3 ms·

>I was so happy when that company got acquired and the new company CEO showed up and announced that first level managers and below were all safe from layoffs, e

>I was so happy when that company got acquired and the new company CEO showed up and announced that first level managers and below were all safe from layoffs, everyone above that was on a case by case basis, and "all executive staff were let go this morning, I saw no reason to keep those jokers around". Didn't the executives employ any anti-takeover measures?

vishnugupta 4y ago
A good skill execs have is to negotiate extremely lucrative severance terms and have it written in their employment agreements.
- sklargh 4y ago
  In the US a material perquisite of senior management roles are negotiable severance terms. Sad really.
  - DeathArrow 4y ago
    So, if you are fired from enough workplaces for not working enough you get rich and don't have to work. :)
- usrusr 4y ago
  "If they are good at being ruthlessly selfish for themselves they might be good at being ruthlessly selfish for the company as well." Makes me wonder if the opposite could become fashionable: "I trust myself to fly without the golden parachute, you might want to make that part of your consideration". At first glance that sounds quite compelling to me, but on the other hand, would I feel safer or would I feel less safe with a Taxi driver who does not bother putting on the seat belt? I think my answer would be less safe, event though a part of me wishes to be one who'd feel safer.
  - vishnugupta 4y ago
    Speaking from personal experience, execs (most of them) are anything but risk takers. They are good wheeler-dealers, know how to navigate the land-mine filled org-chart to get things done. Not too different from civil servants. Those who develop risk appetite won't stay at such big orgs, they either go work at a startup or start on their own. So over a period (FB has been around for like 15 years now) an org accumulates extremely risk averse execs.
    - baremetal 4y ago
      "No one ever gets fired for buying IBM"
  - dsr_ 4y ago
    Let's extend the metaphor: if the execs are pilots, and the employees are passengers, then having parachutes for the pilots but not the employees constitutes a moral hazard.
    - vkou 4y ago
      It's only a moral hazard if the execs are working for, and are accountable to the employees. They don't, and they aren't. They work for, and answer to the owners.
      - usrusr 4y ago
        footnote: for certain values of "moral" (you are right though, the term "moral hazard" is surprisingly well defined and basically has nothing to do at all with the sum of its parts)
      - dsr_ 4y ago
        In that case, having parachutes for the execs is a moral hazard.
        vkou 4y ago
- duxup 4y ago
  I believe they all got paid good. I was a bit surprised at the animosity but the old CEO certainly seemed to burn bridges (I note how in another post) and I also suspect the old CEO took it really personal that he got beat by our main competitor.
duxup 4y ago
I assumed something like that happened behind the scenes but I never knew any facts. It was a publicly traded company and it was a good offer based on the stock price so I doubt any efforts to resist the purchase would have succeeded. I think more likely the new CEO's comment stemmed from that fact that 1. The old executive staff were in fact horrible at face value. 2. In between the time of the offer to buy the company and the closing the old CEO visited several locations presumably under the idea that he was there to keep everyone around / soothe the typical nerves about being acquired. But something else happened: Instead he took snide shots at the acquiring CEO. He noted that he was surprised the new CEO hadn't visited our site yet.... when at that point the deal hadn't closed, they were still technically competitors. New CEO straight up couldn't visit. I think old CEO was just a horrible person and salty he lost (mostly due to his own missteps) to his competitor. But that was par for the course with old company executives. They seemed to operate thinking they were so smart and really were as transparent as could be, almost childish. I generally feel disconnected / suspicious of executive staff... but these guys, they were human garbage as far as I was concerned, and I don't use that term lightly. My Fav examples: HR at one point sent out a series of long emails about a big change upcoming, but they didn't / would not say what the change was, it put a lot of people on edge. Then finally after the 5th or so email they announced that after HR spent thousands of hours in meetings and off site meetings ... they were renaming HR... that was it... it was like a joke, but they were serious. CEO and all the other executives of course had to reply all to congratulate them. One of the last meetings with the OLD CEO had an open forum where people could ask questions about the acquisition. Old CEO seemed to give the impression he had some idea what he combined company would look like / could do. Someone asked where he saw the new company in six months/ what it might look like. He responded "I'll be in Banff sking." That was it, that was his response....
- helsontaveras18 4y ago
  Wow, you’ve got some stories from this company. This could make for a really entertaining blog!
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  > HR at one point sent out a series of long emails about a big change upcoming, but they didn't / would not say what the change was, it put a lot of people on edge. Then finally after the 5th or so email they announced that after HR spent thousands of hours in meetings and off site meetings ... they were renaming HR... that was it... it was like a joke, but they were serious. CEO and all the other executives of course had to reply all to congratulate them. Sounds like something else was planned, and they pulled out last minute. Or they were trying to spook 5% into leaving -- and did -- so they make some trivial change that means nothing and can be undone later.

vishnugupta 4y ago

A good skill execs have is to negotiate extremely lucrative severance terms and have it written in their employment agreements.

sklargh 4y ago
In the US a material perquisite of senior management roles are negotiable severance terms. Sad really.
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  So, if you are fired from enough workplaces for not working enough you get rich and don't have to work. :)
usrusr 4y ago
"If they are good at being ruthlessly selfish for themselves they might be good at being ruthlessly selfish for the company as well." Makes me wonder if the opposite could become fashionable: "I trust myself to fly without the golden parachute, you might want to make that part of your consideration". At first glance that sounds quite compelling to me, but on the other hand, would I feel safer or would I feel less safe with a Taxi driver who does not bother putting on the seat belt? I think my answer would be less safe, event though a part of me wishes to be one who'd feel safer.
- vishnugupta 4y ago
  Speaking from personal experience, execs (most of them) are anything but risk takers. They are good wheeler-dealers, know how to navigate the land-mine filled org-chart to get things done. Not too different from civil servants. Those who develop risk appetite won't stay at such big orgs, they either go work at a startup or start on their own. So over a period (FB has been around for like 15 years now) an org accumulates extremely risk averse execs.
  - baremetal 4y ago
    "No one ever gets fired for buying IBM"
- dsr_ 4y ago
  Let's extend the metaphor: if the execs are pilots, and the employees are passengers, then having parachutes for the pilots but not the employees constitutes a moral hazard.
  - vkou 4y ago
    It's only a moral hazard if the execs are working for, and are accountable to the employees. They don't, and they aren't. They work for, and answer to the owners.
    - usrusr 4y ago
      footnote: for certain values of "moral" (you are right though, the term "moral hazard" is surprisingly well defined and basically has nothing to do at all with the sum of its parts)
    - dsr_ 4y ago
      In that case, having parachutes for the execs is a moral hazard.
      - vkou 4y ago
duxup 4y ago
I believe they all got paid good. I was a bit surprised at the animosity but the old CEO certainly seemed to burn bridges (I note how in another post) and I also suspect the old CEO took it really personal that he got beat by our main competitor.

duxup 4y ago

I assumed something like that happened behind the scenes but I never knew any facts. It was a publicly traded company and it was a good offer based on the stock price so I doubt any efforts to resist the purchase would have succeeded. I think more likely the new CEO's comment stemmed from that fact that 1. The old executive staff were in fact horrible at face value. 2. In between the time of the offer to buy the company and the closing the old CEO visited several locations presumably under the idea that he was there to keep everyone around / soothe the typical nerves about being acquired. But something else happened: Instead he took snide shots at the acquiring CEO. He noted that he was surprised the new CEO hadn't visited our site yet.... when at that point the deal hadn't closed, they were still technically competitors. New CEO straight up couldn't visit. I think old CEO was just a horrible person and salty he lost (mostly due to his own missteps) to his competitor. But that was par for the course with old company executives. They seemed to operate thinking they were so smart and really were as transparent as could be, almost childish. I generally feel disconnected / suspicious of executive staff... but these guys, they were human garbage as far as I was concerned, and I don't use that term lightly. My Fav examples: HR at one point sent out a series of long emails about a big change upcoming, but they didn't / would not say what the change was, it put a lot of people on edge. Then finally after the 5th or so email they announced that after HR spent thousands of hours in meetings and off site meetings ... they were renaming HR... that was it... it was like a joke, but they were serious. CEO and all the other executives of course had to reply all to congratulate them. One of the last meetings with the OLD CEO had an open forum where people could ask questions about the acquisition. Old CEO seemed to give the impression he had some idea what he combined company would look like / could do. Someone asked where he saw the new company in six months/ what it might look like. He responded "I'll be in Banff sking." That was it, that was his response....

helsontaveras18 4y ago
Wow, you’ve got some stories from this company. This could make for a really entertaining blog!
red-iron-pine 4y ago
> HR at one point sent out a series of long emails about a big change upcoming, but they didn't / would not say what the change was, it put a lot of people on edge. Then finally after the 5th or so email they announced that after HR spent thousands of hours in meetings and off site meetings ... they were renaming HR... that was it... it was like a joke, but they were serious. CEO and all the other executives of course had to reply all to congratulate them. Sounds like something else was planned, and they pulled out last minute. Or they were trying to spook 5% into leaving -- and did -- so they make some trivial change that means nothing and can be undone later.