3 ms·

It matters because words like "take responsibility" should have meaning.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago
It does have meaning. The board of directors will definitely factor in this type of thing when making decisions about hiring executives.
DiggyJohnson 4y ago
Just 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 ago
  Yes, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
Im 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 ago
I think what's meant is: "this is my fault"
- tibbon 4y ago
  But 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”

It does have meaning. The board of directors will definitely factor in this type of thing when making decisions about hiring executives.

DiggyJohnson 4y ago

Just 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 ago
Yes, 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 ago
I 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 ago

Im 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 ago

I think what's meant is: "this is my fault"

tibbon 4y ago
But 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”