No hiring process has a zero false positive rate. A company needs to be able to fire people quickly and humanely, otherwise good people will leave and you have a mediocracy / Peter principle problem.
If you keep a reasonable hiring bar and enforce a reasonable firing bar, you’ll do fine. Netflix famously did a lot of experiments on this that have been written about in public.
Being squeamish about freeing people to find a better mutual fit job is really harmful, to an underrated extent.
> freeing people to find a better mutual fit job is really harmful, to an underrated extent.
That’s a wonderful corporate speak sentence. I’m almost looking forward to being “freed to find a better mutual fit job.” And I’m not even eligible for unemployment benefits.
Do you think that people who are self-consciously underperforming in a role are happy? Do you think their team is happy?
In software, if you aren’t a complete lemon, you’ll have no trouble finding a new company, hopefully one where you can be a better mutual fit and therefore be happy. It actually is freeing, if you view it with a longer time horizon than the day of your last paycheck.
If you are 100% invested in the long-term happiness of someone who’s underperforming and unwilling to improve (obviously within reasonable bounds of expectations, these are table stakes), the best thing you can do is write them a recommendation and give them severance.
If you find yourself in the unfortunate position of being a lemon in software, you should seek work in a field that doesn’t make you feel or treat you like a lemon. No amount of money will compensate for the feeling that you could be fired with cause any day.
My comment was about calling out the euphemism. Fired or laid off is unpleasant and not to be taken lightly. Let go or, as you called it, freed to find a better mutual fit is disingenuous because it makes it sound like the company is doing the person they’re firing a favour when they’re actually only looking out for themselves with little to no consideration for the human they’re « freeing ».
If I’m the lemon you’re talking about, I’d very much prefer to be treated as an adult (which involves using big, adult words) rather than patronized by the HR dept who is reframing it as if they’re doing me a Favour firing me so they can better sleep at night.
In order for that to happen there needs to be a culture shift, where being fired because you aren't a good fit doesn't mark you as unhireable for most other employers.
Well, in the current culture, if you get a reputation for firing people three months after hiring them, you'll have an awfully hard time finding people who want to work for you. And you will probably see your best workers leaving to work elsewhere.
> Netflix famously did a lot of experiments on this that have been written about in public.
Did Netflix really succeed with their strategy though? I don't see them branching out and making new things, so they seem to lack the people to to branch out into more domains like the top giants do.
No hiring process has a zero false positive rate. A company needs to be able to fire people quickly and humanely, otherwise good people will leave and you have a mediocracy / Peter principle problem.
If you keep a reasonable hiring bar and enforce a reasonable firing bar, you’ll do fine. Netflix famously did a lot of experiments on this that have been written about in public.
Being squeamish about freeing people to find a better mutual fit job is really harmful, to an underrated extent.