In her own words, and seems like its the way the company works, she had a 3 month ramp - which I presume is along the lines of training, mentoring, pairing, learning the ropes by example etc - and then let lose to get stuck in, which as she says has been only one month that overlaped a holiday period.

It sure seems like Cloudflare are just culling staff to me, or her manager has no managerial abilities and doesn't know how to give genuinely useful feedback.

If it was her performance that was in question, there would be a trail, maybe even a car crash worth of evidence to back up that claim.

I don't think she will have issues finding work, unless having high standards, conducting yourself in a professional manner, and fighting for yourself and for your peers are considered a bad things.

I think Richard Branson (Virgin) once said, "Treat your staff how you would like them to treat your best customer." - unfortunatrly that doesn't appear to be the mantra at Cloudflare.

She was in sales and sold nothing. 3 months is a long time to be unproductive.

People complain about corporations sending out emails to notify people they have been fired or laid off. This person posting a hit video is a prime example why companies make things as brief as possible with no interaction available.

Sales people generally (in sensible firms) aren’t expected to sell anything in their first quarter while they learn the ropes, the product, etc.

It’s also not expected to make any real enterprise sales during Q4 or the beginning of Q1 - those are usually dead times of year.

Unless your sales org is a puppy mill/boiler room… which many are.

Also, in this case they cut a huge amount of the sales org, this seems more like a “shit we over hired and need to lay people off without it being a layoff, let’s use performance…” shenanigans.

> It’s also not expected to make any real enterprise sales during Q4 or the beginning of Q1

I've worked at a few enterprise software companies in the US, and Q4 is always the busiest time for sales. Having a deal roll into Q1 is very undesirable, so sales people do what they can do close before the end of the year. Q1 is incredibly quiet.

On the Engineering side, yes - Q4 and Q1 are super quiet as sales is driving the economic machine in Q4, and everyone's doing planning in Q1.

> Q4 is always the busiest time for sales.

Yes, but not if you're still ramping. The sales cycle for Cloudflare is probably 6-24 months. Unless you've stepped in on a deal that's basically about to close, you're not going to be closing just because it's Q4.

I worked in quite a few sensible firms. A salesperson not selling anything for 3 months was never heard of because they would have been fired long before that. A 3 month ramp doesn't mean produce zero results. In case anyone is wondering, results for a salesperson means selling things.

That she goes on to try and rub their noses in her shortcomings tells me all I need to know who was at fault here.

Q4 is a dead time of year? I swear some of you have never had jobs.

> A salesperson not selling anything for 3 months was never heard of

It's funny that you say this then go on to accuse others of never having had jobs.

I've worked around enterprise sales for years and it's entirely possible for reps to go 3 quarters without closing business if they're in a strategic patch or they're trying to build a new vertical/geo. Sales cycles run anywhere from 6-24 months of you're selling enterprise software of any substance or scale, and unless you're getting hot deals from the last person, you're going to be starting most of those at 0. That's why we have ramps.

That said, there are definitely metrics you can look at to see if someone is on the right path at the 3/6 month mark. It's just not necessarily closed business.

Corp sales isn't like low-margin, high-volume sales where you're expected to always be closing right from jump.

The deal sizes are usually much higher; consequently, you need more people with authority to be in agreement that the purchase is worth it.

To do that, you need to make relationships, navigate corporate hierarchies, get on calendars, etc. All of that takes time.

It is possible that this person wasn't doing any of that, hence the termination. This is very unlikely if this was a bulk termination. Doubly so given that she was hired so close to the holidays.

She had 3 months of training, only 1 month of actual sales with the december holidays in the middle, what is it exactly that you don't understand ?

> 3 months is a long time to be unproductive.

I mean yes.. but depending on company policy on training/Co thats expected...

She was on a ramp. New sales don't sell first quarter. She isn't selling lemonade, she is selling deals worth 10s of thousands.

The problem with judging any of this is the same as knowing your history lessons and sources.

All we've really got to go on is Brittney Peaches account and Matthew Princes account and neither are going to be reliable sources. We'll never know if what Brittney Peach said is reliable and we'll never know if what Matthew Prince says is true.

Why is Brittney’s video not a reliable impartial account? Also note that nothing she says about her performance and feedback is in any way disputed during the call. They had nothing to say to the contrary.

We don't actually know what her manager said to her during all her one to ones. We don't know what feedback she was receiving. Just because the person on the other end of the call did not dispute any of the things she raised, it does not mean she was correct and not biased.

We also see from Matthew Prince's reply to the video that he is also an unreliable participant as he is suggesting that a manager would always be involved in redundancies, and we can see from the video that was not the case.

HR is not going to argue on a call like that, so the viewer will always see a one sided account. The decision has been made, and not by them. They likely do not even know or have access to that information and are given a list and told "fire these people today." She could have come to work drunk, and you would still not hear about it on a call like that. I don't like it either, but it is the way things go at big corps.

We might never know if it was "justified", but we have everything we need to judge how the termination was delivered though, and that one is a shitty look for Cloudflare.

We also have the words of the HR loons who couldn't say anything consistent. So we kind of have both sides.

I would hire her in a second. She saw something unethical and made it public at risk of personal cost. Hiring her is like sending the message "we aren't afraid of this happening because we don't do that." I would view hiring her as a positive sign for a potential employer.

Not only that, she comes off as authentic and sold her side of the story very well with that video. She speaks clearly and cogently, even while emotions are clearly bubbling. I think that video shows her skills as a salesperson in action.

Good leaders hire people who keep them in check. Poor leaders hire people they can walk over.

She is making them pay a much greater cost than her severance in PR and that benefits me because I am more likely to be in her position than I am to be in the CEO's position.

I straight up won't work for CloudFlare now after seeing this and the CEOs feeble response. CloudFlare is now in the category of "corporate" in my head.

I would rather live in a country made of people like her than a country made of people who don't fight back when they feel wronged.

Corporate America is able to be a steaming pile of garbage because most people think like you and not her, so there are no consequences for HR assholes being HR assholes, and since there are no consequences, the dehumanizing behavior keeps on going. She provided consequences. Now those HR workers are going to have to sit in meetings and develop more empathetic policies or come up with a sales pitch on why that video is wrong themselves. The CEO is probably going to have to talk to shareholders about it.

Next time they might look at the potential set of consequences (or another company might) and say it's not worth it.

The least we owe her is solidarity.

> Not only that, she comes off as authentic and sold her side of the story very well with that video.

I'm definitely not defending Cloudflare on this but that's much easier to do when you're the only party knowing the interaction is going to TikTok.

This is an archaic take on sales. They're not selling fungible widgets, their service is not something to offload on clients who don't want it as then they'll obviously just stop the subscription, with all that's happened being to undermine Cloudflare's reputation and chance at future business.

She comes across well, thinks on her feet and is assertive without being even remotely unreasonable.

And, still, she hasn't sold anything in four months.

"Thinking that as a salesman you have to sell things is an archaic take on sales."

My company engages in sales cycles exceeding a year at times. Unless there's a renewal or something coming up in those 3 months, it takes at least that time to learn the sales tools and meet all your customers. I've never seen a sales person let go inside of a year.

She was on a ramp aka training then started in q4 during holiday season. New sales don't sell first quarter. She isn't selling lemonade, she is selling deals worth 10s of thousands.

How many times are you going to copy and paste your comment. I count at least 3

Is December normally a good month for sales? I'd imagine it'd be the worst- budgets exhausted at EOY, yourself and your potential customers taking vacation time, etc. plus I imagine there can be latency with boring logistics like getting paperwork signed.

> budgets exhausted at EOY

Nope! Often there's money left over for whatever reason, and in many places if you don't use it this year, you'll lose it next year. Nothing like walking out of a decrepit meeting room in November and then back into the same meeting room in late January but now it's kitted out with 3x50" TV's and a studio quality camera.

> yourself and your potential customers taking vacation time

Only if all the important initiatives have been finalised before the end of the year! The buyers have targets they're supposed to be hitting also, and often one of those is "purchased a new CRM/ERP/WTF for implementation in FYx+1".

the part of getting positive performance feedback from her managers you decided to omit from your take?

With her releasing this I would fully expect her also not taking any feedback well or even making that also public. And the positive feedback is her own words. Not from HR, so we do not even have proof that it actually was positive.

I agree.

BUT, having worked in tech for well over a decade now, you should absolutely 100% not believe any feedback that's given to you. She's in sales. She should understand that there's exactly 1 metric that matters, closing deals. I'm not saying it's her fault she got fired, but this should really be a lesson for everyone watching this video. Do not believe what they tell you.

> Do not believe what they tell you.

So let's say a manager tells their sales rep to focus on understanding well what the customer needs, before closing the deal. Sales rep doesn't give credit to the manager and rushes for a close. Customer turns out to be a bad fit for company's products and services. Now, the company has a liability.

Management exists for a reason. There cannot be “exactly 1 metric” in any job, unless it's paper clip maximization.

What to Do When You Hire the Right Person for the Wrong Position:

https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/what-to-do-w...

This wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.

She seems passionate and strong. I like her fight and pushback.

B2B sales typically have sales cycles of six months or more.

She hasn't closed one deal in the one month she's been with the company after training, does that sound like a reasonable evaluation period to you? Why did she not receive any feedback on that from her manager? If your layoff is a surprise to the employee, you fucked up.

> Brittney P. should be worried about her future job prospects. This video is now viral. I would think twice about hiring her.

If you would avoid hiring a person because they might expose your shitty practices, that says more about your practices than about the person.

She had 3 deals on the go, the fact they didn't close during the Christmas holidays is to be expected.

Based on that video alone and the skill she used in communicating with HR, she's a brillant sales person. No doubt about it.

I expect all employees to keep company business private. This is what NCs / NDAs are for.

NDAs are for keeping the company's trade secrets in the company. They aren't so you can treat your employees badly and expect that to stay secret.

I understand your point. But reality is different.

Most employee NDAs will include a non disparage clause in the agreement. Its standard.

This is Why we have glassdoor forums. So you can disparage anonymously.

Or maybe she didnt sign the NDA and if so disparage away just dont expect other emoloyers to come running to you.

What she posted wasn't "disparagement," for she hasn't herself said anything to disparage them. She simply posted a legally recorded conversation. If it made Cloudflare look bad, that's on them; they have only themselves to blame.

“Disparaging” Defined: The term “disparaging” is considerably more broad that the term “defamatory.” (......) Perhaps the most consequential difference is many courts have held that statements can be disparaging even if truthful or non-defamatory [1]

So yes, it depends on who's judging, but it certainly can be, disparagement.

[1] https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/negotiati...

Ah, but here's the thing: She didn't say anything in the video to disparage Cloudflare. She simply posted a conversation. Integral to "disparagement," as a concept, is the notion that the disparager must have made at least one overtly disparaging statement.

I don't think that merely posting a video, where Clourflare's employees and policies acted stupidly and callously of their own accord, qualifies as a "statement" for the purposes of law.

I think what matters here is intent.

If I posted a video of the CEO of united, in a drag, at a public event, and I was subject to a non disparage contract with United, im not so sure I would be fine even though all I did is post an act, with no commentary, that was public.

IANAL so I suppose it would be up for a judge to determine my intent. If the stock price drops and the CEO gets fired, do I walk away scot free?

The reality might be that companies are immoral, but saying "I wouldn't hire this person because they might expose my immoral practices" does make you look bad, rather than the person.

What could it happen if they breach the NDA? Would they get terminated?

> Brittney P. should be worried about her future job prospects. This video is now viral. I would think twice about hiring her.

This video reminds me of the cop who was suspended for continually posting TikTok videos of herself dancing while in uniform even after being warned multiple times to stop[0]. Her reaction was to keep doing it.

Regardless of who is right in this situation (neither side in my mind) this "blew up" and as you say there isn't a manager or org that isn't paying close attention to this. She's going to have serious challenges in getting her next role. Whether fair or not she's radioactive at this point. If nothing else if Britney P is in a two/all party recording consent state this is technically illegal. Not saying that's right but it is the law...

I'd go as far as to say I'd never hire her. Work is challenging enough without knowing a person you're working with could be manipulating/trapping you for their social media account(s) and actually has in the past. Right/wrong is often grey and a matter of perspective. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.

To the people who are saying you would hire her and view this as admirable - fair enough but situations can be very subtle and you wouldn't feel the same way if she caught you on a bad/off day and setup a situation where you could very easily be portrayed as the "bad guy" and "put you on blast".

It's just not worth the risk.

Explanations for this in my mind:

1) Social media addiction is a real thing. According to the American Society of Addiction Medicine the definition of addiction is "People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences."

2) Looking for any situation to serve as a springboard for a new "career" as a social media "personality".

3) Doing ANYTHING for fame or attention.

4) The only good explanation - wanting to bring attention to an unjust situation. My cynical and dim view of social media, "influencers", etc makes me think this is the most remote explanation. Even if this is the case situations where only one party knows they're on a stage gives them a massive advantage in these kinds of interactions and if you watch the video it's obvious from the start this was a trap. The Cloudflare employee on the other end of the line is completely incompetent and ironically should be fired for their performance for how they did overall but also for not recognizing this is clearly the case. As the linked article says right up front:

"This is a prime example of why you should always assume your employees are recording your conversations."

Great, what a wonderful environment we've created for ourselves.

It's one thing to record, it's another thing entirely to record and post to social media. If Britney P was solely collecting evidence/documentation she could have recorded the video and kept it to herself but no, straight to TikTok.

Slight tangent - also see the situation where a "prank" social media person was shot during one of their pranks[2]. The whole social media prank thing is completely disgusting to me and the fact a jury acquitted the shooter leads me to believe that taking advantage of ordinary people with these parasitic, dangerous, and obnoxious "pranks" (harassment) is disgusting to most people who aren't desperate social media addicts.

The social media person's response to this situation was unbelievable, with them saying "We’re gonna continue the videos. It is what it is". I believe they're also on record saying how great the entire thing was because it only lead to more attention and views... See 1-3 - you very well could have died and you might next time yet you lean in harder. Yeah, I'd say that meets the definition of addiction. It's no different than OD'ing on fentanyl and continuing to use.

What people will do for the clicks/followers/likes is incredible.

[0] - https://www.clickorlando.com/news/investigators/2021/05/31/o...

[1] - https://www.asam.org/quality-care/definition-of-addiction

[2] - https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/jury-divided-over-w...

It's actually the opposite imo. With polarizing events like some people will indeed dislike her greatly and judge her for it but others who agree with her position will rally behind her and go out of their way to hire her. As long as there are people in her camp, she has likely received an outcry of support and multiple interview requests with likely some leadership opportunities.

>With polarizing events like some people will indeed dislike her greatly and judge her for it but others who agree with her position will rally behind her and go out of their way to hire her. As long as there are people in her camp, she has likely received an outcry of support and multiple interview requests with likely some leadership opportunities.

It's not going to help her much if everyone rallying behind her are /r/antiwork type people.

Yeah, at that point you'll just have several videos of everyone looking bad, instead of just one.

I truly do believe that if/when people like this finally get their way and have nothing left to rail against, they'll simply look inward to their own group for something to take issue with, and around they go.

Honestly ask yourself, would some of the more vocal activists truly be happy if their mission was suddenly accomplished? Or would they discover that their existence now feels empty, and that their entire modus operandi actually revolved around eliciting strong emotions from others?

My point above was that this is more of a social media story than anything.

I can't imagine any reasonable organization looking at this and thinking it's positive. I see an irresponsible, attention seeking social media addict with serious boundary issues - violating everything from more-or-less professional standards (again gray, perspective), to her employment agreement, to the law for clicks/likes and/or "dunking on"/"owning"/"calling out" her employer.

As I keep saying this is all very gray and a matter of perspective. Anyone in a hiring position has to look at this and think "when are we going to do something she arbitrarily takes issue with and puts US on blast with an illegally recorded conversation, stolen documents, etc"?

It's like cheating on your wife, marrying your mistress, and then her being surprised when you cheat on her. If she did it to a previous employer she'd do it to you.

She was on a ramp. New sales don't sell first quarter. She isn't selling lemonade, she is selling deals worth 10s of thousands.