

Ask HN: Would you fire this developer? - anonymous1041

A few months ago, our start-up hired a new developer. Unfortunately, he is not working out. He fits in poorly with the team for two basic reasons:<p>* He is a weak contributor. He is neither proactive nor especially attentive to detail. He is slow -- slow to understand existing code, slow to write new code, slow to solve problems, slow to get things done. The quality of his work, once complete, is sometimes good, but frequently mediocre.<p>* He is a poor cultural fit. He does not have a good attitude. He is often negative and complains.<p>We have tried to coach him on some of these things, and he has gotten a little better over time, but honestly, I think he simply lacks the talent and the right personality for this job. I do not think he would ever sufficiently change or improve.<p>(For what it is worth, we see this situation as a huge pile of fail on our part. We made a bad hire. We are changing our hiring processes to attempt to avoid making this mistake again.)<p>It is well known that our company is actively recruiting developers. Were we to terminate this person's employment, it would be clear to everyone that we sought to remove this person in particular.<p>Is it appropriate to fire a person like this? What is the kindest way to do so?<p>Note: I am in an at-will employment state.
======
portman
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

"Hire slowly, fire quickly" is an oft-repeated maxim for a good reason.

As for the most humane way to fire someone in a startup, I have a few thoughts
(borne from several misfires earlier in life):

1\. Sit down with your employee and give them a formal warning. "You're not
performing up to our expectations, and if things don't improve within 14 days,
we're going to have to replace you." Give them a list of specific items to
work on.

2\. On the day of the firing, _always_ have two people from your company
present in the room. This mitigates a surprising number of "he-said/he-said"
type disputes, and also (surprisingly) leads to a less contentious
conversation. If it's just the two of you, the odds of someone saying
something they'll regret increase substantially.

3\. Be generous with severance. I've never regretted giving an employee 4 full
weeks of severance, no matter how junior.

4\. Be direct. Resist the urge to treat it like a high-school breakup (i.e.
"It's not you, it's me.") I have always been advised by HR professionals to
_never_ mention "cultural fit", as it's a gateway to wrongful termination
suits. However, I have been ignoring this advice for about a decade. I believe
an honest firing trumps a legally "safe" firing.

5\. Most importantly: don't plan on doing anything else for the rest of the
day. Take your team out and order drinks. If your other team members want to
go home after lunch, by all means let them. In a small team, terminations can
be very emotional for everyone, and nobody feels good about working right
after their coworker got canned.

~~~
iuguy
I find your fire quickly maxim terrifying, but then again I live in a
different culture with different labour laws.

Do you really think that OP's man management skills could be so infallible
that he's already getting the absolute best from this guy? If he's not a
cultural fit, then it's distinctly possible that the things that motivate the
others don't motivate him. Surely it's better to make sure that the employee
is as motivated as he can be, and is given an opportunity to improve before
just throwing him out of the door.

I would never again work in the types of places that follows the maxim you
describe. I've worked in those types of places before, they're horrible,
hollow experiences where everyone chants about how awesome they all are and
pulls all-nighters instead of being with their families, just to hide the deep
seated job insecurities underneath.

~~~
portman
Where are you from?

You're absolutely correct that hiring and firing, like all management, is
highly dependent on culture.

In North America, the overwhelming majority of research has shown that
organizations that "hire slow, fire fast" have _more positive_ work
environments, with _happier_ employees and _lower_ job insecurity. You could
literally fill a small library with the books and papers that have been
written on this topic.

I would love to know more about your culture and the "hollow experiences"
you're referencing.

~~~
iuguy
I'm from the UK, and have worked for American companies before. My experience
with working for American tech firms (and I'm not saying that they were like
this because they were American, my sample is way too small to draw any
conclusions) is that compared to the UK they tend to overwork people, focus
heavily on building a culture with an overly (for UK culture at least) gung ho
spirit a la 'yeah, go team foo!' - which in my experience (and again, not
saying this is all American firms, just the ones I've worked for) means people
working crazy unpaid hours, pressure to go out after work (if you're not out
drinking after work you're not part of the team - I've seen two ex-colleagues'
marriages break up because of this) and a corporate kick-off culture that
seems to be more about a Ballmer-esque 'Ric Flair impressions contest'[1] than
achieving real results. For me personally, this doesn't line up with my
culture and as such feels forced rather than based on genuine bonds - hence
the hollow sensation you've quoted.

By contrast, British companies tend to focus more on getting the job done,
going home and spending time with the family. Sometimes you pull late ones,
but you're not expected to be in the office at 9am the next day. In some
places there's beer after work, but you're not expected to go (at the risk of
being denounced as a 'non-team player').

To provide a comparison, working in France is completely different. In France
the work-life balance is shifted further towards the life end, in the Middle
East (if you're a local) even more so.

[1] - <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc> \- ok, that's an extreme
example, but tone it down about 97%, crank the alcohol levels up by 40% and
you're roughly where ISS was in 2001.

------
eengstrom
You sound exactly as I did 12 years ago, right down to the rationale and the
description of the employee.

If you haven't fired this engineer yet, or started moving in that direction,
feel free to contact me directly at eengstrom@gmail.com. I'm happy to talk
through it with you. I am not an HR generalist or a lawyer; I am a seasoned
manager with over 20 years of experience who takes his responsibility to team
and company very seriously. I can tell from reading your post that you are
clearly struggling with this.

While I do agree with portman's advice below as it clearly shows experience
and thoughtfulness, I disagree with most comments in this thread on several
principles:

1\. I hire quickly, trusting instinct. 2\. I fire very slowly, if at all.

One key trick to understanding humans and being successful with them is that
despite marketing demographics we are all motivated differently and relate and
filter things differently.

Each time you make a decision to let someone go, ask yourself whether the
employee failed or whether you did as their manager and leader. There are
clear cases where a person shouldn't be in your organization, but practice and
experience has taught me time and again that an employee's failure is the
direct result of bad leadership, laziness or a lack of character - in the
manager.

Clearly the person was qualified enough to obtain the position. Everything
after that is up to the managers and leaders in your organization. If the
person just isn't fitting in, can't offer value for the cost, at least make
sure after you've sacked them that you understand what about that person
misled you in the hiring process.

Years ago I built several organizations and led each for over a year. One hire
of the last company constantly irritated me, I mean really, constantly bounced
up and down on my last nerve, cutting away with a hacksaw...

1\. I was not understanding what this employee needed from me to be successful
in assignments, or even about what I expected in terms of work ethics and
acceptable use of time at work.

2\. The employee understood that I was dissatisfied but I was giving him mixed
messages by not being frank with him. I was trying to over manage his problem,
which wasn't a technique that worked.

3\. I was not fair with this person because I treated him the same way as the
rest of the team. A big mistake considering that two team members were total
rock stars, upbeat, proactive, interested and fully aware of how lucky they
were to have their position. I really, simply, didn't know him nor did I
really make time to get to know what made him tick.

So I started to work on his separation process and as a part of it, I pulled a
few members of the team aside and asked them what they thought. No one really
had a problem with him, except that, shockingly enough, he didn't seem to
understand my direction and wasn't able to make progress.

One of my .. hah .. junior developers said to me, "Hey, Robert is just the
kind of guy that needs a list.". Since Robert was on a team of people that
generally needed less input that the rest of my departments, I was kind of put
off by such simple feedback.

So, I started shifting assignments to Robert that were moment to moment, short
tasks and within weeks we had his productivity up, I had learned a valuable
method of evaluation and had realized fundamental gaps in my own skills and
abilities as a leader. Within a month, Robert had taken over as a team floater
and input/output guy. The entire technology wing of the company came to rely
on him five or six times a day; when you're building a tech and a market at
the same time under pressure and on tight budgets, this was invaluable.

Basically Robert became the technology group's go to guy for anything from
packing up deployments to testing functionality to scripting self-tests. You
name it. The key was understanding that Robert needed short term
accomplishments, measurable tasks and in a short period of time, he and I and
his manager learned a very rewarding style of working together.

At the end of the day, properly utilized and managed, Robert became a star in
his own right. If engaged, he would easily get jobs done faster than anyone
else in the company, and while needing more maintenance and direction than
other team members, he was a huge savings in time and distraction for so many
others.

Don't fire your guy until you've had a chance to analyze why there is a
breakdown. You're doing yourself, your initial impulse on hiring him, and the
employee a disservice.

~~~
getonit
That - in a nutshell - is the difference between 'finding' and 'growing'
staff, and I'm of the opinion that we should be shooting for growing unless
there's a damned good reason to take the shortcut of just finding.

It's an easy productivity tweak for your whole operation to just switch how
you look at things from the other opinions posted here to this way, IMHO.

~~~
eengstrom
Thanks for supporting the dissenting opinion. :)

I've had to grow a large staff in the dearth of available people in the 90's
and we did just fine technically. Mentoring and leading isn't just managers.
Picking people that are able to conceptually and effectually lead in their
technical role, (while more challenging to find and often harder to manage),
are great force multipliers.

Hiring is an art best practiced by the person on the hook for results, not an
HR or hiring consultant or some other source. You really need to build a
village of skills, personalities and often sense talent before the individual
is even aware of it.

I love team building and I love helping individuals rise to excellence.
Probably the single most rewarding aspect of my career.

------
anonymois
We had to do this recently as well. You have to get rid of him. A poor
performer in your staff will drag down morale and destroy productivity.
Keeping him on will send the message that you don't care about performance.

It is acceptable for you to fire an employee that is not performing at the
expected level, in the same way it is acceptable for a new employee to leave
after a short period of time if the job doesn't feel like a good fit.

Removing him will assure everyone else at the startup that you care about the
quality of people you keep around; it's very hard to be dedicated if you know
there are poor performers dragging things down.

------
blrgeek
Been in this situation. Didn't let-go due to emotional reasons. Became much
more messy later. Reduced entire team's performance.

Still regretting it after two years. We could have used the budget for a
better performer!

It might help to think you're not 'firing' the person for non-performance.
Rather you don't have a good fit with him.

There may be other organisations where he may well thrive with more structure
and direction (perhaps in services).

------
staunch
Don't think for one second you have any choice. You absolutely must fire him.
Companies start to suck because of these people.

I highly recommend exchanging a generous severance (6-8 weeks) for a signed
agreement waiving his right to sue for wrongful termination (and anything
else).

Every day people sue companies because they know how easy it is to get them to
settle. Get him to sign an agreement and pay him for it. Get a lawyer that
specializes in labor law (in your state) to draft the template.

------
niels_olson
Consider acute adjustment disorder if less than 6 mo, if greater, consider
untreated depression. Ask him to assess external factors (gf dumped him, dog
died, kid diagnosed with something awful (scale of ten, death is an 8), went
in debt to move to you?)

If you are transitioning and need to start getting reproducible results from
employees, consider getting a psychiatrist or psychologist to help you build
profiles for successful and in-trouble employees.

~~~
lsc
eh, I have personally been diagnosed with ADD, and I don't perform all that
well without medication. Psychiatrists and medication can help /a lot/ - but I
still disagree with the advice. As a boss, you need to tell the employee what
you need, and if he or she can't provide that, you need to let them go.

Telling someone "go see a psychiatrist- get medicated" /almost always/ leads
to an even more negative reaction than just firing them outright. I mean, this
is something that is /very difficult/ to tell someone who is a close friend
without encountering a negative response.

on the other hand, if you /can/ provide health insurance that covers that sort
of thing, by all means, do so. If you can encourage people to use the
psychiatric portion of the company provided health insurance during the
insurance orentation (not singling out one person) that's also great.

I'm just saying, you can't really say to a guy "hey you... you need to go get
on some medication." I mean, it probably brings up all sorts of legal issues,
too; I'm just saying on a social level, you are going to get a better reaction
telling the guy to jump off a bridge, even if you have a good point.

~~~
niels_olson
>As a boss, you need to tell the employee what you need, and if he or she
can't provide that, you need to let them go.

Really? I'm pretty sure "taking care of your people" is a huge part of a
boss's job. I certainly take it as part of my job as a boss. Would you fire
someone with a broken leg who refused to go to the doctor? What about a torn
ACL? You can walk without an ACL, your abilities are just degraded.

> /almost always/ leads to an even more negative reaction than just firing
> them outright

From a young, single man's perspective, maybe. But in the end you're just
helping this person kick the can down the road.

> Hey you, you need to go get some medication

That is definitely not what I'm advocating. But a boss should definitely have
the gumption to assess the situation coldly, understand all the options, and
expect the employee to make a decision _before_ firing them outright.

>I'm just saying ... I'm just saying

You need to talk less and think more.

------
bdclimber14
Hire slowly, fire quickly.

I don't think it's a matter of if, but a matter of how.

------
iuguy
If you can easily replace him, in the cold heart of day then you should look
at all the options. Firing him is one, but it's better to look at his skills
and weaknesses and see if there's anywhere else he would fit to still provide
value.

The kindest way to do so is this:

Before you fire him, try to measure what he's doing and the value he
generates. Look for alternative employment for him in company as an option and
bring him into a meeting room with two people, explain that he's
underperforming and develop a performance improvement plan with him as well as
offering the alternative employment if it's appropriate. Minute the meeting,
give him the option to change the minutes and get him to accept them over
email. Re-evaluate his performance again over the next couple of months and
make a decision. Once that's made, bring him back into the meeting room,
inform him of your decision, stick to it and act on it.

Having said that, you're in an at-will state so the type of thing I've
described probably doesn't happen there. It's really down to you, but I've
always sought to get the best out of my employees. Not everyone is a rockstar
(to abuse the word horribly) but some people can be solid, dependable backup
players.

You should also think about the effects of terminating this guy's employment
on the morale of others. Unless it's obvious to everyone else that he's not
doing his job, or that he's causing friction and problems in the office people
may react badly. You need to manage this.

------
zdean
Documenting their performance is probably key. I don't know about "kindest",
but I think this is probably the most professional thing you could do. This
way, they have a clear idea of what your expectations were (which you should
have communicated at hiring and during reviews) and how they failed to meet
those expectations.

I don't know what state you're in, but even in some at-will states, you could
be on the hook for wrongful termination...documentation will go a long way in
protecting you on this front as well.

~~~
TheCowboy
This is a good approach.

At the very least, it helps to have been clearly communicating expectations so
they're aware that they're not meeting those expectations.

Honestly, few are going to disagree based on your description. The way you
presented it makes it seem obvious. I think you're more likely trying to
overcome personal qualms or guilt about having to take this action, which is
perfectly normal and shows you're still human, when you already have your
decision made. It sucks, but it may be necessary.

You can present it as a choice: they have to want to work harder and longer or
your organization may not have been what they were looking for---that it isn't
their optimal fit.

------
HelgeSeetzen
If the sitution is as described then the obvious answer is yes. People don't
change, so attitude issues are hard to rectify once the settle (certainly not
in the timescale of a young startup).

That said, the big take-away shouldn't just be to change your hiring process
but rather to (also) change your management process. I find that staff
attitude is set by both sides during the first few months of employment. At
that point it "locks in" and is much harder to change later.

------
markszcz
Dear anonymous, I don’t have much experience in firing people but I have read
and watched quite a number of startup books and videos to understand a
reoccurring theme when hiring people, especially for a startup: Make sure they
fit, and don’t drag down your company. One huge red flag was how he does not
fit the groups culture. His skills might suck but if he was a punching bag for
other developers to throw ideas at him and in turn it helped them solve their
issue, at least that’s good. From what it sounds like this guy's personality
within your company is uncanny to a dead moth. I remember this chapter from
Rework from 37signals: <http://37signals.com/svn/posts/1430-hire-managers-of-
one>

Good luck and tell us what happens.

------
dwc
As zdean mentions, document. Take that seriously.

Many positions I've worked in the past had an explicit "probation period" of 3
months. However good your hiring process, sometimes you just get a bad fit.
Try really hard to hire well, but be prepared for when it doesn't work. I'm
guessing you didn't specify a probation period.

Something I've heard good things about is moving someone into another role
rather than fire them. I understand if you don't have that option as a
startup. Also, if this person is truly negative then you really don't want
them in the company at all. But if the negativity comes from them recognizing
their own poor performance then moving them into testing or something may get
you a win. This seems tricky, and relies on excellent judgement on your part.

------
ludicast
"Nice guy I don't give a f _& k. Good father, f_&k you, go home and play with
your kids. You want to work here close!"

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AXTx4PcKI>

Probably not the best "formal warning", but fun all the same.

------
ewams
The best time to fire someone is the first time you think about it.

~~~
dman
Yes thats how important decisions are made.

------
Pooter
Just do it. Keeping someone around who doesn't pull his weight AND has a bad
attitude is poison. Cut the losses (yours and his) and get it over with.

Also, don't give advance warning and don't give reasons. Warning just creates
risk for you and stress for him. Giving reasons is legally problematic, and
he's not going to believe what you tell him anyway.

Just tell him that it's not working out, that you wish him the best, and hand
him a final paycheck. Severance might be nice, if you can afford it.

