[dustbunny]

I think the person who came up with this shouldn't be fired, the person who _approved_ it should be reprimanded.

There's some intersection point between who "owns" the wallet and who is coming up with ways to generate marketing revenue.

Whoever lives at that intersection point is the real shot caller here aren't they?

Imo you don't fire people for generating bad ideas, that just creates a culture of not thinking outside the box. But the person who is filtering those ideas is the critical lynch pin.

[lupusreal]

Why not fire them both?

> Imo you don't fire people for generating bad ideas,

If an idea is that bad, at the very least they should be transfered into a role that doesn't involve coming up with good ideas, since obviously that is outside of their skill set. And what's the argument for not firing the chain of people who approved it? Their job was to stop bad ideas and they catastrophically failed.

[HelloMcFly]

> at the very least they should be transfered into a role that doesn't involve coming up with good ideas, since obviously that is outside of their skill set.

Proposing one bad idea is not unusual for people whose job is idea-driven. When ideas are the primary currency of your occupation, you'll necessarily generate some losers. But in a company of Apple's size, that's why you rely on colleagues and - critically - a more robust approval process to move from idea to deliverable.

I hate your idea of firing (from org. or role) the idea person based on one bad idea. I don't hate the idea of firing (from org. or role) the leaders accountable for getting this idea into the world.

[dijit]

Job security seems to hold higher esteem than prison.

Social norms exist outside of criminal law, and a single extremely poor decision is reason enough for people to lose their freedom.

Why shouldn’t it be possible for people to lose their jobs?

[HelloMcFly]

> Why shouldn’t it be possible for people to lose their jobs?

This is a strawman argument that seems made in bad faith, but I'll bite anyway: I am not saying that no single bad idea or mistake should result in the loss of a job. I am saying that most of the time such a response would be an extreme reaction, especially when directed at the lower-level source of the ideas vs. the more senior accountable parties who are paid to know better.

Magnitude matters, as does accountability. Creating this world of extremes where one mistake of poor idea leads to termination is a pretty quick way to a toxic and non-productive work environment. Enact accountability where it sits, not across the entire chain.

[dijit]

I think you and I are saying the same thing honestly.

The parent seems to be of the mind that it's never a viable option for someone to lose their jobs for something; which I find an extreme position in itself.

I'm not sure how this context is lost, as precisely this point is what I'm getting at. I'm not jumping to extremes as some imply (including you), I'm saying it should be on the table for the most hopeless egregious offences.

[TheBicPen]

You're seriously comparing a single advertisement to crimes like murder? Crimes that land you in prison are generally crimes that even children can understand are wrong. You're using "extremely poor decision" for 2 wildly different things, and if you think they're remotely equivalent, perhaps you should reflect on why you think that.

[dijit]

I am seriously suggesting that a single bad decision (like taking some money from the cash register) can land you in prison, why do we hold jobs to a higher standard?

Learning from our mistakes is one thing, slip ups happen after all, but I’m just drawing a comparison to “a single misjudgement”.

If you don't know societies values (stealing is wrong) or a companies values (tarnishing the brand by looking cheap and desperate) the outcome should probably be the same: expulsion or exclusion.

Also, don’t go to the most extreme negative interpretation of what someone says, it’s against guidelines.

[paulcole]

> the outcome should probably be the same

Why exactly besides the fact that you like extreme solutions?

[clickety_clack]

There’s bad ideas like “it wasn’t possible to execute this the way we thought we could”, and bad ideas like “this goes against the core values of what this company is”.

The first is something that might have gone better in better circumstances, so it’s a learning opportunity. The second shows you either don’t understand the company and decided to carry on despite that, or you just don’t care about the company, but either way it reflects poorly enough on an individual that a firing should be on the table.

[kortilla]

You definitely fire people for pitching ideas that are against the ethos of the company. Otherwise you have no culture. It shouldn’t come down to one approver on the wallet side to see how dumb this was

[inetknght]

> Imo you don't fire people for generating bad ideas, that just creates a culture of not thinking outside the box.

No, you fire people for generating ideas that are shady and against your own policies.

[lurking_swe]

disagree. brainstorming should never be seen as a negative. trying to _promote_ and _act_ on shady ideas is the problem.

[kortilla]

“What if we just charge a bunch of hidden recurring fees?”

Some ideas are so bad they indicate that you aren’t aligned with the goals of the company

[lurking_swe]

ok, i agree that an idea that’s actively malicious toward your customer should maybe be a fireable offense. That’s extreme but we can agree. :)

[Den_VR]

Agreed, even when brainstorming there needs to be left and right bounds. It needs to be constructive and it needs to align to the vision.

[t8sr]

Yes, but there’s nuance. We each assume a version of events and nobody really knows. In my experience, big tech companies attract a certain type of person (among others) who will not only think of stuff like this, but actively fight for it and consequences to the long term be damned. VPs who actually approve this stuff will have limited time to think about it and a lot depends on the proposal.

This looks like a group PM level decision. Bluntly, at that level we get paid enough to exercise good judgement.