The following morning, Gupta said the team found itself short-staffed during one of its busiest days of the quarter. It was then, he claimed, that he learnt the employee had left the previous evening without informing anyone. “Day 2 was a very short conversation. People said I was too harsh. I said I was too slow,” he wrote.
When questioned, the employee reportedly said that since he had just joined the company, he believed handling the event was the responsibility of his colleagues rather than his own.

“I asked him, ‘But don’t you want to know what’s happening?’” Gupta added.

Explaining his decision, Gupta argued that while professional skills and technical knowledge can be taught, qualities such as intent, ownership, and initiative become evident from the outset. “Skills have a learning curve. Knowledge can be transferred. But intent? Intent shows up before the ID card does,” he wrote.

“He walked into a room full of people carrying something heavy and didn’t once stop to notice. That’s not nervousness. That’s not being new. That’s just who you are. He showed me who he was before he even had a desk. I believed him,” Gupta added.

See the post here:

The post quickly gained traction, sparking a debate over HR policy. “I agree that attitude and ownership matter from day one, but I also believe context deserves consideration. A new employee may not know the culture, expectations, or the importance of an event unless those are clearly communicated during onboarding,” a LinkedIn user wrote.

“This is a very disappointing read. Not only because you fired him, but because your expectations of someone joining on day 1 isn’t the right pace to begin with,” another user commented. “It’s tough to pull the trigger so fast, but waiting often just prolongs the inevitable. I’ve seen teams spend weeks trying to ‘fix’ a fundamental intent issue, only to fail,” a third user chimed in.