4 ms·

> Twilio has grown at an astonishing rate over the past couple years. It was too fast, and without enough focus on our most important company priorities. I take

by kmlx 4y ago

> Twilio has grown at an astonishing rate over the past couple years. It was too fast, and without enough focus on our most important company priorities. I take responsibility for those decisions, as well as the difficult decision to do this layoff. i don’t understand this phrasing and i’ve seen it in all these layoff announcements: if the CEO takes responsibility for the initial failure then why would he not offer his resignation? what responsibility is he actually taking?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
encryptluks2 4y ago
I don't think they want people questioning. A majority of people have short attention spans and will remember all the PR they do to spin this as a "positive" thing.
idontpost 4y ago
It sounds like you do understand. It's vacuous mouth noises to please journalists and twitterati, utterly devoid of meaning or content.
zdragnar 4y ago
The CEOs are protecting the reputations of the people under them at the expense of their own. They could blame the people who got laid off for not "correctly" implementing the vision. Future employers would potentially not look favorably upon them. They could blame the market, which just makes the company as a whole look worse as they likely learned nothing if that were the case, and would still potentially reflect poorly upon the people let go. Instead, the CEO is saying "I made a decision, but it didn't bear out, and for the company to be healthy again we need to make some drastic changes. These people aren't at fault" Does that mean the CEO needs to resign? Maybe, maybe not. Was the decision obviously bad at the time, or only wrong in hindsight? Would a different CEO be better or worse give the company's current circumstances?
bagels 4y ago
This question always comes up. It's about blame, not about sacrifice or punishment. The CEO is saying that the CEO is to blame, unlike other CEOs who have chosen to blame the employees being laid off. One such example is apparently the better.com CEO calling employees 'dumb dolphins' shortly before laying them off.

by kmlx 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

encryptluks2 4y ago

I don't think they want people questioning. A majority of people have short attention spans and will remember all the PR they do to spin this as a "positive" thing.

idontpost 4y ago

It sounds like you do understand. It's vacuous mouth noises to please journalists and twitterati, utterly devoid of meaning or content.

zdragnar 4y ago

The CEOs are protecting the reputations of the people under them at the expense of their own. They could blame the people who got laid off for not "correctly" implementing the vision. Future employers would potentially not look favorably upon them. They could blame the market, which just makes the company as a whole look worse as they likely learned nothing if that were the case, and would still potentially reflect poorly upon the people let go. Instead, the CEO is saying "I made a decision, but it didn't bear out, and for the company to be healthy again we need to make some drastic changes. These people aren't at fault" Does that mean the CEO needs to resign? Maybe, maybe not. Was the decision obviously bad at the time, or only wrong in hindsight? Would a different CEO be better or worse give the company's current circumstances?

bagels 4y ago

This question always comes up. It's about blame, not about sacrifice or punishment. The CEO is saying that the CEO is to blame, unlike other CEOs who have chosen to blame the employees being laid off. One such example is apparently the better.com CEO calling employees 'dumb dolphins' shortly before laying them off.