3 ms·
> Remind me again how big-co CEOs assume "all the risk"? Does anyone seriously believe this? I see it all the time as a "comeback" against CEOs, but I don't th
by capableweb 3y ago
> Remind me again how big-co CEOs assume "all the risk"?
Does anyone seriously believe this? I see it all the time as a "comeback" against CEOs, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone arguing that they actually are the ones that assume all the risk.
- flangola7 3y agoIs this a serious question? Pichai will not experience hardship in any circumstance. His access to a roof, food, healthcare, quality of life, etc. are not in danger, now or in the future. The worst possible outcome for him still leaves many more zeroes in his personal finances than the vast majority of employees will ever see at any point in their life.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- darkerside 3y agoStraw man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
- rvnx 3y agoZuckerberg took "full responsibility" in the last round of failures too. Though he isn't injecting his money back into the company. Full responsibility, but not too much.
- josephd79 3y agoHe also took millions why firing thousands of people.
- serial_dev 3y agoTalk is cheap. "Taking full responsibility" is also cheap, that's why CEOs often do it and fire 5-20% of their staff without blinking an eye.
- lupire 3y agoThe stock price is his full responsibility.
- jstummbillig 3y agoHow did you get from "taking all the risk" to "taking full responsibility"? Both mean entirely different things and you can easily have one without the other. i.e. a lead surgeon can and should take "full responsibility" for what happens in the OR, but they obviously neither can nor will (and I also don't think should) shoulder "all the risk" for what happens in the OR (or even most of it).