7 ms·

Being sorry - check Takes full responsibility - check Layoffs are still there

by skwee357 2y ago

yieldcrv 2y ago
how would you like the next CEO to handle it, for reference?
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  Conversion to worker coop
- CoolGuySteve 2y ago
  I would like for there to be a next CEO
- bravetraveler 2y ago
  With the resources that would otherwise be given to the excised one, is a good start
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  [flagged]
- realusername 2y ago
  A 20% layoff means either the market changed very very quickly or something went terribly wrong in the company strategy. Here it's the second scenario and I'd expect the CEO to be on shaky grounds after such bad results. There needs to be more explanation on where the CEO screwed up that badly and the consequences for the management.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    At the very very least, they should be explaining how Dropbox is suddenly a 20% smaller company, because either that means the market has contracted by 20%, or Dropbox has shit the bed as a competitive entity in said market. Both options should directly imply that the CEO should earn less. Either you're running a smaller, simpler company, or you sucked at your job. Eat the loss.
    - stevenAthompson 2y ago
      They aren't 20% smaller, they stopped growing. Some of those positions existed to help them continue with growth, which now isn't happening. They reached market saturation, which isn't the same thing as failing.
- skwee357 2y ago
  These words mean nothing really. I expect the next CEO to not use meaningless phrases. How does "taking responsibility" works in his case? What does it even mean other than PR fluff?
  - foobarian 2y ago
    I mean he's just stating what his job is. CEO is responsible by definition. He's saying "Hey all this is my job."
    - skwee357 2y ago
      No, responsibility is not a word. Responsibility is an action. If I'm on-call, I'm responsible to carry my laptop with me and be available immediately to fix critical issues. I don't just say "I take responsibility of being on-call", and the leave my laptop at home, get drunk and fall asleep in a bar for the weekend. That's called being irresponsible.
      - foobarian 2y ago
        I see. But that's still like doing your job. I do my job for being on-call by having my laptop with me and phone on, etc. If do my job badly I get fired. So this CEO is saying, "if I do my job poorly I understand I could get fired." But, did he/she do their job poorly? That's the thing I can't figure out quite yet. It seems it was bad for the laid off people, but maybe not for Dropbox?
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >"if I do my job poorly I understand I could get fired." If I got a million dollar parachute when I do my job badly, I would love to "take responsibility" as well. Fuck the people, I get paid either way here. > But, did he/she do their job poorly? in a fiduciary sence short term, no. So shareholders are happy since that's all their care about. Long term, who knows? I don't see them closing the gap with Google nor Microsoft so this could just accelerate that downfall. in a spirit of, as some politician say, "creating jobs and stimulating the economy", absolutely awfully. We have 500 more workers out on an awful job market and it's not because DBX wasn't profitable. They simply dropped workers to prepare for a bad time that the US economy doesn't want to admit out loud.
- randomdata 2y ago
  By letting a lower rung employee take the responsibly. This is giving CEOs a bad name and is only one step away from the board taking the heat.
- glimshe 2y ago
  If he was responsible for the conditions that led to the layoff, he could also resign.
  - empath75 2y ago
    Layoffs happen even in well run companies.
    - GiorgioG 2y ago
      Actually they don't. Well run companies have cash reserves and expect to have periods of ups and downs. They don't pray to the alter of the next quarterly report.
      - yieldcrv 2y ago
        > Actually they don't then they probably should not saying I should go work for McKinsey, just noticing that unnecessary payments are likely happening. companies don't exist to employ people. employees exist to help companies. just make everyone a decent shareholder with decent liquidity and move on when the employee isn't necessary.
        johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >companies don't exist to employ people. employees exist to help companies. Companies in society exist to serve the customer, provide labor opportunities, and overall stimulate the economy (all of which is needed to make money). This mentality above is exactly why the latter half of Millensials and Gen Z were demystified by the labor market and simply don't take the kind of "loyalty" narrative of the older generations. You can't talk family, layoff "family" every 2 years regardless of talent and pretend that "hard workers get rewarded". So you'll get the bare minimum, you will get no overtime when you request it (especially if you aren't paying 1.5x), and you probably won't even get the long dead 2 weeks notice when I move on. You can't expect much more "help" when you can't give the basic modicrum of respect to your help. > just make everyone a decent shareholder with decent liquidity and move on when the employee isn't necessary. most jobs don't have RSUs. Not even in tech.
- BossingAround 2y ago
  How about describing what exactly taking full responsibility means for them in that particular situation? Saying e.g. what is the impact on the situation for those responsible might be nice - no bonuses for next year? A plan in place so that this doesn't happen again? Stepping down as a CEO? I mean, if I take responsibility for e.g. wrong tax filing, I pay the fine penalty, and/or go to jail. Saying "I take responsibility" some kind of failure while having no consequences for said failure is not taking responsibility.
- stonemetal12 2y ago
  Stop saying "take responsibility" if they aren't actually. If you knock a girl up and you "take responsibility" it means you getting married. If you are in a car wreck and you "take responsibility" it means you are paying for repairs. If you commit a crime and "take responsibility" you are going to jail. So if a CEO is "taking responsibility" it should be something like that second case, dollars from their own pocket to the effected party.
  - YetAnotherNick 2y ago
    GP asked what should CEO say instead. Not what should they not say.
    - timeon 2y ago
      Absence is also part of the content.
  - geodel 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > but acting like petulant child and lashing out at CEO won't do much. I don't think anyone is attacking the CEO with the expectation that he's got his iPad in-hand, reading every comment through his tears. What we are saying is that corporate doublespeak is unbelievably fucking grating when it doesn't correlate whatsoever with tangible change at the company. This kind of repeat behavior is what makes people (justifiably) laugh when CEOs walk out onstage. Like when Tim Cook steps out on and insults us all perennially with his "best iPhone yet" comment. Like, duh, of-fucking-course it is! Why don't you tell me something I don't know, show me some form of change in your posture or the way you provide your products and services to me. Don't just advertise to me - convince me that you're not steering the company in a direction that sucks for everyone but the CEO.
      - qwerpy 2y ago
- coldpie 2y ago
  They should make whole those affected, as best as possible. The CEO, who is the responsible party by their own declaration, should distribute their personal wealth to those affected until all parties have approximately the same amount of wealth.
- jrochkind1 2y ago
  Take a pay cut. Return last year's mega bonus.
Clent 2y ago
Claims to take full responsibility but since he has not resigned he has not taken any responsibility he has just said the words.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  That's not what it means. As CEO, it's his responsibility to make/approve the decision to do the layoffs, or not. The buck stops with him. That's all that it means. It doesn't mean he's liable for any hardships.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Exactly, it doesnt mean that the CEO is submitting themselves to whatever consequences internet users deem appropriate.
  - reverius42 2y ago
    If that was what responsibility meant, then by definition any CEO is fulfilling their responsibility. The moral meaning of responsibility here means that the CEO takes responsibility for the lives and livelihoods of those affected -- which does feel a bit hollow when the CEO presumably is not only not affected negatively, but probably will be rewarded for increasing shareholder value.
  - disqard 2y ago
    I'm more with GP. If "responsibility" only constitutes "I pull the trigger, and I don't care what happens as a result", then that is a fairly weak kind of leadership -- ostensibly not very different from a child doing whatever they want in a consequence-free manner. I want to believe that "responsibility" not only constitutes "I can make things happen", but that "I am willing to Make Things Right if my actions cause things to go sideways". If I'm wrong, then we live in a world where "taking responsibility" means "using power", and "I take full responsibility" means "yes, I used my power to do that" and that's Not Good Enough to call such people "Leaders".
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
TomK32 2y ago
Avoided the "20% more space at Dropbox" headline - check
- layer8 2y ago
  I was hoping for a 20% price reduction.
my_berner 2y ago
I think we'd all collectively blow our minds if a CEO said "I take full responsibility for the bad decisions and overhiring, so I'm resigning"
- FirmwareBurner 2y ago
  Would the CEO resigning or getting laid off, make your situation any better if you were one of those laid off? Feels like a weird hill to die on, and more like a crabs in the bucket mentality that doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things. In the end I'm still unemployed and whatever happens to my ex-CEO doesn't change my situation one bit. As I grew older and experienced my share of layoffs, I stopped caring about what happens to those responsible for me getting laid off, as my energy is better spent on improving my situation and my life instead of ruminating how Krama vengeance would make me feel better.
  - smetj 2y ago
    > Would the CEO resigning or getting laid off, make your situation any better if you were one of those laid off? No, of course not. But he is the leader, and he guided the company to a point where certain areas became "over-invested or under-performing." In other words, he didn’t do a good job. So, it should be him stepping down. Nobody ever said being a CEO would be easy.
    - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
      >and he guided the company to a point where certain areas became "over-invested or under-performing." And now he's fixing it by cutting those under-performing areas. >So, it should be him stepping down. Why? How would that help the company get better? Do you think competent CEOs are like cogs that you can pick a new one from the stack of LinkedIn applications whenever the old one makes a mistake, and then slot him in the existing machine and everything will magically work better? >Nobody ever said being a CEO would be easy. Exactly. That's why you don't rush to replace the devil you know with the devil you don't.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Being sorry - check Takes full responsibility - check Layoffs are still there

yieldcrv 2y ago

how would you like the next CEO to handle it, for reference?

wahnfrieden 2y ago
Conversion to worker coop
CoolGuySteve 2y ago
I would like for there to be a next CEO
bravetraveler 2y ago
With the resources that would otherwise be given to the excised one, is a good start
giraffe_lady 2y ago
[flagged]
realusername 2y ago
A 20% layoff means either the market changed very very quickly or something went terribly wrong in the company strategy. Here it's the second scenario and I'd expect the CEO to be on shaky grounds after such bad results. There needs to be more explanation on where the CEO screwed up that badly and the consequences for the management.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  At the very very least, they should be explaining how Dropbox is suddenly a 20% smaller company, because either that means the market has contracted by 20%, or Dropbox has shit the bed as a competitive entity in said market. Both options should directly imply that the CEO should earn less. Either you're running a smaller, simpler company, or you sucked at your job. Eat the loss.
  - stevenAthompson 2y ago
    They aren't 20% smaller, they stopped growing. Some of those positions existed to help them continue with growth, which now isn't happening. They reached market saturation, which isn't the same thing as failing.
skwee357 2y ago
These words mean nothing really. I expect the next CEO to not use meaningless phrases. How does "taking responsibility" works in his case? What does it even mean other than PR fluff?
- foobarian 2y ago
  I mean he's just stating what his job is. CEO is responsible by definition. He's saying "Hey all this is my job."
  - skwee357 2y ago
    No, responsibility is not a word. Responsibility is an action. If I'm on-call, I'm responsible to carry my laptop with me and be available immediately to fix critical issues. I don't just say "I take responsibility of being on-call", and the leave my laptop at home, get drunk and fall asleep in a bar for the weekend. That's called being irresponsible.
    - foobarian 2y ago
      I see. But that's still like doing your job. I do my job for being on-call by having my laptop with me and phone on, etc. If do my job badly I get fired. So this CEO is saying, "if I do my job poorly I understand I could get fired." But, did he/she do their job poorly? That's the thing I can't figure out quite yet. It seems it was bad for the laid off people, but maybe not for Dropbox?
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >"if I do my job poorly I understand I could get fired." If I got a million dollar parachute when I do my job badly, I would love to "take responsibility" as well. Fuck the people, I get paid either way here. > But, did he/she do their job poorly? in a fiduciary sence short term, no. So shareholders are happy since that's all their care about. Long term, who knows? I don't see them closing the gap with Google nor Microsoft so this could just accelerate that downfall. in a spirit of, as some politician say, "creating jobs and stimulating the economy", absolutely awfully. We have 500 more workers out on an awful job market and it's not because DBX wasn't profitable. They simply dropped workers to prepare for a bad time that the US economy doesn't want to admit out loud.
randomdata 2y ago
By letting a lower rung employee take the responsibly. This is giving CEOs a bad name and is only one step away from the board taking the heat.
glimshe 2y ago
If he was responsible for the conditions that led to the layoff, he could also resign.
- empath75 2y ago
  Layoffs happen even in well run companies.
  - GiorgioG 2y ago
    Actually they don't. Well run companies have cash reserves and expect to have periods of ups and downs. They don't pray to the alter of the next quarterly report.
    - yieldcrv 2y ago
      > Actually they don't then they probably should not saying I should go work for McKinsey, just noticing that unnecessary payments are likely happening. companies don't exist to employ people. employees exist to help companies. just make everyone a decent shareholder with decent liquidity and move on when the employee isn't necessary.
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        >companies don't exist to employ people. employees exist to help companies. Companies in society exist to serve the customer, provide labor opportunities, and overall stimulate the economy (all of which is needed to make money). This mentality above is exactly why the latter half of Millensials and Gen Z were demystified by the labor market and simply don't take the kind of "loyalty" narrative of the older generations. You can't talk family, layoff "family" every 2 years regardless of talent and pretend that "hard workers get rewarded". So you'll get the bare minimum, you will get no overtime when you request it (especially if you aren't paying 1.5x), and you probably won't even get the long dead 2 weeks notice when I move on. You can't expect much more "help" when you can't give the basic modicrum of respect to your help. > just make everyone a decent shareholder with decent liquidity and move on when the employee isn't necessary. most jobs don't have RSUs. Not even in tech.
BossingAround 2y ago
How about describing what exactly taking full responsibility means for them in that particular situation? Saying e.g. what is the impact on the situation for those responsible might be nice - no bonuses for next year? A plan in place so that this doesn't happen again? Stepping down as a CEO? I mean, if I take responsibility for e.g. wrong tax filing, I pay the fine penalty, and/or go to jail. Saying "I take responsibility" some kind of failure while having no consequences for said failure is not taking responsibility.
stonemetal12 2y ago
Stop saying "take responsibility" if they aren't actually. If you knock a girl up and you "take responsibility" it means you getting married. If you are in a car wreck and you "take responsibility" it means you are paying for repairs. If you commit a crime and "take responsibility" you are going to jail. So if a CEO is "taking responsibility" it should be something like that second case, dollars from their own pocket to the effected party.
- YetAnotherNick 2y ago
  GP asked what should CEO say instead. Not what should they not say.
  - timeon 2y ago
    Absence is also part of the content.
- geodel 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - talldayo 2y ago
    > but acting like petulant child and lashing out at CEO won't do much. I don't think anyone is attacking the CEO with the expectation that he's got his iPad in-hand, reading every comment through his tears. What we are saying is that corporate doublespeak is unbelievably fucking grating when it doesn't correlate whatsoever with tangible change at the company. This kind of repeat behavior is what makes people (justifiably) laugh when CEOs walk out onstage. Like when Tim Cook steps out on and insults us all perennially with his "best iPhone yet" comment. Like, duh, of-fucking-course it is! Why don't you tell me something I don't know, show me some form of change in your posture or the way you provide your products and services to me. Don't just advertise to me - convince me that you're not steering the company in a direction that sucks for everyone but the CEO.
    - qwerpy 2y ago
coldpie 2y ago
They should make whole those affected, as best as possible. The CEO, who is the responsible party by their own declaration, should distribute their personal wealth to those affected until all parties have approximately the same amount of wealth.
jrochkind1 2y ago
Take a pay cut. Return last year's mega bonus.

Clent 2y ago

Claims to take full responsibility but since he has not resigned he has not taken any responsibility he has just said the words.

SoftTalker 2y ago
That's not what it means. As CEO, it's his responsibility to make/approve the decision to do the layoffs, or not. The buck stops with him. That's all that it means. It doesn't mean he's liable for any hardships.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Exactly, it doesnt mean that the CEO is submitting themselves to whatever consequences internet users deem appropriate.
- reverius42 2y ago
  If that was what responsibility meant, then by definition any CEO is fulfilling their responsibility. The moral meaning of responsibility here means that the CEO takes responsibility for the lives and livelihoods of those affected -- which does feel a bit hollow when the CEO presumably is not only not affected negatively, but probably will be rewarded for increasing shareholder value.
- disqard 2y ago
  I'm more with GP. If "responsibility" only constitutes "I pull the trigger, and I don't care what happens as a result", then that is a fairly weak kind of leadership -- ostensibly not very different from a child doing whatever they want in a consequence-free manner. I want to believe that "responsibility" not only constitutes "I can make things happen", but that "I am willing to Make Things Right if my actions cause things to go sideways". If I'm wrong, then we live in a world where "taking responsibility" means "using power", and "I take full responsibility" means "yes, I used my power to do that" and that's Not Good Enough to call such people "Leaders".
  - SoftTalker 2y ago

TomK32 2y ago

Avoided the "20% more space at Dropbox" headline - check

layer8 2y ago
I was hoping for a 20% price reduction.

my_berner 2y ago

I think we'd all collectively blow our minds if a CEO said "I take full responsibility for the bad decisions and overhiring, so I'm resigning"

FirmwareBurner 2y ago
Would the CEO resigning or getting laid off, make your situation any better if you were one of those laid off? Feels like a weird hill to die on, and more like a crabs in the bucket mentality that doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things. In the end I'm still unemployed and whatever happens to my ex-CEO doesn't change my situation one bit. As I grew older and experienced my share of layoffs, I stopped caring about what happens to those responsible for me getting laid off, as my energy is better spent on improving my situation and my life instead of ruminating how Krama vengeance would make me feel better.
- smetj 2y ago
  > Would the CEO resigning or getting laid off, make your situation any better if you were one of those laid off? No, of course not. But he is the leader, and he guided the company to a point where certain areas became "over-invested or under-performing." In other words, he didn’t do a good job. So, it should be him stepping down. Nobody ever said being a CEO would be easy.
  - FirmwareBurner 2y ago
    >and he guided the company to a point where certain areas became "over-invested or under-performing." And now he's fixing it by cutting those under-performing areas. >So, it should be him stepping down. Why? How would that help the company get better? Do you think competent CEOs are like cogs that you can pick a new one from the stack of LinkedIn applications whenever the old one makes a mistake, and then slot him in the existing machine and everything will magically work better? >Nobody ever said being a CEO would be easy. Exactly. That's why you don't rush to replace the devil you know with the devil you don't.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]