
Firing Well - MaysonL
http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/05/17/firing-well/
======
jader201
> _To ease the pain of the breakup, my standard interview routine includes a
> segment on Why and How I’ll Fire You._

> " _... But repeated lapses of judgment or a habitually disruptive attitude
> can’t be tolerated, and we will have to part company. In plain English, I
> will fire you. "_

I'm not saying that setting expectations up front is a bad thing, but I've
never had the topic of firing brought up -- ever -- in any of the many
interviews I've had over my career.

And therefore, if this were brought up without my asking about their firing
policies, the thought that would go through my mind would be along the lines
of:

"Wow, this company must have to deal with this quite a bit in order for it to
be covered like this during an interview setting. Either this place causes
people's attitudes to take a major turn for the worse, or they do a terrible
job at filtering out bad attitudes during the interview process."

Or...

"Was there something on my resume or something that I said during the
interview that may have triggered this?"

Again, transparency is a good thing. And if I'm already asking about their
firing policies during an interview, then maybe this is a good way to approach
it.

But hearing it come up -- and like this -- during an interview without
solicitation just reeks of a toxic environment.

~~~
grkvlt
> Wow, this company must have to deal with this quite a bit in order for it to
> be covered like this during an interview setting.

Or, their hiring managers are very experienced and are basing this on decades
of industry experience over many different managerial positions. They have
learned the best practices for employee retention and dismissal over time, so
they know to mention this now.

~~~
mattmanser
We can live in your hypothetical Or world, or we can live in the real world
where most sane people would interpret a segment like this as:

"Red flag, red flag, their CEO is a complete nightmare, run away, run away".

~~~
Nadya
>Or World

I like that phrase. I'll be using that.

------
jbyers
I read this not a general purpose guide to hiring and firing, but as a guide
to hiring and firing _executives_. This is consistent with the author's
background. Note references to board approval, walking over to someone's
office, generous settlement packages, etc.

In this context the advice rings true to my ear. Less so for hiring and firing
across all levels of an organization.

~~~
michaelochurch
It's sad that there's this (reasonable, in many cases) assumption here that
you have to be an executive to get treated decently (office instead of shitty
cube or open-plan space, career support and severance upon termination).

I mean, I wouldn't advocate a generous severance for someone who just stops
showing up, or who punches a co-worker in the face. You can cold-fire them.
Programmers who do their jobs in good faith, on the other hand, belong in the
"treat him well even if we don't need him" status bucket.

~~~
cookiecaper
There's a quiet but significant portion of non-executive professionals that
get reasonably generous separation packages. One must consider that content
people do not usually make noise (and in fact, in this circumstance, are often
legally forbidden from disclosing any details related to the separation).

------
baldfat
TL:DR - Sounds like it is a fearful place to work and puts all ownership on
the employee and nothing on the person doing the fire with no checks or
balances. Just a clear cut you disappoint me and I will fire you quickly and
even pay you off instead of you suing me.

Having had to fire people this read like a lead balloon. I have fired several
people and the hardest one was the first time, but after it was over it felt
good for everyone in the business.

This is really managing by fear. The manager might say "It won't be a surprise
for you or me implies that this is a non-verbal understanding. Well a lot of
people get paranoid when it comes to job security and might have had a bad
experience so anything and everything means they are on the verge of losing
their job. If I was a worker on his team I would shutter any time I saw my
boss walk into my office and say may I sit down. Seems very much a scare
tactic. My company when we fire someone there has been several steps taken and
it is dignified. (Unless you did something illegal or unethical, than it is
quick and clean with an escort out the building.) You go through a written
warning. You than have a performance progresses plan written by the employee
and the manager together. You may have the manager sit in your work space for
a few times to make sure that the person understands their roles in action and
make sure that it just isn't a lack of knowledge or training. If it is our
business culture we will get a co-worker to partner up with the person to help
them find their place (Or see that it might not be for them and that is okay
for both parties).

There doesn't seem to be a check and balance between his decision to fire and
the action. As a manager I just didn't see the person's positive side since
they had a trait I couldn't stand (perception of them being lazy or a bully to
their co-workers) and I almost fired people which months and years later
proved I was wrong in assuming they deserved to be fired. This also saves the
work place from being a homogeneous Big Boys Club.

PERSONAL Opinion : Professionals (I am assuming this is a professional
position and not some low hourly wage job) normally don't get fired for them
not being smart enough or the ability to improve. I find that it normally is
the fault of the employer for why the relationship didn't work out due to a
manger or even the negative culture of the company.

~~~
wtbob
> Sounds like it is a fearful place to work and puts all ownership on the
> employee and nothing on the person doing the fire with no checks or
> balances. Just a clear cut you disappoint me and I will fire you quickly and
> even pay you off instead of you suing me.

If you were paying me hundreds of thousands—or more—of dollars a year, then
that's kinda how it works: I execute well, or you sever the relationship.

> Professionals (I am assuming this is a professional position and not some
> low hourly wage job) normally don't get fired for them not being smart
> enough or the ability to improve.

I don't understand this at all. Why would an insufficiently-smart
professional's employer keep him around—as window dressing? If one's not smart
enough for the position, and doesn't have the ability to improve, then who
would continue to employ one.

~~~
VLM
"keep him around"

Its an underemployment issue. To get this CRUD web app position you need to be
a top 1% rock star having passed compiler theory, database design, automata
theory, linear algebra and diff eqs at an ivy league or HR won't even let your
resume thru to the 8 hour whiteboard interview. The tiny microscopic subset of
the population who get past that, are profoundly underemployed and will not
have much of an issue with the raw brain horsepower requirement.

Its like demanding PE licensed PHD civil engineers, and actually getting them,
to work as landscaping manual laborers, and then being worried they might not
be smart enough to start the lawnmower. Its just not going to be an issue
(edited: "in tech" "on coasts").

~~~
baldfat
I believe 99% of the time people are fired for things other than the tasks of
performing their duties mentally and physically. Usually it happens to be the
other non-job description items that get people fired and they happen to make
an error that any other person wouldn't get fired for.

I call it my "Good Will Dollar Theory." You get to save "Good Will Dollars"
when you do good things for others and the company. You lose "Good Will
Dollars" when you have a lapse in judgment or execution. When you are out of
"Good Will Dollars" you get fired. Everyone has starts with a different amount
of "Good Will Dollars" and they are often unfairly distributed to people that
sometimes don't even deserve them.

~~~
s73v3r
Don't forget that they tend to expire, too. Even if you banked up a huge
amount of GW$ last year, they're not gonna save you this year.

------
Delmania
This post is an attempt to apply rationality to a situation which is highly
emotional and therefore irrational. The author's description of how he fires
demonstrates a complete lack of empathy in a situation in which the person
being fire needs it. It's like breaking up or getting a divorce, it's going to
be ugly no matter what you do, the best thing you can do, even if you are
firing, is to accept the situation is bad, and that you do need to try to
connect with the person on some level.

~~~
engi_nerd
I did not read this as a lack of empathy. He even addresses your concerns
because he emphasizes that the firing process would come after multiple
failures of execution or judgement, not a single instance. And he says that a
single failure can be a time for a frank discussion where conflicts are outed,
addressed, and resolved for good.

I have (unfairly, I believed) been on the receiving end of the normal "Well
your performance isn't great, you need to change your attitude before I
trigger a PIP", then a PIP...I would rather have had it the way this article
describes. Expectations are made clear, opportunities are given for
correction, and a gentle-but-firm push out the door is saved for when things
are broken.

~~~
wpietri
Yeah, if anything I think this is a more empathetic approach. While
consulting, I've seen companies that are afraid of firing, or even talking
about firing, because they want to be "nice". That's obviously bad for the
organization, as problem people make messes and drive good employees away.

But it's also bad for the people who eventually get fired. Once the situation
has soured, going in every day to face hostile or angry people and wondering
if it will be your last day is a terrible experience. I've seen it warp
troubled people further.

Personally, the thing I'd add to this is to try to help people find something
better. Often the problem isn't "fundamentally bad human" it's "human/position
mismatch". Firing someone doesn't have to feel like a funeral.

~~~
engi_nerd
I think for most professionals, the issue is indeed "human/position mismatch".
I've been in that mismatch, and trying to make it work despite myself was one
of the hardest things I've ever done. One day I had to decide to move on. Then
things got better, after some very painful life changes.

I would have respected management far more if they had said "You're just not a
good fit here, but you will be somewhere else, and we wish you the best of
luck. Let's help you find something better." Does anyone do that?

------
wtbob
> Yes, I know: California Law forbids giving bad references by phone. But we
> know the routine: To slam a candidate, all I have to say on the phone is
> “According to California Law, all I’m allowed to do is to confirm Job Title
> and Employment Dates”. The prospective employer promptly hangs up, fully
> warned.

My understanding from multiple people is that this is the _only_ thing they
will say when asked for a reference. I really hope that doesn't mean that CA
companies pass over folks unfairly.

~~~
SamReidHughes
California law doesn't say that at all.

~~~
yuhong
But the Yishan Wong Reddit AMA fiasco showed that it does need to be fixed.

~~~
SamReidHughes
Did I miss something there? What needs to be fixed?

~~~
yuhong
[http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2igkke/reddit_ceo_ca...](http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2igkke/reddit_ceo_calls_out_former_reddit_employee_as_to/cl2ditf?context=3)

------
ohitsdom
Very different perspective. The performance review caught me off guard in how
emotionless and even apathetic it seemed. Basically- "you're doing fine. you
could be doing better in these areas, but I don't care if you try to make
these improvements". How can you challenge your employees with reviews like
this?

~~~
xaybey
Though the edges of the language are softened to make it easier to swallow, I
think the message is very clear. If your boss "suggests" some changes, he/she
means make some changes.

~~~
ohitsdom
Usually I agree, a "suggestion" from a boss is more like a directive. But in
this case, he is being very explicit and literal. The whole point he is making
with reviews and firings like this is to be very direct and emotionless. So I
truly believe he means it when he says "because you’re doing fine as things
are, feel free to ignore my remarks."

~~~
VLM
My personal observations of "fine as things are" would imply the odds of
promotion/advancement are much higher if you do XYZ or you can forget
promotion or advancement if you'd prefer, which is fine with us.

In a pyramid structure with a possibly 1:8 ratio, or higher, that means no
matter what else is going on, at least 7 of 8 can never advance beyond their
current level, no matter their wants or abilities, so if someone volunteers to
be one of the 7 who are prevented from advancing that's a VERY happy
coincidence. There's at least one of several awkward conversation we can avoid
after the interviews for the higher up position, guaranteed six or less is
better than having to deliver seven disappointments. Or eight, if company
policy is to never promote from within.

With the general rise of job-hopping and the death of promotion from within,
it doesn't really matter anymore. "If you wanted your bosses job, you'd work
on X, Y, and Z, but we aren't firing your boss anytime soon and if we did we'd
hire someone from ABC company, or your bosses bosses golf partner or frat
buddy anyway rather than promoting from within, so it doesn't really matter".

Also see the rise of internet job sites, if you want a promotion and your
company doesn't promote, then you look at job postings and discussions for
competitors and talk to recruiters and headhunters. Its not the era of
newspaper classifieds anymore where corporate HR pays by the word or column
inch.

------
mathattack
This may seem draconian, but...

\- I've been in places which have tossed people out with 2 weeks notice.

\- I've been in places where people have been stiffed their earned bonuses.

\- I've been in places where people haven't been let back to their desks.

This beats all of them, especially if the comp is generous. It is very hard to
change a manager's mind. If they're convinced it's time to go, better to
encourage the move and be generous. (To stiff the employee implies a hiring
decision, which was the manager's fault to begin with.)

The one caveat is some top firms allow people to spend the next few months
with an office to encourage another employer to hire them away.

------
trustfundbaby
As most other people have mentioned bringing up firing during an interview is
a poor way to set expectations (especially in the manner described). Using the
gimmick of seeing how a prospective hire responds to being told "Why and How
I’ll Fire You" is reductionist and shows a disturbing lack empathy, that I
would probably navigate away from as a prospect once a got a whiff of what
this company was cooking.

Sure, this probably works for this founder. And it actually helps them get
people who they'd work well with. But as a general practice, its strikes me as
a pretty clumsy and arrogant way of approaching a fellow human being to work
with you.

As an aside, its things like this that I feel, contribute to the monoculture
of white males in Tech, because I could see women and minorities who are
already fearful that they wouldn't fit into a tech workplace being even more
fearful after hearing this kind of talk from someone they're thinking of
working for.

Can you imagine the kind of stress a minority would be under in a place like
this, struggling to make connections and find people to help them navigate the
process ... failing ... and having their performance impacted then remembering
that the head of the company said

"I’ll tell you that the decision was made after thoughtful deliberation, and
it won’t be reconsidered. I won’t suffer you the indignity of Why"

And wondering if its even wise to seek help from Above, because it could be
taken the wrong way and they could be shown the door suddenly?

phew. Hopefully this doesn't gain traction with future startup founders. We
have institutionalized processes for firing people for a reason.

------
bambax
> _you walk into the individual’s office, close the door..._

I wonder how this works in open spaces -- which, regrettably, seem to be the
norm nowadays...

~~~
ohitsdom
Open spaces are awkward when neither you or your boss have an office. Anytime
you or a coworker get pulled into a meeting room by management, it's very
noticeable.

~~~
plorkyeran
Getting into the habit of pulling someone into a meeting room any time you
have a conversation that'll last more than a few minutes regardless of whether
or not it needs to be private mitigates this and helps cut down on
distractions.

~~~
vonmoltke
Assuming a) you can get the people in your office to actually do that and b)
your office has enough meeting rooms to make that happen.

------
makeitsuckless
I was going to comment how that would not be legal in most countries with
decent labor protection laws, but between the lines is some cynical advise on
how to circumvent that and screw your employees out of their rights.

Charming.

(Also, doubt if that's legal outside France, or will remain legal in France
and/or the EU for long.)

~~~
song
Well, at least it seems to be a fair way to do it. He says to give minimum 6
month of severance package and to give a good reference if everything went
well. The thing is even in other situations someone suing his employer is
never going to get a good reference out of them so I don't see how he is
advising to screw the employees more than others.

I also agree with him based on experience that more often than not Performance
Improvement Plans do not work and create stress and further issues on the
company culture and on the coworkers.

Also based on the other linked article, he focuses more on Attitude and
Judgement Failures and doesn't believe in Stack Ranking which is something I
agree with.

By the way, he does mention that he implemented that too in Beos in
California...

~~~
makeitsuckless
No that's not a fair way to do it if you take info account the fact that the
employee has to sign away not just their rights to sue, but their right to
full unemployment benefits.

He's not actually _firing_ people, he's pressuring and bribing them into
resigning voluntarily.

It's basically a nasty way of breaking the social contract of the employer -
employee relationship, shifting what should be the entrepreneurial risk of the
employer to the employee, without any upside for the latter.

I take back what I said about the legality however: it's fully legal and very
common in the EU, it just isn't _firing_ people.

I've seen it used in practice. There's nothing nice about it, and almost
always the result of bad hiring. Only employees that wanted to get out anyway
or are easily intimidated go along with it. And it can seriously bite you in
the ass if the employee tells you to shove it and forces you to take it to
court instead. (Because they don't really need to sue, any firing after that
conversation will be illegal.)

~~~
sokoloff
> No that's not a fair way to do it if you take info account the fact that the
> employee has to sign away not just their rights to sue, but their right to
> full unemployment benefits.

That's going to depend heavily on the jurisdiction. Where I am
(Massachusetts), you cannot receive unemployment insurance for the same weeks
covered by a severance package (which seems reasonable; I can't get
unemployment for weeks in which I'm being paid a salary either...), _unless_
that severance package requires the employee to sign a release of claims
against the employer. If it does, then you can receive unemployment income for
the same weeks covered by severance.

In every case I can think of, here in MA, employees terminated under such an
arrangement have right to full employment benefits. I'm sure that will vary in
other places to some degree.

------
DenisM
I wouldn't mind at all this being applied to me. Multi-month severance? Brutal
honesty? Not wasting two months in a demoralizing process? It's far better for
my liking than the drawn-out "piecemeal firing".

The one caveat I want to add is that this should only be applied to the senior
positions, not to junior ones. A junior, by definition, is relying on the
management to guide his efforts, he is not expected to be managing himself,
therefore he should get a fair warning and offered a process to improve. A
senior, on the other hand, is expected to manage himself, including soliciting
and addressing feedback on his own performance and attitude. Therefore a
firing should not be a surprise to him, and if it is, that means the person
wasn't pulling his "senior" weight to start with.

------
caboteria
> Your performance meets or exceeds requirements. You get to keep your job.

The second sentence seems arrogant and unnecessary, especially in the context
of a meets-or-exceeds review. It seems to say the same thing as "I've decided
not to fire you at this moment." What's the benefit to either the manager or
employee of bringing up the possibility of the employee being fired in such a
circumstance?

~~~
jimcsharp
I think (hope) that was a writing flourish.

------
shortstuffsushi
Could someone explain why I would want to sign an "agreement not to sue"
contract while being fired? It seems like I would need to take some time to
evaluate the situation externally, rather than just agreeing immediately.
Asking me to sign that while in the process of being fired is making an
awkward situation even more awkward. Perhaps I'm not looking at this
correctly?

~~~
jdavis703
There's usually money attached. So you can risk a drawn out trial with all
kinds of expenses, or just take some cash up front.

~~~
shortstuffsushi
To both you and exelius, got it. Missed the part about there being a cash
incentive not to sue. I thought it was just agreeing with no incentive on your
part.

------
ExpiredLink
This assumes that reasons exist to fire someone like "Attitude or Judgement
failures" (whatever that exactly means). Last time I was fired because someone
didn't like my visage. I guess many layoffs apart from economic crises fall
into this category.

~~~
cookiecaper
>Last time I was fired because someone didn't like my visage.

To be frank, unless you're grossly incompetent, this is how all firings work.
If your bosses have an all-around positive impression of you, they'll excuse
any lapses in appearance or decorum, and if they don't, they won't.

As a rational employee, your single biggest job duty is to win the popularity
contest. Make sure anyone and everyone likes you and has very positive, warm,
and fuzzy feelings about you, especially people in power. You will never get
stable above-market compensation or advance the corporate ladder without doing
this. In a corporate context, performing your actual job description should
comprise 20-30% of your effort and being popular should be 70-80%. Your
"paper" job is almost insignificant as it relates to corporate advancement --
your real job is to run an effective campaign and develop a cult of
personality.

I make this comment after having been excused in part for "sitting wrong" \--
the boss decided he didn't like my posture (after he decided he didn't like me
anymore) and that this was so substantial he needed to demote and/or fire me.

~~~
ExpiredLink
> _As a rational employee, your single biggest job duty is to win the
> popularity contest._

That's my impression, too. Not everyone is a talented actor like Robert De
Niro.

------
serve_yay
It would be a serious negative signal for me if I were considering a job
somewhere and they started putting a lot of emphasis on this. Firing should be
a rare occurrence. It's important to do it right when you need to do it, but
firing doesn't and shouldn't happen often enough to need such pride of place.
But, I can see that if you're dealing with a candidate for an executive
position it's a different situation.

------
Practicality
It sounds like potential employees need to start asking for employer
references. Of course, many of us are. Make sure you know what you are getting
into. If this person actually does as well as he claims with firing, perhaps
that employee will leave a good reference for him as well.

------
michaelochurch
I agree with the spirit of what's being said here, but there are parts that
are problematic. For example, explaining that someone won't get a good
reference if he sues is almost certainly illegal (extortion). Of course, any
reasonable person would know not to use a company that one is suing as a
reference. You'd do better to say, "I'm not using them as a reference because
I'm suing them" (since it's already a matter of public record) than to use
them. Still, saying, "you shouldn't sue us because <retaliation>" is on the
wrong side of the law.

That said, I agree that PIPs are the worst. They're a way for scummy managers
in scummy companies to... well, the common explanation is that they're a
lawsuit shield, but that's not really true because it's actually harder to run
a lawsuit-proof PIP than to just fire someone. The real purpose of the PIP is
less documented and more insidious.

Companies don't actually fear lawsuits that much. They're a black-swan risk,
but less than 1% of people fired will ever litigate. They're much more worried
about disparagement and impaired relationships. You write a generous severance
and give a good reference (which you should, in most cases) when things don't
work out because, if you do things right, the odds are good that the person's
career will go unimpeded, and this pays off for you because they're likely to
feel good about that episode in their careers and say good things about you in
the future.

The purpose of a generous severance and positive reference is to make the
fired employee feel good about the company, preventing any sort of moral
indignation. The purpose of a PIP is to make the employee feel bad about
himself (under a parallel theory that a humiliated employee will feel weak,
not morally superior, and therefore not disparage or litigate). It has almost
no legal value, because wrongful PIPs are just as common as wrongful
terminations. Its purpose is to shame the employee into silence. Of course, it
often doesn't work, but that's a discussion for another time.

PIPs (which, considering morale, are far more expensive than severance
payments) are also a common way for HR offices to claim they "saved money" on
severance payments when they're actually externalizing the costs to the
manager, who has to conduct a kangaroo court, and the team, which has to deal
with an already-fired employee coming into work for 2 months.

~~~
amyjess
I once had a wrongful PIP subjected to me, because I lost the Game of Office
Politics.

The day my boss handed it to me, I began sending my resume out. Over the next
few weeks, I heard back from one company I applied to, and we had a phone
interview follwed by an in-person interview. The day the PIP ended, I got a
formal offer from that company, and I put in my notice.

I had issues with management for a long time, and I'd been contemplating
quitting for a while. The PIP served to light a fire under my ass and make me
realize I needed to get out of there ASAP.

Oddly enough, now that I no longer work there, I'm totally willing to be
friends with my now ex-boss: we used to get along really well, but he doesn't
know how to handle stress, and he was shoved into a management position with
no experience in handling people. He was the company's first technical hire,
he got that position because he's a brilliant engineer, and the founders
somehow thought that made him qualified to be the Director of Software.

