
Should I fire an engineer for working on his side projects during office hours? - signa11
https://www.quora.com/Should-I-fire-a-software-engineer-for-always-working-on-his-side-projects-during-office-hours?share=1
======
Daviey
When looking at an employee, measure their output.. not their input. I'm
honestly not concerned about the amount of hours put in... it could be 4 hours
hard work.. but if they deliver on targets, then i'm happy.

I also want to know that they are obtainable during work hours, attentive in
meetings and are available for brief interaction out-of-hours if needed.

I'm less keen to pay people to keep the seats warm, and moving the mouse just
enough to stop the screensaver kicking-in.

I'm a non-smoker, but I do not mind people having smoking breaks... but some
people get really upset by this. If we are doing physical or menial jobs, then
productivity is reduced.. but for intellectual jobs, we should simply measure
output.

(Oh, and i guess /YOU/ are probably being paid by someone to read this
comment.. instead of working)

Worth reading: [http://mentalfloss.com/article/74710/how-much-time-do-we-
act...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/74710/how-much-time-do-we-actually-
spend-working-work)

~~~
gdulli
> it could be 4 hours hard work..

"Targets" are a pretty low end way to think of such an open ended job.

You can think of your job as "They asked me to do X and I'm going to do X and
after that the rest of my 40 hours don't matter." Or, "I'm going to do as much
as I possibly can in 40 hours." From the start of my career I always thought
of it as the latter. I don't understand the mindset of the former in a
professional job. Maximize your value to your employer or you'll be the last
one to get promoted and the first one to get laid off.

There's always a backlog of defined tasks and there's always open-ended
opportunity to make progress in ways you can think up yourself. Do you want to
sit around waiting to be told what to do or engineer your own path?

~~~
0x445442
> Do you want to sit around waiting to be told what to do or engineer your own
> path?

It can be very difficult if not impossible to engineer your own path in most
environments these days. These days most devs are simply trading time for
money. If the backlog board is empty, they're on retainer waiting for it to
fill up.

Because of the eternal effort of the enterprise to commoditize developers
they're given no decision making power. So even though they continually
identify work that could be done to improve product or process, they know it's
a crap shoot to follow through on such work as it's more than likely to be
rejected for one subjective reason or another.

~~~
gdulli
That's not been my experience over a 20-year career. On a given day I might
not have that freedom, and I've had ideas get shot down. But over the long run
it's always been true that if I have extra time I can use it to my advantage
one way or another. This feels like a pretty universal rule about work. If I
worked at Chipotle I'm sure I could still find a way to distinguish myself
over my co-workers.

~~~
Chris2048
If you take the advantage you gained from being recognized, vs the time spent
towards that effort (including things shot down), is it worth it?

The recognition must have a high return to make up for all the time wasted on
rejected initiatives.

~~~
gdulli
Are you asking if tens of thousands of dollars in salary, and increased
equity, and promotion to roles of greater responsibility, and increased job
security, and recognition, and the freedom to design my own role are worth a
lot to me? Yes, they are.

~~~
Chris2048
First of all, "greater responsibility" is not an advantage, it is a liability
you accept in return for other advantages.

If the delta is worth "tens of thousands of dollars in salary", consider what
your free time spent on other things is worth. It might not be.

But "freedom to design my own role"? Where do you get this?

~~~
Bartweiss
> First of all, "greater responsibility" is not an advantage, it is a
> liability you accept in return for other advantages.

This is an interesting point. We tend to conflate "greater control" with
"greater responsibility", but we shouldn't. The first is a benefit, the second
is a risk. They often go together, but having had a job with lots of
responsibility and _no_ control, they certainly don't have to.

------
bbarn
Interesting the comments in this thread have focused on the 8hrs vs getting
your work done, and not the key takeaway I had from reading the post, which
was "Other developers have complained about it".

I don't care what hours people put in, or frankly, whether they meet deadlines
or not most of the time (reality happens and most of our work isn't saving the
world), but what would make me fire a developer in no time is disrupting the
rest of the development team.

~~~
BearGoesChirp
>but what would make me fire a developer in no time is disrupting the rest of
the development team.

I can't really comment on it because my comment would depend upon the
complaint and the reason behind it?

Is it actually disrupting other developers (say they aren't getting their
actual work done)? Then definitely a problem.

But what if a developer who is doing extra but not getting paid more is
complaining because they see this person not putting in extra and getting
money by daylighting. The developer they are complaining about isn't the root
of the problem, and even if you remove the daylighting developer, your
complainer will eventually turn into them.

Basically, I can't tell from the question if the complaint is what I would
consider legit or just office politics.

But I agree, if it is legit, then is a big factor.

------
ryandvm
You should fire them if they're not providing you the value your paying them
for. That's it.

It's frankly immaterial if they're working on their side project at work. That
may be part of what recharges them mentally. Which in the end, works out in
your favor.

~~~
donatj
This.

When I have a big project at work I would also take a small one to recharge
mentally as well and switch back and forth. We got new management and they saw
this as us wasting time on the big project and declared we can only have one
project assigned at a time. Genius, so now when I need a mental break I'm not
allowed to work on things that benefit the company.

This lowered overall productivity and lead to either daylighting or just
general time wasting.

------
stinos
_while I don’t know your employee, I know why he’s daylighting_

Sorry, you don't (always). I've worked on side projects during office hours
before and will probably do so in the future. Yet none of that text applies to
me. For me is is is not about feeling underappreciated or bad reviews or money
or being fed up by middle management. I am appreciated, get extremely good
reviews and get all tasks done, don't care about money enough for it being a
factor and there is no middle management to be fed up with. It's just because
I took a job which came with a certain amount of freedom I (ab)use that
freedom, that is who I am.

~~~
Danihan
Same, exactly. I frequently have impulses to do things that interest me, I
enjoy following those impulses and they've benefited me immensely over the
years..

There isn't always some malicious or negative root cause.

------
ivanbakel
The big danger is the company siezing rights to any of the products the
engineer made on company time, especially if they turn out to be worth a lot.
It's one of the main reasons I wouldn't like to do this kind of stuff on the
job.

~~~
ubersoldat2k7
Or with corp. equipment. Thanks Silicon valley for that.

------
bluesnowmonkey
Co-founder with double digit equity shocked to discover employee with
fractional percentage equity more focused on becoming founder than being good
employee. Shocked.

~~~
evgen
Employee with fractional percentage of equity and dreams of becoming founder
shocked to discover that the IP assignment agreement they signed when starting
job means that old employer owns all the IP of his new start-up which he
created on old company equipment on old company time. Shocked.

------
noir_lord
If an employer is paying me for 8 hours a day I work 8 hours a day for them,
if I'm mentally tired from a sustained period of programming I recharge by
working on documentation or stuff I can do without a lot of mental effort.

On the other side of that unless I'm paid to be on call outside of work hours
I don't answer my phone for anything less than "the server is on fire".

I've found that separation (and the expectation set early that the separation
exists) prevents a _lot_ of these kinds of issues.

~~~
Chris2048
> I recharge by working on documentation or stuff I can do without a lot of
> mental effort

There's a gang of technical documentation writers outside, and they want to
have a word with you..

~~~
noir_lord
Tell them to get inline behind the systems adminstrators ;).

Joking aside I'd love to work with good doc writers, I do my best but it's not
where my skills lie but I think having the developers at least work on the
docs is something that isn't done enough but it's _amazing_ when it is done
well.

------
dispo001
The idea of an 8 hour work day is that there is no idea, we just do this
without any sensible excuse for it.

What is referred to here as a side project is actually the persons real life.
The job is the side project.

Its a fascinating misconception that we would live to work rather than work to
live.

You should make a deal with the engineer that he will do overtime if there is
a lot of work to do and he will spend unpaid hours in office if things are
slow.

Then you pretend to be interested in his side project.

~~~
jorvi
> ...and he will spend unpaid hours in office if things are slow.

How is this in any way a good deal for the engineer? Being 'forced' to be in
office has an opportunity cost, and should be compensated accordingly.

------
FollowSteph3
I think you cross a line once you go to working on your projects. To me
screwing around and doing nothing is very different than working on your own
project/business during company time. If you want to do anything educate
yourself on the technologies your project uses, but don't directly work on it
during your work hours. Even education is different. I draw the line at
working on your business during work hours.

~~~
superplussed
Of course this is the only common-sense answer, I'm amazed I had to scroll
this far down to find it.

------
keithnoizu
Well, Do they respond and work on your project outside of office hours? Do you
pay them for that time. If it's not excessive it probably evens out.

~~~
Ph4nt0m
That is spot on I think, some people will spend a whole lot of their personal
time on work tasks just because they like it. The issue could be with the
colleagues that clock-in/clock-out and see him work on personal stuff and
think they can do it too.

------
mrbill
My employer doesn't care, as long as I'm (a) getting my job done and (b) not
competing with what they do as a business.

I have a 3d printer on my desk at the office. Boss actually gave me kudos
during my last review for doing stuff like printing little utility parts for
the office, team mascots, a Groot head for his desk, etc.

As long as it doesn't interfere with getting things done, my employer actually
loves tech toys / hobbies / etc. One of our team-wide projects right now is
fixing up an old payphone and hooking it up to our Asterisk PBX.

~~~
cestith
I "hear" you even have a TV, couch, and fridge full of drinks right in your
team's area but the work still gets done.

------
sehugg
How about "Ask them to stop doing it" first?

~~~
zhte415
I'd ask them why they're doing it.

I wouldn't ask if they're bored, if they're just not busy enough, if they're
interested in a new technology, if they want to make the next Facebook, but a
reason should come out of any discussion. Are 1-1s even regularly done? This
sounds like a red flag on that.

The Quora question from a CTO, albeit of a startup whose financial situation
may or may not be sensitive. But any kind of probing moves action from the
employee to the prober. Less hours? More salary? Bonus? New role? Equity? They
can't just promise something, as savvy people know such promises are empty.

In proto-corporate world, the manager's hands are tied much tighter.
Promotions happen at fixed times of the year, or one-time-of-the-year only.
Their budget is much more fixed. But if they are good at what they're supposed
to do, manage, they will find a way, however too many managers don't think
this is possible.

------
kemonocode
I suspect the answers here will vary wildly with the commenter's actual
position at their company.

Management would balk at it and say they ought to be immediately fired. I
think it's usually a matter to see why they'd feel the need to work on their
side projects during office hours- are they perceiving any extra effort they'd
put into their company is not being valued enough? Are they still meeting all
deadlines? Is there any conflicts of interest between the company and whatever
project they are working on?

~~~
naasking
> I think it's usually a matter to see why they'd feel the need to work on
> their side projects during office hours- are they perceiving any extra
> effort they'd put into their company is not being valued enough?

Heck, for all you know they might be planning to use their side project to
improve the company's product. Jumping to conclusions is always a bad idea,
communication is key.

------
ryandrake
I was going to attempt a good comment here, but the highest positioned Quora
answer from "Don Sevcik" is _so good_ , I don't think it's possible to top it.
Seriously. If you're wondering why your employees are disengaged at work, read
that top Quora answer. Then read it again and let it sink in. It's great
because it centers on the employee's motivation and reasons for working on
side projects, and the company's failure to address them.

------
nathan_f77
Uhhh, legally that company would probably own everything the engineer has been
working on during office hours. So if it's really promising, then they might
let him keep working on it. But he won't own any of it, and he can't keep it
if he leaves.

I don't agree with it, but I think that's usually how it works, and they would
have a strong case.

------
feliceme
One question is: is he able to complete his normal work tasks during the time
his doesn't spend on his side projects?

~~~
wccrawford
I've yet to meet a manager that thinks that way. They always think that
they've bought your time and get all of your skill for all of that time, no
matter what they're paying.

And technically, they're right. If you aren't agreeing to that, you should
find another job. But who would do that? Instead, as the answers on Quora say,
people provide the value they think they've been paid for, and then use the
rest of their time for their own things.

I have ethical issues with this, in case that wasn't clear. But everyone has
issues with not getting paid what they're worth.

~~~
corobo
> And technically, they're right

My salary is seriously low if technically they've paid for an entire year of
my time!

------
xyzzy4
The biggest problem I see here is that employees can see eachother's screens.
Give your employees more privacy and don't treat them like children. Measure
them by their output.

------
bshimmin
I work with a bunch of remote employees. My general policy is that I want them
to be available to say "hi" and talk about the day at the start of the day
(9am) in my timezone, and to give me a status update at the end of the day
(5.30pm, ish) in my timezone. (The morning "hi" is a standup, really.) I
expect them to reply on Slack or by email in a reasonably prompt fashion (eg.
within 1 hour) during regular office hours in my timezone, and if there's
something that urgently needs doing (a bugfix, digging out some info because
there's a meeting depending on it, etc) then I expect them to snap to it. As
to their actual work, as long as the eight hours get done, deadlines are met,
and we don't fall behind, it is a source of absolute indifference to me
whether those eight hours of work are done during regular office hours or if
they have an entirely different job they need/want to do during the day and
can only do work for me at night.

That's for remote. If someone is physically located with the rest of a team
and is doing side projects whilst their colleagues around them are doing real
work, and potentially they're not responsive to work queries, then that seems
fairly wrong.

Of course you have a conversation first with someone before you fire them!

~~~
4c2383f5c88e911
I don't want to diss your way of managing remote teams, but the "in my
timezone" part is incredibly absurd, except if your remote teams are very
close. If you have a 5-hour offset, asking for someone to be available from
4am, or until 10pm sounds quite abusive. Now of course there should be a large
enough common time window for several work interactions, but asking people in
different timezones to have the exact same availability as you is wrong.

~~~
bshimmin
The biggest timezone gap we have is 3.5 hours, and they find it supremely
convenient because they do other work in their morning. My company is based in
the UK and we can only really work with people who can work in a moderately
convenient timezone, at least on this sort of basis. If I hired a developer in
San Francisco, I'd work with them in a different way, obviously.

Nobody is being abused, don't worry!

~~~
4c2383f5c88e911
So you fall in the "close enough" category (UK being especially convenient
since there’s nothing close on the western side), good to know! I was mostly
thinking of the US in my post.

------
crb002
Give them 20% time to play. Play is how humans learn best. My best works of
engineering came from playing around with a system until I understood it well
enough.

------
demonshalo
Here is an engineer outputting X amount of work for a given work day which is
equivalent to his co-worker only that he does it in less time. If you then
require that person to work more than X in order to fill his hours, he will be
incentivised to work less as he will find it to be unfair that he has to do
more than his colleges. Thus, putting down time on his own projects should not
be seen as a negative thing. Mainly because he is actually improving his
skillset which in return benefits the company he is working for.

This however presume that he is in fact producing as much as his colleges in
less time. The only two options I see is to let it continue as it is nothing
wrong or cut him some deal where he can work less hours OR grant him a raise
and ask him to do more for more pay.

It all comes down to expectations. If that employee meets your expectations
then there is no reason to fire someone who is doing well just because he is
better and more efficient than everyone else!

------
nunez
I think that it depends on what the projects are. If they are literally
building your competition, then yes, boot them asap, especially if they didn't
sign a NDA/non-compete or if your legal team isn't strong enough to enforce
it.

If they are just working on non-work stuff, then I would treat it as if they
were spending that time on Facebook and reddit (since these are effectively
the same): tell them that they aren't productive, then follow formal action if
problem doesn't get fixed within some period of time.

The tricky thing is that the smaller the team, the bigger impact their non-
productivity has, so that period of time might need to be shorter than usual.
If that person is truly entrepreneurial, they will probably just say "fine,"
work their minimum and crank up their after-hours contributions instead until
they can either go somewhere that will support their 20% non work time or
decide to go 100% on their side projects

------
harryf
From the link in his question he mentions;

> Many other software engineers have also complained to me and expect me to
> take action.

If that's correct, then yes, you have to fire, otherwise it will turn the
whole team toxic. Nothing breeds mistrust and resentment like having a co-
worker where you feel you're picking up the slack for them.

------
daemin
To me having some down time in an intellectual job is ok, so some HN, other
news is good. So is self education and occasionally watching profession
related videos online.

What is not ok is actively working on your own project or for someone else
that is not a client of or owned by the company that you work for.

If it is a side project for the company then that could be alright, but the
whole point of a side project is that it is done outside of regular hours. If
it is work for your own company or another company then that's crossed the
line. Technically your employer would own the work you were doing (because
they paid for your time and equipment at least), and so could prevent you from
sending the work to the other party.

Also don't forget what's happening now between Uber and Google.

------
JoeAltmaier
It seems likely they could accomplish twice as much in a day as they are
currently providing your company. I suggest you talk to them, ask them to
dedicate 8 hours to your tasks. Then double their salary, because they're
doing twice as much in a day as their peers.

~~~
ryandrake
Alternatively, if you're happy with the employee's output and don't want to
increase his salary, maybe work with him to reduce his official hours. Maybe
he can work on his side project on Thursdays and Fridays, at home, on his own
equipment.

~~~
epynonymous
love it!

------
batmansmk
It reveals several problems you have to deal with:

\- not enough work given (it is his manager, not him) \- not driven by the
mission (it is you, not him) \- a distance between you and him \- distrust
from him to make his ideas come true in the open in the company

The final decision depends on a lot of small factor: is the guy producing a
lot? Is he a good element? Why people are complaining about him and throw him
under the bus? Was he hiding this activity? Does he confess when confronted?
Did you ask him why he was doing it and how? Ask why 5 times to go to the end
of his reasons.

There is so many better output than firing him. As a CEO, your job at that
stage includes skills dealing with people. Firing is admitting your failure at
that game.

------
didip
There are a few things that need to be acceptable for this kind of behaviors,
IMO:

1\. The enginner needs to produce a certain level of acceptable quality and in
timely manner.

2\. The engineer wants to participate in activities that ensures quality. E.g.
code review, pull request, etc.

3\. Related to point 1 and 2, cutting corners and dumping work to his/her
coworkers are so not acceptable. Clearly, the engineer has extra time.

I could care less about corporate loyalty, but the engineer needs to satisfy a
certain level of SLA at the primary day job.

Almost all daylighters I've seen ruins team chemistry because he/she didn't
really hide the side activities AND actually perform less than average,
causing the rest of the team to feel salty.

------
mholmes680
Clearly Conflict of Interest opening up both parties to potential litigation.
a) Have a policy in place before hiring someone; b) remind the employees to
follow the policy.

My previous company sold this type of training to corporations, who need to
have concrete rules set up for the benefit of both parties (ok, mainly the
corporation's benefit). I realize startups don't have time to focus on HR
policies and legal protections, but get something basic in writing so both
parties are on the same page prior to this issue coming up. Without it, the
employee has the right to do whatever the heck they want and then sue for
wrongful termination.

------
antaviana
You should fire her because I understand both of the following two facts
concur:

\- If she told you during the interview that she would spend 2-3 hours on her
work, you would not have hired her

\- Your team is complaining about it, which means that rhe situation is toxic

~~~
mtrycz
The remark about the team complaining is the most important above anything
else.

~~~
ubersoldat2k7
Agreed.

If you're doing this, at least keep it private.

------
shortoncash
I'd welcome side projects as a mental diversion, but only for a brief while. I
don't expect my team to be always on, and I expect them to be distracted
partially. I just want them to get the right solution within a reasonable
amount of time. It's easy to tell when someone gets sucked in to something
they aren't supposed to be doing, versus just taking a much needed mental
break without going so far as to take a vacation.

------
kamaal
That depends on what the 'side project' is.

There are lot of people in the web development world who regularly practice
interview coding/algo/ds questions in office hours. They have to because the
same company at which they are working expects candidates to have
extraordinary levels of skills in competitive programming, which by the way is
not possible without day-to-day practice.

Does this qualify as a 'side project'?

------
neap24
It always helps appearances if an employee's "side project" can, in some small
way, be incorporated into their job. I've had ideas for web apps before that
I've developed as internal company tools just to justify my time at work spent
developing them. I don't think this is always required, but it certainly
staves off criticism from bosses and co-workers.

------
epynonymous
a simple conversation doesn't hurt. i'm guessing he's probably bored or has a
lack of motivation to do the full time work and possibly has stumbled upon
something more lucrative, he/she could be out of there as soon as the mvp is
done! i guess some obvious questions are whether or not this employee is
working on open source projects or something for his own potential business,
that wasn't clear in the question, if it's the later, have that conversation
to figure out why. if it's open source that's not conducive to your company's
goals then you need to set the rules and expectations explicitly. this is
obviously affecting your team's morale so you need to have some decision on
this, and quickly, because you've delayed for too long!

------
jheriko
this is very interesting to see the discussion and suggestions here all
leaning the same way "does he get his work done?" being the most important bit
of information required to make the decision in a almost all of the responses.

i've always suspected that over-delivering and working hard grants some leeway
- that results are king, even compared to politics - whether its working on
side projects on work time or equipment, turning up to work still intoxicated
from last night, sneaking off for a quick spliff at lunch time etc.

its interesting to see this at least partially confirmed.

~~~
Normal_gaussian
Bear in mind most of these replies are from employees, not employers.

There can be a lot of wishful thinking here.

~~~
pythonaut_16
The main concern of the question is the side projects, not whether the
employee is performing adequately. This two questions are inherently tied
together. If the employee wasn't performing then they would be fired
regardless of the side projects.

So in order for the side projects to be a concern, it implies the employee is
still performing their job at normal levels. So then the question becomes, why
does the engineer have time and motivation to work on the side projects?

And ultimately I think, the answer to that question is that there's some
failure on the part of company leadership, as other commenters have pointed
out, regarding motivation, available work, and how over accomplishing is
valued.

------
tryitnow
If it interferes with his productivity or the productivity of others, then no.

But they really can't be understood as "office hours" if he's not working for
you, right?

------
NumberCruncher
>> “Well you should take on more work to show you are a team player.” Nope.
Team Player is code word for “Do more, and never get paid extra for it.”

I wish I could call BS on this.

------
snarfy
Remind him that work done on company time is owned by the company, and that he
might inadvertently give up ownership of his side project to the company.

It's not worth the risk.

------
mcs_
Only if the side project is an unauthorized intent of clone your software.
Fire if he doesn't do his job. How want to fire if someone does more?

------
korzun
Only if the output is an issue, I rather have an engineer who is still excited
about coding vs. an engineer with barely any production.

------
bitwize
Nah, that's too soft. What you should do is assert IP rights over his side
project and then sue him for infringing your rights.

------
teddyh
From _The Hacker FAQ¹_ (by Peter Seebach, 1999):

Section 2: Productivity.

2.0: My hacker plays video games on company time.

Hackers, writers, and painters all need some amount of time to spend
"percolating" \-- doing something else to let their subconscious work on a
problem. Your hacker is probably stuck on something difficult. Don't worry
about it.

2.1: But it's been two weeks since I saw anything!

Your hacker is working, alone probably, on a big project, and just started,
right? She's probably trying to figure it all out in advance. Ask her how it's
going; if she starts a lot of sentences, but interrupts them all with "no,
wait..." or "drat, that won't work", it's going well.

2.2: Isn't this damaging to productivity?

No. Your hacker needs to recreate and think about things in many ways. He will
be more productive with this recreation than without it. Your hacker enjoys
working; don't worry about things getting done reasonably well and quickly.

2.3: My hacker is constantly doing things unrelated to her job
responsibilities.

Do they need to be done? Very few hackers can resist solving a problem when
they can solve it, and no one else is solving it. For that matter, is your
hacker getting her job done? If so, consider these other things a freebie or
perk (for you). Although it may not be conventional, it's probably helping out
quite a bit.

2.4: My hacker is writing a book, reading USENET news, playing video games,
talking with friends on the phone, and building sculptures out of paper clips.
On company time!

He sounds happy. The chances are he's in one of three states:

1\. Basic job responsibilities are periodic (phone support, documentation, et
al.) and there's a lull in incoming work. Don't worry about it!

2\. Your hacker is stuck on a difficult problem.

3\. Your hacker is bored silly and is trying to find amusement. Perhaps you
should find him more challenging work?

Any of these factors may be involved. All of them may be involved. In general,
if the work is challenging, and is getting done, don't worry too much about
the process. You might ask for your corporation to be given credit in the
book.

2.5: But my other workers are offended by my hacker's success, and it hurts
their productivity.

Do you really need to have workers around who would rather be the person
getting something done, than have it done already? Ego has very little place
in the workplace. If they can't do it well, assign them to something they can
do.

①
[https://www.seebs.net/faqs/hacker.html#section-2](https://www.seebs.net/faqs/hacker.html#section-2)

~~~
Danihan
Always funny realizing what a stereotype you actually are.

------
discomulatora
Usually depends on the contract of work. Most places have conflict of interest
if the person does the similar job for 2 different employers. Side project
could be landscaping, architecture, etsy business, or whatever that might not
be conflicting and would be ok to continue. It is always good to communicate
with your HR about the policies before starting any other project that might
be conflicting to your current employment. So the real solution is a good
Communication.

------
33degrees
The question has precious little detail, but it seems to me there are a few
steps that can be taking between learning about the situation and firing the
person. How about having a discussion with the employee, and trying to
understand why they're doing it?

------
strongai
A good employee does their job, and then does more. No way should they be
allowed to work for someone else (themselves!) on your dime. Fired.

------
dbg31415
I think they should probably be fired.

While I agree, output is the main thing to focus on... I would also ask a few
questions:

1) Is the employee using company resources to work on their project? If so...
it's bad for them and probably means the company owns it. If the company owns
it, is the company getting a say in what's being built / is in line with the
company goals?

2) Did the employee ever lie about doing their personal work at work? If so, I
would suggest firing them for not being honest. If the employee is logging 8
hours, but only working 5... yes, that's dishonest. Are they billing clients
for the extra time?

3) Did the employee flaunt, boast, or brag to others that they were doing
personal work at work? If so, I would suggest firing them for being a
disruption.

In reality, how I think this should play out is less black and white.

If the employee is getting his work done and still has time to do side
projects, and I liked the quality of his work, like the employee, etc... I'd
want to offer him a raise to do more work at work... give him more
responsibilities that take up more of his time. If his current workload only
takes 80% of his time, I want to find a way to give him a 20% raise and 20%
more work. I know the first response to the question in the link said that
management didn't like giving raises... but I disagree. If he was idle and had
more time, and I could give him more work, I'd want to -- and pay him for it.

If that wasn't an option... if the employee was just killing time between
builds working on his own stuff... as long as nobody was waiting on him, I'd
suggest he use his own laptop, at least, and that we make sure his employment
contract allows him to own work done using the company tools and internet.
Assuming I don't know what he's working on, I'd want to know a bit about the
project -- it could be based on something we make and that may be a conflict
of interest, or be the next great Child Porn Bit Torrent Network, or a blatant
rip off of copyrighted materials. I want the company shielded from liability
there -- which means making sure he owns 100% of what he's working on. Likely
we can't ever be shielded from potential lawsuit if we provided resources
towards the project... even internet access... so I'd want to make sure there
were clear lines and plausible deniability. "He used his own laptop, cell
phone hotspot, etc."

If the employee lied about doing the work on company time... if they ever
billed me, or a client, for hours spent on their personal project... I think
that's a serious problem. I would have to fire them in that case. If they are
reporting working 8 hours, but only worked 5, that's throwing off my KPIs and
team metrics. If they are charging clients for more time than they worked...
yeah I can't have that -- it puts my credibility in jeopardy. I'd have to let
them go.

Lastly I'd encourage the employee to keep his mouth shut. Loose lips sink
ships... and while the company has to give the appearance of treating everyone
the same, I probably don't want this sort of thing to be the norm among
engineers... creates too much incentive for false estimates, for starters. So
we can have a deal where he does what he wants when his work is done, but he
needs to keep it to himself. No asking the QA guys to test his project, no
asking other devs how to solve personal project problems, no asking the
graphic designers for logos, etc. If he does this work at work, he needs to
not advertise that he is doing it or distract other people from their jobs...

------
r3dey3
Is he/she using company resources? Then if so I'd say fire them. Since the
team noticed, is it because of lack of responsiveness or inability to complete
work? Or just that they saw them doing it? If they are getting their work done
what's the difference between spending that time on facebook/twitter/hacker
news??

------
mannykannot
Is the name Levandowski, by any chance?

"It seems Waymo now thinks that Levandowski was deceiving Google almost from
the moment it hired him to work on the Street View maps project back in 2007.
Google first had concerns when it found out that Levandowski was working with
his own startups, 510 Systems and Anthony’s Robots, to build a self-driving
car."

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-
think/transportation/self...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-
think/transportation/self-driving/waymo-vs-uber-8-things-i-learned-from-
anthony-levandowski-taking-the-5th)

via
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14205715](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14205715)

------
kenoyer130
Also note many hiring contracts stipulate since you are using company
resources and time they OWN what you are working on. I would give the person a
stern warning then a firing. This is to protect all parties involved. If they
are a contractor and working from home (not using company resources) then it
is none of my business.

~~~
bonesss
I agree: the cynical Enterprise response would be to assert copyright over
everything touched during working hours and all that entails. After that: take
a peek at all other projects this person has touched during the employment
period and look for re-use of code that infringes on what is now the companies
IP...

If the employee was working on a startup, then they just got acquired at the
awesome valuation of "not getting sued to death" :)

Contractors and consultants are another issue... though billing Customer A for
anything but work for Customer A creates its own kinds of legal pain...

