3 ms·

Her speech didn’t bother me at all. Company needs to make money and apparently it isn’t, yet people still want bonuses. Pay them and hurt the company, or don’t

Her speech didn’t bother me at all. Company needs to make money and apparently it isn’t, yet people still want bonuses. Pay them and hurt the company, or don’t pay but maybe lose your best employees. This is why only a few people are capable of running companies. The reality of profit and loss - aka “math” - is too much for most people.

mcphage 4y ago
> This is why only a few people are capable of running companies. The reality of profit and loss - aka “math” - is too much for most people. Who are you claiming here is capable of running a company because the reality of profit and loss isn't too much? The person receiving over $3m in bonuses despite the her company "needs to make money and apparently isn't"? It sure seems to me like she's one of those people who "still want bonuses".
antonvs 4y ago
> The reality of profit and loss - aka “math” - is too much for most people. If it was just math, a lot more people would be better at it. But your own statement shows how there’s much more to it than math: “Pay them and hurt the company, or don’t pay but maybe lose your best employees.” No math is going to tell you how to decide that situation. And business is full of such decisions, which collectively can make or break a company.
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  The commentary around this frames the situation that cold hearted capitalists don’t understand the feelings of employees. Or some sort of emotional issue. The reality is the company is failing, can’t pay people what you don’t have.
  - quadrifoliate 4y ago
    > The commentary around this frames the situation that cold hearted capitalists don’t understand the feelings of employees. Or some sort of emotional issue. Uh, not really. The only one emotions we are talking about here are the CEO's, and how they are impacting communication with employees. > The reality is the company is failing, can’t pay people what you don’t have. There are good ways to communicate this reality to your employees. If you think what the CEO did is a good way, then I wish you good luck.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Telling people they're in "pity city" doesn't pay the bills either. It's obviously made things worse. Patronizing your employees is needless and poor leadership. That said, it's far from the most egregious thing I've heard, I'm not going to spend many cycles thinking about it. But I can understand why the employees would be upset by it.
  - hsjqllzlfkf 4y ago
    She paid herself 6m
  - solatic 4y ago
    > The reality is the company is failing, can’t pay people what you don’t have. If the company is failing, then leadership should be cutting their losses and engaging in deep layoffs. Downsize production to adjust for lower demand, preserve working capital, focus on efficiency. Upsetting your employees is the worst of both worlds: your employees perform worse, and you don't save any money on compensation while that happens. So you make a deep cut, take the emotional hit, make it clear that it's the only cut you're going to make, and then ramp the company back up.
  - wvenable 4y ago
    The company isn't even failing. Yes, growth is way way down but revenue and net income are still fine. People setting up home offices has been a hugely growing market that apparently has gone uncaptured by MillerKnoll. I wonder who sets the strategy for a company that we could blame for this failing? Whomever they are, they probably shouldn't get a bonus as that would be rewarding failure.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wvenable 4y ago
Owen made $3.9 million in bonuses on top of her fixed salary of $1.1 million in 2022 and yet you're complaining about the people actually doing the work getting bonuses? How does that math make sense at all?
- monero-xmr 4y ago
  The board can fire the CEO and the CEO can fire anyone. By all means start your own company that operates differently. It isn’t surprising to me that the most effective companies are all setup essentially the same however.
  - reitanqild 4y ago
    > and the CEO can fire anyone. Americans... In civilized parts of the world you cannot fire anyone except for in specific circumstances.
  - wvenable 4y ago
    The least effective companies are all setup the same way too. CEO's get paid when the companies do well and they get paid when they do poorly. They get paid if it completely falls apart. How does that help companies perform better? How does that profit and loss math work here?
    - 8ytecoder 4y ago
      They get paid when they’re fired. They get paid when they’re accused (credibly even) of sexual harassment and misconduct. For all this talk of “math”, this particular math is just beyond my ability to grasp.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I don't see how that was in dispute or responsive to the previous comment.
solatic 4y ago
> Pay them and hurt the company, or don’t pay but maybe lose your best employees. There's always another option: restructuring (the organization, compensation structures, product portfolios and market positioning...), getting in the trenches (understanding that performance fundamentally depends on emotional state)... The "math" tells you where you are, and it can illustrate that you sometimes work within real limitations, but it doesn't define how you should react.

mcphage 4y ago

> This is why only a few people are capable of running companies. The reality of profit and loss - aka “math” - is too much for most people. Who are you claiming here is capable of running a company because the reality of profit and loss isn't too much? The person receiving over $3m in bonuses despite the her company "needs to make money and apparently isn't"? It sure seems to me like she's one of those people who "still want bonuses".

antonvs 4y ago

> The reality of profit and loss - aka “math” - is too much for most people. If it was just math, a lot more people would be better at it. But your own statement shows how there’s much more to it than math: “Pay them and hurt the company, or don’t pay but maybe lose your best employees.” No math is going to tell you how to decide that situation. And business is full of such decisions, which collectively can make or break a company.

monero-xmr 4y ago
The commentary around this frames the situation that cold hearted capitalists don’t understand the feelings of employees. Or some sort of emotional issue. The reality is the company is failing, can’t pay people what you don’t have.
- quadrifoliate 4y ago
  > The commentary around this frames the situation that cold hearted capitalists don’t understand the feelings of employees. Or some sort of emotional issue. Uh, not really. The only one emotions we are talking about here are the CEO's, and how they are impacting communication with employees. > The reality is the company is failing, can’t pay people what you don’t have. There are good ways to communicate this reality to your employees. If you think what the CEO did is a good way, then I wish you good luck.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Telling people they're in "pity city" doesn't pay the bills either. It's obviously made things worse. Patronizing your employees is needless and poor leadership. That said, it's far from the most egregious thing I've heard, I'm not going to spend many cycles thinking about it. But I can understand why the employees would be upset by it.
- hsjqllzlfkf 4y ago
  She paid herself 6m
- solatic 4y ago
  > The reality is the company is failing, can’t pay people what you don’t have. If the company is failing, then leadership should be cutting their losses and engaging in deep layoffs. Downsize production to adjust for lower demand, preserve working capital, focus on efficiency. Upsetting your employees is the worst of both worlds: your employees perform worse, and you don't save any money on compensation while that happens. So you make a deep cut, take the emotional hit, make it clear that it's the only cut you're going to make, and then ramp the company back up.
- wvenable 4y ago
  The company isn't even failing. Yes, growth is way way down but revenue and net income are still fine. People setting up home offices has been a hugely growing market that apparently has gone uncaptured by MillerKnoll. I wonder who sets the strategy for a company that we could blame for this failing? Whomever they are, they probably shouldn't get a bonus as that would be rewarding failure.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

wvenable 4y ago

Owen made $3.9 million in bonuses on top of her fixed salary of $1.1 million in 2022 and yet you're complaining about the people actually doing the work getting bonuses? How does that math make sense at all?

monero-xmr 4y ago
The board can fire the CEO and the CEO can fire anyone. By all means start your own company that operates differently. It isn’t surprising to me that the most effective companies are all setup essentially the same however.
- reitanqild 4y ago
  > and the CEO can fire anyone. Americans... In civilized parts of the world you cannot fire anyone except for in specific circumstances.
- wvenable 4y ago
  The least effective companies are all setup the same way too. CEO's get paid when the companies do well and they get paid when they do poorly. They get paid if it completely falls apart. How does that help companies perform better? How does that profit and loss math work here?
  - 8ytecoder 4y ago
    They get paid when they’re fired. They get paid when they’re accused (credibly even) of sexual harassment and misconduct. For all this talk of “math”, this particular math is just beyond my ability to grasp.
- maxbond 4y ago
  I don't see how that was in dispute or responsive to the previous comment.

solatic 4y ago

> Pay them and hurt the company, or don’t pay but maybe lose your best employees. There's always another option: restructuring (the organization, compensation structures, product portfolios and market positioning...), getting in the trenches (understanding that performance fundamentally depends on emotional state)... The "math" tells you where you are, and it can illustrate that you sometimes work within real limitations, but it doesn't define how you should react.