(no title)
deltaoneseven | 4 years ago
I work at anduril and I know of a new manager who 6 months into the job fired 2 people and had one person quit because he couldn't handle dealing with him.
The manager obviously is blind to see the statistical significance of that many people gone in 6 months. He likely views it as a performance problem of 3 people rather then the more likely 'him' problem.
Keep in mind if you're fired it has hugely to do with the perspective and the personality of the people judging your work. Sometimes that judgement is valid, but just as often it is not valid at all. Additionally keep in mind the political motivations and machinations going on in the background. Along with firing people for political reasons... Many people not suited to be managers.
If you find yourself in that situation where you are fired do not ignore the reasoning behind why your manager fired you but also be sure to weigh it against many other opinions because often your manager is making an unjustified decision.
A lot of the stories in this article are justified though. One person was judged and placed under several people so they could all make an accurate assessment before piling the plug.
alexjurkiewicz|4 years ago
You can't tell from "statistical significance" if a firing is good or not. Maybe those three people have needed to be fitted for a while. Maybe, as the article says, it comes down to job-fit and the three employees are great people in the wrong job.
There are bad managers. But you can't identify them solely based on numerical analysis of turnover.
deltaoneseven|3 years ago
3 people being simultaneously not fit for the job is quite unlikely.
You have a choice here. Either 1 person is unfit for the job or 3 people. 1 person being unfit though not for sure is Far more likely.
By one person I mean the manager is not fit. But in these cases usually the manager side steps the numbers and thinks he's doing the right thing.