3 ms·

He said responsibility, not consequences. I am still not sure what people expect CEOs to do in these situations to "punish" themselves. Google is not going bank

He said responsibility, not consequences. I am still not sure what people expect CEOs to do in these situations to "punish" themselves. Google is not going bankrupt, they are still wildly profitable, they overhired and are adjusting headcount by a few percent. It sucks for the people affected, I don't want to downplay that. But I'm genuinely curious what is supposed to happen to the leader in these situations.

LaGrange 4y ago
Donate 90% (or everything above $2M, whichever amount is higher) of their wealth to the people dismissed, and never take on a leadership position again. No, I'm not joking.
- rco8786 4y ago
  If you ever have to lay people off, you can no longer hold a leadership position? If you hire someone, it's permanent with the exception of their wrongdoing?
- warkdarrior 4y ago
  If we applied this rule to each CEO that laid off people, there wouldn't be any CEOs going forward.
  - pfooti 4y ago
    Or maybe layoffs.
  - dbalatero 4y ago
    Nice!
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    If there were ever a shortage of CEOs because they felt they were being treated unfairly, let me be the first to volunteer. I'd be happy to suffer as they do.
- lurker616 4y ago
  Why not 99% or everything above $300k? Are you saying you couldn't live on less than $2M?
  - LaGrange 4y ago
    I'm being generous.
GoToRO 4y ago
They could quit or... not get any income until everybody that leaves gets a new job.
larsrc 4y ago
What does it really mean to take responsibility, then?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > What does it really mean to take responsibility, then? To own the decision. Not pass the buck.
lkjdsklf 4y ago
He could resign. That would be "taking responsibility." Just saying you take responsibility isn't actually taking responsibility. Not in a way that matters to anyone anyway. If he wasn't planning on resigning, he should have just left that bit out of the statement. It comes off as empty and tone def.
- clintonb 4y ago
  Forcing a leader to resign over a bad bet that is not permanently damaging to the company will only make things worse. That leader still has value to the company, and is probably one of the best persons to learn from and fix their mistakes. If you fire a CEO, you throw the stock market into chaos and all of your other leaders become focused on trying to get the CEO job instead of doing their own jobs. You went from one problem to multiple problems.
- rco8786 4y ago
  No it wouldn't. That would be resigning. When you break a window you don't give awway the house.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

LaGrange 4y ago

Donate 90% (or everything above $2M, whichever amount is higher) of their wealth to the people dismissed, and never take on a leadership position again. No, I'm not joking.

rco8786 4y ago
If you ever have to lay people off, you can no longer hold a leadership position? If you hire someone, it's permanent with the exception of their wrongdoing?
warkdarrior 4y ago
If we applied this rule to each CEO that laid off people, there wouldn't be any CEOs going forward.
- pfooti 4y ago
  Or maybe layoffs.
- dbalatero 4y ago
  Nice!
- ryandrake 4y ago
  If there were ever a shortage of CEOs because they felt they were being treated unfairly, let me be the first to volunteer. I'd be happy to suffer as they do.
lurker616 4y ago
Why not 99% or everything above $300k? Are you saying you couldn't live on less than $2M?
- LaGrange 4y ago
  I'm being generous.

GoToRO 4y ago

They could quit or... not get any income until everybody that leaves gets a new job.

larsrc 4y ago

What does it really mean to take responsibility, then?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> What does it really mean to take responsibility, then? To own the decision. Not pass the buck.

lkjdsklf 4y ago

He could resign. That would be "taking responsibility." Just saying you take responsibility isn't actually taking responsibility. Not in a way that matters to anyone anyway. If he wasn't planning on resigning, he should have just left that bit out of the statement. It comes off as empty and tone def.

clintonb 4y ago
Forcing a leader to resign over a bad bet that is not permanently damaging to the company will only make things worse. That leader still has value to the company, and is probably one of the best persons to learn from and fix their mistakes. If you fire a CEO, you throw the stock market into chaos and all of your other leaders become focused on trying to get the CEO job instead of doing their own jobs. You went from one problem to multiple problems.
rco8786 4y ago
No it wouldn't. That would be resigning. When you break a window you don't give awway the house.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]