
There is no such thing as good hiring, only good firing - mmt
http://www.fonality.com/blog/there-is-no-such-thing-as-good-hiring-only-good-firing
======
autarch
This actually makes me want to work there. At past jobs I've often been
frustrated by management's inability to let go of problem employees. If the
team isn't gelling or someone just isn't contributing, changes need to happen.

Note: someone might say that _I_ was the problem, which may be true, but I
wasn't let go either, so my point still stands ;)

~~~
exit
what kind of problems did these "problem employees" introduce?

------
geoffc
This works incredibly well. At my last company I fired about a third of the
engineers I hired after 3 to 6 months and ended up with a great technical
team. I never know how good an engineer is going to be during the interview
process but after 6 months it is blindingly clear.

I am upfront about the winnowing process during the interview, it scares some
candidates away but I often get a very positive reaction to this "meritocracy
by proof" approach. Another advantage is you can take some flyers on people
with nontraditional backgrounds and find the occasionally diamond in the
rough.

~~~
DavidMcLaughlin
> This works incredibly well. At my last company I fired about a third of the
> engineers I hired after 3 to 6 months

Wow. I wonder, have you and this smug author ever considered that you are the
problem?

Interviewing is a two-way process, it's the candidate's job to back up
everything that's on their resume and make sure they present an honest view of
their ability but it's also your job to decide if someone is a good fit for
your team before making them quit their comfortable job and move to your
start-up. By firing a THIRD of all people you convince to join your company,
you are both incompetent and irresponsible. Precisely the kind of harmful
deadwood people enjoy see getting fired.

~~~
philk
I'm not sure it's possible to make the right choice every time when hiring -
and even if he's firing a third of his hires it means that he's getting it
right two thirds of the time.

Given how lousy interviewing is as a method for discerning quality employees,
I'm not sure that's a bad result.

~~~
hga
While I agree with the essay (will write on that next), firing a full 1/3 of
those you've hired is going to be very debilitating for the organization. And
not something I think most startups will be able to afford.

And if you report or have to answer to anyone, they're not likely to be
impressed that you hired _that_ many duds/people who just didn't work out.

~~~
mmt
_And if you report or have to answer to anyone, they're not likely to be
impressed that you hired that many duds/people who just didn't work out._

I think it's important to note that the author is writing from the viewpoint
of a serial entrepreneur, which means the context is small startup
environments.

Presumably he still might answer to a board, but those may all be co-founders.
Regardless, I don't think they would need to be impressed by his management
style so much as his end results.

~~~
hga
How many startups are funded entirely by real co-founders? Some, I'm sure, and
a lot more now, but is that the exception rather than the rule?

So if you have "normal" investors, unless the board that includes them is
_really_ hands off they'll notice and I can't imagine it will help his
credibility. If it's that hands off you're in trouble in that they aren't
likely to be very committed to the venture.

~~~
mmt
I'm not suggesting funding entirely by co-founders but, rather, controlled by
them.

It also seems a bit like speculation, unless you're a VC or angel who has seen
this.

------
jacquesm
As an employer you will find yourself with the quality of employees that you
deserve. Treat your employees right and they'll be loyal and hopefully will
treat you right in return. Treat them bad or whimsically and it will come back
to you just the same.

Employer-employee relationships differ from country to country but the above
is I think a universal truth. Be a 'bad boss', hire and fire at will and
you'll find that your employees will continuously be on the look-out to see if
they can do better before you have a bad (pointy) hair day.

Treat them well and they just might amaze you in what they can do for you.

Managing people always was the part of the job that I dreaded the most, as the
ceo of a relatively small company. The biggest reason for that was that it
took time away from my 'first love', computer programming. But I hope that I
never treated the employees of my company as cold and heartless as the article
suggests, I'd be interested to hear his employees side of the story.

Different strokes for different folks, it is very well possible that this
strategy will work for a certain style of CEO, in a given job-market and
location, but I'm fairly sure that it would not have worked for me.

I'd rather spend a bit more time on the hiring side of things and get the
right people on board than to go for a 'trial-and-error' approach like this
and to have to go through the painful (for all parties) process of getting rid
of a third of the new hires every six months.

I have a particular problem with the sentence:

> Your team thinks you suck if you don't have the chutzpah to fire.

That speaks to me of a CEO that is at heart a very insecure person.

You don't fire people to show you've got balls.

~~~
tptacek
He wasn't saying that you fire people to show you've got balls. He was saying
that teams will think less of you as a manager if you don't fire bad people.
And he's right about that.

~~~
starkfist
Hiring and firing bad people manifests itself as additional chaos to the
others who are trying to get their work done. For those in the trenches, those
doing the firing will have already lost credibility for hiring the bad people
in the first place.

~~~
tptacek
I'm sure you're also right, but I'm not sure what your point is. You can't
_keep_ bad people on the team.

~~~
jacquesm
But you might be able to find a way to make them an asset to your organization
any way. There are many kinds of 'bad'.

There is 'incompetent', but that usually comes with a specific field of
competence, maybe the employee has different skills and can be given a new
role where they're more productive and happy.

There is 'anti-social', this is a real problem and should probably have been
caught at the hiring time, a person like this is going to have a hard time
being a part of any team.

Then there is 'not in this team', if you have only one team then that's easy,
but if you have more of them you might try a different one.

There are the 'loners', people that can't work with others but have to do
everything their way, these are usually better suited to become entrepreneurs
themselves (I had one guy like that working for me and I helped set him up to
start his own business and he actually succeeded in an amazing way).

And so on. So even if you can't keep a bad person on the team there are a few
more steps before you bring out the shotgun.

I've literally fired exactly _one_ person, the reason was that he was starting
up a competing service and at the same time approached our customers. That was
reason enough for me for an on-the-spot termination when I found out.

Other than that we never had any issue that we couldn't resolve amicably or
part on good terms without having to resort to firing someone outright.

------
gonepostal
Is it just me or is ignoring the interview process in favour of the firing
process as poor as the opposite? The best method is to weight them about
equal.

Have a rigorous interview process where you try to hire only the best fit. If
the new employee is a failure, have the ability to admit you made a mistake a
correct it. Best of both worlds.

Firing a new hire is not a cheap process and it does affect your
reputation/company morale.

~~~
jacquesm
Absolutely true. I'm really surprised at the attitude of the article, it
almost seems as though firing is seen as a replacement for a good interview
process, and to shore up a lack of authority by instilling fear or showing
'guts'.

------
jason_tko
This guy is brilliant. He's got a number of similar excellent posts on a
variety of business and tech related subjects.

Straight, direct, clear and refreshing communication. I recommend you go
through the other posts at <http://www.fonality.com/blog/>

~~~
gaius
He's wrong, tho'. The #1 reason that managers don't fire poor performers is
that firing is a huge, huge pain at most companies. Everyone might "know"
they're a chump, but HR will want proof in writing, over a period of time, and
god help you if the person is any sort of minority.

Which is why in most companies poor performers get "promoted" to where
hopefully they can't do too much damage. If you're lucky, they can be
contained to writing reports that no-one reads. If you're not and someone
forgets _why_ they were promoted, then they might actually end up in charge of
something, and no-one wins. Except for the HR department. They always win.

~~~
hkarthik
The corporate job where I'm at right now has this exact problem. HR has made
termination require a LONG process that starts with a 6 month "performance
initiative plan" before enough data can be collected to fire someone. And even
then it requires a tremendous amount of executive level approval.

We've had lots of incidents in the past where older employees would play the
"I have a health issue" card to avoid being fired. Just to avoid getting sued,
the company would capitulate and "promote or move" them away from the manager
who didn't want them.

Part of the problem is that as companies get bigger and their pockets get
deeper, an entirely new class of employee enters which is low skill, highly
cunning, and completely untrustworthy. Unfortunately, in my experience, most
of these individuals always fit a certain profile: Middle Aged Men (50+) Low
level of education

Most of these people are hired for two reasons: 1) Need someone for grunt work
(support/maintenance) 2) Need someone that will accept a very low salary

Once a few incidents happen, HR and legal issues take over and begin the
stranglehold on operational efficiency that infects large organizations.

------
wheaties
This was great, however, it also rests on the premise that management and
those above them has the knowledge and ability to recognize what constitutes a
bad employee. Sometimes, through their own ignorance, what is "bad" really is
good. It's so sad that that type of problem permeates the software industry.
Firing "bad" people fast should be a good thing but only if you can judge bad
from good.

------
j_baker
This is a refreshing alternative to the "better to turn away a superstar than
to hire a dud" approach that seems so common. I've always felt that it was
caused by risk aversion anyway.

~~~
pw0ncakes
What's missed here is that being fired, for a lot of people, has real
consequences. I don't think I'd take a job where I thought there was a 1/3
chance I'd be fired in the next 6 months.

If you're a startup, you're hiring people who understand the lack of job
security. If you're a large company, there's no excuse for firing 1/3 within 6
months: you can move people around until they fit. If you're getting rid of
more than 10% in the first 6 months, you're doing something wrong.

My thought: we should have a real safety net (including universal healthcare
and a basic income that _everyone_ gets, even the gainfully employed
millionaires) and then allow companies to hire and fire whomever they want,
because no one's life gets ruined by the loss of a job. But this would be a
radical departure from the society we currently have.

~~~
hga
Is there any hire at will (which as a term of art includes firing and leaving
at will) European country with socialized medicine and the dole?

I told that plenty that make it so difficult to fire a person that they have
high youth unemployment rates (e.g. France), but the above three _with_ a
strong "Protestant work ethic" might work out well. Or the incentive
structure, if a lifestyle on the dole is too good for too many people, might
be disastrous in the long term.

I'm inclined to think the latter will be the outcome but wonder if we have any
tests of the proposition.

~~~
pw0ncakes
_Or the incentive structure, if a lifestyle on the dole is too good for too
many people, might be disastrous in the long term._

Within about 50 years, due to technological advancements, we'll have 20-40%
paid employment (not unemployment) and there'll need to be some sort of dole.

Personally, I think it would be great to have a society where people don't
need to work. The people who only work because they have to wouldn't be
working, which means that the people who are working are those with ambition
and talent, and only those.

~~~
hga
The arch-conservative and historian part of me tells me in reply that "The
Devil finds work for idle hands." For a pre-Christan example of this, look no
further than Rome's initial "bread and circus" period.

The wealth gained from the Republic's Third Punic War had an ultimately
disastrous result in all sorts of ways.

That said, you're absolutely right, we will _someday_ have a true post-
scarcity society, although the near total suppression of real nanotech
research in the last quarter century makes me leery of predicting any dates.

~~~
hugh3
What do you mean by "the near total suppression of real nanotech research in
the last quarter century"?

~~~
hga
Spend some time on this site: <http://e-drexler.com/>

Start with this item at the end of the home page: Changing the narrative in
the U.S.

In short, "the establishment", e.g. existing chemists appropriated the buzz
Drexler created while not actually doing what he was promoting for the usual
parochial reasons plus in many cases a genuine and legitimate fear of what his
style nanotech will bring about.

~~~
hugh3
Right, so the failure of significant progress towards Drexler's vision must be
due to some kind of secret conspiracy of physicists and chemists rather than,
say, the fact that atom-by-atom assembly is ridiculously hard?

I should probably vaguely mention that my PhD work was not entirely
disconnected from the idea of fabricating devices by placing individual atoms
in locations with sub-nm precision. I suppose I should be offended that nobody
let me in on the fact that we're supposed to be suppressing that kind of work.

~~~
hga
It wasn't secret! See e.g. the "debate" Nobel Chemist Smalley had with Drexler
in _Scientific American_ and then I think the JACS. Smalley started out with a
straw man ("fat fingers") in both, which is not a sign of honest intent.

The bottom line is "where are the grants and research centers for Drexler
style nanotech"? Either he's lying about this---I'll admit most of my info
about this is from him or people in his orbit---or he's mostly right.

Or let me put it this where: when you graduate, where are you going to be able
to go to work on "Productive Nanosystems" in his style? Name names, this
should be something you're looking for or at least aware of, or can ask about
tomorrow when you go into "work".

ADDED: I _know_ it's "ridiculously hard", for if finances hadn't gotten in the
way I would have most likely eventually gotten a Ph.D. in work "not entirely
disconnected from the idea of fabricating devices by placing individual atoms
in locations with" atomic precision in the '90s.

~~~
hugh3
_where are the grants and research centers for Drexler style nanotech_

Same place as the grants and research centers into warp drives and unicorn
husbandry?

~~~
hga
Ah, it would have been easier if you'd started out saying "beyond the
foreseeable state of the art" or "impossible". Then we could have discussed
that issue.

However your appeal to authority (that authority being yourself) does not
falsify what Drexler has said about this or his evidence.

~~~
hugh3
And if you'd started out by saying "I think that full-on atomistic assembly
nanotechnology isn't being taken sufficiently seriously by the scientific
community" rather than "nanotechnology research has been suppressed for the
past 25 years" then you'd have had a more sensible argument.

------
dkasper
A great book that espouses this principle is Fire Someone Today:
<http://www.firesomeonetoday.com/> There's a lot of other practical
entrepreneurial advice in there too!

------
rnugent
Just looked up this company on Glassdoor. As I suspected this jerk has created
a company culture of suspicion and hate. He himself is not respected by his
team as is proved by his abysmal rating. As a potential employee I'd take one
look at this review and head for the hills. An example -

"“Lord of The Flies Meet Corporate America.”

Pros

Product works well and is fully supported by a highly skilled team. Some
positions offer work from home.

Cons

Management plays favorites for their friends and plays immature games. Nothing
you shouldn't expect from a company that had a fight club. Overall the upper
management doesn't seem to care about their employees rather tech support or
sales. Constant turn over in the sales department lead by myopic management
team. You will love the atmosphere with your coworkers but despise the
management for their lack of respect and unethical conduct.

Advice to Senior Management

Treat your employees with respect. You can not expect your customers and
channel to respect you when you constantly cut good people from your team. I
would advise the executive team to seriously look at their management who has
regular turnover. Sometimes its the process not the person."

------
Kilimanjaro
I've had so many spineless bosses it's not even funny.

~~~
Tichy
I remember reading that bosses are most likely to have a heart attack while
firing people. It's not easy.

~~~
pw0ncakes
In a way, it's an admission of impotence. When you fire someone, you're saying
that you don't have the resources or power to turn that person into a success
at your company.

The "resources" angle is crucial. Large companies can afford to have a non-
producer for 6 months and train him up to being able to contribute, and they
generally should. Startups usually can't afford this.

Of course, this excludes the cases where a person is fired for doing something
seriously wrong or unethical. But I imagine it's much easier to fire in those
cases.

~~~
hga
I don't think it's within my power or anyone else's to turn many people into a
success if they can't grok pointers, recursion and/or abstraction and one or
more of those is necessary for the job (I'm assuming a small enough startup
they can't be put someplace "safe").

I'm pretty sure the abstraction bit is innate (I'm assuming they've passed
high school math), and very sure I can't teach it nor is it my duty to.
Pointers and recursion are not so bad (but again, in these sorts of situations
I'm probably not in a position to get them up to speed on something so basic
and so far reaching in effects (especially unsafe pointers)).

~~~
pw0ncakes
If you fire someone who can't understand basic programming concepts, the
mistake you made was hiring that person.

~~~
hga
Indeed, which is why I test for each of those necessary concepts, as detailed
elsewhere.

------
devinj
Huh, whatever CMS he's using didn't enter in his HTML comment as, well, a
comment. Up near the top of the article: "<!-- If what I write makes me look
like the grim reaper of CEOs.-->"

------
hga
Very interesting. And it agrees with the one unique piece of advice I give
people who are considering whether to go to work at a new firm, "Try to
determine if they can fire people."

One quibble:

" _It takes time to glean an employee's pithy attributes: work ethic,
intelligence, attention to detail, enthusiasm, even personal hygiene._ "

You should be able to judge at least initial enthusiasm in your interviewing
process or you're not doing a good job of selling your company or it's an
impossible sales proposition. Either of which you should do something about at
a high priority.

But I'll admit that sustained enthusiasm is what really counts and of course
only time will tell WRT to that. And I'm not sure what you'd do with people
who take some time to warm up to a situation (ADDED: well, make sure they've
been enthusiastic about at least one prior job; if they're too young to have
any/many and are already cynical you'd probably best pass on them :-).

For programmers you should be able to get a reading of intelligence and
attention to detail in the interview as long as you do minimal testing
(perhaps Fizzbuzz, my preferred 3 tests of reverse a linked list (pointers),
recursive factorial and find error in this block of code, etc.).

Having them work out loud with you a relevant design problem is also good,
although recognize that only 1/5 of programmers "get" abstraction (according
to the Antipatterns book and my personal experience); if you need/can afford
having programmers who don't get it, you'll want to gauge their ability to
follow orders and "do it this way" "just because" the architect says so.

(There are potentially lots of slots in an organization including a startup
for all sorts of competent people, e.g. look at the 2nd _Coders at Work_
interview Brad Fitzpatrick, the Live Journal Founder. They had an older
employee who produced _awful_ code, but they loved him since his forte was
quickly figuring out difficult integration problems which no one else liked to
do or was good at. He handed them messy solutions filled with duct tape and
bailing wire and they mined the interfaces from them and made clean versions
that fit with their system.)

Anyway, my advice is to pay close attention to what this author says, just
don't let it cause you to significantly relax your hiring system since hiring,
working with and then firing duds is _always_ debilitating for all concerned.

~~~
pw0ncakes
What if they reverse a linked list using a language like ML or Haskell where
pointers aren't required?

~~~
j_baker
Personally, I'd take a good understanding of functional programming as a
substitute for a good understanding of pointers. I mean, the point of the
exercise isn't to find out how well they know pointers (they'll rarely use
them anyway). It's just a way to figure out how smart they are.

~~~
hga
See below at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1331995>.

When I was doing this, groking pointers was required and functional
programming unfortunately just wasn't an option. E.g. during this period LISP
was anathema (even to the point where one project at the beginning of this
decade died because it could only be done in something that productive but use
of it was rejected for no good reason).

So my test _was_ for understanding pointers as well as figuring out how smart
they are _at programming_.

Plus as noted when things get ugly (e.g. in some debugging situations) groking
pointers is required and as long as Johnny von Neumann's initial hack
architecture rules that will remain true.

Today, I would most certainly take someone with "a good understanding of
functional programming as a substitute for a good understanding of pointers",
I'd just make sure a few also grok pointers and other low level stuff.

(I am _so_ happy we have exited the Dark Age of Programming Languages.)

