>You'll know at all times exactly how close you are to getting fired with how much severance

Good luck getting anyone to stick around! People want job security, they don't want to feel like they're walking on eggshells every day. You seem to think the only thing people want out of a job is money.

>Anyone we fire we'll sit down in the exit interview and write a plan for how they can get re-hired in a few weeks or months if they're interested.

I don't think you know what firing means. It's not a mutual decision and you really don't want that employee working for you at that point. It's a serious legal risk to re-hire fired employees.

Interesting, I'd never heard that before. Could you possibly expand on that?

That's interesting to hear. Could you explain in what way?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

* Fired with cause - gross reason: sexual harassment, illegal activities, etc.

* Fired - incompetence, laziness, other ineptitude related specifically to the employee, but nothing illegal

* Laid off - financial reasons or business direction reasons for the company. (Some people who are borderline performers get swept up into lay offs, which helps the employee save face.)

In the latter 2 cases, people generally get severance arrangements. In the last case, people are generally eligible for re-hire should conditions or direction change.

And "let go" subsumes all forms of involuntary termination, both layoff and firing.

You're correct in spirit, but no one ever uses the phrase "laid off" to mean "fired". "Laid off" usually means you were let go because of say, financial problems in the company, no need for your position, etc. "Fired" implies cause.

You're right. "laid off" would tend to mean "made redundant".

Surprising as it may seem, I am going to have to disagree with you here.

If someone is performing poorly, the most likely explanation is that they are unhappy with their job, for whatever reason.

And the best way to handle the situation is to figure out what is making the employee unhappy.

And sometimes the problem might not even be solvable for your company. And in that situation, the best outcome for both of you is to end the business relationship.

And your comments feel noble but a bit unrealistic to me as far as general employees go.

First, there's a cost to bringing people into an organization. Letting everyone in and then having some or most of them flame out seems like a huge drain on resources -- including emotional resources.

Second, the idea of being tracked daily against some firing metric sounds a bit hellish for employees. It seems like it'd breed a lot of negative reactions ranging from gaming the system all the way to nasty politics and back-stabbing along the lines of what apparently happened because of Microsoft's stack-ranking system.

So, again: I respect the ideas. But I'd be concerned about how they'd play out in real life.

Is this something out of Dilbert? Sounds like a quantification-obsessed culture -- the very opposite of ensuring qualitative assessment. Will probably just run to the ground as people flee the hell-hole as soon as they can find better pastures.

Yep, it was a line spoken by Dogbert. /s

Hi, I'm whatshisface, and unscrupulous team lead from the 1970s, when metering code seemed pretty workable. I can write 100kloc of code a day (my editor is set to convert spaces into line breaks) and commit once per typed character. Also, I'm a great team player who can work with QA to file and fix thousands of trivial tickets every week. If those numbers aren't what you're looking for, I'm also a social butterfly who can ace any peer ranking on charisma alone.

When can I start?

That might work well for people that are unemployed, but it'll be hard to attract anyone that has a secure job with such flimsy offers.

"So hey, listen, this isn't working out, so for the next few months you're going to have to worry about feeding and clothing your child unless you find a new job real quick. Please sit down and write a plan with us about how we can rehire you in a few months if you dedicate all your energy on providing free work for us instead of getting a job!

Oh, by the way, would you want to start a business instead? We value your work low enough that we'd like to fire you, but if you can pay a few of the people we deem low performers out of your own pocket and provide that work for us for free? Even better."

Things might be different if everyone was doing it like you say, but as it is right now there's a lot of work and friction involved with changing jobs. Getting hired is an ordeal during which you're not getting paid. If someone receives an offer from A with which they can be 90% sure that they'll have the position in a year or two if they want it still, or from B where they will most likely have no job again next week, why the hell would they ever choose B? Let alone common scenarios that come with job change such as moving a family, buying a house in a different city, intentionally leaving a specific position elsewhere to gamble on this one, etc.

I'm almost certain you'd be signing yourself up to employ the worst the labour pool has to offer, which is going to suck no matter how quickly you fire because you're still going to have to be on boarding them.

I can't imagine wanting to be an employee with the level of risk you're proposing.

So, you have solved the "how do I track a developers usefulness to the company"-problem? Without that I don't see how that plan could work (and that ignores all the other problems others have already pointed out).

Note: The problem exists for other positions too, developers are just an example.

That said, I applaud your proposal to have a very high level of transparency with employees about their performance and their future prospects with your company.

Maybe firing means something different in your company/mindset, but I understand it as as an instantaneous cessation of reciprocal obbligations, or (allowed by the Law of course) one-sided termination of a contract, the one in which you give me money in exchange for my work, i.e. for my time.

Maybe it is just me, but I won't be sitting anywhere for no [insert strong word here] "exit interview" nor write down any "plan" the second after you have fired me, or you'll have to pay me really good money to have me sitting down for the time needed to hear your re-hiring plans and write my own ...

I've had hundreds of employees under my direct or indirect supervision. Other than pre-career fast food type gigs, I've had to fire 2 for cause. Even in the fast food/retail gigs, I think we canned like 5-6, for attendance problems or pilferage... most problem people there came down to needing a frank discussion about showing up on time and could be addressed without termination.

People aren't robots. Your supervisors, managers and leaders need to know how to hire and manage people effectively.

> When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure

That's my prediction. But I haven't run a company myself so who can tell.

The valley has enough volatility - we don't need more.

it is possible if you offer employees a lot of money. some financial companies do things like this (fire 5% every year) and manage quite well but i doubt it works in sectors where personnel costs are significant.

If you have been fired in a week or so then you know the psychological impact of these practices.

Contract to hire at temp agencies doesn't afford this level of flexibility (at times)? Maybe not 10 companies in two months, but I can think of multiple cases of contractors brought on for one-off jobs lasting two-ish sprints being retained beyond that.

It was just downright awkward to go for the 4th or 5th interview. Everything was really good, but now the cto needed to meet me as wel etc etc...

I'm used to one interview (2 tops) to get started one week later. I've never been let go, but I think there is less taboo about firing contractors.

One wonders if the company you're talking about has so much trouble making any decision, or only this sort.

That is priceless. A true gem.

Things are sometimes done more quickly at smaller places, but even then it's fairly common for employers to offer termination agreements, typically for a few months salary, to avoid even the possibility of litigation.