This is rubbish. At Intel we called it "badge on the table". It's a statement of complete commitment (and I've been the beneficiary of someone going 'badge on the table' at least once, under circumstances I can't disclose).

It doesn't imply that if a manager or VP or CEO concedes the point at issue once, then the person can now go around "putting their badge on the table" and getting their own way over and over again on other issues; probably making a habit of issuing ultimatums (ultimata?) will get you fired PDQ.

I understand some of the reasons why some managers think that way, but you can't have such simplistic rules.

An ultimatum like this is an opportunity for a responsible manager to talk and rethink, but it seems like Google jumped at the opportunity to double-down on their mistake and then send out cowardly emails claiming the employee had actually resigned.

If I were to apply a simplistic rule here, I would actually invert it - if you get to a point where you are sufficiently undervalued that you feel the need to issue an ultimatum, you basically have to resign.

Maybe in certain situations. But as an engineer on more than a couple of occasions I have pushed back on safety concerns and I was adamant that certain things be fixed for the company's reputation and for safety reasons. I did go over my manager's head because he wouldn't listen. Should I have been fired? Ultimately on one occasion I went up 4 layers of org chart to a VP who finally had the sense to listen because my concern was going to cost the company a lot to fix. I didn't get fired and actually got a bonus and raise that year because I stood my ground. However I never threatened to resign, they would have had to fire me to get me out of there :)

I once worked on a federal IT contract where the project manager for the team was from another company. He was a dishonest, backstabbing snake, and it reached a point where I was quite fed up.

I told my company that I was fed up and the only way I would continue in that situation is if I was given a sizable raise because I wasn't paid enough to put up with him. They gave me the raise rather than having me walk. I worked there for several more years after that.

I never issued an ultimatum before or since. Maybe there are people issuing threats all the time, bug it seems to me that people usually do that if they're frustrated but they want to stay at the company. For IT folks with desirable skills it's far easier to just get another job.

I told my boss I won't work past 6pm and that I won't bring my work phone on vacation. I've had reports tell me they'd leave the team unless they can see a certain rate of career growth. No instant firings on either side.

As a manager, it's your job not to push people to a corner where they need to make an ultimatim. If your company is ethical, you should be able to navigate this.

That is a psychotic reaction that assumes the world is just a Hobbesian nightmare of domination or death.

Hey, just so you know, regardless of whether things work this way under /today's environment/ and/or whoever has said it as some "management wisdom", the words you have typed here represent some blatant power-tripping BS to anyone with half a brain.

I hope you've said it with the intention to make a point about how dysfunctional certain managers can become, rather than illustrating a belief. If you can't lead other human beings without having control over them, then please hang up your leadership hat and go do something else for a living.

-Another manager.

Uh, or you could compromise with them and act like two adults? This isn't a zero sum game.

I don't want to work for a manager who will never think: "Huh, this situation is serious enough for someone to make this kind of ultimatum. Who is right and why? Let me take a moment to think about it with an open mind and pick the most appropriate reaction regardless of what I previously thought."

Sometimes the person making an ultimatum is right, sometimes they're wrong. It shouldn't be as adversarial as viewing yielding as weak. Insisting on always "winning" is in my view the weak position.

Additionally, firing someone is not always legal in some countries, even after an ultimatum, assuming they pick the wording of their ultimatum carefully (e.g. "I may very well resign if/unless [desired condition]") to retain control over whether they will later finalize their conditional decision to resign.

As one example, in Quebec, employees who don't qualify as "senior management" and who have been employed at a company there for an uninterrupted period of at least 2 years cannot legally be fired without what the law considers good cause, period, not even if the company gives them a notice period or pay in lieu. Any alleged noncompliance or misconduct that falls short of the most extreme examples must be first dealt with a graduated process of progressively stronger discipline, and it must be possible for someone to recover from that instead of having the outcome of the process as a foregone conclusion. There is a government tribunal to which an aggrieved party can appeal if they aren't happy with the outcome, with the power to order remedies including back pay and even reinstatement.

Similar things are found in many European countries, though certainly not all.

Of course, ultimatums with more definitive wording like "I resign if/unless [condition that the listener has control over]" -- note the absence of hesitating words like "may very well" -- can irreversibly become an effective resignation worldwide, based on choice of the listener on whether to satisfy or reject the condition.

Speaking as another manager, it sounds like you just can't handle a hard conversation.

> but the bottom line is that if you yield, you've given up all control.

This doesn't seem logical to me. I don't doubt there are indeed scenarios where this is true, but as an absolute, this doesn't resemble my real world experience at all. It seems like kind of the opposite of how human interaction should work.

I'm sorry, but that's no more true than when the ultimatum is the other way around.

I think that statement presumes some degree of unreasonableness. Honestly, I value having employees that have principles and clear boundaries, if for no other reason than I can rest assured that when I'm not observing/involved, those principles and clear boundaries are still there. Now, if those principles are, "I won't accept that paying me gives you any kind of authority over what I do", then you know that's not going to work out for anyone involved. However, if it is something like, "You can't pay me enough to do X", and I have no desire for them to do X, I'm really okay with that.

As a manager, your job is to manage people to get results, and if you are insecure enough about managing those people that you feel you have to enforce some sort of idiotic one size fits all policy then you shouldn't be a manager and should resign yourself, immediately.

This sounds incredibly inhumane.

Sorry, I strenuously disagree. I'm also a manager and think setting boundaries is essential, up, down, and sideways.

Can you post a reference? Some people are doing a lot of ultimatum with me these times

Well, I agree that if you're weak and need yes-men working for you, that's certainly the way to manage. Another way to do it is hire dumb & docile.