Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)James Fallows: Why You Cannot Say You 'Like' Firing People - & why you can't un-ring that bell [View all]
Why You Cannot Say You 'Like' Firing People
-snip-
He was making a reasonable point about the need for choice and competition -- just as John Kerry was making a reasonable point about the different stages of the legislative process when he said "I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." It was completely "unfair" to use that line against Kerry, because if you stopped to listen to his reasoning, the phrase was merely one clumsy out-of-context portion of a larger "sensible" statement about how Congressional politics works. Exactly as with Romney and "firing."
But of course that clip hurt Kerry -- in part because the Bush campaign team immediately rammed it home, and in part because it connected with an existing vulnerability or impression about Kerry. I think this moment from Romney may hurt him too, for all the "unfairness" of criticizing what he said, because it touches something so emotional and raw.
It's the word fire. I have fired people, and I have been fired -- and there is no comparison in how much more excruciating the former process is. I know, agree with, and have even written a book about all the reasons why "flexibility" in the labor force is a good thing for companies and for the overall economy. People need to be held accountable for good or bad performance. Economies need to be able to move from the old -- old markets, technologies, regions, emphases -- and open up to the new. Companies very often need to "right-size" to survive. We all understand these truths. They are part of America's strength.
But people with any experience on either side of a firing know that, necessary as it might be, it is hard. Or it should be. It's wrenching, it's humiliating, it disrupts families, it creates shame and anger alike -- notwithstanding the fact that often it absolutely has to happen. Anyone not troubled by the process -- well, there is something wrong with that person. We might want such a person to do dirty work for us. (This might be the point where the Romney campaign wants to take another look at Up In The Air.) We might value him or her as a takeover specialist or at a private equity firm. But as someone we trust, as a leader? No - not any more than you can trust a military leader who is not deeply troubled when his troops are killed.
Here's a test: If you were making the point about the need for competition, can you imagine yourself saying, "I like being able to fire people..." ?
I don't think this will stop Romney in New Hampshire or in his likely progress to the nomination. It may not make any difference in the general election. But for me, it's a bell difficult to un-ring -- "I like being able to fire people" -- once it has been heard.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/why-you-cannot-say-you-like-firing-people/251123/
-snip-
He was making a reasonable point about the need for choice and competition -- just as John Kerry was making a reasonable point about the different stages of the legislative process when he said "I actually voted for the $87 billion, before I voted against it." It was completely "unfair" to use that line against Kerry, because if you stopped to listen to his reasoning, the phrase was merely one clumsy out-of-context portion of a larger "sensible" statement about how Congressional politics works. Exactly as with Romney and "firing."
But of course that clip hurt Kerry -- in part because the Bush campaign team immediately rammed it home, and in part because it connected with an existing vulnerability or impression about Kerry. I think this moment from Romney may hurt him too, for all the "unfairness" of criticizing what he said, because it touches something so emotional and raw.
It's the word fire. I have fired people, and I have been fired -- and there is no comparison in how much more excruciating the former process is. I know, agree with, and have even written a book about all the reasons why "flexibility" in the labor force is a good thing for companies and for the overall economy. People need to be held accountable for good or bad performance. Economies need to be able to move from the old -- old markets, technologies, regions, emphases -- and open up to the new. Companies very often need to "right-size" to survive. We all understand these truths. They are part of America's strength.
But people with any experience on either side of a firing know that, necessary as it might be, it is hard. Or it should be. It's wrenching, it's humiliating, it disrupts families, it creates shame and anger alike -- notwithstanding the fact that often it absolutely has to happen. Anyone not troubled by the process -- well, there is something wrong with that person. We might want such a person to do dirty work for us. (This might be the point where the Romney campaign wants to take another look at Up In The Air.) We might value him or her as a takeover specialist or at a private equity firm. But as someone we trust, as a leader? No - not any more than you can trust a military leader who is not deeply troubled when his troops are killed.
Here's a test: If you were making the point about the need for competition, can you imagine yourself saying, "I like being able to fire people..." ?
I don't think this will stop Romney in New Hampshire or in his likely progress to the nomination. It may not make any difference in the general election. But for me, it's a bell difficult to un-ring -- "I like being able to fire people" -- once it has been heard.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/why-you-cannot-say-you-like-firing-people/251123/
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
James Fallows: Why You Cannot Say You 'Like' Firing People - & why you can't un-ring that bell [View all]
Pirate Smile
Jan 2012
OP
and graphics or voice-overs saying just how many people lost their jobs at these companies while,
Pirate Smile
Jan 2012
#6
The same reason you can't go back on strapping your dog to the roof of your car
coalition_unwilling
Jan 2012
#8
Beggin yer pardon but where in DSM IV (or in DSM IV-TR) is sociopathy defined?
Jackpine Radical
Jan 2012
#25
I defer to you and wish to commend your meticulous attention to detail. I do want to say that
coalition_unwilling
Jan 2012
#38
Let's just say that, as a criminal/forensic psychologist, I know a lot more than I ever wanted to
Jackpine Radical
Jan 2012
#39
Sooo... enjoying "having the authority" to ruin someone's life is, somehow, not the same
mac56
Jan 2012
#34
The benefit of having a power you may actually have no desire to actually use...
thesquanderer
Jan 2012
#40
"You don't have to enjoy firing people to enjoy the benefit of knowing that your employees
mac56
Jan 2012
#43
And the bastard has the gall to speak of the sacrifices of those who serve:
pinboy3niner
Jan 2012
#27
You're right. And if you really feel bad about firing someone, you hire George Clooney to do it.
tclambert
Jan 2012
#29
People who fire others rarely go into clinical depression, or kill themselves. That's all.
saras
Jan 2012
#26
Perhaps he asked his Personal Assistant what it's like to be a normal person.
tclambert
Jan 2012
#30
Left out the fact that you can't say it because a lot of people KNOW you can be fired for
patrice
Jan 2012
#31
Due to his education, we can assume the man, unlike lots of other people, is NOT word-deprived.
patrice
Jan 2012
#36
Even more out of touch is that many of us have absolutely no health care provider at all
riderinthestorm
Jan 2012
#37