6 ms·

Yeah; the thing that kind of triggered me on this was the Google CEO saying in December or January that he "takes full responsibility" for all these layoffs. "

Yeah; the thing that kind of triggered me on this was the Google CEO saying in December or January that he "takes full responsibility" for all these layoffs. "Full responsibiliyt"? Really? How are you doing that exactly? By still getting your full paycheck and bonus while you fired twelve thousand humans because you didn't consider that the economy after years of a pandemic might be volatile?

whstl 3y ago
Well, this is the equivalent of saying "it's not you, it's me" when breaking up. It's just a way of avoiding a discussion.
- tombert 3y ago
  I know, it's a corporate platitude. It doesn't "mean" anything, but it just rubbed me the wrong way. "Taking full responsibility", to me, would imply some sort of sacrifice on your end. Words are cheap; hell, I can say that I take full responsibility for the Google layoffs. I have never worked for Google but I did about as much as Sundar Pichai to take responsibility for the layoffs.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    He's saying don't get angry at anyone else at Google, I think.
    - iinnPP 3y ago
      Wouldn't adding that to the statement have the same effect but also be honest? Perhaps the effect would be even greater given that people wouldn't feel like the need to guess at the real reason? I guess it's better than some approaches such as "we can do better."
      - jonas21 3y ago
        Shouldn't that part be obvious? "I take full responsibility" means you should blame me and only me. That's the very definition of responsibility.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        iinnPP 3y ago
        You could see it that way, I guess. To me there's more requirements to taking responsibility than to just claiming such, especially dishonestly. Some quick research suggests my interpretation isn't solely my own.
    - taneq 3y ago
      I agree, but that’s still manipulative. “Get mad at me, with whom you have no recourse whatsoever, rather than considering whether anyone else might have contributed that you could possibly effect.”
    - mbork_pl 3y ago
      That's not what "responsibility" means, I think. (Although I think the parent is right, my criticism is not directed at him.)
DrScientist 3y ago
By saying that he is directing internal heat ( and external heat - like yours ) to himself, rather than HR, or middle managers etc in Google. I suspect that's the reason for saying that. If you feel the need to blame somebody - blame me ( not other people or external conditions or shareholders ). Ultimately it is his fault - even if it was forced on him be shareholders - he'd have the option of resigning ( following orders isn't a good excuse ). In terms of the effect on him - you are assuming he isn't somehow human, and somehow these decisions aren't personally very hard to take. In the end it comes down to whether you have a company culture of firing people the first mistake they make or not. Most people would suggests that's a bad company culture. Whether they should have chased unsustainable growth is an interesting matter. I think the culture damage that large layoffs can have, particularly to companies that previous have always been growing, is substantial and underestimated. ie the people left are often demotivated. I once worked at a startup that let ~20 people go ( just under 10% ). The company was reasonably successful in keeping the best people in the short term, but motivation was right down and many of them drifted away over the next year or so.
- tombert 3y ago
  I don't dispute most of what you said, but I take a bit of issue with: > In terms of the effect on him - you are assuming he isn't somehow human, and somehow these decisions aren't personally very hard to take. Humans are perfectly capable of doing horrible things and justifying it to themselves; me claiming that his words of "taking full responsibility" is a corporate platitude doesn't imply that I don't think he's human. I'm sure at some level he probably feels emotions the same way I do, but I also think he's somewhat removed from the consequences of his decisions. We all do it to some extent (don't think too hard about the labor behind your phone or computer). Doesn't mean it's not crappy.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  >directing internal heat ( and external heat - like yours ) to himself, rather than HR, or middle managers etc in Google. The reason this is irrelevant is because it's not what Western society values. If he is sincere about taking responsibility, he would either resign with no compensation, or take a severe paycut for failure. If a CEO is handed a bonus when the company does well, then it must follow that their head rolls when it doesn't. "Taking heat" should be part of the day-to-day of a CEO's job and not the "punishment" for failure.
dools 3y ago
That's what private companies are supposed to do though. They exist to make a profit. The type of people working for Google will be the first to get hired when the economy picks up again, if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing, think about advocating for a federal Job Guarantee which helps those who need it most: http://www.jobguarantee.org/ http://www.jobguarantee.org/
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  > That's what private companies are supposed to do though. Google is not a private company though. > The type of people working for Google will be the first to get hired when the economy picks up again So instead of spending the time looking for a job, possibly relocating, settling down, getting used to a new workplace, etc, and staying there, they get to do all that and then do it again. This is not a trivial set of events to have to redo. > if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing This makes zero sense. > link No thanks.
  - mbork_pl 3y ago
    > Google is not a private company though. Well of course it is, isn't it? It's not state-owned, right?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - tired_star_nrg 3y ago
      I think what they’re saying is that they are a publicly traded company, therefore not “private” (privately owned)
  - dools 3y ago
    > Google is not a private company though. The distinction I’m making is between public sector and private sector, not privately held versus publicly traded >> if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing > This makes zero sense. No it makes 3 sense. The private sector will always boom and bust. If you try to solve that with regulation you a) can’t and b) just make it harder for smaller businesses to compete. Only the government can offset the whimsy of the private sector and prevent the inevitable boom and bust cycles of private investment from destabilising society.
scarface74 3y ago
Would those 12 thousand people at Google have been better off if they hadn’t work there? Would you have not taken a job at Google if you knew that you would be laid off four years later or would you have saved aggressively and been preparing for your next role?
- tombert 3y ago
  Four years I would have taken it. Four months? Not so sure. My understanding is that a lot of people who were fired were only hired in 2021 and 2022, just to be let go in the tail end of 2022.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    If i had to relocate, probably not. But in a normal tech hiring market, I’ve given up full time roles for a six month contract to perm role that paid slightly more. But built my resume. I would have definitely jumped at my current $BigTech remote role where I made over $150K more over two years than I was making at a 60 person startup I left even if I had known the job would have lasted two years. No I wasn’t laid off. This is purely hypothetical.
5040 3y ago
One is tempted to contrast this with a similar move made by Nintendo some years ago: >Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata will slash his pay in half for the next five months, following disappointing financial results for the Wii U and 3DS maker. >Other members of the Nintendo board will take a pay cut ranging between 20 and 30 percent of their salary. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-ceo-slashes-salary-in-half-to-apologise-for-wii-u-losses/1100-6417409/ https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-ceo-slashes-salar...

whstl 3y ago

Well, this is the equivalent of saying "it's not you, it's me" when breaking up. It's just a way of avoiding a discussion.

tombert 3y ago
I know, it's a corporate platitude. It doesn't "mean" anything, but it just rubbed me the wrong way. "Taking full responsibility", to me, would imply some sort of sacrifice on your end. Words are cheap; hell, I can say that I take full responsibility for the Google layoffs. I have never worked for Google but I did about as much as Sundar Pichai to take responsibility for the layoffs.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  He's saying don't get angry at anyone else at Google, I think.
  - iinnPP 3y ago
    Wouldn't adding that to the statement have the same effect but also be honest? Perhaps the effect would be even greater given that people wouldn't feel like the need to guess at the real reason? I guess it's better than some approaches such as "we can do better."
    - jonas21 3y ago
      Shouldn't that part be obvious? "I take full responsibility" means you should blame me and only me. That's the very definition of responsibility.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - iinnPP 3y ago
        You could see it that way, I guess. To me there's more requirements to taking responsibility than to just claiming such, especially dishonestly. Some quick research suggests my interpretation isn't solely my own.
  - taneq 3y ago
    I agree, but that’s still manipulative. “Get mad at me, with whom you have no recourse whatsoever, rather than considering whether anyone else might have contributed that you could possibly effect.”
  - mbork_pl 3y ago
    That's not what "responsibility" means, I think. (Although I think the parent is right, my criticism is not directed at him.)

DrScientist 3y ago

By saying that he is directing internal heat ( and external heat - like yours ) to himself, rather than HR, or middle managers etc in Google. I suspect that's the reason for saying that. If you feel the need to blame somebody - blame me ( not other people or external conditions or shareholders ). Ultimately it is his fault - even if it was forced on him be shareholders - he'd have the option of resigning ( following orders isn't a good excuse ). In terms of the effect on him - you are assuming he isn't somehow human, and somehow these decisions aren't personally very hard to take. In the end it comes down to whether you have a company culture of firing people the first mistake they make or not. Most people would suggests that's a bad company culture. Whether they should have chased unsustainable growth is an interesting matter. I think the culture damage that large layoffs can have, particularly to companies that previous have always been growing, is substantial and underestimated. ie the people left are often demotivated. I once worked at a startup that let ~20 people go ( just under 10% ). The company was reasonably successful in keeping the best people in the short term, but motivation was right down and many of them drifted away over the next year or so.

tombert 3y ago
I don't dispute most of what you said, but I take a bit of issue with: > In terms of the effect on him - you are assuming he isn't somehow human, and somehow these decisions aren't personally very hard to take. Humans are perfectly capable of doing horrible things and justifying it to themselves; me claiming that his words of "taking full responsibility" is a corporate platitude doesn't imply that I don't think he's human. I'm sure at some level he probably feels emotions the same way I do, but I also think he's somewhat removed from the consequences of his decisions. We all do it to some extent (don't think too hard about the labor behind your phone or computer). Doesn't mean it's not crappy.
passwordoops 3y ago
>directing internal heat ( and external heat - like yours ) to himself, rather than HR, or middle managers etc in Google. The reason this is irrelevant is because it's not what Western society values. If he is sincere about taking responsibility, he would either resign with no compensation, or take a severe paycut for failure. If a CEO is handed a bonus when the company does well, then it must follow that their head rolls when it doesn't. "Taking heat" should be part of the day-to-day of a CEO's job and not the "punishment" for failure.

dools 3y ago

That's what private companies are supposed to do though. They exist to make a profit. The type of people working for Google will be the first to get hired when the economy picks up again, if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing, think about advocating for a federal Job Guarantee which helps those who need it most: http://www.jobguarantee.org/ http://www.jobguarantee.org/

Eisenstein 3y ago
> That's what private companies are supposed to do though. Google is not a private company though. > The type of people working for Google will be the first to get hired when the economy picks up again So instead of spending the time looking for a job, possibly relocating, settling down, getting used to a new workplace, etc, and staying there, they get to do all that and then do it again. This is not a trivial set of events to have to redo. > if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing This makes zero sense. > link No thanks.
- mbork_pl 3y ago
  > Google is not a private company though. Well of course it is, isn't it? It's not state-owned, right?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - tired_star_nrg 3y ago
    I think what they’re saying is that they are a publicly traded company, therefore not “private” (privately owned)
- dools 3y ago
  > Google is not a private company though. The distinction I’m making is between public sector and private sector, not privately held versus publicly traded >> if you really care about the impacts of boom and bust don't worry about what the private sector is doing > This makes zero sense. No it makes 3 sense. The private sector will always boom and bust. If you try to solve that with regulation you a) can’t and b) just make it harder for smaller businesses to compete. Only the government can offset the whimsy of the private sector and prevent the inevitable boom and bust cycles of private investment from destabilising society.

scarface74 3y ago

Would those 12 thousand people at Google have been better off if they hadn’t work there? Would you have not taken a job at Google if you knew that you would be laid off four years later or would you have saved aggressively and been preparing for your next role?

tombert 3y ago
Four years I would have taken it. Four months? Not so sure. My understanding is that a lot of people who were fired were only hired in 2021 and 2022, just to be let go in the tail end of 2022.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  If i had to relocate, probably not. But in a normal tech hiring market, I’ve given up full time roles for a six month contract to perm role that paid slightly more. But built my resume. I would have definitely jumped at my current $BigTech remote role where I made over $150K more over two years than I was making at a 60 person startup I left even if I had known the job would have lasted two years. No I wasn’t laid off. This is purely hypothetical.

5040 3y ago

One is tempted to contrast this with a similar move made by Nintendo some years ago: >Nintendo CEO Satoru Iwata will slash his pay in half for the next five months, following disappointing financial results for the Wii U and 3DS maker. >Other members of the Nintendo board will take a pay cut ranging between 20 and 30 percent of their salary. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-ceo-slashes-salary-in-half-to-apologise-for-wii-u-losses/1100-6417409/ https://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-ceo-slashes-salar...