Hacker News Reader

Being fired implies a lack of choice, a forced move, usually a specific end-date that you're going to be gone by. There's a power imbalance in the interaction which is so devastating to people.

I tread very carefully around the comparison and fully admit the different scale, but this kind of power-imbalance is exactly the reason why kidnapping and rape are considered so serious. The psychological damage the forced actions have on a person are painful. Being fired sucks because there was no choice involved, your life is changing right now and there's nothing you can do about it because you have no power.

The article is talking about a method by which that equation of power imbalance is shifted to something more equal in nature. It's about getting the other person to agree to the statement "I should not be working here, in this role".

When both sides agree, it stops being a power-imbalanced forced action and becomes working together to find a better place to be in the future. That's the core difference here.

I've seen it done right, and I've seen it done wrong, and I am in awe of the managers I've had who can do it right.

Agree fully. The responsible thing to do is to give people as much advance warning as possible that things are not working out, so that it's ultimately in their hands. As I said in another comment, the sad part is that it's so rare for it to be done correctly. This should be the baseline.

No, the OP did not make clear that the employee "didn't have a place in [his] organization". He made clear it cannot continue like that - but that leaves the employee a chance to reflect on and change his attitude towards the job.

Yeah, the difference is subtle. I know I was fired like this once, and I still say I was fired, but from the boss' actions at the time? I think he was super surprised that I made that choice; he fully expected me to do the "do this thing" part of the "do this thing or quit" ultimatum.

I mean, it was an ultimatum, but as far as I can tell, I could very well have simply done what the boss asked of me and kept the job.

I think the ultimatum here might have had more than two options. "Adapt to the situation and be happy, don't adapt and be miserable but know that complaining about it will be ignored, or leave"

I wonder how different that is from just saying "No" when asked to fix things for the employee. I'd view that as being a terrible manager, but not as a firing.

It is not always an option to fix things for the employee and the OP did not provide enough context to judge whether this was the case here or not.

And, if both parties parted as amicably as claimed by the OP, how bad can the management have been?

My point is that this was a similar situation to what we normally write off as "bad management". I'd say OP did not follow the traditional bad manager path, and found a better approach.

>My point is that this was a similar situation to what we normally write off as "bad management"

why? because there was an ultimatum? I don't really see it as bad management. Sometimes it doesn't work out, and that's fine. Sometimes a relationship that worked last year or last month doesn't work anymore... and while that's sad, it's also natural and should be okay. And sometimes, it's clear that the employee and the employer are moving in different directions. This is okay.

I think that employees need to stop thinking that getting fired is the end of the world, because it puts them at a serious disadvantage.

That's the thing; the negotiation doesn't end when you are done negotiating salary; and work is almost a constant negotiation. If you aren't willing to walk, or if you aren't willing to let the other guy walk, you are going to get screwed. Relationships end; it happens, be prepared for that eventuality financially and emotionally, and learn to move on.

(replying to my own comment, sorry) -

Parent comment was suggesting that we would call a boss simply saying "no" to an employee asking for some change to be bad management. And that's a pretty reasonable assertion, unlike the straw man I constructed through poor reading comprehension.

So the question then is "why is an ultimatum okay when just saying "no" isn't?"

and that's a good question. I mean, I guess it's explaining that, you know, this is something the boss isn't going to change, that the boss would rather change the employee than change the thing the employee is asking to change.

so... I guess that is better than "no" because it conveys a lot more information. I mean, you could get a similar effect, I think, without the ultimatum with a sufficient "no, and here is why:" but the ultimatum conveys more information about the employers priorities.

Yep. You pretty much answered your question.

Management sometimes has to make crappy decisions. Good management is being transparent even through crappy decisions. Bad management is being opaque through the same crappy decisions.

No, firing and resigning are clearly different things (as is laying off). If your analysis were correct, then nearly every time a person parts ways with a job, it would be via being fired by their management.

The issue here was that the entire workplace isn't going to be reformed for a single employee. It's clearly a mismatch. The employee can then choose to adapt to the way things are done, or they can choose to move on -- which is what happened. In a firing, the employee has no choice, the decision has been made for them.

This is pretty clearly not firing. Firing comes with an entire bag of other things that resigning does not. For example, a person who was fired might be able to collect unemployment while looking for a new job. A person who resigns is not. A person who is laid-off is automatically able to collect unemployment.

Companies also are called by future employers to find out the nature of the split, and the way the separation happened will be in the employee's file. Many companies will also keep a record of why the separation happened.

In the first case, convincing somebody to resign is a favor to the company, because companies must pay into the unemployment pool. In the second, it's a favor to the employee because being fired can have long-term career consequences to them.

There is such a thing as "constructive dismissal".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

Yeah, but saying "I don't think this job is a good fit for you" is not the same as making work a hellish environment that sane people have no choice but to leave.

That was my impression, too. If I were given that kind of talking to, I would immediately start looking for a new job so that I could avoid being officially fired.

Yep, it's passive-aggressive firing.

She's rationalizing away her avoidance of her discomfort and making it sound like a favor to the people she's letting go.

There's more to it than that. Firing an employee has more legal consequences to a company than having them resign. For example, the company will likely have to pay unemployment taxes to cover the unemployment benefits an employee is likely to receive.

Resigning a position also allows an employee to save face and will be documented in their employment file and provided for reference checks from future employers.

Actually, it is a favor.

The employee is effectively being asked to leave and they're doing a controlled transition. In many cases, this is the best way to go.

This is _similar_ to firing people by putting them on a "performance plan"-- which as almost everyone knows is the "nice way" to fire someone in a corporate environment. Anyone who is put on a "performance plan" had better start searching for a new job immediately. It is definitely better than being fired outright, but there's a phony aspect to calling it a "performance plan".

The approach in the article, I think, is more honest and instead of beating around the bush, gives an opportunity for the employer and employee to transition. For example, the employee would then be free to get out of work and go to interviews and the employer could have the employee train their replacement, all with minimal hard-feelings.

> In many cases, this is the best way to go.

Except, without severance and ineligible for unemployment benefits.

If the employer even offers severance.

No, it's not firing. Firing would be telling that employee their attitude and/or output made them a bad fit and it was time to go.

This is the manager explaining that unless that changes, it will be time to go, and giving the employee the choice between changing it, or a gradual way to leave that benefits both parties.

It's not rationalizing anything. It's being responsible to her position (keep the best people working in the best environment possible) and to her employee (treat employees with respect even if they don't fit)

So I would prefer to be "fired" this way.

But how would it be interpreted legally? Would I be eligible for unemployment benefits? Severance?

Those questions might lead me to "stick it out" to get fired in a traditional manner. Of course, if my boss were sincere about this polite manner of firing me, I would hope he/she would do it in a way that would allow me to have those benefits.

> Would I be eligible for unemployment benefits? Severance?

No.

People who choose to terminate their own employment are general not eligible (in the U.S. at least) for unemployment benefits and most employment contracts will not provide severance unless the employee is laid off.

No, not in the US. However, given a month or so with knowledge that you're leaving, I would imagine that as this person is training their replacement they are also spending their time searching for a new role that fits better. Once it's out in the open there's no "hiding" interviewing at another place.

In the type of transition outlined by the author, the idea is that those issues become moot. You'll stay on the job (getting paid) until you've got a new one and your replacement is trained. Then you'll start your new job (also getting paid). No time going without income, or at least not a significant amount of time, means you don't need unemployment benefits or severance.

The story is from the manager side. I wonder how it is told by the fired employee. Been in this situation before, not that nice as it's told "I helped him brainstorm about jobs he’d be happy in." So you know of jobs that do not exist in your org. LOL

I assert that it would be erroneous to call this a firing, precisely because a the primary reason people use the word, "fired," is because it implies 3 things:

1. Something I did was bad enough that I don't work there anymore

2. I didn't have time or space to plan for this

3. I feel injured and sad that this occurred

Anytime you don't satisfy those criteria, the situation isn't really what people think of as a 'firing,' - even a well-handled 'firing' implies extreme discomfort and bad feelings between the associated parties- it doesn't make sense to use the word if the situation doesn't correspond to the primary differentiating characteristics of that word vs. other similar words!

For example, 'laid-off' strongly implies that it wasn't really anything you did, though it does imply that you weren't the precious, necessary performer on the team. "Laid-off" is fairly neutral- you might return to work for that company again, etc. "Fired" strongly implies a much different situation. I mean, if we want to work on redefining the words, so that a situation like this can be called a "well-handled firing," that's all fine (though I might assert that it's wasted effort), but as it stands, I think that you'd have to spend so much time and so many words explaining how this firing was different from all the other firings people are used to seeing, that not calling it a "firing" at all makes the most sense.

Have a splendid day, quanticle! :)

If the employee had stopped complaining and pretended to be happy in the job, then I don't think he would have been fired. Yes, he would have been miserable, but he would have been able to keep a job if he needed it. That's a huge difference. It's sad, but lots of people hate their job, but continue to plug away at it in silent resignation, because they think it is the best way to support themselves and their family.

You are making a presumption that the employee could not be happy in the job.

We do not know what the job is, we do not know what it was that upset them, we do not know how easy to avoid it could be.

An example I am aware of is an artist who was problematic about the limited scope of their employment. They always wanted to make the project into an animation with music etc. but this isn't what the clients or other members of the team wanted.

Long story short his sister got a boyfriend who showed him that the job would never change, so he made animation projects in his spare time as a portfolio for other jobs.

Turns out when he wasn't being arsey and problematic he could do his existing job faster, so managed to reduce work to 3 days a week. Its a good stable income whilst he fails at incorporating music into personal projects.