5 ms·

I'm c-suite and the most important function of layoffs is to preserve the business as an ongoing concern, preserving what jobs I can. If the business fails, eve

I'm c-suite and the most important function of layoffs is to preserve the business as an ongoing concern, preserving what jobs I can. If the business fails, everyone loses their job, which is terrible! Now, if the reason for layoffs is due directly to poor decisions by someone who should not have reasonably made that decision given the variables in front of them, that person should probably be terminated. But layoffs can occur for all manner of reasons. If you are in the business of making feather hats, and suddenly feather hats go out of style because of shifts in market demand, how can you fire the business leader? Not everything is in the control of management. Management comes in every day, sees the situation before them, and makes the best decisions they can to grow the business.

sarchertech 3y ago
The vast majority of tech layoffs this year had nothing to do preserving the business as an ongoing concern.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
naasking 3y ago
I think the point being made is that management costs a business disproportionately more than lower-level employees, so arguably plenty of cuts should be seen there too if cost-cutting were really the only concern. It's just basic statistics if all else is truly equal.
shermantanktop 3y ago
This is how I explain senior execs to junior engineers: their job is not to write code or give speeches, it’s almost entirely about making decisions in the absence of perfect information. That’s an important skill. But it also provides the perfect cover for bad decisions, because “we didn’t know then what we do now.” So I have little sympathy for the c-level exec who ends up on the wrong side of events as they unfold, because…that’s the gig. If they don’t want unfair blame they can get a different job.
- dasil003 3y ago
  That’s true, but also keep in mind executives aren’t fired for making bad decisions, they’re fired because the board (or CEO) thinks someone else can do better going forward.
  - shermantanktop 3y ago
    Or to take blame for past company performance, or for political reasons, or whatever. All of that might fall under "someone else can do better." Sometimes execs are fired for making bad decisions, whether fairly or unfairly. If the police want to pull you over, they can always find a reason. Same with a board firing an exec. Whether the nominal reason is the same as the actual reason is pretty hard to tell from the outside. Again, that's the gig, and if someone doesn't want the uncertainty or the downside risk, they can hand the compensation back and do something where performance is more measurable and treatment is more equitable. By the same token, my view of a "successful exec" depends on repeated success over time, not just a hot IPO or a good quarter.
- mindwok 3y ago
  Good take. It's pretty much the entire function of being C-Suite, putting your ass on the line for decisions nobody wants to make and having the confidence/credentials/ego/whatever to get people to buy into your decision.
stanleykm 3y ago
[dead]
vore 3y ago
It is your job to anticipate the market – you are responsible for all the business decisions! If you're allowed to shrug it off and say "we didn't see this coming, we did the best we can, by the way 3.8% of you are getting laid off because of this but not me, even though I made the calls", well, it sounds like you're just milking the business for yourself until it well and truly goes kaput.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > is your job to anticipate the market No, it’s not. It’s to engage it best. Take two cultures: one that executes leaders for making bad calls and one that judges them according to what they knew when they made the decision. Who wins? We’ve run this experiment hundreds of times because it’s appealing to think steep consequences for bad decisions leads to good decisions. But it doesn’t. It causes caution and indecision. The example that comes to mind is Carthage vs. Rome; the former executed failed generals while in Rome "defeated generals seldom faced serious punishments" [1]. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/libyan-studies/article/generals-and-judges-command-constitution-and-the-fate-of-carthage/757F46BAE0CA1A08373A15D1E497198F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/libyan-studies/artic...
  - vore 3y ago
    Then the compensation model is inherently unfair if the rank and file is forced to bear the brunt of bad leadership.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > the compensation model is inherently unfair if the rank and file is forced to bear the brunt of bad leadership Considering solely risk, sure. There are other relevant inputs. More pertinently, this is why we have public services and safety nets.
      - fisf 3y ago
        So we outsource bad decision making of overcompensated people to the public. Brilliant.
raincole 3y ago
Good comment. If you (anyone who reads this) are an employee, remember this is how c-suite people see you. You're cost. You're something that prevents the business from being "preserved". You're like water or electricity bills from the businesses' point of view. You'll be fired not because you did anything wrong: firing you is nothing different from using less water. Water, of course, can't be wrong or right. That's why you should have zero loyalty to the business. (You're water bills. Water bills don't have loyalty)
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  Businesses do not exist for making jobs. If we wanted jobs simply for jobs’ sake, then we would pay people to dig holes and fill them in (a lot of government jobs are glorified versions of this). Businesses exist to fulfill a market need, and every business fulfilling that market need competes in some axis of cost vs. quality. We are all human. I feel for people laid off. I have been laid off before, and businesses I operated have failed - full stop. I’m talking complicated bankruptcy with the courts and everything. This is not a good outcome for anyone except the court appointed lawyers. Even when I lay people off, or if people quit on their own for greener pa$ture$, I maintain relationships with people who I respect. More often than not I meet these people again, either hiring them directly or working with them again. The world isn’t zero sum, and being laid off isn’t a sociopathic situation of management vs. labor.
  - raincole 3y ago
    I absolutely don't think that businesses exist to make jobs. You'll never find me saying so. Continue on my own analogy, thinking businesses exist to make more jobs is just like thinking they exist to use water. It would be crazy if anyone said it out loud this way.
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    One of the reasons businesses (and business leaders to some extent too) argue for reduced tax burdens is because “they are job creators”. It’s literally an argument many businesses make when lobbying.
bandrami 3y ago
> how can you fire the business leader? Ummm... why wouldn't you fire the business leader in that situation? He locked the company in to a niche market that was subject to the volatility of fashion choices when he could have had his feather techs fletching arrows or stuffing pillows. Had the bet paid off, he'd reap the benefits.
kalleboo 3y ago
> If you are in the business of making feather hats, and suddenly feather hats go out of style because of shifts in market demand, how can you fire the business leader? Were you a c-suite at Kodak or something? "There was nothing we could do after people didn't want to shoot photos on film anymore" meanwhile Fujifilm pivoting hard into chemical materials, makeup, medical etc etc (although ironically due to the meteoric rise of Instax, their highest income is once again consumer photo film...) You fire the business leader because he didn't see the writing on the wall and expand into down comforters, other styles of hats, etc etc.
- vasco 3y ago
  That's one view of the world. One people try to push for but I don't agree with. It's OK for companies to have a lifecycle associated with what they do. There's no need for companies to be behemots that last forever. If you are a hat company, to me there's no direct implications that tells me it's better for society if the hat company starts making shoes vs the company ending and different cohorts of employees going to different places, potentially some founding a shoe company, potentially not. Many many dollars are wasted due to companies trying to survive at all costs and fail at it.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    But a company deciding "okay, were done" and just shutting down is effectively laying off 100% of the staff. This company's leadership is already getting flak for laying off under 4%.
    - vasco 3y ago
      Sure and laying off 100% of staff might be better for society if you can replace the jobs with higher productivity ones somewhere else. Same with unions, instead of starting one to fix a dystopian company with bad leadership, could be better to have the employees leave and have the company go downhill than trying to fix something that isn't worth fixing.
      - 3y ago

sarchertech 3y ago

The vast majority of tech layoffs this year had nothing to do preserving the business as an ongoing concern.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

naasking 3y ago

I think the point being made is that management costs a business disproportionately more than lower-level employees, so arguably plenty of cuts should be seen there too if cost-cutting were really the only concern. It's just basic statistics if all else is truly equal.

shermantanktop 3y ago

This is how I explain senior execs to junior engineers: their job is not to write code or give speeches, it’s almost entirely about making decisions in the absence of perfect information. That’s an important skill. But it also provides the perfect cover for bad decisions, because “we didn’t know then what we do now.” So I have little sympathy for the c-level exec who ends up on the wrong side of events as they unfold, because…that’s the gig. If they don’t want unfair blame they can get a different job.

dasil003 3y ago
That’s true, but also keep in mind executives aren’t fired for making bad decisions, they’re fired because the board (or CEO) thinks someone else can do better going forward.
- shermantanktop 3y ago
  Or to take blame for past company performance, or for political reasons, or whatever. All of that might fall under "someone else can do better." Sometimes execs are fired for making bad decisions, whether fairly or unfairly. If the police want to pull you over, they can always find a reason. Same with a board firing an exec. Whether the nominal reason is the same as the actual reason is pretty hard to tell from the outside. Again, that's the gig, and if someone doesn't want the uncertainty or the downside risk, they can hand the compensation back and do something where performance is more measurable and treatment is more equitable. By the same token, my view of a "successful exec" depends on repeated success over time, not just a hot IPO or a good quarter.
mindwok 3y ago
Good take. It's pretty much the entire function of being C-Suite, putting your ass on the line for decisions nobody wants to make and having the confidence/credentials/ego/whatever to get people to buy into your decision.

stanleykm 3y ago

[dead]

vore 3y ago

It is your job to anticipate the market – you are responsible for all the business decisions! If you're allowed to shrug it off and say "we didn't see this coming, we did the best we can, by the way 3.8% of you are getting laid off because of this but not me, even though I made the calls", well, it sounds like you're just milking the business for yourself until it well and truly goes kaput.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> is your job to anticipate the market No, it’s not. It’s to engage it best. Take two cultures: one that executes leaders for making bad calls and one that judges them according to what they knew when they made the decision. Who wins? We’ve run this experiment hundreds of times because it’s appealing to think steep consequences for bad decisions leads to good decisions. But it doesn’t. It causes caution and indecision. The example that comes to mind is Carthage vs. Rome; the former executed failed generals while in Rome "defeated generals seldom faced serious punishments" [1]. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/libyan-studies/article/generals-and-judges-command-constitution-and-the-fate-of-carthage/757F46BAE0CA1A08373A15D1E497198F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/libyan-studies/artic...
- vore 3y ago
  Then the compensation model is inherently unfair if the rank and file is forced to bear the brunt of bad leadership.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > the compensation model is inherently unfair if the rank and file is forced to bear the brunt of bad leadership Considering solely risk, sure. There are other relevant inputs. More pertinently, this is why we have public services and safety nets.
    - fisf 3y ago
      So we outsource bad decision making of overcompensated people to the public. Brilliant.

raincole 3y ago

Good comment. If you (anyone who reads this) are an employee, remember this is how c-suite people see you. You're cost. You're something that prevents the business from being "preserved". You're like water or electricity bills from the businesses' point of view. You'll be fired not because you did anything wrong: firing you is nothing different from using less water. Water, of course, can't be wrong or right. That's why you should have zero loyalty to the business. (You're water bills. Water bills don't have loyalty)

monero-xmr 3y ago
Businesses do not exist for making jobs. If we wanted jobs simply for jobs’ sake, then we would pay people to dig holes and fill them in (a lot of government jobs are glorified versions of this). Businesses exist to fulfill a market need, and every business fulfilling that market need competes in some axis of cost vs. quality. We are all human. I feel for people laid off. I have been laid off before, and businesses I operated have failed - full stop. I’m talking complicated bankruptcy with the courts and everything. This is not a good outcome for anyone except the court appointed lawyers. Even when I lay people off, or if people quit on their own for greener pa$ture$, I maintain relationships with people who I respect. More often than not I meet these people again, either hiring them directly or working with them again. The world isn’t zero sum, and being laid off isn’t a sociopathic situation of management vs. labor.
- raincole 3y ago
  I absolutely don't think that businesses exist to make jobs. You'll never find me saying so. Continue on my own analogy, thinking businesses exist to make more jobs is just like thinking they exist to use water. It would be crazy if anyone said it out loud this way.
- hnlmorg 3y ago
  One of the reasons businesses (and business leaders to some extent too) argue for reduced tax burdens is because “they are job creators”. It’s literally an argument many businesses make when lobbying.

bandrami 3y ago

> how can you fire the business leader? Ummm... why wouldn't you fire the business leader in that situation? He locked the company in to a niche market that was subject to the volatility of fashion choices when he could have had his feather techs fletching arrows or stuffing pillows. Had the bet paid off, he'd reap the benefits.

kalleboo 3y ago

> If you are in the business of making feather hats, and suddenly feather hats go out of style because of shifts in market demand, how can you fire the business leader? Were you a c-suite at Kodak or something? "There was nothing we could do after people didn't want to shoot photos on film anymore" meanwhile Fujifilm pivoting hard into chemical materials, makeup, medical etc etc (although ironically due to the meteoric rise of Instax, their highest income is once again consumer photo film...) You fire the business leader because he didn't see the writing on the wall and expand into down comforters, other styles of hats, etc etc.

vasco 3y ago
That's one view of the world. One people try to push for but I don't agree with. It's OK for companies to have a lifecycle associated with what they do. There's no need for companies to be behemots that last forever. If you are a hat company, to me there's no direct implications that tells me it's better for society if the hat company starts making shoes vs the company ending and different cohorts of employees going to different places, potentially some founding a shoe company, potentially not. Many many dollars are wasted due to companies trying to survive at all costs and fail at it.
- thfuran 3y ago
  But a company deciding "okay, were done" and just shutting down is effectively laying off 100% of the staff. This company's leadership is already getting flak for laying off under 4%.
  - vasco 3y ago
    Sure and laying off 100% of staff might be better for society if you can replace the jobs with higher productivity ones somewhere else. Same with unions, instead of starting one to fix a dystopian company with bad leadership, could be better to have the employees leave and have the company go downhill than trying to fix something that isn't worth fixing.
    - 3y ago