I remember reading in a book called "everything is obvious" that this is a standard thing to attribute (or at least self attribute) success to personal competen

I remember reading in a book called "everything is obvious" that this is a standard thing to attribute (or at least self attribute) success to personal competencie and failures to bad context. In this case I think that they are in fact being held somewhat accountable by their remuneration based mainly on stocks, which values are currently plummeting. With the consideration that we are talking about comp going from $200M to $50M... Your comp might have been divided by 4, but you still earn orders of magnitude more than all of the people you laid off, so I don't think there is much accountability in that. Re: overhiring, it's been discussed on every layoff thread. The arguments go: they overhired and should be accountable and fix the process OR they overhired consciously but didn't care because capitalism OR they didn't overhire because there wasn't a way they could have known that the situation would turn out as it did OR they may or may not have overhired but that's irrelevant, they're now laying off to lower the salaries