4 ms·
The (editorialised) title [0] is classic Anchoring [1], me thinks. Google did not fire folks because they were making losses. At some level, they got rid to ap
by ignoramous 4y ago
The (editorialised) title [0] is classic Anchoring [1], me thinks.
Google did not fire folks because they were making losses. At some level, they got rid to appease Wall Street given their shrinking profit margins. I mean, here's a business that brings in revenues of £500M / day (over £150M / day net); an astonishing amount. Anchor against that? Never let the less spectacular get in the way of a click bait, I guess.
[0] The original title was something along the lines of, Sundar earned $226M while laying off thousands
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
- capableweb 4y agoWhy doesn't Wall Street want to give rid of Sundar Pichai then as it's obvious he's dropping the ball and have been for the last years
- mqus 4y agoMaybe google didn't fire them because things didn't go well, but still, having to fire people (instead of reallocating them to better-fitting positions or not hiring intge first place) is a management failure for me, in a scale which a CEO resigning(or at least lowering their income/bonuses) would be justified. But maybe this is just a difference in opinion.
- mihaic 4y agoWhat if hiring them in the first place was the mistake? What are your options in that case?
- capableweb 4y agoCEO fucked up, get rid of him/her. Why'd you hire so many people if you don't need it? Sounds like C-suite made the wrong call, in that case.
- redeeman 4y agoyes, CEO fucked up, should he now fuck up more by not firing them? you come home from the grocery store, you bought frozen goods. you are unpacking, and think you're done, so you sit down in your couch to relax, a couple of minutes later you realize you forgot to put the frozen stuff in the freezer, do you just go "oh well i dun fucked up, nothing to be done here, i'd best just admit defeat and let my wife fire me from grocery duty"
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoWell, it depends, did you blow the budget on meat because of your mistake? If so, yeah I think the grocery budget should be coming out your fun money personally.
- redeeman 4y agoand if i didnt blow my budget?
- lotsofpulp 4y agoGetting rid of someone because of a fuck up is amateur leadership (or politics to appease the mob). The relevant question is whether or not a decision was appropriate, given the information and parameters at the time of making the decision. No one is perfect.
- cudgy 4y agoIf anyone is held to a perfect standard, shouldn’t it be someone making $220 million in a year?
- lotsofpulp 4y ago>If anyone is held to a perfect standard The premise does not make sense to me. See: >No one is perfect.
- qeternity 4y agoI never understand these comments. Are you suggesting Google is a charity? If they don't need some employees, should they be forced to keep them?
- malermeister 4y agoThey should. Not out of charity, but out of labor protection. You take on a worker, you take on a responsibility.
- qeternity 4y agoOk, and what responsibility do workers have? Should they be compelled to stay in jobs they no longer want? Have you considered what an increase to employment costs might do to broader employment?
- layer8 4y agoThe larger the company, the larger the power differential between employer and employee. Power comes with responsibility.
- qeternity 4y agoThis doesn't answer my question at all. I asked about employees, not companies. What responsibilities should employees have?
- layer8 4y agoFirst of all, we are talking about ethical responsibility here, not contractual or legal responsibilities. Generally, one’s responsibilities are related to the possible harm caused or contributed to by one’s actions that one is in control of. Concerning employees quitting their job, for example the tech lead of a small startup whose survival critically depends on their knowledge can be considered to have a bigger responsibility to not quit on short notice and without compelling reasons out of their control than, for example, a dispensable and easily replaceable entry-level dev in a big tech company. Companies however also have some responsibility to not make themselves too dependent on individual employees, to the extent practical. The responsibility for the harm caused to the company by an employee quitting is therefore shared. This is in contrast to a layoff, where the employee usually shares very little responsibility for the harm caused to them by the layoff, because it’s largely out of their control.