Hacker News Reader

Even if it's not a lengthy process to fire them, as someone in a leadership role I believe it's the duty of leaders to not switch to a firing mindset, but to exactly do what this article suggests. Mentor, Lead, Coach. Set clear expectations especially on how your direct reports can measure their contribution. A fast feedback cycle that any employee can tap into to see their progress is very important.

Hiring is not easy, so when I hire, I'm really their biggest cheerleader. I want everyone to succeed, if folks reporting to me succeed, that often means I'm doing my job, makes my life easier, means I made a good hiring decision. I'm not saying that I'm a smart manager, but good managers don't wish to see you fail, they really wish to see you succeed and will do everything possible to make that happen. Just saying this because I know plenty of folks are distrustful of managers.

Just tossing in a different perspective....

Everyone has their own style and this is not mine - nor do I believe it is the duty of the manager to do everything they can to rehabilitate someone. Depending on the context, I would go as far as to say that doing so could potentially border on being an immoral disservice to your company, clients, shareholders and team.

Time is the most valuable and scarce of resources. Managers are responsible for executing on their mission (within the legal boundaries of the law and value system of the organization they serve). I have a lot of things on my plate and am responsible for the livelihoods of over 100 people. I want everyone to be successful and we certainly wouldn’t knowingly hire someone we didn’t think would be. If the day comes where it’s clear a person doesn’t get the job, want the job or have the capacity for the job (to borrow from Traction), it’s time to go and go quickly preferably. I would include in this people that would take an inordinate amount of my and the teams time or resources to get there.

There are presumably others who get/want/have those things and it’s my duty to serve THEM in an effort to further the mission I was hired to do.

Neither of us are right / wrong of course. We just have different styles.

Managers are literally responsible for managing people who report to them. If you don't have time for that, maybe you just don't get the job.

What parent wrote - he has time and is responsible for managing people.

What you might not see he is responsible for giving his time to people who contribute positively. Spending time on pulling someone up is taking time from solving issues of others. Where their issues are probably more tied to job at hand and delivering value to the customers.

So what he means is that yes, one should help someone who falls behind but it is not fair to put too much effort that will be taken away from others. It is also not fair for the customers.

How can you judge what is fair share of time to help someone? It depends on a situation of course but mentoring someone 1 on 1 for months or making day a week only for such person is just too much.

"What you might not see he is responsible for giving his time to people who contribute positively."

So a manager only has to manage people that are good performers and easy to manage, but those that are hard to manage should be just fired? That sounds a bit too convenient for the manager.

If someone's underperforming then it is absolutely the manager's duty to correct that through coaching and leadership before they reach for drastic measures.

Btw, let's not bother to use the customers as an argument. They don't give a crap that Bob from accounting is underperforming. This is normal in any company and par for the course

And sometimes "managing" is firing an individual.

When I was brought in, I had one employee who somehow got hired way above his competency level. Everybody liked him, but he was too high in the technical chain.

We had a long conversation because I simply couldn't take the time to teach him--it was a startup in which we simply didn't have time (we died about 6 months later). Either he had to go down a level (including salary) or he had to start looking for a new job. I was even happy to give him a decent referral ... but for a lower level.

He left for a new company--I think he managed to keep most of his salary, but I know he had a downleveled title. He did quite well.

Had I been in a big company with runway, I could have taken the time to teach him. And it would have likely been better than trying to hire someone new since everybody actually liked him.

Managing is about balancing conflicting goals. If you think managing is easy, please stay away from it--your team will be better for it.

Interesting anecdote for startup managers, but on the other hand one must keep in mind that startups are caricatures of companies that can't be used to draw any conclusions about how a normal company can or should operate.

Maybe this is why laws like those in Scandinavia or France, etc. were invented: to motivate managers to try harder to do their job of managing people.

Wow, refreshing. To me, the most interesting part here is the incentive. It sounds like they ultimately just wanted to rise to the standard once it was made exhaustively clear. The important part here probably being that, by including peers, they know the feedback is coming from the right place, which is disarming.

Disarming is an excellent way to describe it. When the people who you feel that you're on par with point out that you're not pulling your weight, there's no place left for self delusion.

I’m curious, how long does it take in Scandinavia to fire someone? From my experience in large American tech companies, it usually takes around a year of documented underperformance.

I'd say a year would also be a reasonable estimate here once the person is out of their 6 month probation period. It varies by country how much easier life is during the probation (easier in Sweden, not super much easier in Norway, not sure about Denmark). However, I've heard cases where HR people simply refuse to go through with the actual process because they don't believe the case is strong enough.

Interesting you've experienced it taking a year in the US. I would've assumed with employment at will that it was easier, but I guess they want to cover themselves from lawsuits.

Legal risk is nowhere near the limiting factor in how quick big U.S. tech companies are to fire people. There's something of a culture of doing so very gradually and reluctantly. I suppose this is because firing people is unpleasant and requires admitting things we'd rather not acknowledge, and big tech companies can afford to put it off for a long time.

I should have been more specific - I meant a year from the time at which the employee starts performing badly, not from the time a manager decides they want to fire someone. A typical timeline in the US would be something like, someone is performing badly for a 6-12 month period, then the employee's direct manager decides that firing is a possibility, then the employee does a PIP for 1-2 months, then either it is decided that the employee is doing better and should be retained, or the employee is fired.

> He ended up being a sold contributor.

A gold contributor?

I think the parent meant solid.

I'd guess "solid"?

No I think they sold him for parts.

My bets are on this one.

I've fixed the typo now.