"One of the hard lessons The Partner taught me is this: the health of the business is more important than the well being of any one employee."
What, really, is the purpose of your business? And what makes it more important than the well-being of an actual person?
I don't take issue with the firings recounted (well, at least the carefully-documented public reasons he provides), but what could make this statement true? I read it and can't find a charitable interpretation.
A business is made up of a number of actual persons. Firing one can significantly improve the well-being of the remaining actual persons. He even recounts this in the article, with the guy lying about his timesheeet causing such a problem with other employees that they say 'him or me' - it has to be pretty distressing before most people get to that stage.
A business exists for the benefit of its customers, and so do the jobs at that business. The health of a good business is a reflection of how well it serves its customers--and I'd say the kind of business that is healthy despite failing its customers is not only probably evil, but more likely than not needs to fire a lot of people, starting at the top.
He doesn't mention the soft lesson The Partner taught him: the health and financial well-being of the executives is incomparably more important than the company and--not that this rises to the level of concern--the well-being of any one employee or the entire lot of them for that matter.
What, really, is the purpose of your business? And what makes it more important than the well-being of an actual person?
I don't take issue with the firings recounted (well, at least the carefully-documented public reasons he provides), but what could make this statement true? I read it and can't find a charitable interpretation.