She's in sales. She didn't get any sales done. So a sales person that didn't make any sales got fired, one of 40 fired out of 1,500. What's the issue here exactly? That they didn't tell her...
She's in sales.
She didn't get any sales done.
So a sales person that didn't make any sales got fired, one of 40 fired out of 1,500.
What's the issue here exactly? That they didn't tell her directly what she already knew: that she didn't close any deals despite that being her job?
In corporate sales like this, it's uncommon to be fired for performance during your on-ramp period, which she was still in. This is the same reason that you wouldn't fire someone, say, one week...
In corporate sales like this, it's uncommon to be fired for performance during your on-ramp period, which she was still in. This is the same reason that you wouldn't fire someone, say, one week after being hired for lack of sales, just formalized into a communicated period during which you are considered new. I would take such a firing as an indication that the company hired too many people and had to cut personnel costs for some reason.
Another issue is that (at least according to what she says in the video, which I am taking at face value) at no point was it communicated to her that her performance is lacking. If you're still in your on ramp period, and are getting consistent feedback that your performance is meeting expectations during that period, I think she is right incredulous at the stated reason for being fired. This is putting aside other issues, like the HR people not being able to communicate specifics and being fired in such an impersonal way. I wouldn't want to be treated like this by a company.
That was my take away too. She had three months of training, then was in her first month of selling in the worst month to sell (December). Her manager was giving positive feedback. Performance...
That was my take away too. She had three months of training, then was in her first month of selling in the worst month to sell (December). Her manager was giving positive feedback. Performance metrics should be clear and easily understood by all parties. That HR could not articulate the metrics she failed to reach was very telling.
Having been in this type of sales environment in my early career, I can say a couple things. This is a very uncommon occurrence as mentioned, to fire someone right after their ramp-up period in an...
Having been in this type of sales environment in my early career, I can say a couple things.
This is a very uncommon occurrence as mentioned, to fire someone right after their ramp-up period in an extremely difficult sales month.
Sales is a cold industry, and you cannot trust your employer to cover your best, or even reasonable interests, especially given the climate in tech since the interest rate hikes. Best advice is to hit your numbers immediately and always, or get out safely. It’s one of the main reasons I switched careers despite having good numbers.
Given they fired 40 people, I'm sure it was a "budget is X many sales people over, stack rank and cut N of them" and even though it was her just starting out, she wasn't in their top performers...
Given they fired 40 people, I'm sure it was a "budget is X many sales people over, stack rank and cut N of them" and even though it was her just starting out, she wasn't in their top performers and so was cut since they were getting rid of staff anyways.
I felt the video was pretty uh, in bad taste, I don't know why she'd be that combative and public about it over a job she only had for 3mos, I'd have cut my losses instead of going viral and possibly harming my future career opportunities.
Yeah, from a career perspective I don't think publicizing that video was a good move. I wouldn't have done it. That being said being fired for performance vs laid off for budgetary reasons is an...
Yeah, from a career perspective I don't think publicizing that video was a good move. I wouldn't have done it. That being said being fired for performance vs laid off for budgetary reasons is an important distinction to know, particularly when forming a narrative in job interviews, self-assessing capabilities, and asking for references. If that was the case I feel they should have been up front about it. There are understandable reasons to let someone new go, budget being one of them, but I feel that should be clearly communicated instead of just saying "performance issues". I think that is the main issue here.
Generally no job will ever disclose the reason for separation, you are under no obligation to ever admit to being fired in an interview, on a resume, or otherwise. All HRs that I've ever dealt...
Generally no job will ever disclose the reason for separation, you are under no obligation to ever admit to being fired in an interview, on a resume, or otherwise. All HRs that I've ever dealt with if contacted will only verify dates of service. Also even being fired for cause makes you eligible for unemployment, so most of the comments elsewhere were dead wrong on that being the rationale. I think everyone knows or should know that sales is cut throat, it's unfortunate what happened but I can't say that her handling of the situation doesn't make me assume things about her overall work and behavior with clients, even if that is false. I've been through firings and layoffs myself and there just isn't anything at all in it to try to find vindication, you just have to move on with your life.
I chose this more boring article because I actually recognized the source, but here's another one: https://www.thestreet.com/employment/cloudflare-under-fire-after-tiktok-video-of-layoff-goes-viral
Pietsch responds that she started at the company on Aug. 25 and that she has had “the highest activity” amongst her team since she joined.
“I have had three contracts out, done a really great job managing my deals up until the very end that decided not to close last-minute,” said Pietsch. “So I don't think that that makes a lot of sense for me in my Cloudflare journey here so far. Also, every single one-on-one I've had with my manager, every conversation I've had with him, he has been giving me nothing but I am doing a great job.”
Pietsch then pushes both representatives to provide a real reason for her being laid off instead of them “making up some bullshit” to cover up the possibility that Cloudflare hired too many people and can no longer afford employing them.
“If that's the real answer, I would rather just you tell me that instead of making up some bullshit and telling me that right before I lose my job from someone that I've never met before,” said Pietsch.
I watched most of the video and didn't finish all of it because it just became circular. She admitted she didn't close any deals on the video. She explained one she almost closed the buyer backed...
I watched most of the video and didn't finish all of it because it just became circular. She admitted she didn't close any deals on the video. She explained one she almost closed the buyer backed out on at the last minute or something along those lines.
The part where it became circular is that they told her right at the beginning they couldn't give her specific information and they could set up a 2nd meeting about it to get the specifics she was asking for, but she kept pushing them for the specifics that they specifically already told her they didn't have.
Now one could certainly argue it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a company to set up a meeting to notify someone they're being fired and then set up a second meeting to explain to them why. Maybe some data or assumptions on their side that some large percentage of people will just accept the vague firing and move on, thus perhaps making it more efficient to assign HR only to the task and not include the person's manager least affects operations, but of course that just treats people like statistics rather than people so if that were the case that could be how you end up with a video like the one that happened here.
Honestly, firing without cause is more humane than the other two: Firing at-will or firing with cause. Firing with-cause usually means the employee is at-fault in some way. It can be used as...
Honestly, firing without cause is more humane than the other two: Firing at-will or firing with cause.
Firing with-cause usually means the employee is at-fault in some way. It can be used as grounds for stripping benefits, not paying unemployment, and make it harder to seek new employment.
At-will is the most inhumane, and really boils down to "We don't want to tell you the real reason".
Firing without cause (which I assume the vagueries fo) can be any numerous things, but generally accepted that those things are outside the employee's control.
I think they told her it was performance related but they couldn't specifically say anything beyond that as they didn't know, but I don't know enough to know if that constitutes firing with cause...
I think they told her it was performance related but they couldn't specifically say anything beyond that as they didn't know, but I don't know enough to know if that constitutes firing with cause or not. Looks like your link mentions "continuous poor performance" but I assume that if they were trying to make for a case of "for cause" firing, they'd need to have done some kind of performance improvement plan or given her some kind of feedback on performance that recognized it was poor, whereas I believe she said her manager only gave her positive feedback.
In my experience a termination meeting isn't the place where reasons why the termination occurred is discussed - but simply that the termination is occurring. They're quick meetings solely about...
In my experience a termination meeting isn't the place where reasons why the termination occurred is discussed - but simply that the termination is occurring. They're quick meetings solely about the termination, they're not going to have figures and notes on hand.
Meetings about problems that eventually lead to the termination happen beforehand.
She's in sales.
She didn't get any sales done.
So a sales person that didn't make any sales got fired, one of 40 fired out of 1,500.
What's the issue here exactly? That they didn't tell her directly what she already knew: that she didn't close any deals despite that being her job?
In corporate sales like this, it's uncommon to be fired for performance during your on-ramp period, which she was still in. This is the same reason that you wouldn't fire someone, say, one week after being hired for lack of sales, just formalized into a communicated period during which you are considered new. I would take such a firing as an indication that the company hired too many people and had to cut personnel costs for some reason.
Another issue is that (at least according to what she says in the video, which I am taking at face value) at no point was it communicated to her that her performance is lacking. If you're still in your on ramp period, and are getting consistent feedback that your performance is meeting expectations during that period, I think she is right incredulous at the stated reason for being fired. This is putting aside other issues, like the HR people not being able to communicate specifics and being fired in such an impersonal way. I wouldn't want to be treated like this by a company.
That was my take away too. She had three months of training, then was in her first month of selling in the worst month to sell (December). Her manager was giving positive feedback. Performance metrics should be clear and easily understood by all parties. That HR could not articulate the metrics she failed to reach was very telling.
Having been in this type of sales environment in my early career, I can say a couple things.
Given they fired 40 people, I'm sure it was a "budget is X many sales people over, stack rank and cut N of them" and even though it was her just starting out, she wasn't in their top performers and so was cut since they were getting rid of staff anyways.
I felt the video was pretty uh, in bad taste, I don't know why she'd be that combative and public about it over a job she only had for 3mos, I'd have cut my losses instead of going viral and possibly harming my future career opportunities.
Yeah, from a career perspective I don't think publicizing that video was a good move. I wouldn't have done it. That being said being fired for performance vs laid off for budgetary reasons is an important distinction to know, particularly when forming a narrative in job interviews, self-assessing capabilities, and asking for references. If that was the case I feel they should have been up front about it. There are understandable reasons to let someone new go, budget being one of them, but I feel that should be clearly communicated instead of just saying "performance issues". I think that is the main issue here.
Generally no job will ever disclose the reason for separation, you are under no obligation to ever admit to being fired in an interview, on a resume, or otherwise. All HRs that I've ever dealt with if contacted will only verify dates of service. Also even being fired for cause makes you eligible for unemployment, so most of the comments elsewhere were dead wrong on that being the rationale. I think everyone knows or should know that sales is cut throat, it's unfortunate what happened but I can't say that her handling of the situation doesn't make me assume things about her overall work and behavior with clients, even if that is false. I've been through firings and layoffs myself and there just isn't anything at all in it to try to find vindication, you just have to move on with your life.
I chose this more boring article because I actually recognized the source, but here's another one:
https://www.thestreet.com/employment/cloudflare-under-fire-after-tiktok-video-of-layoff-goes-viral
Did you get that information from another article? In this one it doesn't actually mention the specifics of her performance.
I watched most of the video and didn't finish all of it because it just became circular. She admitted she didn't close any deals on the video. She explained one she almost closed the buyer backed out on at the last minute or something along those lines.
The part where it became circular is that they told her right at the beginning they couldn't give her specific information and they could set up a 2nd meeting about it to get the specifics she was asking for, but she kept pushing them for the specifics that they specifically already told her they didn't have.
Now one could certainly argue it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a company to set up a meeting to notify someone they're being fired and then set up a second meeting to explain to them why. Maybe some data or assumptions on their side that some large percentage of people will just accept the vague firing and move on, thus perhaps making it more efficient to assign HR only to the task and not include the person's manager least affects operations, but of course that just treats people like statistics rather than people so if that were the case that could be how you end up with a video like the one that happened here.
Honestly, firing without cause is more humane than the other two: Firing at-will or firing with cause.
Firing with-cause usually means the employee is at-fault in some way. It can be used as grounds for stripping benefits, not paying unemployment, and make it harder to seek new employment.
At-will is the most inhumane, and really boils down to "We don't want to tell you the real reason".
Firing without cause (which I assume the vagueries fo) can be any numerous things, but generally accepted that those things are outside the employee's control.
More info:
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/termination-for-cause
I think they told her it was performance related but they couldn't specifically say anything beyond that as they didn't know, but I don't know enough to know if that constitutes firing with cause or not. Looks like your link mentions "continuous poor performance" but I assume that if they were trying to make for a case of "for cause" firing, they'd need to have done some kind of performance improvement plan or given her some kind of feedback on performance that recognized it was poor, whereas I believe she said her manager only gave her positive feedback.
She didn't even get a chance.
In my experience a termination meeting isn't the place where reasons why the termination occurred is discussed - but simply that the termination is occurring. They're quick meetings solely about the termination, they're not going to have figures and notes on hand.
Meetings about problems that eventually lead to the termination happen beforehand.
I never use emojis unless I'm chatting, but 🙄🙄🙄