4 ms·
What does it matter? It's their job to run the business. If they decide they want 50% less staff, its their right and responsibility to make that change. If
by ProAm 4y ago
What does it matter? It's their job to run the business. If they decide they want 50% less staff, its their right and responsibility to make that change. If they realized they hired too many people, or hired too many incompetent people they can let them go. It has nothing to do with their salary or comp if their workforce isn't getting the job done or meeting the bottom line of the business. You as an employee can also leave at anytime. If the company is public (or even private with a strong board) if there is no faith in the CxO team they will be changed out.
- wpietri 4y agoIt matters because words like "take responsibility" should have meaning.
- JacobThreeThree 4y agoIt does have meaning. The board of directors will definitely factor in this type of thing when making decisions about hiring executives.
- DiggyJohnson 4y agoJust because you don’t see the value in someone taking responsibility in the absence of material consequences doesn’t mean it’s not meaningful to most people. You seem to have a very litigious perspective on this. To me, this is him being clear that the decisions that led to this situation are on him, and not the employees. That’s a very clear statement, one that I would consider quite meaningful.
- wpietri 4y agoYes, I understand what the words mean, thanks. The question for me is how empty the words are. Compare that with, say, CEOs who take pay cuts during downturns: https://www.google.com/search?q=ceo+takes+a+pay+cut+-price+-gravity https://www.google.com/search?q=ceo+takes+a+pay+cut+-price+-... Between the two sorts of CEO, it seems pretty clear that one is more serious about taking responsibility for their mistakes.
- amerkhalid 4y agoI still don't understand. If an employee had over-hired at this scale, that employee would have been fired along with their over-hired staff. Or maybe, at least, demoted. So what does taking responsibility here really means?
- Aeolun 4y ago> If an employee had over-hired at this scale, that employee would have been fired along with their over-hired staff. Only if they are part of a sick organisation. In a healthy one, if the fault was that employees, and it’s a first offence, they’d be responsible for rectifying the issue they caused.
- ProAm 4y agoIm pretty sure him deciding to layoff a chunk of his employees is literally his responsibility. People are upset but it's literally his responsibility to ensure the company survives.
- jfoster 4y agoI think what's meant is: "this is my fault"
- tibbon 4y agoBut it turns into “this is my fault, and the long term upside to me is probably positive and I suffer little immediate consequence while others do”
- amerkhalid 4y agoTrue but then what does taking responsibility means? Seems like just empty words. I rather they just not mention anything about who is responsible for over-hiring/bad decisions than trying to act noble without any real consequences.
- ProAm 4y agoI think you're (not you specifically but 'people') are reading too much into a message about a business decision. Businesses are soulless machines whose only purpose is to survive and be profitable, You don't see people get as upset when a business pivots and changes purpose/direction, yet it's the same thing.
- noobermin 4y agoThen do it without "claiming responsibility," whatever that means. If you're responsible you should face consequences. If you're not, then don't claim responsibility.
- Calavar 4y agoI don't think "taking responsibility" here means moral responsibility for laying people off, I think it refers to professional responsibility for putting the company in a financial position where mass layoffs are necessary in the first place.
- ProAm 4y agoI agree but business is fluid and the market place is fluid. What was true yesterday isnt necessarily true today. His job is to steer the ship to make sure it continues to float and sail, if that means jettisoning empty weight then overboard it goes. There is never a good way to tell both employees and the market that you are making changes that will drastically effect both parties.
- nerpderp82 4y agoHiring and the subsequent layoffs isn't a bad decision, it is a strategic move. If you need to scale, you need lots of folks, even if the efficiency per person is lower, your scale is larger. Once you have achieved scale, refine and tune which involves cutting workforce and increasing workload of existing workforce, maximizing output per worker.