
I Got Fired Last Week. That’s a Good Thing. Here’s Why - nRike
http://alexgivesup.com/2013/12/23/i-got-fired-last-week-thats-a-good-thing-heres-why/
======
overgard
So this is going to sound mean when I don't mean for it too, but I sort of
doubt the reality of being fired for being a generalist. I just don't buy it.
I totally believe that's what they /told/ him, I just don't think it's the
actual truth.

So far I've made a career out of being a generalist. In my experience,
companies of any size love having people like that. Specialists are valuable
of course, but most of the time managers end up with a broad spectrum of
problems and if they can throw problems to you without wondering if you can
handle it, and feel confident it's going to get done, they probably don't care
that you're only 70% as efficient as the specialist.

~~~
neltnerb
I think there's an intermediate size where being a generalist is bad. I'm a
generalist, and I experienced a similar situation -- I was extremely useful at
the beginning because I could do a fair job of the responsibilities of three
or four specialists, but after a year and a half, there were three or four
specialists who could collectively do a far better job than me. The amount of
tasks which made sense for me to take on dwindled, and I wasn't really needed
anymore. I don't regret it or hold a grudge, it was my intent to help build a
team that was better than me alone, and I succeeded in that professional goal.
I trained most of them to be able to do my job, and am proud of that
accomplishment. But I suspect that once the company is at 100 people instead
of 20, the budget and flexibility of positions will be such to allow
generalists to be more practical again.

Does that make sense? I think for a 10 person team, generalists are very
useful, and for a 1000 person team, generalists can be tolerated and be very
versatile members who can quickly switch between roles. But I think there is
an intermediate point where the company goals are still very narrow but the
team is big enough that generalists are only useful in a high level management
role.

~~~
overgard
Interesting. I see the framework of your point and I mostly agree, but I still
think that even in this sort of awkward middle period, if you're legit good,
they're not even going to consider getting rid of you as a generalist. For one
thing, they're going to need someone to be able to jump in and help the
specialists out with the larger picture. Not to mention that often your
generalists end up becoming the specialists, after dealing with certain
domains long enough.

If we're talking about a startup of <100 people that is healthy, they're
usually in "expand" mode. You don't get rid of useful people when you're in
your expand mode unless they're a problem.

~~~
001sky
_they 're going to need someone to be able to jump in and help the specialists
out with the larger picture_

Problem is, if you are a generalist (say) with <5 yes experience in total and
8 months at this firm? I'm not sure that works for _anyone_...in that
situation.

Although, I don't doubt there is more to the story. Just would be hesitant to
jump to character over other consideratiosn without knowing (any, real)
details.

~~~
alttab
Who is this straw man generalist? If you are even a moderately capable at many
things that makes you a connector and a power broker. Without agency inside a
larger organization, a generalist without enough situational acumen will fail
to see their opportunities.

~~~
001sky
The straw man is not the generalist being replaced; it is the "emeritus"
advisor to the ceo job that is created out of thin air. Many young companies
have execs that just don't scale as quickly as the company (for whatever
reason...)[1]. Sometimes its just not teneble politically or practically for
them to exert further influence, especially at the C-level. Co-founders and ex
CEOs are often different, in that regards. Compare the trajectory of Jack
Dorsey at Twitter to the engineer that did the original code, but was never
promoted to CTO.

(1) ie, You still can be a very effective "early employee" without being
C-level material in your current compan. That doesn't imply lack fo competence
in the work you _did do_ ; and frankly thats a reason many do change jobs.

------
patio11
One could imagine a company with a young single-digit employee, who is very
good at what they do but difficult to slot into a traditional org chart,
hiring an older industry veteran for a role which will be very well defined.
There might be, hypothetically, political dimensions there: "report to a 25
year old" might be a non-starter for the new VP, who may have connections or
gravitas perceived as key to the future growth of the business in strategic
directions. Conversely, re-shuffling such that the guy who built things from
the ground up ends up reporting to the new guy might also be a bit on the
awkward side.

I'm not discussing any particular company here, but be aware that this has
been known to happen before, and it will probably happen again. I hate to make
age a factor [+], but in particular, if one is in one's mid-twenties, one
identifies with this guy, one works for a company with enterprise software
ambitions, and one's company has recently taken investment and hired the
requisite team of industry veteran executives/VPs... well, I hope you're a
founder. If you're not, consolation prizes are a) you're in the best hiring
market for your skillset in the history of ever and b) you've probably got
what it takes to me a founder next time.

[+] i.e. This is a description of the world, not the world I would like to be
living in.

~~~
yuhong
I wonder if some of them would be good big company CEOs or even middle
managers, given they are generalists.

~~~
neltnerb
I think most generalists are bound to end up in management roles, as they are
most qualified to understand the skills of widely varying technical employees
as well as their own gaps in understanding such that everything fits together
in a diverse project.

------
PhasmaFelis
They did do you a favor, but not only for the reasons you think. They got you
off the sinking ship early. Seriously, what kind of bumbling fuckwit fires a
highly productive employee for not being a specialist? Broad-based problem
solvers are a serious value.

~~~
dchichkov
If other employees of that company are rational they should start expecting
the same thing to happen to them. And desert. So yes, the likelihood of that
ship to sink should go up quite a bit. But it is not guarantied. The company
can succeed regardless, or change, or fail for a completely different reason.

------
jamesaguilar
Applaud your can-do attitude, but I don't agree that makes getting fired a
good thing. I hope you get to keep your equity.

Also, I'm a little skeptical. It's very rare that people get fired while doing
a really great job and being well liked. It's not impossible, but it definite
smells a little unusual to my bs detector.

~~~
alexkorchinski
Nope - no equity. Was a few months away from my one year cliff.

I still haven't figured it out yet. I haven't spoken with the CEO since it
happened. I do know that there was meaningful blowback within the team, but
that's about it.

~~~
michaelochurch
_Nope - no equity. Was a few months away from my one year cliff._

You are surprisingly restrained for someone who got cliffed.

Did you get a severance, at least? An Agreement of Introduction? (That is, the
CEO agrees to a positive reference and to introduce you to investors on
favorable terms, preferably in a legally binding document.) If not, you should
have burned the company down. AoI is the absolute minimum you should take
after getting cliffed like that.

If you have savings, it can sometimes be wise to let them go on severance
(they're cash-strapped) and take the AoI, because a good reference (+ intros)
from a CEO can do a lot for your career. On the other hand, if you got no
equity, no severance, and no AoI and you didn't blow the company up, then
you're a pussy (no offense).

~~~
alexkorchinski
Nope, none of those. I did get about 18 days of severance pay. The CEO did
offer to make introductions, but nothing legally binding. I still like the
company and the team - no use burning bridges. I like to leave on good terms.

~~~
YuriNiyazov
You are mindblowingly naive.

------
mgkimsal
"But get this through your head: if you’re not the best at something, you’re
replaceable."

I disagree. I theory this might be true, but in practice, it's not. I'm often
not the best X for a particular job/role/etc, but _I 'm the best they're going
to find_.

Perhaps especially in software, _THE BEST_ in their field are already turning
down work and forging their own paths. THE BEST developer in tech XYZ is not
going to close down their startup or leave MS or Google or Amazon to come work
for your company's 'agile' team.

I feel pretty strong that generalists have the edge in most cases, because
they _generally_ have a broader background and can see bigger picture stuff,
often can see patterns of how different areas connect (code areas, business
areas, etc). You certainly need specialists at some point, but rarely are
those specialists _the best_ in their field.

I've had a few phone calls with potential clients (and earlier, job
negotiations) where people pulled this "we only look for the best XYZ people".
At one point during a conversation I told someone (politely, I think) that I
happened to know some of 'the best' people in the field they were looking for,
and there was no way they were going to move across the country, take an 80%
pay cut, and uproot their entire family to come work in some mid-level
corporate dev team. On the other hand, I happened to be pretty good and would
be interested in stopping by the next day in person to see if I could help
solve their problem.

Actually, I've used that 'line' (not always the same words, but the same gist)
on a few occasions, and in one case got me a foot in the door. It's more about
delivery with a bit of humor, catches people off guard I think.

~~~
triplesec
This is useful insight, thank you.

------
lpolovets
I enjoyed the blog post and your writing style. I don't have any info aside
from what you wrote about, but it sounds strange that you were fired when you
were doing things like improving conversions by 400%. My gut instinct, which
could very well be wrong, is that either there is a "behind the scenes" reason
for you being let go, or the company is doing something seriously wrong. If
you have any reason to suspect that it might be the former, you should ask
your former teammates. It will help you out in the long run. Anyway, best of
luck to you!

------
Choronzon
People are way to literal here,actually believing what comes out of the mouth
of people who fire one of the founding team 13 days before christmas out of
the blue. This has nothing to do with generalist/specialist of any of the
other assorted lying bullshit they mentioned.

I will propose two theories. The board required a more experienced hire, the
directors bent over. They are growing and got greedy,this is an equity grab.

The attitude displayed by Alex is healthy for his own psyche however this is
not in anyway a good thing. Effectively he was cheated out of his startup
investment.

------
fizx
There's something fishy about this story. Either you're not telling all of it,
or...

You joined before money was raised, and possibly got an oversized equity stake
that is being clawed back. If you were supposed to have more than 1%, I'd
consider it possible. If you were supposed to have 5%, I'd consider it a
certainty.

If my guess is correct, you should talk to a lawyer. You may have options.

~~~
alexkorchinski
Nope, my equity would have vested at less than 1%. I was still a few months
away from my one year cliff.

Lawyer would have been nice, but I already signed an Employer Termination
Contract, so what's done is done.

~~~
michaelochurch
_Lawyer would have been nice, but I already signed an Employer Termination
Contract, so what 's done is done._

You signed it _without_ a lawyer? Dear God...

What was in the contract? Did you get anything? Given that they clawed back a
bunch of equity, you better have gotten 3 months' severance or a _legally
binding_ agreement to positive reference and introductions (at your demand) to
present and future investors. An AoI (Agreement of Introduction) can make it
worth it to go gently into the good night because those intros can make you a
founder in your next gig.

If you got two weeks severance and no AoI, then you're an idiot and you should
stop blogging about this before you embarrass yourself more. (I'm being blunt
because people like you get screwed over every day and the only way to stop it
is to fight harder when it happens.)

~~~
dchichkov
From pure math perspective that 1-yr cliff + 4-yr vesting function should be
imperfect for employees AND for companies. Because of uncertainty of stocks
ownership and a potential to create sharp conflicts of interests, lawsuits,
etc. at the discontinuity. It is fine to have decelerated of accelerated
vesting schedule. But there should be no discontinuities.

On the other hand, from a human perspective maybe having such conflict of
interests is actually _good_. It gives a chance for CEO to show his true
colors _earlier_ and consequently for employees to take note and re-estimate
the risk of having the same experience at some later time or even during the
exit.

------
jere
>3\. I’m a jack of all trades, but a master of none.

I have to commend you on the brutal honesty. I thought you weren't going to
revisit what they said, but you did.

You also mentioned you were fired from another job but didn't provide
details... just make sure you examine what happened in each case and there's
not a pattern. All I mean is I've seen people have to leave a job for certain
behavior, exhibit the same behavior in the next job, and remain in denial
about it when confronted.

------
fleitz
I really wouldn't put much weight behind what's said at an exit interview.
Those things are lawsuit minefields.

The important thing is not that what was said, or the firing, the important
thing is that he's turning down offers.

Offers are what matter and give you leverage through every employment related
negotiation.

------
steven2012
Why the urgency to get rid of you 12 days before Christmas? You would think
that someone that is a valued employee and someone who contributed to the
growth of the company would get treated a lot better than that. They could
have waited until the New Year, or even given the employee an option to move
to a different role. To get him out after 8 months, 12 days before Christmas
certainly doesn't sound like someone who was really appreciated.

~~~
alttab
The timing is likely related to the business cycle. Why communicate next
year's plans to people it doesn't involve?

I can't say why the plans wouldn't involve him in some way. I don't speculate
based on the content of a blog post, and it proves prudent not to believe
rationalizations so close relatively to the event. If he didn't see it coming,
something was wrong, right?

------
shard
It sounds like he was laid off and not fired. The CEO did not mention that his
performance was subpar, or that he violated some company policy or law. The
difference, at least in California, is that collecting unemployment is no
problem when you are laid off through no fault of your own, but if you we're
fired, EDD will need to check with your employer as to whether you we're fired
for just cause, and maybe a hold hearing where both sides present their case.

------
easy_rider
Like others, i'm equally skeptical, and would love to argue that being a
generalist is bad if you are equally good in anything it has tough
sustainability. In working for companies as a dev, this could you in a
position of stagnation. It's really tough to keep up with technology these
days and making the right choices.

Which brings me to the point that you're telling you've built a successful new
website, which boosted revenue. Now that the website is built and launched 2
days before, they are letting you go 14 days before Christmas.

I for one would be pretty upset and demand an explanation other than "a
generalist". It seems like a rather rude and insensible act. To do that
probably means they did not see anything in your skill set that you would be
able to add more value to the company, and so they replaced you with a
marketeer...

I must therefor conclude that your website was a one-page infograph with a
sign-up button.

Sorry but the missing bits of information are frustrating, and given that I
don't see why you shouldn't be pissed off. I would most likely lawyer up.
There are some important bits of information missing to be able to make sense
of your blog.

~~~
the_watcher
He was not a developer. Not sure where you got that. He is a marketer.

------
Techasura
I'm a generalist myself. I'm lucky to see this hasn't happened to me. The best
possible solution for this according to me is when you have a clue that the
company has outgrown you and you are not visible in the big picture, you
should choose to opt out & start finding a better opportunity and be very
confident that you would get one, being a generalist. I had a somewhat similar
situation, it was new year of 2012 that i had to cope up with a failure of a
startup and the CEO handed my cheque with some extra bucks + salary and said
"Good bye" and i didn't know what to do, confused but confident. This is no
where related to the story above but i was employed one week from the time,
that is because i'm a generalist. But i have now concentrated more onto one
area and it utterly sucks being specialist keeping in mind that you were a
generalist before and you got many toys to play with and now its only one toy.
But hey, Cheers! Change is awesome!

------
tarpden
Is there any guarantee that your (about to be former) employer tell you the
truth about why you're being canned? I don't believe so. They may just be
giving you what they think is a safe answer. The real reasons for ending your
employment with them could be anything (good, bad, silly, or even non-
reasons). Nothing to take personally.

~~~
ams6110
You will almost never be told the truth about why you're fired, unless it's
for an absolutely clear-cut policy violation or other similar reason.

~~~
gaius
Being fired is very different from being laid off. In the latter case, there's
no reason _not_ to tell you that say your job is being outsourced.

------
dmourati
The key is to be jack of all trades, master of _some_. Go super deep on one
topic, then switch to another, then another. Now you are the best at two or
three things, while still competent at another dozen or more.

I also agree that the generalist/specialist saying from the CEO was in poor
form and should not be taken too literally.

------
YuriNiyazov
did you get screwed by the 1 year vesting cliff?

------
nabraham
Tangential to the story but the most obvious question is what company fired
Alex - it was Somawater ... drinksoma.com

------
guynamedloren
> _if you’re not the best at something, you’re replaceable_

Bullshit. Maybe this is true for like, an insanely competitive NFL team with
limited slots and deep pockets, but for a growing startup, this is simply
illogical. I hardly believe there's any expectation for all employees to be
_the best_ in their field. Sure, everyone _wants_ the best.. but at the end of
the day, they'll settle for pretty good. Especially if they're already hired,
on-boarded, well-liked and an integral part of the company (which it sounds
like OP was).

~~~
mgkimsal
It's all about what you're measuring too. I would wager that OP was _the best_
business/tech domain expert _for that company_ that one could find, simply
because he was there from the beginning and had a hand in building a lot of
stuff. No one else coming in is as good at knowing the history of the tech at
that company. So, he was 'the best', but they didn't care about that
knowledge.

------
wzy
That was a very good article. The writing style is very "conversational", like
a friend relating a story to you. I have never been fired before but friends
always tell me that after being fired a lot more opportunities opened up for
them. It's like being fired provides them with more impetus to seek a quick
bounce back.

------
smashthewindow
As a high school student looking into the Hacker/Startup scene, I was pretty
scared about the nature of unpredictability and instability of startups. But
this post really changed the view on the whole idea (failure isn't necessarily
bad), now I feel more confident to work on making stuff!

~~~
alexkorchinski
That's awesome and very cool to here (I wrote the article by the way). Wish I
had this mentality in high school. You're young - take risks! Work with
interesting people. Work on cool projects. The rest will work itself out.

------
b123400
I think being a generalist is somehow better (or safer?) than a specialist.

Although you may not be able to find a position in a large company, small
companies really need this kind of people. Maybe the salary isn't high, but
it's relatively easier for a generalist to find a job. This can be important
especially in the technology world where everything changes very fast. Imagine
if you were a specialist in Blackberry making the best mobile hardware
keyboard in the world ten years ago, you would not expect everyone uses
touchscreen now, it would be difficult for you to find another similar job.
Even if you are willing to give up on the aspect you are good at, and learn
something new to chase the trend, it takes time as well.

------
vehementi
I think you can shorten it to "You are expendable" without any qualifiers.
Unless, perhaps, you have dug yourself in so deep that nobody else can do your
job - not because of lack of expertise but because only you know how it works
(bad practices).

------
happywolf
When I read this "I ran a viral email campaign that signed up a person a
minute for the week preceding launch, and then generated a firestorm of media
coverage when the product opened for business. Shit, I had just released a new
version of our website two days prior that improved on-site conversions by
400%.", I was wondering if the OP did all these alone? Not giving credit as it
is due will definitely cause friction once the team grows.

Being a generalist is never an issue, as long as that role contributes value
to the team. Taking oneself too seriously, however, will be.

------
jschmitz28
Blog posts like this make me feel concerned that I'm becoming a generalist
right now and I'm not sure I can avoid it. I'm on a really small team doing
development of both front end (Javascript/HTML/CSS) and backend (PHP for our
back end, SQL db, node server for websocket updates and some other stuff). I
feel like I don't spend enough time doing any one thing in order to be
considered a specialist at any of it, just passable enough to get done
whatever needs to be done at the time.

~~~
aaronem
That's called "full-stack web developer".

~~~
mjmahone17
And lots of companies specifically advertise that they want you to be able to
work across the stack: if they only ever have front-end and back-end
engineers, how will they fight problems that develop at the intersection of
the two?

Being a generalist can be a specialty. In a lot of respects, that's what a PM
is, too.

~~~
caoilte
by talking to eachother?

~~~
mgkimsal
They need to have enough experience in the other side of things to know the
language. I can talk at someone all day long, but if I only speak English and
they only speak Dutch, it's going to take a hell of a lot longer to get
anything done.

------
mojoe
Since you're determined to be a specialist at your next job, what are you
planning on specializing in? I always like to hear about skills people are
excited about.

------
adam222
this guy is blowing his own trumpet all the time, and possibly the reason why
he got fired. If this was the case, it was totally justified.

------
walshemj
a VP of marketing with 25 years experience is a generalist.

Its not like a senior marketing person is going to be in the trenches and
detailed knowledge of all the marketing disciplines.

Sounds a bit fishy to me maybe the incoming marketing guy was best mates with
some one eh?

------
the_watcher
Adding a comment as someone who knows the author: You should hire this guy.
Find a way to interview him at least. You won't regret taking the time to get
coffee with him, at least.

------
dome82
I am not sure that if you’re not the best at something, you’re replaceable. I
think that both specialists and generalist are important at any stage of a
company.

Am I missing something?

------
Kiro
People who don't code are normally replaceable.

~~~
Moru
Don't kid yourself, there are lots of companies all over the world that has
specialized in taking over your coding-job at a fraction of the cost and you
only have to pay per hour, not hire them for eternity. Some of them even talk
english without using google translate.

~~~
Kiro
True. So everyone is replaceable.

