Live data from Hacker News

Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people

staysaasy.com

441–450 of 461 posts

Re: Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people

#441
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, and that ignorance is a _privelege_ of power. No it's not. There we go. My statement has as much evidentiary support as yours. Have you ever thought about the usefulness and evidentiary support of using this weird leftist nomenclature to reframe traditionally understood concepts? Like what value did you bring by reframing 'ignorance' as 'privilege' - but 'privilege' not in the sense of the dictionary definition…

With apologies for pulling out the dictionary, but here we go: https://google.com/search?q=define+privilege > a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

Yes. That's the dictionary definition of 'privilege'. Now show me where in that definition is the position of 'manager' cast as a 'privileged' position or an example of 'privilege of power'? You had to import that from ideas put out from leftists writings where this word is reframed and redefined to mean something completely different. This bait-and-switch is a dishonest equivocation on your part because you're hijacking regular, commonly understood words in order to backdoor extreme ideas.

Back to the topic at hand, another way to look at a position of 'manager', that actually matches reality, is to admit that it is a necessary role in any sized organization of people focusing on completing a common task. This is true if the organization is a club, or a sports team or a corporation because there will always be a need, to manage and organize groups of people. This position comes with its own set of responsibilities and accountability and as such frequently the punishments and repercussions for 'misbehaviour' are greater than what a subordinate employee would receive for the same action. It's not an intrinsically 'privileged' position. I made this argument to another poster: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23479872

Re: Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people

#442
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, and that ignorance is a _privelege_ of power. No it's not. There we go. My statement has as much evidentiary support as yours. Have you ever thought about the usefulness and evidentiary support of using this weird leftist nomenclature to reframe traditionally understood concepts? Like what value did you bring by reframing 'ignorance' as 'privilege' - but 'privilege' not in the sense of the dictionary definition…

Privilege isn't weird leftist nomenclature, it's a well-documented fact about how the world works. Some people receive less blow-back for their misbehavior than others, because of their position in society. Whether their misbehaviour is from ignorance or cruelty is irrelevant to this point: More powerful[1] people are more insulated from the consequences of their ignorance. The response to you did not contradict your…

>Privilege isn't weird leftist nomenclature

Yes it is.

>it's a well-documented fact about how the world works

Maybe in marxist writings, but it isn't a 'well-documented fact'.

>More powerful[1] people are more insulated from the consequences of their ignorance.

And that statement is factually wrong in the general case. I made this argument to another poster: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23479872

>Some people receive less blow-back for their misbehavior than others, because of their position in society.

Talk about a truism. Yes, some people receive less blow-back for their misbehavior due to their position in society.

It could be the case that one individual receives blow-back for this misbehaviour because, for example, they are in a position of responsibility whereas someone who isn't, wouldn't. That happens all the time. How about this, in my city, vagrancy is completely unpunished, even though it's illegal, but you're going to get tagged if you let your chihuahua off-leash in an empty park. Are homeless people privileged? Under a colloquial reading of definition, they sure are. But we know you don't mean that because you're importing extreme Leftist ideas into this definition and being dishonest that you are doing that.

Re: Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people

#443
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the sort of comment you should only confidently make if you’re in a happy marriage that has survived at least ten years. Ideally more. If not, you’re speaking in a domain in which you have no experience. Or rather, it’s unclear whether any experience you do have shows expertise. Certain people are more prone to cause divorce than others, and it is dangerous to take advice from the wrong person in this respect…

I’ve been married 15 years and we joke about divorce sometimes (as well as lots of other ‘sensitive’ topics). YMMV

Yeah, I’m not saying that it’s categorically wrong to do. I just got the strong sense from OP’s comment that they didn’t have relevant experience. (You do!)

Re: Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people

#444
post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, that's true but I can't map that to the statements at hand. I understood it to be: P(W) == P(M) and P(W) > P(M)

"In one study" means "In a particular sample." A sample does not always share the same characteristics as the population.

if a study can't be replicated then the study is wrong isn't it?

either the sample was too small, they got unlucky or the result is stated too generally.

Re: Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people

#445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could never tell whether we were talking as friends, teammates or employer-employee There’s an old saying, if your boss if your friend, he’s either a bad boss or a bad friend.

I recently got promoted to be the manager of a guy who has literally been my best friend since we were 10. Anyone got advice about how to not be doomed to be a bad boss or bad friend?

Relax and don't take all advice and catch sayings a gospel. I have risen thru the ranks to the CTO position several times in my career and I brought my friends along with me. If he is a good worker, he will remain a good worker most likely. In my career I have only had to fire one of my friends and it was literally because he developed a drug problem so bad he was showing up to work totally out of it. I counseled him, tried to get him into rehab and did what any friend would do but the drugs had taken hold. I was friends with him for years before that and did not know he had a drug problem before we met. He relapsed and just could not shake it this time.

That being said, there is no doubt the dynamic changes but that does not mean you have to give up your friends. It means you have to be more transparent with them, it means an absolute commitment to honesty so that you remove the feeling that you may be "managing" behind their back.

Jumping back to my friend, I was candid with him that he would leave me no choice, that it was completely unacceptable and that most of all I was concerned about him as a friend. He understood and understood my actions and that it was he who left me no choice.

I had another friend who battled depression, she was a rock star for years and then just hit a wall, due to a life event. I took off my CTO hat, put on my friend hat and worked with her thru it. Helped her build a path to put her life together and helped her get her career back on track. She had some extremely self destructive behavior in the throws of depression and I resisted outside pressure to fire her, due to knowing the sensitive nature of her medical condition, that knowledge came from being her friend not her manager. In the end what I gained was a loyal employee and a rockstar again. What I also gained is a group of people that any time I have an endeavor, I can pick up the phone, make a call and they will quit their job on the spot to join me. Have an unwavering commitment to your people and they will have an unwavering commitment to you, when they know that you are honest to them.

Point being take conventional wisdom with a grain of salt. Don't be jerk and don't manage behind peoples back and you will be fine. But the original point of the article is spot on, never, ever, even jokingly, joke about someones employment if you have a position of power or a decision in that continued employment. It's off limits, but if they are not meeting a standard be honest with them and be honest with them in the short run. Be a friend and put a plan together to get them back on track. Help them be successful, part of being a good manager is being a people builder.

Re: Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people

#446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always had to document and explain why I thought an employee deserved a raise, or should not get a bonus, etc. Even as a director with ~20 reports I don't have unlimited firing power and I still need to regroup with HR when it comes to that. Having that system in place isn't enough. You need that system to have teeth, and you need to have someone with as much power as you who will review your decisions and play dev…

> HR tends to avoid making waves. The only time I've seen HR (excuse the metaphor) plant the flag on the hill they intend to die on, it's because the person being fired or managed out was a protected class of worker. I have never seen HR push back just because the manager had insufficient reasons or suspect reasoning. Second guessing management hiring/firing decisions that don't expose the company to unacceptable ris…

Sure, it may not be HR's function. That's my point. Even with the paperwork, HR effectively never acts as a counterbalance to a bad manager. That's why I list it as one of the reasons why the paperwork that the grandparent poster has to do is often part of a system that only keeps honest people honest.

When I think back to some of the most egregious workplace culture issues in recent memory, such as Uber (Susan Fowler) or Riot Games, HR was, by the most charitable interpretation, unable to stop obviously bad things from happening. By a more literal read of the news at the time, HR was complicit.

Re: Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with this. I recently had an honestly disastrous experience at a job because we tried to pretend that power dynamic doesn't exist. My boss (the CTO) considered me a friend and vice versa, but that made every work interaction so awkward (for me at least) because I could never tell whether we were talking as friends, teammates or employer-employee. I attribute this as both of us being incredibly young (lower 20…

I could never tell whether we were talking as friends, teammates or employer-employee There’s an old saying, if your boss if your friend, he’s either a bad boss or a bad friend.

[deleted]

Re: Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wild part is the part where somebody plays high-school head games, instead of acting like a competent adult does and being forthright about whatever issue there is at hand. I mean, I don't know what your interpersonal relationships in life have given you to consider a normal and healthy way for people to interact for one another. But I can absolutely tell you that what we're talking about here is neither of those…

I haven't experienced the OP's described behavior that I recall. I was trying to make a clear contrast with behavior that is much worse, which I have experienced a lot. If you're having such a hostile reaction, should I suspect you think the "much worse" behavior is normal and healthy?

Not at all. You're right that there are much worse behaviors than the one under discussion, but there's still a vast qualitative difference between "not as bad as it might be" and good.

Re: Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people

#449
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You could call it transparency Nope. 100% passive aggressive, toxic behavior.

It matters a great deal whether someone is doing something to deceive or confuse. So whether it's toxic behavior depends on context. If someone is reliable and trustworthy in their communication, then calling them "toxic" because you don't like the style is just wrong. Conversely, someone can tell you all day every day how honest and straightforward they are, but if they aren't consistent or trustworthy, then their c…

The point is that there's nothing reliable or trustworthy about passing veiled, pointed comments behind someone's back and expecting them to read your meaning out of context and circumstance, rather than just stating your concerns directly.

Such behavior fails to offer the report a fair chance to know what's expected of them and, presumably, how they're not meeting those expectations. It has much more in common with the kind of dysfunctional communication you see in unhappy marriages, than with anything I require of a manager - or, should I eventually join management myself, with anything I'll provide my own reports.

That's what "toxic" is a shorthand for. Yeah, I'll grant it might be consistent. But to be consistently bad isn't, you know, not bad. Being able to predict the bullshit that is going to happen doesn't make the bullshit not happen. It just means you can see it coming. I'll concede there may be reasons to tolerate it, if the benefits of the job outweigh the bullshit. But that doesn't make it not bullshit.

(And, as a side note, anyone who talks about how honest or straightforward they are - that's a big yikes from me, chief. People who are legitimately honest and straightforward don't need to talk about having those traits, because their behavior reflects them. People who do need to talk about having those traits are, in my experience, very likely to be trying to cover their lack.)

Post reply on HN