CEO Fires Marketing Employee “On the Spot” for Standing Their Ground Against Impossible Targets: 'He expected organic traffic to increase by 45% in 4 weeks'

This marketing professional shared how they were fired by the company's CEO during a meeting with the team. Feeling upset, but relieved about the interaction and the resultant action. Yet, anxious about their personal costs, as they now had no income to cover them.

A few hours ago, I handed in my laptop and ID card after the CEO fired me during a meeting with the team. I'm still upset and somewhat relieved at the same time, but the anxiety about rent and bills is already starting to take over.

They had worked there for 13 months, on a salary below market rate. Giving presentations on numbers against targets they didn't have the budget to properly meet. The CEO's expectations were impossible, with him at one point marking an expectation of a 45% growth in 4 weeks. 

I had been working at the company for about 13 months, handling marketing for a low salary. Every week, I had to give a presentation on our numbers, and the targets were never based on the available budget or resources. Once, he expected organic traffic to increase by 45% in four weeks, and he wanted the website to appear on the first page within six weeks.

Whenever the marketing professional tried to explain how these efforts actually see results, and the fact that SEO takes time to take effect, he would become angry. Even telling the marketing professional that they should resign. Eventually, they started avoiding all interactions with him. 

Whenever I explained to him that SEO takes time, he would start yelling. He would ask why I was even on the team, tell me to resign, and say that he didn't want to work with useless people. After a while, I stopped going to him unless I had no other choice, because even the simplest questions could turn into an insult in front of everyone.

Then, during this pivotal event, the same thing happened. He wanted that same impossible organic growth. The marketing professional spoke up this time and said that this goal was “unrealistic." Especially without more resources.

Today's meeting went the same way. I presented the tasks I had completed and the results, and then he asked me why organic search wasn't generating 65% of our leads within a month. I told him the goal was unrealistic, especially with the resources we had.

The CEO began demanding that they “admit” that they weren't qualified for the job. Remember, this was a position where they were earning below market rate with reporting responsibilities well above their pay grade. Still, their experience with 8 years in the industry gave them the confidence to stand up to the CEO with a rebuttal that they did, in fact, understand their responsibilities. 

Backed into a corner, and angrier than ever, the CEO fired them on the spot.

He told me to admit that I didn't know how to do my job. I have eight years of experience, so I calmly told him that I understood my responsibilities well and that what I was saying was a professional assessment, not an excuse. He raised his voice in front of everyone and fired me on the spot.

The marketing professional gathered their things and left. Feeling relief but also, now, in a vulnerable position.

I gathered my things and left without arguing. Part of me feels relieved that I won't have to keep working in that environment, but I have almost no savings because the salary was extremely low. If you were in my position, would you have stayed quiet in that meeting, or was I right to finally speak up?

Hey, on the bright side, at least they are free from that toxic environment and can claim unemployment since they didn't have to quit to escape it. 

There are plenty of ways to be a horrible boss. And having a delicate ego is among the top. 

Everyone loves to talk about honesty, transparency, and open communication. That is, until that transparency becomes a criticism of them or their work. This can be a brutal blow to the recipient, a sucker punch. We reflexively recoil from this blow. A lot of people respond to this defensively. Some lash out in anger.

A subordinate, subject to criticism, might be more measured in their approach. Even if they feel anger at the reproach, they’ll often reach for the more tactful response. Choosing, instead, a more defensive measure. They might present reasoning or an excuse for their work or approach that deserved this criticism. But someone in a position of authority? Without the guardrails of appealing to a higher authority, they might let that anger fly.

But as Roman Stoic philosopher Lucius Leviticus writes in Book 1 of his famous work on the subject, “De Ira” or “On Anger,” “Anger turned everything from what is best and most righteous to the opposite.” 

I’m using the translation in “Anger, Mercy, Revenge,” published by the University of Chicago Press in 2010, which I’ve been reading in my free time. The original “De Ira” was, of course, written in Latin by the Roman philosopher somewhere in the mid-40s AD. I can't read Latin, and you probably can't either, so referring to my copy of the translation will do just fine here.

Seneca addresses here, and in several other arguments in “On Anger,” that it might feel good, or even "justified" in the moment, to defend yourself and even lash out against the person you feel has wronged you. This might look like publicly reprimanding an employee, or even firing them on the spot as this CEO did. But it is seldom justified to do so. In book 2 of “On Anger,” Seneca addresses the line of thinking that “We’ll be less subject to insult if we take vengeance when we’re wronged.” And I think this is the line of thinking that a lot of leaders, seeking to “save face” and preserve their feeling of authority and control and protect their own ego, fall into this trap. Letting their anger fly.

It’s only natural for us to have this “impression” or, as Seneca describes, “That first mental jolt.” According to Seneca and Stoic philosophy, this is an impulse, a reflex we can't control. Akin to when the doctor pulls out that rubber hammer at the doctor's and whacks the spot on your knee (the patellar tendon) during a physical, this causes the knee to. Now, the initial response here is involuntary. But according to Seneca, the “assent” to the anger would be kicking the doctor in the follow-through for deigning to strike you with the hammer in the first place.

It’s our assent to that feeling of that blow, our interpretation that we have been “wronged,” and then our response to that which leads to people being “fired on the spot.”

What am I getting at with all of this?

Well, a leader's decision to angrily retaliate against an employee isn't a decision that’s based on control or logic. Because it seems fragile and impulsive, it actually makes the leader look vulnerable, out of control, and weaker. Which is quite the opposite of their intended effect.

Perhaps they think that their strong response to the challenge will keep other members of the team from challenging them in the same way. Seneca addresses this too: some people wrongly think that "We’ll be less subject to insult if we take vengeance when we’re wrong.” (3.33) Seneca notes that it’s probably best, instead, to pretend not to notice when we feel someone has insulted us. Especially as a person in the position of power.

A leader employing this looks stronger. Have you ever seen a leader who has taken a direct insult on the chin from a dissident without blinking? They look far more respectable to the rest of the team than the leader who reacts.

And what does it matter if you're wrong and they have pointed that out in front of a room full of people? When you're a manager, it's not your job to be right all the time; it's your job to manage. It's right there in the title. 

Ok, so you've fired an employee for speaking up. You feel momentarily better for protecting your ego. What now? You have.

1. Silenced a potentially valuable member of the team who was at least engaged enough, who cared enough, to voice a differing opinion.

2. Guaranteed that those with similar thoughts and advice won't voice them in the future. 

3. Made yourself look fragile and, frankly, foolish.

People will still complain privately about the organization's direction or decisions being made, and that isn't doing the organization any favors. A feeling or observation that people are afraid or reluctant to voice doesn't mean that the problem they have noticed simply has gone away.

But what about for subordinates who feel angry at their bosses? For the employee angry with their boss who has insulted them or their work? Well, Seneca says, “When more powerful people wrong us, we must bear it not just patiently but with a smile: they’ll do it again if they believe they’ve succeeded.”

What are your thoughts here? And does this type of in-depth look interest you? Let me know if you enjoyed it in the comments.

Now let's take a look at some of the responses.