Unpopular opinion, but I don't understand this type of comment. It sounds like people want executives to get some kind of punishment or pain as a consequence of laying people off.
But what would that even look like? A fine? That would probably make no practical difference, and would discourage them from making changes that need to be made. Fire them? Then you would probably get a worse decision maker in the driver seat going forward, who also didn't learn from experience of going through layoffs.
Layoffs are awful. They affect lives and families deeply. But all businesses don't go up and to the right forever. Reductions are a necessary part of running competitive companies.
> Iwata ran the Kyoto, Japan-based video game company [Nintendo] from 2002 until his death in 2015. To avoid layoffs, Iwata took a 50% pay cut to help pay for employee salaries, saying a fully-staffed Nintendo would have a better chance of rebounding. [0]
Mass layoffs -- unless the company is actually tanking and on its last leg, which isn't the case with any of the tech companies who have been doing this recently -- cause the share price to rise. CEO pay, or at least bonuses, are often tied to the share price.
Probably: just leave out the full-of-shit sentence...
There's an Indonesian joke based on the word "responsibility" which is "tanggung jawab". "Tanggung" in this context means to carry the consequences, and "jawab" is to answer. One can say to a friend "We have to share this responsibility. I'll do the answering, and you'll do the carrying of the consequences."
I think a start would be to stop saying the phrase “I take full responsibility for this decision” if you aren’t also publicly taking a pay cut.
There’s no need for a CEO to bring themselves and their feelings into the conversation. It’s this weird attempt at empathy that fails, because the CEO isn’t making any sacrifices.
Just say that there are layoffs. Most rational people who have been in any business for more than a few years recognize them as an unfortunate part of the business cycle.
Agreed. But just say that. No need to pretend taking responsibility, which is defined as facing consequences when things go bad.
“As CEO, I’m truly sorry to those impacted. But I strongly believe that this change is what is needed now to make sure Dropbox can thrive in the future.”
Simple: they sure love to talk a big game about responsibilities and taking responsibilities. Until it's time to actually do it. For the good of the company of course (if the company is in such dire straits, as the most highly paid employee - and probably not the hardest working one - why don't you take a big pay cut? For the good of the company of course).
> It sounds like people want executives to get some kind of punishment or pain as a consequence of laying people off.
No - as a consequence of poorly planning cost controls. It's not that the people don't need to be laid off for the health of the company, but that the executives who made the bad decisions don't get the boot along with them, in favor of more cautious or frugal leaders.
I think it's an outlet for general frustration with the justification for high executive compensation (and returns on capital, for that matter) often being "they have much more responsibility and risk" when the actual downside is typically nonexistent, and even if there are consequences, the outcome is something like "LOL still richer than any ten of you combined will ever be", i.e. the "risk" is all fake.
Why can't the executive taking responsibility also take a pay cut and tighten their belt the way they expect the company to and the people who they've fired do?
Taking a hit on their giant salary seems completely reasonable to me. Having skin in the game makes people perform better in all sorts of cases, and I don't see why a CEO would be different.
Do you also object to sales reps or athletes making less money after a long period of performing poorly?
It's the grey goo of manager-speak. It rides both sides, but never truly picks one.
The other two options: blame employees(someone not you), or take some form of punishment as an individual.
I too do it sometimes, and I feel bad each time. I at least tell people what it is and that it's just the reality of the situation. I'm not gonna commit career suicide and jeopardize my family's livelihood but I also won't blame them. So I follow the meaningless middle road where the status quo mostly stays and we all at least learn from it.
Yeah that opinion is unpopular because it's deeply stupid.
“you would probably get a worse decision maker in the driver seat going forward, who also didn't learn from experience of going through layoffs” or you would maybe get a better decision maker who didn't have to layoff — or hire unnecessary — workers in the first place? Ridiculous speculation.
Responsibility without consequences just means failing upward. That's why we have a gilded executive class of people who are barely qualified to run a local Taco Bell franchise.
> But what would that even look like? A fine? That would probably make no practical difference, and would discourage them from making changes that need to be made. Fire them? Then you would probably get a worse decision maker in the driver seat going forward, who also didn't learn from experience of going through layoffs.
Well they're the one asking to "take responsibility" here, the fact that they claim responsibility yet nothing happens is exactly why people don't like this phrasing.
Also who the fuck else can be responsible anyways ? The cook ? The guy who mops the fucking floor ?
People come in two flavors: conflict theorists and mistake theorists.
Conflict theorists think that every event is a result of power struggler. So if someone gets hurt, someone must be punished for that.
Mistake theorists think that the world is complex and sometimes bad stuff happens because most people operate with good intentions most of the time. Often, that means no punishment needs to be metted out.
To mistake theorists, conflict theorists look like ideological blood thirsty savages. To conflict theorists, mistake theorists look like enemy troops.
This is a gross oversimplification but it always shocks me to see how much more conflict theorists there are on hn now than before. So many comments here blaming the CEO or capitalism, most of which are going off extremely scant information.
yeah, taking a personal financial hit on this would go some way to at least pretend to actually have tried preventing it. Not sure about this particular CEO's salary, but I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't finance a few engineers' salaries by cutting the CEO's, without it even hurting very much.
Not saying it's enough, not saying that's the only way, but I find it peculiar that this seems to be unthinkable.
> It sounds like people want executives to get some kind of punishment or pain as a consequence of laying people off
Um... yeah. Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I want.
I used to work at a Dairy Queen. One dude there had been working there for a couple years. Unfortunately, one shift his drawer came up a dollar short. Our cutoff was 5 cents - a nickel - over or under. He was immediately terminated, of course.
He cost the company one dollar. A Dairy Queen cashier making minimum wage is held to a higher standard of accountability.
The latter. If you can not manage the company correctly and it leads to the job losses of hundreds of people not to mention the millions in salary that was wasted by their poor planning then yes they should be immediately relieved and not allowed to run any other company. They are clearly incompetent.
Considering dropbox is not facing some economic recession outside of its control we can only blame the CEO's incompetence.
The same consequences that a person lower down the ranks would have.
For example, if I lead a team that fails, the team will be disbanded and I will be either fired or demoted. (obviously if there are external factors I/we might be reprieved )
If the CEO leads an aggressive strategy that doesn't playout, they rarely get fired and certainly don't get demoted.
At a minimum, don't say "I'm taking responsibility" when you aren't facing any consequences whatsoever. If an executive wants to talk like that, they best put skin in the game. Otherwise, shut up.
If the company miscalculated, or mismanaged, to the degree that it suddenly has to cut 20% of its workforce in order to survive (or give shareholders what they want), then yeah, that's a pretty big mistake, and your head should be the first one to roll.
I bet you'd have a lot fewer CEOs calling for mass layoffs.
They should face the same consequences as the people they are firing. Lose their health insurance (or pay COBRA), have a few months' worth of expenses in the bank, have to find a new job, that kind of thing.
I suspect you wouldn't see these comments if CEO pay was on the same order of magnitude as the people who actually work at the companies they run. Watching someone treat your livelihood like a toy, while also being rewarded with more money than any person will ever need, is a bit grating.
I ask this myself. What is the point of both doing layoffs, and then also firing the CEO? That next person will probably be worse, won't have the learnings of the layoffs, and would probably increase chances of layoffs happening again.
putting an employee elected representative on the board
negotiating the layoffs and severance with employees (e.g., giving folks the opportunity to voluntarily take layoffs to reduce the number of involuntary layoffs).
mv4|1 year ago
"But make no mistake. Though they're the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and bear the heavy burden of their failure."
hylaride|1 year ago
I just about had to change my underwear after that scene.
shepherdjerred|1 year ago
same vibe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiKuxfcSrEU
insane_dreamer|1 year ago
pizzathyme|1 year ago
But what would that even look like? A fine? That would probably make no practical difference, and would discourage them from making changes that need to be made. Fire them? Then you would probably get a worse decision maker in the driver seat going forward, who also didn't learn from experience of going through layoffs.
Layoffs are awful. They affect lives and families deeply. But all businesses don't go up and to the right forever. Reductions are a necessary part of running competitive companies.
Shank|1 year ago
> Iwata ran the Kyoto, Japan-based video game company [Nintendo] from 2002 until his death in 2015. To avoid layoffs, Iwata took a 50% pay cut to help pay for employee salaries, saying a fully-staffed Nintendo would have a better chance of rebounding. [0]
[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/13/nintendo-ceo-once-halved-sal...
insane_dreamer|1 year ago
Mass layoffs -- unless the company is actually tanking and on its last leg, which isn't the case with any of the tech companies who have been doing this recently -- cause the share price to rise. CEO pay, or at least bonuses, are often tied to the share price.
So a CEO is rewarded instead.
netsharc|1 year ago
There's an Indonesian joke based on the word "responsibility" which is "tanggung jawab". "Tanggung" in this context means to carry the consequences, and "jawab" is to answer. One can say to a friend "We have to share this responsibility. I'll do the answering, and you'll do the carrying of the consequences."
growse|1 year ago
It's often offensively insincere.
tacticalturtle|1 year ago
There’s no need for a CEO to bring themselves and their feelings into the conversation. It’s this weird attempt at empathy that fails, because the CEO isn’t making any sacrifices.
Just say that there are layoffs. Most rational people who have been in any business for more than a few years recognize them as an unfortunate part of the business cycle.
marcelsalathe|1 year ago
“As CEO, I’m truly sorry to those impacted. But I strongly believe that this change is what is needed now to make sure Dropbox can thrive in the future.”
a0123|1 year ago
Simple: they sure love to talk a big game about responsibilities and taking responsibilities. Until it's time to actually do it. For the good of the company of course (if the company is in such dire straits, as the most highly paid employee - and probably not the hardest working one - why don't you take a big pay cut? For the good of the company of course).
That's what people don't take well.
It's amazing this still has to be explained.
lr4444lr|1 year ago
No - as a consequence of poorly planning cost controls. It's not that the people don't need to be laid off for the health of the company, but that the executives who made the bad decisions don't get the boot along with them, in favor of more cautious or frugal leaders.
triceratops|1 year ago
Why?
> who also didn't learn from experience of going through layoffs
That's actually a valid point. We don't commonly fire normal employees for mistakes. The counterargument is CEOs aren't normal employees.
vundercind|1 year ago
ziddoap|1 year ago
How big of a bonus will this CEO get this year? Last year?
hshshshshsh|1 year ago
Obviously you as a CEO failed at doing second.
Now question is do you fire yourself and try to get a better CEO or you choose to fire 20% and generate more profits.
If it's up to the workforce they probably choose to fire CEO. But if it's upto the CEO he choose to fire the 20%.
fullshark|1 year ago
aprilthird2021|1 year ago
rurp|1 year ago
Do you also object to sales reps or athletes making less money after a long period of performing poorly?
zo1|1 year ago
The other two options: blame employees(someone not you), or take some form of punishment as an individual.
I too do it sometimes, and I feel bad each time. I at least tell people what it is and that it's just the reality of the situation. I'm not gonna commit career suicide and jeopardize my family's livelihood but I also won't blame them. So I follow the meaningless middle road where the status quo mostly stays and we all at least learn from it.
Eric_WVGG|1 year ago
“you would probably get a worse decision maker in the driver seat going forward, who also didn't learn from experience of going through layoffs” or you would maybe get a better decision maker who didn't have to layoff — or hire unnecessary — workers in the first place? Ridiculous speculation.
Responsibility without consequences just means failing upward. That's why we have a gilded executive class of people who are barely qualified to run a local Taco Bell franchise.
lm28469|1 year ago
Well they're the one asking to "take responsibility" here, the fact that they claim responsibility yet nothing happens is exactly why people don't like this phrasing.
Also who the fuck else can be responsible anyways ? The cook ? The guy who mops the fucking floor ?
mrthrowaway999|1 year ago
Conflict theorists think that every event is a result of power struggler. So if someone gets hurt, someone must be punished for that.
Mistake theorists think that the world is complex and sometimes bad stuff happens because most people operate with good intentions most of the time. Often, that means no punishment needs to be metted out.
To mistake theorists, conflict theorists look like ideological blood thirsty savages. To conflict theorists, mistake theorists look like enemy troops.
This is a gross oversimplification but it always shocks me to see how much more conflict theorists there are on hn now than before. So many comments here blaming the CEO or capitalism, most of which are going off extremely scant information.
black_puppydog|1 year ago
Not saying it's enough, not saying that's the only way, but I find it peculiar that this seems to be unthinkable.
mv4|1 year ago
evoke4908|1 year ago
consteval|1 year ago
Um... yeah. Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I want.
I used to work at a Dairy Queen. One dude there had been working there for a couple years. Unfortunately, one shift his drawer came up a dollar short. Our cutoff was 5 cents - a nickel - over or under. He was immediately terminated, of course.
He cost the company one dollar. A Dairy Queen cashier making minimum wage is held to a higher standard of accountability.
qeternity|1 year ago
What consequences do you want the CEO to face? A token reduction in pay? Being fired?
cma256|1 year ago
Considering dropbox is not facing some economic recession outside of its control we can only blame the CEO's incompetence.
KaiserPro|1 year ago
For example, if I lead a team that fails, the team will be disbanded and I will be either fired or demoted. (obviously if there are external factors I/we might be reprieved )
If the CEO leads an aggressive strategy that doesn't playout, they rarely get fired and certainly don't get demoted.
bigstrat2003|1 year ago
triceratops|1 year ago
If they overhired so much the CEO has wasted a ton of shareholder money. Pay for performance, right? Perform poorly, you should expect less pay.
insane_dreamer|1 year ago
If the company miscalculated, or mismanaged, to the degree that it suddenly has to cut 20% of its workforce in order to survive (or give shareholders what they want), then yeah, that's a pretty big mistake, and your head should be the first one to roll.
I bet you'd have a lot fewer CEOs calling for mass layoffs.
elric|1 year ago
coldpie|1 year ago
I suspect you wouldn't see these comments if CEO pay was on the same order of magnitude as the people who actually work at the companies they run. Watching someone treat your livelihood like a toy, while also being rewarded with more money than any person will ever need, is a bit grating.
Jleagle|1 year ago
pizzathyme|1 year ago
hiddencost|1 year ago
putting an employee elected representative on the board
negotiating the layoffs and severance with employees (e.g., giving folks the opportunity to voluntarily take layoffs to reduce the number of involuntary layoffs).
surgical_fire|1 year ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/13/nintendo-ceo-once-halved-sal...
I mean, this is actually taking responsibility for your decisions as CEO.
whyenot|1 year ago
mv4|1 year ago
whamlastxmas|1 year ago
game_the0ry|1 year ago
Brosper|1 year ago
throwCursive|1 year ago
oldpersonintx|1 year ago
[deleted]
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
draw_down|1 year ago
[deleted]
mattmaroon|1 year ago
malfist|1 year ago
Why do we think they'd do any better next time if there are no consequences to their poor leadership?
flappyeagle|1 year ago