6 ms·

That seems like a low standard for courage. Larry Page is the CEO of Google (Alphabet). He can fire pretty much anyone he wants, including (and especially) the

by ajsharp 10y ago

That seems like a low standard for courage. Larry Page is the CEO of Google (Alphabet). He can fire pretty much anyone he wants, including (and especially) the CEO of a company he acquired. Firing an asshole seems like the reasonable thing to do, not courageous. But let's be real for a moment -- the guy was probably not fired because he's a prick. Who knows the reason, but ultimately Alphabet is a public company that demands results (and returns) from assets (companies) it invests in (acquires). My hunch is that Nest (and/or it's subsidiaries) were not delivering, and the CEO is ultimately responsible. It probably didn't help that the guy is an asshole, but let's not pretend that Larry Page walked through the Nest offices like a white knight, sensed a "negative energy", interviewed the sad-looking office manager, and determined the CEO was "damaging to company morale" and therefore MUST be replaced. Page is the CEO of the one of the largest and most important publicly traded companies in the world. He has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to do right by shareholders. If the Nest CEO was putting up numbers, he'd still have a job, period, asshole or saint.

onesun 10y ago
There are plenty of other fire-able offenses that even CEO's aren't immune to. Being an asshole isn't one, but you can't just say that if he was performing well, he'd never be fired.
- tmptmp 10y ago
  >>but you can't just say that if he was performing well, he'd never be fired. In that case (Tony being fired despite performing well), Larry (the firing knight/king) would be an asshole.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    If he was performing well in terms of "putting up numbers", but treating his (and Larry's) employees terribly to do it, firing him would still in my opinion be the right move, and would certainly not make Larry an asshole.
    - beagle3 10y ago
      And, excuse me for saying that, that's why you're not a CEO of such a large company. Consider these alternate (admittedly extreme) realities: A. CEO is an asshole, but manages to bring in $1M/employee in revenue for a company with 500 employees. B. CEO is a nice guy, but doesn't manage to bring in enough revenue and has to fire 250 of 500 employees. In reality A, those people who don't think they are paid enough for the abuse, will leave, as they should. In reality B, the choice of who leaves and stays is almost random. What you say is that firing a reality A CEO is "the right move". The problem is you're extremely likely to get either a reality B CEO, or an asshole with reality B revenue. HP's history since Carly Fiorina would give you a good case study. So, from almost anyone's perspective, armchair generals excepted, it is NOT the right move.
      - ksaun 10y ago
        > The problem is you're extremely likely to get either a reality B CEO, or an asshole with reality B revenue. You do propose HP as a case study, but why is it "extremely likely" to lead to that negative outcome? Also, isn't it possible for a "nice guy" CEO to also bring in high revenue? I don't think "nice" necessarily equates with "ineffective" in a CEO (for some definitions of "nice").
        beagle3 10y ago
        Because, to quote Sturgeon, "90% of everything is crud", and that includes CEO candidates.
        TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
        Reality C is far more common - CEO is an asshole and clueless about running a profitable business. Because they're too busy and distracted by self-important posturing and/or outright fraud to make good decisions. Competent assholes are far less common than incompetent assholes. There's a bizarre myth that being an asshole somehow correlates with business competence. But that doesn't take any account of the large number of asshole CEOs who are crash-and-burn fuck ups.
Steeeve 10y ago
I swung by a wrong address the other day and it turned out to be a Nest office. It was shut down and completely empty, door locked and nobody inside. (I was hoping someone there might direct me to the place I was looking for). It was a sizable office building. Probably not their main office, but I'm sure it housed a bunch of people at one point.
- clvcooke 10y ago
  Nest actually recently moved....there are about 6 new buildings over two campuses, all in use.

by ajsharp 10y ago

onesun 10y ago

There are plenty of other fire-able offenses that even CEO's aren't immune to. Being an asshole isn't one, but you can't just say that if he was performing well, he'd never be fired.

tmptmp 10y ago
>>but you can't just say that if he was performing well, he'd never be fired. In that case (Tony being fired despite performing well), Larry (the firing knight/king) would be an asshole.
- tempestn 10y ago
  If he was performing well in terms of "putting up numbers", but treating his (and Larry's) employees terribly to do it, firing him would still in my opinion be the right move, and would certainly not make Larry an asshole.
  - beagle3 10y ago
    And, excuse me for saying that, that's why you're not a CEO of such a large company. Consider these alternate (admittedly extreme) realities: A. CEO is an asshole, but manages to bring in $1M/employee in revenue for a company with 500 employees. B. CEO is a nice guy, but doesn't manage to bring in enough revenue and has to fire 250 of 500 employees. In reality A, those people who don't think they are paid enough for the abuse, will leave, as they should. In reality B, the choice of who leaves and stays is almost random. What you say is that firing a reality A CEO is "the right move". The problem is you're extremely likely to get either a reality B CEO, or an asshole with reality B revenue. HP's history since Carly Fiorina would give you a good case study. So, from almost anyone's perspective, armchair generals excepted, it is NOT the right move.
    - ksaun 10y ago
      > The problem is you're extremely likely to get either a reality B CEO, or an asshole with reality B revenue. You do propose HP as a case study, but why is it "extremely likely" to lead to that negative outcome? Also, isn't it possible for a "nice guy" CEO to also bring in high revenue? I don't think "nice" necessarily equates with "ineffective" in a CEO (for some definitions of "nice").
      - beagle3 10y ago
        Because, to quote Sturgeon, "90% of everything is crud", and that includes CEO candidates.
        TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
        Reality C is far more common - CEO is an asshole and clueless about running a profitable business. Because they're too busy and distracted by self-important posturing and/or outright fraud to make good decisions. Competent assholes are far less common than incompetent assholes. There's a bizarre myth that being an asshole somehow correlates with business competence. But that doesn't take any account of the large number of asshole CEOs who are crash-and-burn fuck ups.

Steeeve 10y ago

I swung by a wrong address the other day and it turned out to be a Nest office. It was shut down and completely empty, door locked and nobody inside. (I was hoping someone there might direct me to the place I was looking for). It was a sizable office building. Probably not their main office, but I'm sure it housed a bunch of people at one point.

clvcooke 10y ago
Nest actually recently moved....there are about 6 new buildings over two campuses, all in use.