12 ms·

It's a decent severance package, honestly. But, as usual, > As CEO, I’m accountable for the changes we’re making and where we’re headed in the future. So, I t

It's a decent severance package, honestly. But, as usual, > As CEO, I’m accountable for the changes we’re making and where we’re headed in the future. So, I think it’s important for me to share how we got here and how the next few days will work. I see no indication as to how Dylan will actually be held accountable for the decisions that ultimately led to this.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
Accountable... to the board, who are loving the efficiencies. Who's upset with this CEO's actions besides the families affected by it, who have no power individually over anything to hold him accountable? They're his capital resources. Executives aren't accountable to that.
- parsimo2010 3y ago
  But what about being held accountable for all the “significant investments” that didn’t pan out into the expected revenue? The board may be happy that the layoff cuts cost, but is the board happy with a CEO that has made multiple bad bets?
  - echelon 3y ago
    > is the board happy with a CEO that has made multiple bad bets? Which bad bets?
    - parsimo2010 3y ago
      Whichever are the ones mentioned in the article: “Since 2019, we’ve made a number of big bets across the company … Some of the significant investments we’ve made aren’t paying off the way we expected them to.
  - frankish 3y ago
    Riot Games actually changed CEOs in 2023. https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/announcing-dylan-jadeja-riot-games-next-ceo https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/announcing-dylan-jadeja-ri...
  - HDThoreaun 3y ago
    Tech companies are supposed to take bets. Not all of them will pay off, that’s what makes them bets. So yes, most tech investors are happy to see their companies have failed bets.
missedthecue 3y ago
See this comment in every layoff thread. There is actually no reason why being accountable for something means you necessarily face imposed consequences for something. That does not follow. They are not synonyms.
- codeflo 3y ago
  It's narcissistic BS corporate speak that ridicules the victims. We shouldn't stop pointing that out just because it's common.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    Sorry, someone who gets laid off is not a victim. It's a known part of the deal of having a job. You might decide to quit and leave the employer. The employer might decide they don't need you anymore and lay you off. You both have that option. You know this going in and you both are supposed to make arrangements to be able to deal with this possibility.
    - Apocryphon 3y ago
      You say that, but there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. People don't continuously act like their jobs are precarious, even if the American system with its employer-tied insurance and other mediocre safety nets, should incentivize us to.
      - imgabe 3y ago
        > there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. Right. And since we know this, isn't it basic common sense to ask yourself "what would I do if I lost my job tomorrow?" and have some savings and a plan? Especially if you're a relatively well-paid tech employee? It doesn't matter if you consider your job precarious or not, it's simply irresponsible to not be prepared for the possibility.
wilg 3y ago
"Accountable" doesn't mean you have to be punished.
- glimshe 3y ago
  So what is it in practice? If nothing happens, in any way, what's the point of saying it? If it means nothing, then sure, I'm accountable too, why not?
  - wilg 3y ago
    It doesn't mean nothing. It just doesn't mean being punished. You can look it up if you are interested.
  - klodolph 3y ago
    > (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible This is from the OED. There’s no mention of consequences. You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions. I’m an on-call engineer, I’m accountable for outages. That means that I give a root-cause analysis when they happen. I’m not given disciplinary action when outages happen, because there are many factors that cause an outage and that’s too much for one person to bear. > what's the point of saying it? This is basic corporate comms. If you’re silent, people may assume something worse than the truth. So you give some explanation (some kind of account is given by the person held accountable).
    - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
      > You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions. If an accountant lies in his numbers, they go to prison. Why are you missing the most obvious explanation, it’s simply a political point they have to be seen saying, but have no intention of doing - I.e. it’s a lie
      - klodolph 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
WalterBright 3y ago
Decent? It's a very generous one.
- pdpi 3y ago
  It's generous, yes, but it's also decent (though I don't think that's what GP meant). The computer/laptop thing is a nice touch, and the email thing seems genuinely thoughtful.
readthenotes1 3y ago
A more literal interpretation of accountability would mean that they can tell the story, the accounting, of how things happened. Now if they are responsible, maybe they should be liable for consequences
- eganist 3y ago
  > A more literal interpretation of accountability would mean that they can tell the story, the accounting, of how things happened. That's not a common interpretation in this context, especially the part about responsibility v. accountability. If it helps to understand it in a business process context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matr... Often, the entity accountable for an outcome owns the consequences regardless of who's responsible for implementing it. It doesn't help that accountability and responsibility are often synonyms in all other contexts. It's why the department executive gets fired if 30 million dollars was spent and the program doesn't get the job done, at least if they manage not to skirt accountability for it.
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    Redefinition allows ambiguity. Perfect outcome for this
    - eganist 3y ago
      There's no real redefinition here.
irjustin 3y ago
> I see no indication as to how Dylan will actually be held accountable for the decisions that ultimately led to this. I believe you're reading the sentence differently than how it's being conveyed. Dylan is talking about the decision to layoff will improve the company for the future. If it does not then the board should "hold him accountable" and remove him. You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to layoff employees.
- noobermin 3y ago
  Was he also forced to over hire? Will anyone face consequences for that?
  - irjustin 3y ago
    I'm not trying to argue that. I'm pointing out what Dylan said he is accountable for is not what OP believes/claims Dylan is accountable for.
- rapind 3y ago
  OP stated specifically (which you quote) “the decisions that ultimately led to this”. So… > You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to layoff employees. Seems to intentionally misconstrue what OP said.
  - irjustin 3y ago
    I'll need you to point out where I'm misconstruing OP because it still reads, to me, that I interpreted OP's desires. That he wants "accountability for why there are layoffs".
shaneprrlt 3y ago
All they mean by that is if you want to be mad at someone be mad at him.

wahnfrieden 3y ago

Accountable... to the board, who are loving the efficiencies. Who's upset with this CEO's actions besides the families affected by it, who have no power individually over anything to hold him accountable? They're his capital resources. Executives aren't accountable to that.

parsimo2010 3y ago
But what about being held accountable for all the “significant investments” that didn’t pan out into the expected revenue? The board may be happy that the layoff cuts cost, but is the board happy with a CEO that has made multiple bad bets?
- echelon 3y ago
  > is the board happy with a CEO that has made multiple bad bets? Which bad bets?
  - parsimo2010 3y ago
    Whichever are the ones mentioned in the article: “Since 2019, we’ve made a number of big bets across the company … Some of the significant investments we’ve made aren’t paying off the way we expected them to.
- frankish 3y ago
  Riot Games actually changed CEOs in 2023. https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/announcing-dylan-jadeja-riot-games-next-ceo https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/announcing-dylan-jadeja-ri...
- HDThoreaun 3y ago
  Tech companies are supposed to take bets. Not all of them will pay off, that’s what makes them bets. So yes, most tech investors are happy to see their companies have failed bets.

missedthecue 3y ago

See this comment in every layoff thread. There is actually no reason why being accountable for something means you necessarily face imposed consequences for something. That does not follow. They are not synonyms.

codeflo 3y ago
It's narcissistic BS corporate speak that ridicules the victims. We shouldn't stop pointing that out just because it's common.
- imgabe 3y ago
  Sorry, someone who gets laid off is not a victim. It's a known part of the deal of having a job. You might decide to quit and leave the employer. The employer might decide they don't need you anymore and lay you off. You both have that option. You know this going in and you both are supposed to make arrangements to be able to deal with this possibility.
  - Apocryphon 3y ago
    You say that, but there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. People don't continuously act like their jobs are precarious, even if the American system with its employer-tied insurance and other mediocre safety nets, should incentivize us to.
    - imgabe 3y ago
      > there are always cases of people getting laid off despite having positive performance reports, were hired shortly prior to RIF, were given assurances there would not be layoffs, etc. Right. And since we know this, isn't it basic common sense to ask yourself "what would I do if I lost my job tomorrow?" and have some savings and a plan? Especially if you're a relatively well-paid tech employee? It doesn't matter if you consider your job precarious or not, it's simply irresponsible to not be prepared for the possibility.

wilg 3y ago

"Accountable" doesn't mean you have to be punished.

glimshe 3y ago
So what is it in practice? If nothing happens, in any way, what's the point of saying it? If it means nothing, then sure, I'm accountable too, why not?
- wilg 3y ago
  It doesn't mean nothing. It just doesn't mean being punished. You can look it up if you are interested.
- klodolph 3y ago
  > (of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible This is from the OED. There’s no mention of consequences. You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions. I’m an on-call engineer, I’m accountable for outages. That means that I give a root-cause analysis when they happen. I’m not given disciplinary action when outages happen, because there are many factors that cause an outage and that’s too much for one person to bear. > what's the point of saying it? This is basic corporate comms. If you’re silent, people may assume something worse than the truth. So you give some explanation (some kind of account is given by the person held accountable).
  - ClumsyPilot 3y ago
    > You are expected to account for your actions. Like an accountant is expected to keep an accounting of transactions. If an accountant lies in his numbers, they go to prison. Why are you missing the most obvious explanation, it’s simply a political point they have to be seen saying, but have no intention of doing - I.e. it’s a lie
    - klodolph 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

WalterBright 3y ago

Decent? It's a very generous one.

pdpi 3y ago
It's generous, yes, but it's also decent (though I don't think that's what GP meant). The computer/laptop thing is a nice touch, and the email thing seems genuinely thoughtful.

readthenotes1 3y ago

A more literal interpretation of accountability would mean that they can tell the story, the accounting, of how things happened. Now if they are responsible, maybe they should be liable for consequences

eganist 3y ago
> A more literal interpretation of accountability would mean that they can tell the story, the accounting, of how things happened. That's not a common interpretation in this context, especially the part about responsibility v. accountability. If it helps to understand it in a business process context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matr... Often, the entity accountable for an outcome owns the consequences regardless of who's responsible for implementing it. It doesn't help that accountability and responsibility are often synonyms in all other contexts. It's why the department executive gets fired if 30 million dollars was spent and the program doesn't get the job done, at least if they manage not to skirt accountability for it.
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  Redefinition allows ambiguity. Perfect outcome for this
  - eganist 3y ago
    There's no real redefinition here.

irjustin 3y ago

> I see no indication as to how Dylan will actually be held accountable for the decisions that ultimately led to this. I believe you're reading the sentence differently than how it's being conveyed. Dylan is talking about the decision to layoff will improve the company for the future. If it does not then the board should "hold him accountable" and remove him. You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to layoff employees.

noobermin 3y ago
Was he also forced to over hire? Will anyone face consequences for that?
- irjustin 3y ago
  I'm not trying to argue that. I'm pointing out what Dylan said he is accountable for is not what OP believes/claims Dylan is accountable for.
rapind 3y ago
OP stated specifically (which you quote) “the decisions that ultimately led to this”. So… > You're hoping that Dylan gets punished for being forced to layoff employees. Seems to intentionally misconstrue what OP said.
- irjustin 3y ago
  I'll need you to point out where I'm misconstruing OP because it still reads, to me, that I interpreted OP's desires. That he wants "accountability for why there are layoffs".

shaneprrlt 3y ago

All they mean by that is if you want to be mad at someone be mad at him.