31–40 of 189 posts
Given a shortage of supply for a job, firing early might not be a good idea. It takes months or even years to find an appropriate good fit for a job. Sometimes it's easier to just give the person another chance, than to fire him and have no one to do the work.
Weirdly, I think we would all benefit quite a lot from a normalization of fast firing. Part of the reason it's hard to get a job is that companies are afraid to fire you, so they jump through all kinds of strange hoops to try to predict how good an employee you'll be based on, really, no information. This also forces companies to filter out "possibly good" candidates and only hire "probably good" candidates. If it we…
So, you have solved the "how do I track a developers usefulness to the company"-problem? Without that I don't see how that plan could work (and that ignores all the other problems others have already pointed out).
Note: The problem exists for other positions too, developers are just an example.
It takes time to build trust, at least several months, maybe even years. If you fire everyone before you even get a chance to build up trust with them, you'll never get a great team.
I think it comes down to supply and demand too. If you have 10 qualified applicants, I'd be more apt to fire quick and reach back out to the pool to find a better fit. If it takes 3 months to find a qualified applicant then I'd be more likely to be patient in building trust and working through challenging times. That said, I've fired people after a day on the job. If the hiring process failed, no sense in wasting my…
Weirdly, I think we would all benefit quite a lot from a normalization of fast firing. Part of the reason it's hard to get a job is that companies are afraid to fire you, so they jump through all kinds of strange hoops to try to predict how good an employee you'll be based on, really, no information. This also forces companies to filter out "possibly good" candidates and only hire "probably good" candidates. If it we…
I can't imagine wanting to be an employee with the level of risk you're proposing.
I like the article, and it has some really good ideas. And it is not about making firing people easier or cheaper. It is about on how to decide when to fire someone. About firing fast and easy, it is a bad idea. I work in Sweden. I don't think I have seen ever anyone fired. What I have seen is some of the best hiring processes. The process looks at the candidate values, and skills. And there is a discussion about wha…
>Both seem related. Cheap and easy firing produces careless recruiting. And that is more expensive that people realizes. Well put but doesn't address context. If I just got gas-fire funding, intending to blow up my company, I will need to hire a dozen people a month. It is a risk. But so is taking 200 hours to hire 1 person. We are in the business of balancing many risks with many rewards.
If there is a clear need, the hiring process should come about naturally, as in tests to see if people have a certain set of skills and if they are a cultural fit.
I suspect the race to adopting whatever is hyped at the moment (known as "let's rewrite in...") is partially due to this hastened hiring process.
Weirdly, I think we would all benefit quite a lot from a normalization of fast firing. Part of the reason it's hard to get a job is that companies are afraid to fire you, so they jump through all kinds of strange hoops to try to predict how good an employee you'll be based on, really, no information. This also forces companies to filter out "possibly good" candidates and only hire "probably good" candidates. If it we…
>My next company will have explicit rubrics for what it takes to get fired, and your status will be tracked daily >You'll know at all times exactly how close you are to getting fired with how much severance Good luck getting anyone to stick around! People want job security, they don't want to feel like they're walking on eggshells every day. You seem to think the only thing people want out of a job is money. >Anyone…
Just a note, this isnt about firing junior people fast. That is absolutely scummy. This is about hiring/firing very senior, well paid people with lots of prior experience. If you are hiring and then firing junior people fast, you are the problem.
> If you are hiring and then firing junior people fast, you are the problem. I'm going to challenge this point of view. It is absolutely, and obviously, expected that junior people have a ton to learn, and they should be given leeway for that learning process. So yes, if you fire a junior person because you're not willing to put in the mentorship necessary, then I agree, you are the problem. However, junior people re…
Being a bit naive, making mistakes, and needing ramp-up time is to be expected, especially from a junior hire. You absolutely need to give time to correct that sort of thing, and firing fast is not a good move. Some of the best devs I've worked with needed a few months to ramp upbefore they hit full stride.
On the other hand if someone is dicking around instead of working, being insubordinate, refusing to try to improve, upsetting coworkers, etc., then you've got behavioral problems on your hands. And those are absolutely good reasons to fire if they persist beyond an initial stern warning.
Given a shortage of supply for a job, firing early might not be a good idea. It takes months or even years to find an appropriate good fit for a job. Sometimes it's easier to just give the person another chance, than to fire him and have no one to do the work.
This is a similar logic to folks that "settle" with marriage. It's not a long term win, and if you're not building for the long term, why do it at all?
It might not be causation but correlation, but nonetheless, you are wrong. Marriage is definitely a long-term win. For the short term, there is Tinder.
Just a note, this isnt about firing junior people fast. That is absolutely scummy. This is about hiring/firing very senior, well paid people with lots of prior experience. If you are hiring and then firing junior people fast, you are the problem.
> If you are hiring and then firing junior people fast, you are the problem. I'm going to challenge this point of view. It is absolutely, and obviously, expected that junior people have a ton to learn, and they should be given leeway for that learning process. So yes, if you fire a junior person because you're not willing to put in the mentorship necessary, then I agree, you are the problem. However, junior people re…