming-- despite all the "everyone should be a
programmer" initiatives-- even easier is managing development teams. When
you've got 10 years experience as a senior engineer, you should be promoted,
and working on becoming an engineering manager.

Engineering managers can develop code. Right now this role is called "lead
engineer" but they have no people management responsibilities.

This is something we, as engineers need to change.

So long as the "people managers" are biz guys who don't understand engineering
(and naturally are often hostile to it) good engineers are going to get fired,
and our entire profession will continue to slip lower and lower in status.

~~~
rdtsc
When you interview ask how many people with MBAs and no programming experience
you'll be working under.

That is a good heuristic for future pain and frustration.

Managers who are good engineers don't always manage well. Managers who have
never been engineers are usually worse.

> When you don't know whether a direct report is doing good or not because you
> don't understand what their doing, by definition you cannot manage them

Especially middle managers, if they are not the owner and have their own
managers on top of them, who also don't know how engineering works, there will
be trouble. Because they are stuck in the middle. They have to please the ones
on the top, without understanding how the programming actually works. So
they'll make promises then turn around to you and tell you to work 70 hour
weeks.

> So long as the "people managers" are biz guys who don't understand
> engineering

It is hard. The more time they spend managing and coordinating the less time
they spend writing code. The less time they spend writing code the further
they move from understanding what is involved. They just forget, or practices
and tools change.

Besides leadership is the key. That is as much learned as it is just a
personality trait. It ties into how they relate socially to others, how they
solve social and political problems. It requires empathy, but also harshness
and coldness at times. I can be learned by I wouldn't discount it too trivial.

~~~
rralian
> When you interview ask how many people with MBAs and no programming
> experience you'll be working under.

If someone asked that, I would probably consider that a red flag, that they
are mistrustful of "business types" and probably difficult to work with.

~~~
rdtsc
There are other less direct ways to pose the question.

~~~
codeonfire
Why even ask it. My method is find the org chart depth with log_1.5(company
size). Then divide that number by 1/2 execs, 1/2 managers. Guess the roles
then go look at random people on linked-in. You can get a good feel for how
the company is internally based on that.

------
cpr
Zach was a quite visible ambassador for GH, an excellent speaker and spreader
of GH love and lore. Would love to hear the story behind this.

~~~
jgmmo
For me, he was the face of GH.

------
cypriend
""How Github Uses Github To Fire A Github Employee" deck coming soon

------
detcader
> Unless you're embezzling money or using the interns as drug mules or
> something.

Let's say that Holman did something not so hyperbolically terrible as these
silly examples, but still terrible enough to reflect on his character for some
people but not others (as in, the reason is controversial), and that's what
got him fired (this is for arguments sake; I have no idea who he is or why he
got fired). This sentence would then be a very important one to him in this
article.

But, the sentence is embedded in the very abstract essay, which is of course a
good essay, albeit not particularly novel in its ideas ("people get dealt bad
hands or make mistakes and we have social mores that prevent us from
rigorously considering this" what else is new?). So we get a sort of
intellectual dishonesty we see regularly from politicians: deep philosophical
musings to surround a quick sweep-under-the-rug of the actual issue. Or it
could just be a philosophical essay. I don't know what it is, but I know what
it sounds like.

~~~
crazypyro
Can we just stop speculating about this? He didn't come out and tell us,
meaning anyone that isn't close to him will never find out. This over-
analyzing of the reason (wasn't even an important point in the article) is
just off-topic and more importantly, completely without evidence....

(Its not just you, but everyone is trying to play internet detective. Just
stop. We don't need to dig into this guy's work life....)

~~~
detcader
My comment explicitly didn't speculate on any particular reason, it pointed to
language that could easily be politician-grade rhetorical defense. Did you
read my whole comment?

People can speculate about the reasons if they can point to relevant
historical record. Why not? This man isn't sacred, is he?

~~~
crazypyro
>So we get a sort of intellectual dishonesty we see regularly from
politicians: deep philosophical musings to surround a quick sweep-under-the-
rug of the actual issue.

You are speculating here that he is pushing the issue under the rug. You also
speculated that the reason he was fired was somehow related to the humorous
reasons he gave. I think its a bit much....

~~~
detcader
For the first thing, I am noting the actual possibility. Whether he is, I
don't know, but he _in fact_ could be, and if he were, a lot of people
wouldn't catch it unless it was pointed out.

I did no such thing as the second thing you're saying I did.

~~~
chris_wot
_speculation_ : the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

You wrote:

 _For the first thing, I am noting the actual possibility. Whether he is, I
don 't know, but he in fact could be, and if he were, a lot of people wouldn't
catch it unless it was pointed out._

You have a theory that he added a paragraph about embezzlement that might be a
rhetorical defence, but you have no firm evidence. You're speculating.

------
BuildTheRobots
This is probably a stupid question, but could someone explain what it means to
be fired in the USA?

Here in the UK (especially after you've been employed for over two years
and/or you're off "probation") it tends to be the last step in a long process
of verbal then written warnings where you're repeatedly doing things you're
getting told off for. Relatively few things are actually "bad" enough to get
you instantly dismissed on the spot (theft and the woolly term "gross
misconduct" jump to mind, but even then there were multiple meetings,
investigations and very specific charges).

In the UK if you were fired (rather than being made redundant or being given
the chance to quit) it tends to mean that the blame is on you, to the point
where the company would be willing to prove this with evidence at a tribunal
(-especially if it's a medium to large company).

From what I'm reading, in the US it seems to be a case that you could loose
your job, with no notice at any time for any reason?

~~~
maxsilver
> From what I'm reading, in the US it seems to be a case that you could loose
> your job, with no notice at any time for any reason?

Yes, exactly.

In many states, US employers can terminate an employee at any time, for
(almost) any reason, or for no reason at all. It's often called "At-will
employment" \- [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-
will_employment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment)

Note that while it technically works both ways, realistically it only works to
the employers benefit. The employer is allowed to fire any employee at any
time, for no reason, with no recourse.

But it's considered highly inappropriate for an employee to quit without
offering an employer at least two weeks notice (unless the employer has
committed some sort of major misconduct, committed a crime, ceased payroll,
etc).

~~~
nvarsj
> Note that while it technically works both ways, realistically it only works
> to the employers benefit. The employer is allowed to fire any employee at
> any time, for no reason, with no recourse.

I don't agree at all. In this market it benefits technology workers to be at-
will. You can get a great job offer and literally leave your job the next day.
This drives salaries up overall and means companies need to work harder to
keep people.

Compare that to the UK, where it's standard practice for a senior dev to be
stuck with a 3 month notice period. I had a hell of a time getting out of a
bad situation when I first moved here as a result.

~~~
baby
> You can get a great job offer and literally leave your job the next day

Except who would hire someone like that?

~~~
baby
if someone reads my post, that got heavily downvoted, I'm curious as why? I
mean, if I was an employer and I could hire someone who quit his last job
after a day just because he could, I wouldn't want to hire him.

------
coffee
I say Congratulations!

5 years is long enough as a employee at any tech company that isn't your own
(or that you have serious upside in).

Take what've you learned and forge you're own path.

A path with control.

Yes control...

If you're employed by a company you have zero control (though, good managers
work hard to make you feel exactly the opposite) and you can be fired/laid
off/let go at any moment, without notice - job security is laughable.

Congratulations, now forge ahead with control!

~~~
mpdehaan2
I was recently re-reading Clarke's Rendevous with Rama on an airplane and hit
this quote: "Myron, like countless NCO’s before him, had discovered the ideal
compromise between power and responsibility.”

I am a fan of this balance.

------
JustSomeNobody
A manager I once worked under told me something. He said, "There should never
be any surprises." He meant this for reviews, firings, etc. There should
always be an open line of communication and as a manager, if you're doing it
right, every person who works under you should know where they stand at all
times. They should never have any question or doubt about what's on their
review. Period.

Come to think of it, he's one of only a couple of managers I've ever worked
for. The rest have been merely bosses.

If you're in management and you can't say this about the relationship you have
with your subordinates, you're not doing your job and you should be the one
getting fired.

------
davio
I figured out on a Friday that I was getting laid off/fired/downsized on
Monday.

Over the weekend I decided I would act like a zen master. I walked in like I
was getting a promotion, acted gracious the entire time, thanked the people
and let them know I was sorry they had to do this and then walked out like I
just got promoted.

I actually talked to the HR lady at a later day and she confided how the
director and her were both impressed with how I handled it.

Since you can't change the outcome at that point anyways, I think it's best to
try to go out as a 100% class act.

~~~
jonsterling
Really? Might also say, “I have no spine”... There's a tricky line to walk
between two different kinds of cringe--the kind that happens when someone sees
you let someone walk all over you, and the kind that happens when you freak
out and air your grievances.

------
abalone
Zach has been an articulate and charismatic voice on a set of nouveau working
styles and policies, such as remote work, unlimited vacation and a very high
degree of employee self-organization.

Without violating anyone's privacy, if that's possible, I would like to know
whether these contributed to his firing.

I ask simply because I'd like to better understand whether this is a siren
song for startups that doesn't scale well. Would he have benefited from more
structure, a performance plan, etc.? Does this degree of freedom lead to chaos
and arbitrary decisionmaking as a company scales?

Hope he writes more about it.

------
drawkbox
Engineers leaving, being fired or just being time, can happen to early
engineers that made the company great as it changes. Changes like this are
usually around growing pains and when power is transferred from engineers to
the money/business or growth from small to medium or medium to large.

Companies and developers evolve, sometimes they aren't as nice a fit after
they do. Companies always run off good processes, but when you start hearing
about new or needing changes to 'processes' driven by new VPs or Directors,
usually that ocean is red and you need to move to blue seas and oceans again.

Zach is probably a startup, product and research and development type of
developer. He should stay at smaller companies or start up his own, I am sure
he could get funding quickly. I'd even be for an additional github competitor
though that could be un-interesting after this for him.

------
UweSchmidt
Worth remembering that for the most time in human history, no one was ever
"fired" in the sense that happens today. You worked on a farm all your life,
or possibly would have a trade, and that was that. So it's a new concept and
we haven't fully come to terms with that.

If the economic system keeps requiring people to switch jobs, then society
must be more accepting: Employers need to be less weird about it, employees
less devastated when it happens, everything smoothened out by a few weeks or
months of unemployment benefits if necessary.

------
heyheyhey
Wasn't this guy called out by Julie Ann Horvath, the one who complained about
harassment at Github? Guess this has nothing to do with that?

------
tuna
You get these feelings even when you are not fired and going thru a bad period
in your job etc. Loved that he is very articulated and honest, it makes for a
nice piece to read and think again and again.

I'm sure he will get nicer gigs in the futures and wish the best of luck.

I just wonder - how do you get fired from a no-manager company ? A robot ?
[http://www.fastcolabs.com/3020181/open-company/inside-
github...](http://www.fastcolabs.com/3020181/open-company/inside-githubs-
super-lean-management-strategy-and-how-it-drives-innovation)

~~~
meowface
In a no-manager organization, usually there is a "council" or "committee" and
then there's everyone else. It may not be formally defined or have a name, but
there always is one.

Nearly every company out there has some kind of separation and hierarchy of
leadership, even if there are only 2 tiers total.

------
wilsynet
According to Zach, Github doesn't have managers. So if there are no managers,
then who fired him? Or can anyone just fire anyone else? Maybe Zach could just
hire himself back.

~~~
civilian
I mean yeah, he probably fired himself too!

------
grandalf
Zach's posts and presentation/explanation style added a lot of value to
Github. In reading the blog post linked in this story, I realize that I hadn't
seen as much of that lately coming from Github.

I'm sure Zach will go on to add significant value elsewhere.

And as others in the thread have mentioned, what makes you a great early
employee can sometimes not make you a great bureaucrat as the company grows.
Hopefully his options are vested and he's able to have some financial upside
in the future.

------
bane
When I'm interviewing people and find out they were fired from a previous job,
I always talk to them about it. If they're really evasive about it, _only
then_ do I red flag it. If they've come to terms with it and can clearly
articulate what happened, even if it was their fault, I just count it as
experience and don't think much more of it.

On the flip side, unless somebody is really fucking things up, I almost always
offer people a way to gracefully resign and keep that stigma off their work
history.

I've worked in places that also played the "we're not happy with you but we're
not going to have a grown-up adult conversation with you". Instead of just
firing somebody or asking them to resign, they'll start cutting pay or moving
people around offices, taking work or staff away from them and isolating them
so they decide to quit on their own. Don't do this. There's lots of reasons
why not to, but the ultimate one is that it prolongs the inevitable, and while
you're playing this game _everybody_ around that person ends up in a state of
perpetual confusion and rumors start flying around like crazy.

As an employee, I also try to pay attention to my impact on the company and
evaluate myself. If I'm not living up to my own standards, I'll get rid of
myself and find someplace else to work. Quitting is not always about your
employer providing a lousy place to work or career progression, if it's just
not working for you and you aren't doing your best, you might be the cause of
your own leaving.

------
jared314
> Part of the problem with not admitting publicly that you were fired is that
> people inevitably assume you're moving onto something bigger and better

I thought the issue with admitting it was that people would now question your
reliability as an honest contributor to future workplaces.

------
simonlc
Why was he fired?

~~~
wongarsu
And that's the part of being fired you usually don't discuss publicly. It
always makes somebody look bad and nobody wants to burn bridges

~~~
MCRed
But part of the problem is that in a meritocracy you need people to know who
the bad actors are. It seems pretty obvious from outside Github that something
has gone rotten in the company over the past couple of years, and the is the
latest of the smells.

Now any one of us could end up hiring that rotten apple from github in the
future, if we don't know who it is.

Of course you don't want to slander or libel people, but giving them the cover
of complete anonymity is not good.

~~~
hga
GitHub is _very explicitly_ no longer a meritocracy:
[http://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-ceo-ditches-
meritocra...](http://www.businessinsider.com/githubs-ceo-ditches-meritocracy-
rug-2014-1)

And per
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9158997](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9158997)
the same Julie Ann Horvath was both his ex and wanted him fired.

~~~
ceejayoz
Github has _acknowledged_ that unconscious biases make it nearly impossible to
have a true, pure meritocracy. It's a bit like communism - the ideal is
wonderful, the actual implementation problematic.

------
guelo
Pretty smart for a guy with a large following to use it to let it be known
that he was fired for random fluctuations of the universe and it had nothing
to do with his performance.

------
nikanj
I feel weird parallels between the job market and the dating scene recently.
Nobody is good enough, you can be tossed out at any point for not being an
absolute perfect match, and everybody is complaining about how impossible it
is to find love/talent.

------
varunjuice
FWIW I was let go many years ago. When I was interviewing for the next job,
the hiring manager asked what happened at the last job.

Before I could share the story, he interrupted me & said."its ok. sometimes
life throws curveballs at you. don't worry"

------
mc32
I'm not sure I'd be so sanguine about things. If you get fired, unless you
could not stand management or the environment, you should feel upset. Zach
apparently feels okay because the company did it classily. No, dont do that.
Get angry, it is their fault. When you hire someone you should not think of
people as disposable commodities. No, you owe them recognition and respect,
the dame with the employee, but to a lesser degree because the employee does
not have leverage. As an employer you have leverage so you should acknowledge
that power imbalance and act accordingly.

It's not like github needs to retrench and is having financial difficulties,
nope. They simply fired someone who gave them five years because they weren't
feeling it anymore. That's not classy. It's less than heartless, they
obviously don't see employees as people they need to nurture and develop. They
are just a temporary tool they will dispose when they need to.

Sure, this is prevalent, by things don't have to be this way. They should
invest themselves in employees as much as employees invest themselves in the
company.

Most of all, show your humanity and do get upset with these kinds of no fault
firings. It's not just yeah, well. Not with a company already that size.

This attitude resembles a bit the show trials of the old user. Yes, comrade, I
was bad, please punish me, I deserve it.

~~~
dasil003
Do you have more of the story than appears in this article because otherwise
it seems like you are jumping to a lot of conclusions.

------
twoquestions
Wow, I can't believe the cavalier attitude to getting fired most of you have.
If an employer has decided to fire you, then you've not only failed at your
job, you've failed as a human being. Perhaps it's due to where in the US I
live, but getting fired is not just separating from your job, it's a reason
for your spouse to divorce you, and an acceptable reason for your
bank/landlord to break the lease and kick you out of your home. If you get
canned, your life is over.

This is the power employers wield over their employees, and they're right to
do it. The boss is giving you their hard-earned money to provide a product,
and if you don't deliver you're lower than trash. If at any point you lay your
head back you should all but feel a .45 pressed against the back of your
skull. No matter how valuable you think you are to your employer, they have
earned the right to end your life (in a figurative sense) if you displease
them, or they find someone better than you.

I think that's why we have such a good economy in the US, is employees have a
healthy fear of their bosses. If anything, getting fired should be even worse
than it already is. Why should workers get to underperform without more
serious consequences?

~~~
JamesSwift
I only count one question.

------
simonebrunozzi
I come from Europe, where "getting fired" seems to have a slightly different
weight for people, and I really need to ask this. Please assume I'm a total
ignorant in this regard, and explain this to me like you would to a young
teen.

Why getting fired is seen as so bad?

What's the difference in your view (in terms of perception) between being
fired and being laid off?

How can a company know that someone has been fired from the previous company?

~~~
thedufer
I think the way the terms are used is that laid off means the company no
longer needs anyone in your position, while fired means they still need
someone to do your job, but it's no longer you. The implications of this are
clear, I think - if you're fired, it's your fault; if you're laid off, it's
either the fault of your company (not enough money, perhaps) or of the market
(robot does your job).

~~~
binxbolling
Also has implications for the social safety net in the US: if you resign or
are fired, you can't collect unemployment checks; if you are laid off, you
can. A lay-off also means the company can't immediately turn around and hire
for that position because, supposedly, the position is not needed, or is
needed but can't be funded (as you said). Companies can easily circumnavigate
this by creating a new position with a slightly different title and slightly
different responsibilities, then just hire for that.

------
dbg31415
Having been fired... three times in my life... I can say that each time was
more of a personality issue than a skill or competency issue. So I never took
it hard. I've gotten some people fired too... and it sucks from both sides.

I'll say that it as satisfying as it is to know you won't have to work with
some asshole again, it really sucks to sit them down and tell them that today
is their last day on the project / with the company. Knowing the stress they
will be under if they have kids or a spouse... it sucks.

When getting fired, when firing, always important to remember that there are
probably plenty of people in the organization who still would like to work
with you... so badmouthing and spreading drama is always your least beneficial
solution.

Just take it with dignity / try and let them go gracefully.

------
acomjean
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say there is a reason that getting
fired is considered bad. Its usually thought of as something you did or you
have to explain it away. Either way its an extra question mark on you. The
situation varies somewhat of course and there are bad bosses and other work
relating things that you have little control over.

If the situation is bad but not terrible a lot of times there is a discussion
and a resignation instead of a firing. While I've not been party to these
discussions my understanding is that a company tell you to resign or they will
fire you, that lets you go without the stigma.

Layoff is the expression used when you are let go when your services are no
longer needed.

------
hugofirth
There is lots of interesting information in this thread, with several
references to a "Fire fast" culture becoming more common amongst tech
companies.

As a UK citizen, I have to ask: Are the employment laws a lot weaker in the
US? In general it would be difficult to institute such a policy over here
without a half decent lawyer shredding you to pieces. [1],[2] for ref.

[1]: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/volvo-
business...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/volvo-
business/10953386/employment-law-sack-employee.html)

[2]:[https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-staff/overview](https://www.gov.uk/dismiss-
staff/overview)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Are the employment laws a lot weaker in the US?

Don't know about the details of the UK specifically, but, yes, employment
protection laws in the US are all-but-non-existent, with at-will employment
allowing immediate termination for any but specifically-prohibited (e.g.,
race, sex, religious, etc., discrimination, retaliation for invoking certain
other protections, etc.) reasons.

~~~
shubb
UK law for new employees is pretty weak. You are basically 'at will' for the
first year (although you will be paid notice, in my case 1 week).

This is a good read:
[http://www.lzwlaw.co.uk/downloads/LZW%20FACT%20SHEET%20SJ.pd...](http://www.lzwlaw.co.uk/downloads/LZW%20FACT%20SHEET%20SJ.pdf)

~~~
twic
Huh. I didn't know this:

"So, let us assume you have passed your probationary period. Is your
employment position then safe? Actually it isn’t. Your employer has until the
end of the first year of your employment (technically 11 months and 3 weeks)
during which time they can still terminate your employment without fear of the
employee making a claim for unfair dismissal. This is because employment
legislation provides that you need to be employed for this period of time
before you are eligible to lodge a claim."

An employee does gain some protection after passing probation - a longer
notice period, usually - but it's worth knowing that passing probation isn't
the be-all and end-all.

------
funkdobiest
Ow this hits home, my company had layoffs this week, and fortunately I wasn't
on the block but many friends and co-workers were. People who should not have
to be looking for work. Our company has acquired this weird Silicon Valley
mentality that you should never work at a business for longer than 3-4 years.I
know things can get stale after being somewhere for a while, but if you prune
your employees every 5 years then you will never get any long term loyalty, or
even talent that can make a differnce.

------
porker
How many of the 'classic' GitHub team are left there now?

Is GitHub, the product we've come to like and know so well now run by people
with different views to those who started it?

~~~
alsdifu3
What is the 'classic' GitHub team? 2/3 founders are still there.

------
JulianMorrison
> This isn't the case with love, to choose a cliché metaphor. If you break up
> with somebody, it just wasn't meant to be is the catch-phrase used rather
> than yo you must have been a shit partner to not have forced that
> relationship to work out.

You'll find they say that a lot, actually. Just mostly to women.

------
bobofettfett
Could not find in the post why he was fired.

Form my experience, if not being part of a 10% cut 80% of the fired people
deserved it and should think hard why.

Also from my experience, most people getting fired for legit reasons have not
enough self introspection to see the signs and change, also mostly everyone
else sees those in them.

------
zeeshanm
Great post, Zach. Just wanted to say back in the day when I was getting into
web dev good-tuorials.com was probably one of the reasons I got hooked. I got
inspiration to create stuff by learning from tutorials posted to good-
tutorials and make a site like yours. Great stuff!

------
barce
I'm just one guy that Zach really inspired. Thanks for that talk you gave on
Github. It really inspired me and made me bring what's great in Github into my
work and everyday life. I really liked the part of the talk on remote teams.

------
TheMagicHorsey
I've never been fired. But I've been very unhappy at a job. I left about six-
months or a year before I probably would have been fired, had I stayed.

I usually try to leave a job before I'm so miserable that I stop doing work
and get fired.

------
hidro
It's hard to have a good initial reaction to someone getting fired, as it
means something has been broken. But I agree with the post, a broken
relationship may just happen because things change in a way we can't avoid.

------
ankitgarg00
I hear your experience and feel like man "this guy must have gone through so
much". Instead of pitying you I would say "One heck of a ride and good luck
with your next".

------
grayfox
In the end, business is about people.

People will reject other people.

It should not represent your self worth, and it certainly should not represent
your technical performance.

Soldier on Zach.

------
pwenzel
I've ben axed twice.

Details aside, getting fired was best career move I ever made.

------
joslin01
I love your website landing

------
_random_
Who is the dude?

------
sridca
Back in December 2012, Julie Horvath expressed her desire to have Zach fired.
I wonder if these two incidents are actually related.

    
    
      @Holman is my ex-partner. He was complicit in the actions of 
      both Tom and Theresa Preston-Werner and even admitted to 
      plotting with Theresa Preston-Werner to get women at the 
      company fired. He should be let go from GitHub and I regret 
      being kind to him in previous interviews.
    

[http://valleywag.gawker.com/ims-and-email-support-
allegation...](http://valleywag.gawker.com/ims-and-email-support-allegations-
about-the-toxic-cultu-1567175545)

~~~
samstokes
Maybe we can keep the speculation and character smearing to another thread? I
have no connection to the author, but he's written a very personal post about
a subject that isn't often discussed, so I don't feel like this thread is an
appropriate place to attack him.

~~~
NotOscarWilde
It seemed to me the post was tiptoeing around the reason of the dismissal, and
the author even alludes to the story behind it with:

 _> Seemingly everyone’s got stories of being stuck under shit managers, or
dealing the fallout from things out of their control._

I don't support "character smearing" or "attacking" in any way, but as a
reader of the post, I would like to know more about the reasons for his
firing, even in the form of less-than-reliable internet research -- as long as
no attacking takes place.

~~~
nirvdrum
One of the reasons you usually don't hear about why people get fired is the
employee is offered a severance package in exchange for signing a non-
disparagement agreement. Usually that agreement cuts both ways, so you're
happy to sign it. You get some money to help you decide what's next, while you
and your employer exit on as best terms as reasonably possible. The only thing
you need to give up is venting on the Internet, which usually wouldn't work
out so well for you anyway.

Naturally, I don't know what if any arrangement was made here. But that's a
big part of why you hardly ever hear about why someone was fired.

~~~
chimeracoder
> One of the reasons you usually don't hear about why people get fired is the
> employee is offered a severance package in exchange for signing a non-
> disparagement agreement.

 _Obligatory: I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal
advice._

Just FYI, nondisparagement agreements have fallen out of favor in recent
years, as they're interpreted _very_ narrowly by courts[0]. Even if your
company presents you with one (which they may not), you can usually negotiate
it out pretty easily.

Especially in industries or jobs in which reputation and "social capital" are
highly valued, companies are tending to leave these _out_ , because they're
actually massive liabilities for both parties, and there are already enough
restrictions around defamation, sharing of confidential information, etc.,
that it's usually not worth the risk.

I have no idea what happened in this case, but it's worth mentioning since you
bring this up.

[0] As in, this blog post would almost certainly violate a standard
nondisparagement agreement, even though it's relatively innocuous at first
glance!

~~~
nirvdrum
Good to know. I'm not a lawyer either. I'm just drawing from experience with
companies in the Boston area. Maybe my info is just out of date or maybe it's
regional. But usually your two options, in my experience, are don't sign the
agreement and received no severance, or sign it without modification and
soften the blow with the cash. Granted I've never seen anyone try to negotiate
at that point -- most just sign the paper and leave.

------
benihana
Ha, that Atlassian tweet was pretty good.

~~~
temuze
For reference:

[https://twitter.com/holman/status/569957689624694784](https://twitter.com/holman/status/569957689624694784)

~~~
logicallee
can you explain? why would someone not take it at face value?

~~~
acomjean
Atlassian runs bitbucket a github (the company that fired him) competitor.

~~~
johnnyfaehell
Yea but even then people move on to competitors all the time.

------
paulhauggis
It's posts like these that remind me why I quit being an employee and started
my own business.

As an employee, you could be working on a project for 10 years and have it
taken away in an instant.

~~~
alsdifu3
Well customers can leave too. I'd say it's a completely different kind of
freedom but you are still at the mercy of forces besides yourself.

~~~
paulhauggis
Yes, but what are the chances that all of my customers will leave at one time?

~~~
alsdifu3
What are the chances all your customers leave if you start doing nothing
tomorrow? I'm not saying you're wrong but even owners have obligations.

------
kevando
Just throwing this out there: I'd pay $40 to hear the real story.

~~~
eric_h
I believe it may have had something to do with a rather dramatic story about
github from a while back. The last person who mentioned it in this thread got
their comment killed, so I will stop here.

Well, I should add this is pure speculation, I have no actual information
about it.

------
JDiculous
Why is this on the front page? Because he worked at GitHub? What was the point
of this?

~~~
codezero
A lot of people in tech struggle with the frustration of being fired, or
potentially being fired. This post helps to relieve some of the stigma
associated with that, and coming from someone who very clearly worked hard at
a notable company for a number of years, is also a reminder that people
change, and companies change. Did you read the post? Is there anything about
it that you found detestable?

~~~
JDiculous
I did read the post and didn't find anything detestable at all. It just didn't
have much substance given that it's the top post on the front page of HN. He
basically just said he got fired, and that being fired has too harsh of a
stigma attached to it. Ok, I agree, but is that it? He didn't even touch on
why he was fired.

If he was anonymous software engineer at <insert unknown company>, I doubt
this would've gotten any attention. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but when I read
this post, the first thing that popped to my head was "senior employee fired
from high-profile tech company uses subliminal social media marketing to reach
front page of HN and land next job." But hey, props to him, it seems to be
working.

~~~
codezero
Hm. I think you are probably right that an anon random programmer wouldn't
have hit the top of the front page, that's a good point, but I also think that
when a well known engineer is lamenting about being fired it sends a different
message than a random person. That is, being well known and successful doesn't
make you immune to reality :)

I do agree, though, that he could have elaborated. Not about why he got fired,
I think that's too nuanced and is not likely to really help anyone beyond
satisfying base desires. What would have been helpful is the hindsight: what
can YOU do today to avoid falling into this situation yourself?

I'm willing to bet that it's too recent for him to have these insights.

From my own experience, I've learned that you should prioritize who your
manager is over who your company is. Managers have a great power over your
advancement and success at a company, both socially and productively. They can
empower you to succeed, or they can take credit for your work, while
simultaneously making you look like a burden.

Finding a great manager is really hard, and I think that's at the root of why
many people end up getting fired, or even end up dissatisfied in their work.

Looking back on my career, I've had many different kinds of managers, but one
of my earliest ones stood out. I was 16, running a dial-up ISP and it got
completely and totally hacked by an acquaintance. They didn't actually mean to
cause data loss, but they did and I had to answer for it.

My manager at the time stood between myself and the owner of the company who
was furious, and took the blame, then stayed with me through the night
manually re-entering customer data and getting things back on line.

I've had good managers since then, but that's the exact kind of situation that
people end up running into in their jobs which can change the course of their
employment. You can do a lot of things to make sure you remain productive and
to appear to be valuable to a company, but if your manager doesn't want you
working there, they can do a lot to diminish all your contributions.

Anyway, thanks for replying, it definitely helped me understand your point of
view :)

------
iamleppert
Why does everyone feel compelled to live their life in the public? Shut up and
sit down! You ain't special, dear..

~~~
loganu
There are tons of positives, and tons of negatives, to opening up your story
to the world. (This isn't really daily life, it's the end of a 5 year stint.)
If it's not for you, fine. But that's your decision, not his. And vice versa.

------
baby
Wow! I've been following your blog for a while and I would never have expected
someone like you to get fired. It's good that you're speaking out. I have to
admit I'm really curious about the reason you got fired but I guess it's none
of my business. Looking forward to see what you will do of your following
months, be it getting hired or drinking whiskey all day long while next to a
typewriter. Please blog about it :)

------
ianstallings
How on earth would this ever benefit you? Oh by the way I got fired. I know
it's taboo because well _it 's not a good thing_ but I'm gonna change that.
Because it was awesome. Thank you sir may I have another?

What the..

I've been fired before. Wasn't too happy about it myself.

~~~
callahad
> _How on earth would this ever benefit you?_

Breaking taboos is a good way to get noticed. Zach getting noticed is a good
way to broadcast the fact that he's available for hire. That, taken with his
strong reputation in the community? I'd be shocked if he wasn't sitting on a
tidy bundle of offers in the next week.

~~~
IndianAstronaut
It is actually somewhat relieving that even amazing developers and creative
individuals can get fired. Makes me not feel as bad about it if I ever end up
in such a situation.

~~~
UK-AL
The easiest way to get over it, is to accept that it is a likely possibility
that happens to a lot of good people. You have a lot of options once you get
fired(Employment, self-employed, education) and is opportunity to change stuff
you may not of liked anyway.

------
therobot24
The initial opening of the tweet really threw me off.

>The last half-decade meant everything to me. Was a hell of a gig. Thanks,
GitHub.

Something about it seemed off-putting. I dunno, maybe it's because i'm not
really into twitter, but it just came off, for lack of better words, fake.

However, i read the rest of the post, and it was quite good. I actually
enjoyed way more than i thought i would. Which kind of begs the question of
what else have i ignored/put off/dismissed from reading too much into these
small droplets of text. Usually 'less is more', but i'm beginning to have my
doubts.

downvotes? guess twitter is protected territory

~~~
mordocai
Probably due to not being used to twitter. I'm getting into it and I almost
always have to shorten my tweets. It's hard to get anything meaningful into
the character limit.

------
lucasjcm
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it bad for him to talk about this publicly
and insinuate that his manager was shit and that he was fired for no good
reason?

This situation reminds me a lot of the time an ex-employee of reddit
complained about his firing, on reddit (!!), and was publicly called out for
it by reddit's CEO at the time [1].

[1]
[https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_r...](https://np.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2iea97/i_am_a_former_reddit_employee_ama/cl1ygat?context=3)

~~~
crazypyro
I don't think he was really insinuating that his manager was shit. I think he
was simply talking about the different stories he heard. It could be just as
likely that the very next thing he says "or dealing the fallout from things
out of their control." or really an infinite possibilities. Just my 2 cents.

~~~
FireBeyond
Maybe. To me, when you say "you tell your story and then they tell you their
similar story about being stuck under shitty managers".

I think there's definitely a credible, though not ironclad, case to be made
for insinuation.

