6 ms·

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

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.
- apple4ever 3y ago
  I like that thought. If he earns a bonus in good times he should also suffer a cut in bad times.
pdimitar 3y ago
This does not change the fact that the "heat" he is taking had exactly zero consequences for him. So "I take full responsibility" is an empty platitude that means basically nothing.
- m000 3y ago
  That's not true. I'm sure he was more sweaty than usual, laughing on his way to the bank. /s
  - pdimitar 3y ago
    And he practically worked an entire month's hours by having to pretend that he cares! Obviously he busted his arse working that day!
- jodrellblank 3y ago
  2021 added 40% revenue growth and $36Bn in net profit to Alphabet in one year. - https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/24/google_exec_bonuses_cut/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/24/google_exec_bonuses_c... That seems like something the board/shareholders/market would reward him for, not punish him for. Who would punish him and why for the inhumanity of firing lots of people? Not the board, not the California state government, not the Federal government. Maybe that would be a role for an employee's union?
  - pdimitar 3y ago
    Sure, what you say is not wrong, the financial incentives are all wrong and reward being an inhuman. That being said, none of what you said justifies his empty "I take full responsibility" statement. It's hollow and it achieves nothing. Well, nothing good related to those fired that is.
    - scarface74 3y ago
      What were the financial incentives of people taking a job at Google? They wanted to get paid top of market compensation for their labor and they did while they were working there. What did the employees do with their additional compensation? Did they save it? Are they trying to use the fact they worked for Google to increase their network? At what point is it the employee’s responsibility to assume that no job is permanent?

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.

apple4ever 3y ago
I like that thought. If he earns a bonus in good times he should also suffer a cut in bad times.

pdimitar 3y ago

This does not change the fact that the "heat" he is taking had exactly zero consequences for him. So "I take full responsibility" is an empty platitude that means basically nothing.

m000 3y ago
That's not true. I'm sure he was more sweaty than usual, laughing on his way to the bank. /s
- pdimitar 3y ago
  And he practically worked an entire month's hours by having to pretend that he cares! Obviously he busted his arse working that day!
jodrellblank 3y ago
2021 added 40% revenue growth and $36Bn in net profit to Alphabet in one year. - https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/24/google_exec_bonuses_cut/ https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/24/google_exec_bonuses_c... That seems like something the board/shareholders/market would reward him for, not punish him for. Who would punish him and why for the inhumanity of firing lots of people? Not the board, not the California state government, not the Federal government. Maybe that would be a role for an employee's union?
- pdimitar 3y ago
  Sure, what you say is not wrong, the financial incentives are all wrong and reward being an inhuman. That being said, none of what you said justifies his empty "I take full responsibility" statement. It's hollow and it achieves nothing. Well, nothing good related to those fired that is.
  - scarface74 3y ago
    What were the financial incentives of people taking a job at Google? They wanted to get paid top of market compensation for their labor and they did while they were working there. What did the employees do with their additional compensation? Did they save it? Are they trying to use the fact they worked for Google to increase their network? At what point is it the employee’s responsibility to assume that no job is permanent?