4 ms·

For some reason every layoff press release on HN gets the "The CEO takes responsability but doesn't actually" comments. I'm not sure what people expect, "I wil

by belval 4y ago

For some reason every layoff press release on HN gets the "The CEO takes responsability but doesn't actually" comments. I'm not sure what people expect, "I will whip myself once for every employee I had to layoff to atone for overhiring during one of the biggest market bull run"? It's especially weird considering that DoorDash is probably the company that had the best reason to overhire during a pandemic where delivery apps where being used a lot more than usual.

weego 4y ago
- have their pay adjusted to reflect the poor decision making lead to the company shrinkage - have a portion of their stock allowance taken back and have to be re-earned based on performance - have their other benefits and expense account cut and have to be re-earned based on performance Basically have literally anything they benefit from have to be justified in any way as a reflection of the holistic performance of the company.
- pedrosorio 4y ago
  Stock allowance? Taken back where? Doordash's CEO is the founder.
- tomnipotent 4y ago
  None of these things are in the best interest of the company. Demotivating and losing leadership isn't going to help right the ship.
  - sleepybrett 4y ago
    ... and instead demotivating the entire workforce is somehow better?
mitthrowaway2 4y ago
I think the bitterness comes from the big payoffs that CEOs get when the company does well. There's something upsetting about leadership taking the upside reward for the big wins but leaving the downside risk for everyone else.
dotnet00 4y ago
A somewhat common way for CEOs to take responsibility used to be to forgo their bonuses or to take a pay cut, which while still not too meaningful, does at least involve some more responsibility than just plain PR speak.
idbehold 4y ago
> I will whip myself once for every employee I had to layoff I like the sound of that! Joking aside, while physical harm may not fly I can imagine a scenario where it hits the CEOs' wallets either by losing stock options/grants or actual salary based on the number of employees they had to layoff. Because seriously, what does it even mean for the CEO to take responsibility when there are no actual consequences for them? If they're doing it to save the business (which they are) then just say that instead of saying they take responsibility as the latter is just virtue signaling.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  From the investor's perspective the CEO's job is to do what's good for the company, which doesn't always involve doing what's good for some or all the employees, laying a lot of developers off is not a bad thing from the perspective of the business unless their work is needed and there is enough money to pay them.
  - idbehold 4y ago
    Right, so the CEO should just say that. Effectively the layoff was out of their control. It was the best decision for the business (shareholders). The act of saying "I take full responsibility" is pure virtue signaling unless it actually has consequences for them. Instead they should say, "I made the best decision for the shareholders."

by belval 4y ago

weego 4y ago

- have their pay adjusted to reflect the poor decision making lead to the company shrinkage - have a portion of their stock allowance taken back and have to be re-earned based on performance - have their other benefits and expense account cut and have to be re-earned based on performance Basically have literally anything they benefit from have to be justified in any way as a reflection of the holistic performance of the company.

pedrosorio 4y ago
Stock allowance? Taken back where? Doordash's CEO is the founder.
tomnipotent 4y ago
None of these things are in the best interest of the company. Demotivating and losing leadership isn't going to help right the ship.
- sleepybrett 4y ago
  ... and instead demotivating the entire workforce is somehow better?

mitthrowaway2 4y ago

I think the bitterness comes from the big payoffs that CEOs get when the company does well. There's something upsetting about leadership taking the upside reward for the big wins but leaving the downside risk for everyone else.

dotnet00 4y ago

A somewhat common way for CEOs to take responsibility used to be to forgo their bonuses or to take a pay cut, which while still not too meaningful, does at least involve some more responsibility than just plain PR speak.

idbehold 4y ago

> I will whip myself once for every employee I had to layoff I like the sound of that! Joking aside, while physical harm may not fly I can imagine a scenario where it hits the CEOs' wallets either by losing stock options/grants or actual salary based on the number of employees they had to layoff. Because seriously, what does it even mean for the CEO to take responsibility when there are no actual consequences for them? If they're doing it to save the business (which they are) then just say that instead of saying they take responsibility as the latter is just virtue signaling.

whatshisface 4y ago
From the investor's perspective the CEO's job is to do what's good for the company, which doesn't always involve doing what's good for some or all the employees, laying a lot of developers off is not a bad thing from the perspective of the business unless their work is needed and there is enough money to pay them.
- idbehold 4y ago
  Right, so the CEO should just say that. Effectively the layoff was out of their control. It was the best decision for the business (shareholders). The act of saying "I take full responsibility" is pure virtue signaling unless it actually has consequences for them. Instead they should say, "I made the best decision for the shareholders."