[henningpeters]

Reminds me of a Sten I hired many years ago. He requested (and of course got) an hilariously exotic work setup and spent a ridiculous amount of time on its configuration. Right from the start he expressed his unhappiness with seemingly random office stuff: Every day, sometimes multiple times per day, he would would come to my desk and tell me what was wrong, implying I should fix it right now even though it wasn’t obvious that there was a problem in the first place. He also heavily criticized the code base while the same time wasn’t able to produce anything meaningful. For a couple of weeks we hoped his genius to appear and that we just have to give him more support and time to adjust.

Eventually, a group of female coworkers came forward and complained that he would make them feel uneasy. He would stand behind them watching silently what they were doing.

I don’t remember whether we gave him feedback for this or room to adapt, we’ve let him go the next day.

[rco8786]

> He also heavily criticized the code base while the same time wasn’t able to produce anything meaningful.

This is more a rite of passage for everyone to do at least once in their career rather than an immediate red flag. But yea...

[ryandrake]

Kind of sad that he was let go for the one thing he likely had the least ability to control: Other people's feelings. You might have eventually been able to put together training or guide rails to correct his work habits, code review style, and productivity, but how do you coach someone to change someone else's impression of him?

EDIT: Hmm..had no idea this of all things would be such a deeply offensive comment. Live and learn. As a manager, how do you tell someone to "stop standing near people and/or looking at people" when they presumably have to work with those people as part of their job? If there's harassment going on, that's definitely something you have to correct and/or terminate for, but did OP's scenario rise to that level?

[peterangular]

> Kind of sad that he was let go for the one thing he likely had the least ability to control: Other people's feelings

> how do you coach someone to change someone else's impression of him?

Assuming he was standing behind women in the office watching them he's an outright creep. This reads like you're blaming other people for a creep's behavior.

Many places are at-will employment and that can be terminated on either side of the relationship as long as it doesn't fall in the realm of discrimination. As far as I'm concerned, the employer and management operated 100% responsibly to ensure a safe and comfortable working environment for everyone.

[csdvrx]

Counter point: I've had people who exerted towards me weird behaviors that freaked me out, and instead of escalating that and make it someone else problem, when I took the time to explain them privately, they told me they were autistic and didn't know how to read people and had no idea it was inappropriate, thanked me for giving them the feedback, and then adjusted their behavior!!

OMG imagine that: people adjust to feedback!!

Maybe we should take the time to TALK and try to resolve problems, before pointing fingers or firing them?

Most people are good and want to be nice. I don't like the "modern" way of calling out people, as it's not a good default heuristic, and not just that: it's ultimately counter-productive, as it hurts people who don't understand what happened, then switch to dangerous ideologies, become more and more polarized and double-down on inappropriate behaviors instead of adapting. And it makes the problem worse, as now they can rationalize their behavior given their new bizarre ideology

[a5aAqU]

That's the right approach. I wish it were the top comment. You should turn it into a blog post.

[csdvrx]

I'm not much into blogging, but maybe I'll start blogging in 2022. There're many interesting technical things I'd wish to share, like converting 512 NTFS volune to a 4k, which is very valuable on new 4kn NVMe drives: using 512e has a negative performance impact that's easy to measure with CrystalDisk or other tools.

However, for more controversial stuff, like whatever could be used as cannon fodder for the culture wars, I think I'd rather opt out.

[a5aAqU]

I don't think your comment ventures into the culture wars. It's just about good communication skills.

[sangnoir]

That was commendable of you to take time to explain to them in 1:1, but my suspicion is that it does not scale.

Suppose this wasn't the last time it happened - how much of your time are you willing to put into explaining to person after person after person how their behavior is freaking you out? If it happens in different places, several times a month (or week), it can get pretty old quickly, and that may shorten your patience.

[csdvrx]

You're right that's it's not scalable and that my patience is finite.

But, surprisingly enough, people SHARE information, and the person that has learned that I'm creeped might even volunteer to tell the other person in their own words why it's a problem, and how to solve it.

Also, an office is not hundreds of people in the same root. So I solved my problem quickly and efficiently using the old-way of "speaking about it" to the concerned party instead of escalating to HR/managers who may be tempted to use their giant banhammer simply because they don't know how to peacefully solve the issue using ... words!

Simple problems call for simple solutions.

[sangnoir]

> Also, an office is not hundreds of people in the same root.

It's really hard to special-case the office when you're creeped grabbing lunch at Panera, in the street, while shopping groceries, at the movies, in the subway, at the laundromat, while hiking, at the nightclub, while walking the dog... you get the idea. Women endure ridiculous amount of harassment/creeps- the office is the last place they should have to endure more of it and having to resolve it on top of it.

I have no qualms having such issues escalated to HR -perhaps they have gaps in their training that have to be addressed to prevent recurrence with another non-neurotypical person in the future. I do not think it's always advisable to engage 1:1 with someone who was being creepy from a distance: what if they are still creepy/erratic/become agitated, (and not understanding) in close quarters?

[burnished]

>>As a manager, how do you tell someone to "stop standing near people and/or looking at people"

"Hey, I've gotten some complaints about people feeling uncomfortable around you. Specifically that you have a tendency to stand too close, and stare too long at people's screens."

There are two ways I can see this going right off the bat. The Sten is either confused about the nature of the problem (maybe does not recall a time that sounds like this, or does not understand that it is a problem) OR the Sten understands that the behavior is problematic but sees it as not his problem (starts to justify it or otherwise excuse it). The first case is easier, presuming the Sten does not wish to make others uncomfortable. You can explain some etiquette or tips to address the situation (its polite to verbally introduce yourself when getting into some ones personal space, its polite to express curiosity and ask to read or know more about another's work), you can simply ask them to be conscious of the feedback. The second case is more difficult but still involves telling the Sten what the social expectations are.

[ryandrake]

Thanks! After hours of downvoting, yours is the first response to actually answer my question with a thoughtful, actionable way to address the feedback about Sten in OP's scenario. Given the number of, shall we say, socially awkward people in tech, it's entirely believable that Sten had no idea that silently watching someone work could make them uncomfortable. We've all worked with people who were a little "off" socially but without ill intent. Social/etiquette rules are messy and inconsistent, and they don't come naturally to everyone. I know I'd have a hard time articulating feedback like: This kind of looking is good, this kind is bad. You can make eye contact with people at work, but don't hold it more than N seconds. You can stand near people but no less than N meters, and not directly facing them. You don't often see that level of detail in HR training literature.

Maybe in OP's example there actually was ill intent, and maybe there wasn't. Hard to tell given the text. I think it's a marvelous skill to be able to delicately address someone else's "creepy behavior" when you aren't sure of the intent behind it.

[pvaldes]

> You have a tendency to stand too close, and stare too long at people's screens

This behavior describes perfectly a myopic person

[aaronbeekay]

He… doesn’t have the ability to control whether he stands silently behind other people while they work?

[Kalium]

You can't control how other people feel, but you can control what information you choose to give them to inform those feelings. From this you can observe patterns and shape what future information you choose to give them.

You can't control how other people feel, but you sure can do a lot to shape it.

[ericmcer]

High level software engineering jobs are paying enough money that you should be a net positive for the company or you get cut. It is silly to coddle someone who is getting paid >200k a year while most of the population struggles to make ends meet.

[ChuckNorris89]

">It is silly to coddle someone who is getting paid >200k a year while most of the population struggles to make ends meet.*

That's (unfortunately) not how the job market works. Some Dev positions are so we'll paid and coddled exactly because people who can fill them are rare and not easily found so a lot of nasty people with bad habits are tolerated because there's a shortage of better candidates and hiring is expensive. And it's exactly the positions where there's a surplus (minimum wage gigs) where people are more easily replaceable and more often let go despite being good people.

It's why even so many terrible CEOs get paid so obscene despite doing an obvious bad job and driving companies further down, because finding another replacement CEO is very difficult.

[lbriner]

Can it be true though, except in very extreme/niche circumstances, that there are really people who are $200K+ better than other devs? I can't really imagine what that level of dev can do much more than those I have worked with who are only paid $50-100K

I wonder if the perception is distorted by FANNG companies who can afford to simply pay whatever i.e. another 100K for perhaps 10% better candidate just to make sure they get the best? In most of the companies I have worked for, even though a dev can add a lot of content that gets sold to customers, the company still have to pay for all the non-production staff and infrastructure.

[Kalium]

There are people with very specialized skills and experiences that it would cost half a million and years more to replicate. With that in mind, there are certainly devs $200k/yr more valuable than others.

This becomes even more important when a company is set up to be able to strongly leverage developer quality. When a developer being 10% better means millions more in revenue (or a similar decrease in costs), paying $100k more might make a lot of sense. How much would such an org be willing to pay for someone 30% better, do you think?

I know a developer who upon joining a company picked up a problem that had been considered intractable. Another developer had spent months on it before giving it up as impossible. My friend solved the issue, permanently, in three days. That's at least a 10x, and possibly a 30x, difference in productivity for a narrow set of tasks.

[skellera]

Having worked from small consulting shops up to big tech, there’s a pretty wide range in skill sets for devs.

Even big tech has shit engineers but it seems to have a higher percentage of good ones. They get paid more because of the impact of their work and how much the company values them.

A group of good engineers can make miracles happen. A team with one rockstar and some mediocre people are going to struggle to make the same impact. That’s why you pay to attract groups of good talent. It’s not about individual contribution but the work of the whole team.

[908B64B197]

> that there are really people who are $200K+ better than other devs? I can't really imagine what that level of dev can do much more than those I have worked with who are only paid $50-100K

The 10x myth is real. And having someone with 10x the productivity of another dev isn't a 10x increase in comp, more like 4-5x. So that's an incredible bargain for whoever is smart enough to see it.

I recall a story someone told me a while ago. Software business that did local CoL/prevailing wages. Hired an intern one summer that was just running around in circles around the other, more senior devs. Next summer they tried to get him back but he was already at a large search engine company down in the Bay. Of course, he wouldn't return. That's when they realized a whole class of engineers were completely invisible to them; they lucked out hiring him that summer but there was no chance they could attract someone like him full time.

> I wonder if the perception is distorted by FANNG companies who can afford to simply pay whatever i.e. another 100K for perhaps 10% better candidate just to make sure they get the best?

This has compounding effects. One overachiever stuck with mediocre devs won't be able to do much. But a team of overachievers will ship products like the iPhone. Paying extra for the later make sense if your business model is to ship innovation.

[ericmcer]

Well he obviously wasn't coding well either. I imagine a 10X engineer who is crucial to the product continuing to run can behave pretty strangely and not get fired, but if you are an average/below average dev you should probably be pleasant to work with.

[nevermindiguess]

There is no need to. Society has a contract. We accept those that fit in and reject those that don’t. And that’s a good thing. Just like birds reject sick birds to preserve the health of the group. It’s the best thing from an evolutionary perspective. There is an envelope within which which diversity is accepted. Outside of the envelope you get rejected. It sounds like this particular individual was outside the envelope. So he goes.

[mekal]

Needed a break from work and figured I'd take a shot at a random comment. Pardon the rant...nothing personal...here goes.

So, I'm not saying that firing the guy in this particular case was a mistake, but how do you arrive at the broad conclusion that rejecting people based on social norms (many of which are arbitrary or based on fear/ignorance/etc) is necessarily the best thing? The boundaries of the "envelope" change all the time, and arguably for the better sometimes.

Example: Was it a "good thing" when people could be fired (or not even considered) because of their race/religion/sex? Are we not better off when we overcome our differences and work together?

I think the situation how to handle the creep has less to do with evolution and more to do with what's good for business. If the guy had been valuable enough to the company, I think they probably would have made more of an effort to help him fit in. Thus the "need" to reconcile. Absent that, the only thing that can really save his job is the person who does the hiring/firing. Maybe they have a soft spot for creeps. And that would be where the boundary might get pushed a tiny bit. Or, maybe morale plummets and the company goes bankrupt.

But if someone discovers a way for alleged creeps to work in harmony alongside non-creeps, then your talent pool to choose from will expand, less people will be fired for just being who they are, and barring any unforeseen consequences, you will have made the world a little better.

Bonus: Did you know in Spain, its totally acceptable to stare? At least that's what I've been told. Imagine if the dude had just spent too much time in Spain and got used to staring at people. And they fired him without even taking the time to figure that out!

[BeetleB]

> Society has a contract.

Correction: Society has a lot of conflicting contracts.

[matheusmoreira]

Would you leave your own children in the wilderness to die in case they were born sick or deformed?

[pvaldes]

Until verified, a rumor is just something that needs to be examined. People can lie also about their coworkers if there is a possible advantage on doing it.

[seoaeu]

There's a difference between a rumor, and eye witness accounts from multiple people you trust.

Edit in response to parent's edits: yes people can obviously lie. But in this case it seems the main benefit these accusers would have gotten out of it was... ditching an incompetent coworker?

[pvaldes]

Yes, but people teaming against the weirdo in the room or against perceived threats to their career is not uncommon behavior. A sensible manager would want to verify it personally.

Touching can deserve instant firing, looking at can deserve asking for an explanation first

[valarauko]

I agree... looking is something that deserves investigating.

For example, I had a coworker who had a habit of reading people's screens from behind - what news website article you were reading, or email, or whatever. He was just a nosy person with no sense of other people's personal space. It was definitely offputting and annoying, and felt like an invasion of my privacy. Still, I wouldn't consider this something he should be fired over - more like something a superior should have raised & discouraged. Reading the comment felt more like that, rather than a hostile workplace thing that warrants immediate firing without an investigation.

[pvaldes]

> in this case it seems the main benefit these accusers would have gotten out of it was... ditching an incompetent coworker?

The tribal feeling of belonging to a closed group that punish an outsider can be rewarding enough for many people.

Is unclear if he was incompetent. Willing to work with exotic tools or acting bold makes him easy to be hated, but not incompetent necessarily.

My definition of a competent employee for the first 14 days of work is somebody that manages to go and exit to the workplace each day at the expected time, does not set fire to the code and don't bite other coworkers for the possession of a sandwich. Is just a too narrow period of time to conclude anything.

[kjs3]

That is some world-class victim blaming right there. I've taken a screenshot of it and put it in one of my presos as an example.

I successfully coach 'impression' with my employees all the time. It's usually something like "you say 'um' a lot when you speak and it can distract from an otherwise great presentation; lets work on that" or "let's see what we can do to improve your business writing so your message is clearer". Sometimes it's "you need to practice better hygiene", "lets find a better way of expressing your opinions than calling your coworker a 'fucking idiot' in front of the team" or "your behavior is objectively creepy/offensive". Usually, when made aware, an adult will make an effort at least to improve; but there's always someone like you who says "everyone else in the world is the problem, not me...I should be able to do anything I want". And then you start managing them out the door.

[valarauko]

It's unclear who you're holding responsible here for the victim blaming - the parent you're responding to, or the GP? In the subthread OP's story, some people came forward to say they felt uneasy with him standing behind them while they worked - and he was let go the next day. In your own comment, you said that most reasonable adults try to adjust their behavior when given feedback. At no point in the story was the offending person ever given feedback of any kind in the intervening weeks. In this particular case, he was let go the very next day after the reports, and OP's not sure if they even gave him any feedback about this. How does this make sense? Does his behavior rise to the level of creating a hostile work environment for most reasonable people? Was an investigation conducted to understand what the exact behavior was? Perhaps he used to silently watch all his coworkers, male and female, and only the women complained? Its definitely unsettling and annoying, but does rise to a fireable offense the very next day after being reported?

[kjs3]

It's unclear if you actually read what you're replying to. I'm obviously responding to the parent I responded to, not the GP. And you apparently missed where the GP referenced a litany of reasons why the guy fired was an undesirable employee, and then "eventually" the women came forward and apparently that was the last straw. Focusing on the women, and completely ignoring everything else, is pretty telling.

Let the downmods begin...

[valarauko]

Well, to be fair, you made a point about how the parent was "victim blaming" and that their comment was worthy of teaching others. I failed to see what was so wrong in the point they were raising, that the apparent reason he was let go was based on the seemingly weakest argument against him. Indeed, you have chosen the least charitable interpretation of mine & the parent's comment, that we completely ignored everything else, and assumed that is pretty telling of our character.

It felt like the complaints from the women was simply the excuse needed to fire an employee that he wanted to get rid of anyway - which doesn't sit right with me or many people here. Your comment also suggests that by raising the point, the parent was making a classic case of "victim blaming", which is where you and I diverge. Perhaps his action of watching people working silently rises to the level of a hostile work environment, but that should have been established by a review, which didn't happen here. As others in the thread have pointed out, touching is perhaps a fireable offense, but looking at people work by itself(some women brought it up, but was the behavior restricted to women?) deserves at least some questioning. Was he looking at peoples' screens or them? You are content to handwave the allegations since it affected an employee you felt deserved to be fired over other shortcomings anyway.

[kjs3]

Once again, focusing on 'the women', making them the problem and not the guy being a creep, and dismissing everything else related, is pretty telling. Gaslighting, I think, is what they call it these days. But we're clearly not going to agree on this.

[david38]

One of the things that every job has is "prereqs". They often include the ability to code, have good (enough) communication skills, etc.

Some of the unstated ones are - wear clothes to work, not whip your dick out, not lick people, not piss on your desk, etc. As a manager you can easily just say "stop standing near people and/or looking at people more than three seconds if they are not interacting with you".

The issue is that I'm paying you $$ so I don't have to train you. For tech skills, this is what college/etc is for. For human behavior, this is what parents/etc are for.

That you don't see this makes one think you may have these same issues. This isn't a "feelings" thing.

Feelings thing: during a political discussion, I say I voted for Trump (and now you're triggered) This: I am standing closer to you than anyone else and staring at you without you interacting with me. This means you have no cause to be in my space or staring.

Zero need to coach. Have you ever had to be coached on how to not make child porn? Did you demand guide rails and exact spelled-out definitions of constitutes porn when taking pictures of young children? I hope not.

There are lots of things where recognition is far easier than definition. If you lack this skill, you are unfit for the task at hand. This includes many things related to interacting with others, especially regarding children and the opposite sex. Inappropriate hugs/touching, physical proximity, commenting on some attribute, talking to them too much, talking to them at all, standing in such a way as to impede their movement, asking questions, etc.

[handoflixue]

I spent 12 years in pre-college education, and every teacher I had considered it entirely acceptable to intrude on my personal space and silently monitor me, often literally standing behind me to watch me. I've had managers do similar, usually as part of an explicit QA exercise but occasionally simply because they felt I wasn't paying attention (I'm ADHD and doodle to help me focus)

Do you really want to accuse every single teacher I had of pedophilia?

Not everyone has the same cultural background you do, and some of us are capable of understanding that sometimes someone needs a gentle nudge to get on the same page. You can rant about acceptable skills AFTER you spend 30 minutes trying to actually fix the problem. Until then, you're just a bigot.

[Sosh101]

I think you are being downvoted rather harshly.