James Fallows: Why You Cannot Say You 'Like' Firing People - & why you can't un-ring that bell

[Pirate Smile]

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/

[ThoughtCriminal]

1. !!!gnid gnid gnid

[Pirate Smile]

2. What does that mean?

[ThoughtCriminal]

5. Read it backwards

:p

[tclambert]

13. Unringing the bell.

[Pirate Smile]

23. Thanks

[izquierdista]

3. I can see the commercial now

"I like being able to fire people" repeated about 5 times, interspersed with people who actually lost their jobs to Bain Capital. Could push his poll numbers down into the 20s by November.

[Pirate Smile]

6. and graphics or voice-overs saying just how many people lost their jobs at these companies while,

at the same time, Romney & his vultures made hundreds of millions of dollars from the wreckage.

[brooklynite]

16. Don't forget...grainy black & white filter...

...and clouds...lots of dark, brooding clouds.

[Octafish]

4. Willard is a champion of the working man.

Thank you for the heads up on Fallows, Pirate Smile. Will bookmark for future reference.

[rufus dog]

7. Althought I actually understand the point he was trying to make

FUCK HIM! Exactly like Kerry, people won't remember the context.

[coalition_unwilling]

8. The same reason you can't go back on strapping your dog to the roof of your car

FOR A 12-HOUR CAR TRIP!!!

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1638065,00.html

Both comments exemplify sociopathy as defined in the DSM-IV

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Beggin yer pardon but where in DSM IV (or in DSM IV-TR) is sociopathy defined?

I jes cain't find it in my copy.


(Snark aside, sociopathy is not a current diagnostic term, and the closest thing in the DSM is Antisocial Personality Disorder {ASPD}.)

Psychopathy is also not in the DSM, even though there are several reasonably reliable measures of it. About 1/4 of those who meet criteria for ASPD also score above the cutoff of 30 on the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.

[coalition_unwilling]

38. I defer to you and wish to commend your meticulous attention to detail. I do want to say that

I have read so much on the subject of sociopathy\psychopathy\ASPD that it has all turned to jello (or should I say 'psycho-babble'? in my head.

A little backstory: several years ago my stepdaughter was diagnosed with early-onset bipolar with possible co-morbid ODD (Opposition Defiant Disorder). In trying to bring myself up to speed, I read this huge tome called "The Bipolar Child" (A great book, btw.) My wife at the same time was taking college classes in child psych and abnormal psych and it may be that in 'TBpC' or my wife's textbooks I saw the word defined. Also, had extensive consultations with a clinical psychologist specializing in children who ran an extensive battery of tests on my stepdaughter. The result is that I may have mistakenly ascribed to DSM-IV what was in one of these other sources. To further add to the confusion in my head and memory, this clinical psychologist had a copy of the DSM-IV sitting on the desk in her office (although she mercifully did not read from it to us while we were in sessions

Thanks again for the bibliographic corrections. Not a snark at all, imho.

[Jackpine Radical]

39. Let's just say that, as a criminal/forensic psychologist, I know a lot more than I ever wanted to

about psychopathy as a construct, about the vagaries of its measurement, and suchlike matters.

[Ikonoklast]

9. Only a sociopath would say he likes firing people.

I have had to fire people, and even with good cause, it was an unpleasant experience that I in no way could say that I "liked" to do.

Even though what Romney said is taken out of context, a side of him did manage to peek through when he said what he said.

I think he actually does get off firing people; you know, stupid people, little people, people not as good as him, people that can be used and discarded like toilet paper.

Makes him feel powerful knowing he can destroy people's lives with a snap of his fingers.

[The Wizard]

17. Reminds me of Bush

When he started the Iraq invasion he pumped his fist and said it felt good. Only a serial killer would say something like that. Romney may not be a serial killer like Bush, but he's a serial pillager of the working class. And make no mistake, Romney and the Republican Party are at war with the working class. They want a two tiered society or caste system wherein 99% are essentially slaves to the 1%. That's a traditional Republican value.
Lords and serfs anyone?

[thesquanderer]

20. to be fair, he said he liked being ABLE to fire people

That is, he didn't say he liked actually firing people, but that he liked having the authority to do it.

[mac56]

24. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

You really think there's a distinction there? That's a pretty amazing bit of spin.

[thesquanderer]

28. Yes, I think it's different

You can enjoy having the *authority* to do something, even if it's something you don't enjoy doing. For a ridiculously extreme example, a president might like having the authority to drop a nuclear bomb, even though he wouldn't actually like dropping it.

Simply, the fact that you *can* fire someone could make them more responsive, and you might enjoy having that power, even though you wouldn't necessarily enjoy actually firing them. It really is two different things.

I just figure there are enough "real" ways to attack Romney that there's no reason to mis-quote to make something bad even worse. The more accurate you are in your attacks, the harder it is for opponents to knock them down or dismiss them.

[mac56]

34. Sooo... enjoying "having the authority" to ruin someone's life is, somehow, not the same

as enjoying ruining their life?!

Sorry, but that's one of the most blatant attempts at spin I've seen here in a long time.

And what kind of sick individual would enjoy having the authority to drop a nuclear bomb?!

[thesquanderer]

40. The benefit of having a power you may actually have no desire to actually use...

...is that it gives you a strong negotiating position.

Sorry if my earlier post was not clear.

You don't have to enjoy firing people to enjoy the benefit of knowing that your employees will try to do good work to avoid being fired. So yes, you can enjoy having the authority, without relishing the idea of actually having to use it.

And a president might like the fact that his authority over terrible weapons gives him a strong negotiating position and a strong deterrent capability, even though he would hate the idea of actually dropping a bomb.

There is clearly a difference between enjoying the authority and enjoying the action, and one doesn't naturally follow from the other.

And Mitt did have a point... if you could "fire" your insurance company and easily go somewhere else, maybe they wouldn't suck as much.

Still, I don't mind seeing the other republicans rake him over the coals over it. I just like to think "we're better than that."

[mac56]

41. How long have you been a contortionist?

I swear, I haven't seen anyone bend and twist like that for ages.

[thesquanderer]

42. You still find it convoluted?

It's just English and common sense to me. But sometimes people will just never see things the same way.

[mac56]

43. "You don't have to enjoy firing people to enjoy the benefit of knowing that your employees

try to do good work to avoid being fired."

In other words, I don't really have to guide or assist or mentor them. I can just scare the $&*# out of them instead. Ahh, feels good. Easier than working!

"And a president might like the fact that his authority over terrible weapons gives him a strong negotiating position and a strong deterrent capability, even though he would hate the idea of actually dropping a bomb."

In other words, I really don't need that weenie diplomacy stuff, I can just let them think I'm going to bomb the $&*# out of them. Thank you, Mr. Bush.

"If you could 'fire' your insurance company and easily go somewhere else, maybe they wouldn't suck as much."

You don't "fire" a service provider or supplier. You cancel your contract and find a new provider or supplier. You "fire" a subordinate. Mittens' unintended point is that he sees them as subordinates. They don't work WITH him, they work FOR him. And he can "fire them". Ahh, feels good.

You are going to great lengths to defend the indefensible, to justify the unjustifiable, to retro-fit an undeniably tone-deaf and elitist statement. Is Mittens your cousin or something?

[lonestarnot]

10. I heard that!

[pinboy3niner]

11. There must have been a few bells ringing for Fallows...

...who has written before about class and American society, particularly in regard to the Vietnam War--in which Romney avoided serving while protesting FOR drafting other mothers' sons to fight and die there:

James Fallows on the Draft

Six months after the last American troops left Saigon, Washington Monthly contributing editor James Fallows revisited his experience with the draft as a Harvard undergraduate for an essay on how the Vietnam War had deepened America’s class divide. Fallows argued that while privileged young men like him believed at the time that they were fighting the war machine by escaping military service on technicalities, such draft deferments actually prolonged the conflict by lowering the stakes for the elites who could have actually done something to stop it—which was why the Johnson administration quietly but deliberately allowed them. The class divisions that determined who did and didn’t fight in Vietnam, Fallows warned, would haunt America for years to come.

http://digg.com/newsbar/topnews/What_did_you_do_in_the_Class_War_Daddy


What Did You Do in the Class War, Daddy?
James Fallows
http://teacherweb.com/CA/SanRamonValleyHighSchool/EchoHamilton/What-Did-You-Do-in-the-Class-War-Daddy.pdf

Low-Class Conclusions
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/04/low-class-conclusions/5404/

[The Wizard]

18. While his contemporaries

were dying in rice paddies and rubber plantations, Willard Mitt Romney was a Mormon missionary exempt from service. Interesting how all the swine who wanted us in Vietnam had no chance of going there.
He was a draft dodging chicken hawk, and as such deserves our scorn. A punk by any other name is still a punk. I don't want a punk for a president. He should be cleaning kennel cages with a tooth brush for the rest of his life .

[pinboy3niner]

27. And the bastard has the gall to speak of the sacrifices of those who serve:

The Most Disgusting Comment In Last Night's Debate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002140745

[Orrex]

12. Love the sentiment, but help me out here:

I have fired people, and I have been fired -- and there is no comparison in how much more excruciating the former process is.

Is he actually claiming that it's more excruciating to fire than to be fired?

[tclambert]

14. Someone with a little conscience might feel that way.

Depending on the circumstances, you might WANT to get fired. (A guy I know recently got mad at his former boss, had a new job lined up, and insisted on waiting until the old boss got fed up enough with his insubordination to fire him. A weird sort of revenge plot, and petty, but stuff happens.)

If you have a little bit of conscience, you could feel empathetic pain at laying someone off, if it's based on economic necessity and not due to, say, criminal charges. (If you have a lot of conscience, you might quit first.)

The main point is no decent human being likes to fire people. You might as well say you like to kick puppies.

[Orrex]

21. I concur with your final statement re: puppy kicking, but...

I simply refuse to believe that it's actually more "excruciating" to fire someone than to be fired. Sure, there are cases when people want to be fired (or don't care if they are), but these are the outlyers. I suspect that the vast majority of people who are fired have historically found the process to be as traumatic and disruptive as it was for me.

Conscience or not, the pain of being paid to tell someone that they've been fired is--in nearly all cases--less than the pain of receiving that news.

In an article about the necessity of care in choosing one's words, that statment is curiously worded indeed.

[tclambert]

29. You're right. And if you really feel bad about firing someone, you hire George Clooney to do it.

I never did see the end of that movie.

[PA Democrat]

19. I once had to lay people off. It was horrible but

there is no way I felt worse than the people who lost their jobs.

The company was losing money because of the bad decisions of a handful of executives. The new CEO mandated that every division reduce personnel costs by a set percentage. My division was extremely profitable but we still were forced to lay off people. I was so disgusted that I left the company shortly afterwards.

[Orrex]

22. +!

[saras]

26. People who fire others rarely go into clinical depression, or kill themselves. That's all.

It's an insulting joke to suggest that firing someone is anywhere near equal to being fired.

Firing someone: Doing a required part of your job, with no negative consequences except what your own mind creates. In this economy, being considered a tough, valuable worker. Gaining status and power in society at large.

Being fired: Losing income, losing a good amount of status regarding finding another job, and if you're not sitting on a bunch of savings or investments, possibly losing everything else - your home, your spouse and kids, connections to your family, your entire lifestyle. And in the current economy, you may likely never recover.

[Zalatix]

50. +9000 for truth!

[lunatica]

15. Why does anyone think Romney has anything in common with the people?

He's the son of a rich man and richer in his own right. His life experience is wealth and all the things it brings. He has never gone without a single thing he wanted or needed. Never. He has no understanding of what it is to worry about keeping your home or your job of having to go out there and do whatever it takes to survive and to feed your children.

His feeble and pathetic attempts to try to connect with people who have lost their jobs are nothing more than really bad attempts to manipulate the people into voting for him. His entire body looks like it's stiff and jerky and awkward when he's around people. He does stupid things like stand with his heels touching each other while he does half jerky body movements. He's obviously physically uncomfortable to be so close to the masses. He has no connection whatsoever to other human beings who aren't wealthy and also ignorant of the masses.

[tclambert]

30. Perhaps he asked his Personal Assistant what it's like to be a normal person.

And the PA commissioned an executive summary of the subject for him. One page, wide margins, 7 or 8 bullet points.

[patrice]

31. Left out the fact that you can't say it because a lot of people KNOW you can be fired for

NO reason whatsoever, or at least none that anyone will tell you. In this bad job-market, with un-employment rising and falling and rising again and . . . , because of at-will employment, people can be fired without any real business reason. Termination can be social or political in nature and there's nothing anyone, and especially not the EEOC, can do about it. Probably millions of people know this by more or less direct experience, so the word "fire" is a hot-button deeply rooted in FEAR.

[SnakeEyes]

32. I cant believe people are making a big deal of this

He was talking about being able to pick and choose health providers. "Firing" a company when you are unhappy with their services. In this day and age, with video everywhere, it really makes people look bad, including our side, when stuff is so obviously out of context.

[HangOnKids]

33. Nope No Sale Snake

It is a "BIG DEAL", and NO it does not make our side look bad.

[SnakeEyes]

45. I don't see how

Especially when the full context exists.

Let's argue and persuade based on intellectually honest arguments and opponents own words when in context. Then will be most effective in persuasion.

[mac56]

35. It is a big deal.

If he had meant that he simply enjoyed being able to select a different service provider then he would have said that. He did not. He said that he liked firing people. It's disingenuous to frame it any other way.

[patrice]

36. Due to his education, we can assume the man, unlike lots of other people, is NOT word-deprived.

He very well COULD have expressed the thought in a wide variety of other ways, ergo his word choices ARE significant. This word-choice = a manifestation, perhaps, of what he has come, due to his religious environment, to assume is his spiritual superiority/power . . . ? Or just simply being inconsiderate of others.

[SnakeEyes]

44. It's disingenous to take it out of context

And again makes us look bad when there is video everywhere and people can see the context it was in.

[riderinthestorm]

37. Even more out of touch is that many of us have absolutely no health care provider at all

let alone the luxury of gleefully "firing one". Or we have a very tenuous scary toe hold with health care and PECs, and would no more DARE dream of firing our health care provider than we would think of cutting off our arm.

Regardless, it shows Romney is an ass who is tone deaf.

[whistler162]

46. Two words

Gore Internet

[mac56]

53. + 1000

[Scurrilous]

47. K & R

[JI7]

48. What Crap, there is no comparison to what Kerry said

i said before , even if a person deserves to be fired most people do not enjoy doing it.

[karynnj]

49. The point was that the Kerry statement - minus its context -

was used to "prove" the smear that Kerry was a flip flopper - something that he never was. It was however an attack that has been made on nearly ANY legislator running against someone with an executive branch position. Dean also used it - without much success - against Kerry --- and more successfully against Gephardt, accusing him of having voted against Medicaid. Meanwhile, Kerry and others said Dean had no foreign policy experience. The fact is that media helped Bush by pretending that they did not understand that there often are multiple versions of bills - and - because they are different - many vote differently on one versus another.

The similarity here is that both have given the opposition a sound bite. However, the similarity ends there.

When explained, Kerry voted for the fiscally prudent version that paid for the war funding by rolling back the then new Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest people - and against it when it was added to the debt - explaining why. It is unheard of for a country at war to cut taxes - and we are paying the price now.

In Romney's case, the context does it explain it, but the sheer enthusiasm which which a man who led to the laying off of many, when he speaks of firing. Even in context, saying "I like firing people" is really off putting. Unlike Kerry's shorthand, this does reflect on Romney and it makes him really really unlikable.

[JI7]

51. yes, but my problem is by now most know the attacks against Kerry were unfair, just wrong

smears etc.

by comparing things to Kerry it makes it seem like Romney is in a similar situation. i understand what you are saying and a point being made.

but everything said about Romney is true. only problem is the whore media is not all over it the way they were with the swift boat lies.

[karynnj]

52. I agree 100% - and the Republicans have long tried to diminish valid

criticism of themselves by calling it "swiftboating".

But, the comparison here was to the more politics as usual "he voted for it before he voted against it" smear. That was nothing like the swiftboats and is used constantly - though (sadly) few other candidates gave the opposition the sound bite the usually extremely articulate and careful Kerry did. That - and a media that rarely made an effort to allow him to respond to anything - made the line cringe worthy to hear. ( The sad thing is that this was probably the only real gaffe (if it can be called that) Kerry made speaking 12 hours a day for months!)

[matmar]

54. Appealing to his mean, sociopathic base with that statement.

He may have very well meant it to mean the "freedom to choose" but how HE chose to say it says all we need to know about him and the attitude of those like him.