6 ms·
What would him taking responsibility in practice look like to you?
by paulcole 4y ago
What would him taking responsibility in practice look like to you?
- triceratops 4y agoResigning.
- micromacrofoot 4y agosacrificing some personal wealth for the good of the people that were affected
- patentatt 4y agoYeah, he could easily bankroll a 36 month severance package or something similar. Like "sorry I fucked you right at the onset of a recession, here's a pile of cash to help you weather the storm." That would be actually taking responsibility
- mbesto 4y agoHe lost $90B. I'm not sympathizing with Zuck, but what you're suggesting literally happened.
- bombcar 4y agoBut he wasn't punished - people demand blood and blood can only be given non-voluntarily.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoHe was punished by the market. People want more blood than that and some people will literally never be satisfied
- sumeno 4y agoFacing repercussions on the level of those he's laying off. If he's responsible he should be the first one out the door.
- Fordec 4y agoOr rather the person who is responsible should go before those who are not and have been doing their job. If a middle manager was responsible for a bad decision, their head would be on a spike. But it's the chief executive officer, so he gets a pass, if only because he's in the position of power.
- mensetmanusman 4y agoThat’s impossible because he is already profoundly rich. There is no way to simulate the hardship without stealing what is in the bank.
- sumeno 4y agoNow we're talkin'
- falcolas 4y agoTaking a salary cut. Loosing unvested options. Fewer grants going forward. Financial penalties that incentivize him to not fuck up again.
- roflyear 4y agoHomie this isn't a fuck up. It's what shareholders want and it is awful. These 11k employees are not a threat to facebooks existence. Not even close. If that was the case FB stock would be tanking. FB is pulling in record profits. They just are getting a little nervous and they are laying people off. It is ridiculous.
- falcolas 4y agoI don't necessarily disagree with you, and we will see FB's stock bumping back up again now that Zuck's make the "hard decision" to lay off employees.
- roflyear 4y agoYeah. Up 7%! when the SPY is down 1%. Wild.
- disgruntledphd2 4y agoTo be fair, up till this point, Metas PE ratio was half that of Google.
- francisofascii 4y agoTo be fair, his net worth fell by $70+ billion. So that sounds like a financial penalty to me.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- falcolas 4y ago
- 0x445442 4y agoHas he actually admitted how he failed in his responsibilities? I have not followed the FB fall closely but from the outside there appears to be some dubious strategic decisions at work. It would be interesting to hear him elaborate on the situation with something like “I failed to see how precarious it was to be at the mercy of Google and Apple for our core ad business”. Or, “looking back, it was a mistake to not get into cloud computing for a more diversified revenue stream”.
- ausudhz 4y agoYou believe that a company with plenty of privacy concerns and/or user data handling would've been successful on cloud?
- 0x445442 4y agoNot on cloud; cloud. Like AWS, GCP and Azure.
- ausudhz 4y agoI kinda disagree since they've been holding into their datacenter for a while plus they've the expertise to run it Why would they need to use cloud?
- 0x445442 4y agoThey wouldn’t need to use cloud, they would provide cloud services like the companies I mentioned. Of course it’s way to late in the game for that now.
- andyjohnson0 4y agoGood question. I don't know the answer. And that points to the problem, really. In rhe world as ut is, there isnt really a way to realistically imagine a CEO doing anything meaningful to take responsibility for a self-admitted error lile this. If, just for the sake of argument, I said he should resign or compensate the affected people out of his own pocket, I'm fairly sure that people here would think I was being naive. People here are already saying that corporate leaders wouldnt take decisions if they had to be held responsible for the outcomes. So we end-up with a bunch of people who everyone knows (a) are not responsible for mistakes, and (b) are tacitly understood to be able to make statements that habe no meaning. In other words, lies. And thus the domain of trust becomes smaller and more fractured.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI think people who say it's meaningless are wrong. Saying you take responsibility is about clearing the workers of fault, it's not about thing you will reform or somehow suffer more than they will. He could go out there and say it's not my responsibility, it is the workers fault. They underperformed. Most CEOs don't want to do that
- Yhippa 4y agoIf I hired someone and they made the value of the company go down 73% in one year, I would probably fire them.
- nonameiguess 4y agoIf the issue is his moonshot bets on AI research and metaverse that are not expected to immediately payout hurt the company by having too much headcount not contributing to short-term revenue, and core products can't support that, then he made a bad strategic decision, and the appropriate way to take responsibility for that is to remove the unique voting structure so that Mark is no longer the sole person capable of deciding the company's future strategy. But either way, it's still inevitable that a change in strategy would entail elimination of some of that headcount.