6 ms·

>that should make that person one of the people on proverbial track That's a satisfying thing to say, but as practical advice it's absolutely terrible. Often

>that should make that person one of the people on proverbial track That's a satisfying thing to say, but as practical advice it's absolutely terrible. Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem, but even when it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that the company will be better-off without them. And that's the question -- what will make the company most likely to be the most successful going forward? Even if the current trouble is because of some of that leader's mistakes, the answer is often to keep that leader. Sometimes it isn't.

pixelatedindex 2y ago
> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem Then what is the problem? Ultimately you’re paid the big bucks for being held responsible. Why isn’t it never something like the CEO doesn’t get any stocks that year. I’m not saying he needs to leave the company but maybe he should take a substantial hit to his pay. He has enough money to put food on the table for many years, unlike the people who are let go where it’s mostly a mixed bag.
- geodel 2y ago
  Held responsible for what? The what part is written in contract for execs, movie stars, sport persons. I have not seen in any category people not getting paid per their contract for poor performance.
- teitoklien 2y ago
  The ones out of job can join a different company, america’s unemployment rate especially in the tech sector tends to be low. Them doing layoffs doesnt mean the people become destitute. It is better to layoff people who are not adding value to a company, so that those newly unemployed folks can join a different company and build great products and add more value to the economy. Ofcourse this only applies to US tech sector where hiring is tight. Especially when coming out of top tier companies like dropbox on your resume. I don’t think its that dramatic, folks who tend to hold similar ideologies like you state, tend to not even bat a single eye, when average americans who lack the privilege of a tech worker lose their job to automation (with tech) or outsourcing or due to overburdened climate regulations and redtape leading to fewer factory jobs in America. This is not the titanic, those people will move on to places where they’ll have a chance for promotion.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - teitoklien 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        > its emotional folks like you who end up getting taken advantage of by communist / socialist / comrade like ideologies Oh, so anyone who disagrees with you is a communist / socialist? Hate to break it to you, but I'm a red blooded American capitalist that has a few criticisms to make the system better and freer. You cannot have liberty in today's world without a job - you will be homeless, on the street, and freezing, and society has decided that applying resources to that problem is a waste of time. That doesn't mean anybody "owes" you a job, but not even remotely considering the consequences of layoffs is bloodless and heartless and ultimately a detriment both personally to the person laid off (though no fault of their own, after all, just wanting to juice those stock numbers!) and to the US economy as a whole. And god forbid you're here on an H1B visa - better pack your shit and get out if some corporate overlord decrees so. Have a good day as well - not everyone that disagrees with you is a communist. Get therapy for your problems.
  - dandellion 2y ago
    Whenever people are laid off where you work, I suppose you always volunteer to take their place? Since according to you it's only such a minor inconvenience I think it would be hypocritical of you to not to offer to take their place. Grandparent is not even saying that it should be avoided, just that the CEO should face some accountability from it. In many cases they have none at all, whereas the impact on the employees can range from actually quite low (as in your example) to very high. In fact there is no upper ceiling to impact to the worker which is the real problem. From the horror stories I've heard about the US they could even lose health insurance and end up with someone in the family dying because they can't afford treatment. Accountability is good precisely when there are such asymmetrical power imbalances, where one person makes the decision and someone else bears all the consequences. Either you add some feedback loops or the imbalance grows unchecked until it becomes unsustainable, and eventually you end up with a war of independence, or a French revolution and things like that. With just a bit of empathy it should be easy to understand why accountability is needed in such situations to keep a good social dynamic long term. Someone with the empathy of a river boulder might think it's just people behaving irrationally, but I suggest you look into game theory and you'll see how some seemingly irrational behaviours like tit-for-tat are not as irrational as they seem.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  >Why isn’t it never something like the CEO doesn’t get any stocks that year. Performance based compensation is absolutely standard for CEOs- Both in terms of options and stock grants.
  - DrillShopper 2y ago
    Do those metrics count "number of people laid off" explicitly? We know they do implicitly because laying off people makes the company more profitable, but is there any penalty for killing jobs? If not, shouldn't there be?
    - mulmen 2y ago
      The purpose of a corporation is to make money, not jobs.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        to play devils advocate, there are different levels one can look at that. From the level of the companies and owners, the goal is to make money. From the perspective of society there are tons of answers. A common answer is that companies provide goods and services that give consumers more value than they cost, thereby enriching the lives of consumers. It seems like some people, especially those who take issue with layoffs, tend to think the social purpose of companies is to give jobs/money to workers. This leads to a lot of frustration for those people because the entire economic system is set up such that jobs are an optional byproduct of making goods, not the other way around.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - duped 2y ago
        We live in a society where there are more metrics than money. The entire notion of corporate amorality is a thin veil that people use to hide their own unethical and immoral behavior. That's why I made the comment that layoffs are the trolley problem. It's an ethical question and companies don't always make the ethical choice, for example choosing profit over jobs in a downturn.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
duped 2y ago
I didn't say which track they were on in the problem, just that they're on one of them.
sangnoir 2y ago
> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem, but even when it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that the company will be better-off without them How convenient (for them)! When the company is doing well, they get millions in bonuses because their irreplaceable leadership skills - which make them 2000x more valuable than the least paid worker - were instrumental to the organization's success. When the chips are down, it wasn't their fault per se, and the company still would be allegedly worse off without them, so laying-off waves of those who don't have decision-making power is the correct remedy, until the good times roll again, and senior leadership is ready to claim responsibility. It must be nice to claim "macro-economic headwinds" as justification for poor performance and poor planning, but still get paid bonuses for the never-mentioned "macro-economic tailwinds"
- flappyeagle 2y ago
  Go start a company already — you’re on YC forums
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    I have started a company[1], but that's neither here nor there. I vehemently disagree with your insinuation that I couldn't challenge leadership culture had I not. Founding a company doesn't make one infallible or irreplaceable. Though to be fair, it doesn't feel that way when it's your company though! 1. I will note that this is an incredibly low bar.
    - flappyeagle 2y ago
      You want to be the boss. Start a company. You want someone else to control your employment, work for someone else. It’s simple.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    1. This really shouldn't be advice handily thrown out like "learn how to play guitar". You gotta spend money to make money, and if you're laid off without a plan this is the worst time to spend money. 2. I plan to one day. I very much plan not to rely on a VC for that. The purpose for my company is to not require millions to ship products users want/need and to stay extremely lean. A small team of "full stack" developers, to put it roughly. I should already be in a very solid position by myself before I come to such a crossroad. 3. I will admit I am not this "full stack" dev yet. I will still need some months/years to get to this point myself. So I'm a "student" as of now.
lucianbr 2y ago
> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem What's the basis for this claim? I would rather think often it was the problem. Not absolutely every time, but most times. After all, the C-suite makes the decisions. I can not believe management decisions do not influence the course of a business. Sure, it's possible that outside circumstances were such that no decision could avoid a bad outcome. But that's a rather unlikely possibility. Most of the time, outcomes depend on decisions. Otherwise businesses would be some headless automatons. And if that was the case, we should not pay execs much at all. It's an obvious cheat: when times are good - it's all because of the leaders, when times are bad, it's all because of the environment. This is what they claim, but it is not the truth. Again, what's the basis for this claim? Any proof, studies, anything?

pixelatedindex 2y ago

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem Then what is the problem? Ultimately you’re paid the big bucks for being held responsible. Why isn’t it never something like the CEO doesn’t get any stocks that year. I’m not saying he needs to leave the company but maybe he should take a substantial hit to his pay. He has enough money to put food on the table for many years, unlike the people who are let go where it’s mostly a mixed bag.

geodel 2y ago
Held responsible for what? The what part is written in contract for execs, movie stars, sport persons. I have not seen in any category people not getting paid per their contract for poor performance.
teitoklien 2y ago
The ones out of job can join a different company, america’s unemployment rate especially in the tech sector tends to be low. Them doing layoffs doesnt mean the people become destitute. It is better to layoff people who are not adding value to a company, so that those newly unemployed folks can join a different company and build great products and add more value to the economy. Ofcourse this only applies to US tech sector where hiring is tight. Especially when coming out of top tier companies like dropbox on your resume. I don’t think its that dramatic, folks who tend to hold similar ideologies like you state, tend to not even bat a single eye, when average americans who lack the privilege of a tech worker lose their job to automation (with tech) or outsourcing or due to overburdened climate regulations and redtape leading to fewer factory jobs in America. This is not the titanic, those people will move on to places where they’ll have a chance for promotion.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - teitoklien 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      > its emotional folks like you who end up getting taken advantage of by communist / socialist / comrade like ideologies Oh, so anyone who disagrees with you is a communist / socialist? Hate to break it to you, but I'm a red blooded American capitalist that has a few criticisms to make the system better and freer. You cannot have liberty in today's world without a job - you will be homeless, on the street, and freezing, and society has decided that applying resources to that problem is a waste of time. That doesn't mean anybody "owes" you a job, but not even remotely considering the consequences of layoffs is bloodless and heartless and ultimately a detriment both personally to the person laid off (though no fault of their own, after all, just wanting to juice those stock numbers!) and to the US economy as a whole. And god forbid you're here on an H1B visa - better pack your shit and get out if some corporate overlord decrees so. Have a good day as well - not everyone that disagrees with you is a communist. Get therapy for your problems.
- dandellion 2y ago
  Whenever people are laid off where you work, I suppose you always volunteer to take their place? Since according to you it's only such a minor inconvenience I think it would be hypocritical of you to not to offer to take their place. Grandparent is not even saying that it should be avoided, just that the CEO should face some accountability from it. In many cases they have none at all, whereas the impact on the employees can range from actually quite low (as in your example) to very high. In fact there is no upper ceiling to impact to the worker which is the real problem. From the horror stories I've heard about the US they could even lose health insurance and end up with someone in the family dying because they can't afford treatment. Accountability is good precisely when there are such asymmetrical power imbalances, where one person makes the decision and someone else bears all the consequences. Either you add some feedback loops or the imbalance grows unchecked until it becomes unsustainable, and eventually you end up with a war of independence, or a French revolution and things like that. With just a bit of empathy it should be easy to understand why accountability is needed in such situations to keep a good social dynamic long term. Someone with the empathy of a river boulder might think it's just people behaving irrationally, but I suggest you look into game theory and you'll see how some seemingly irrational behaviours like tit-for-tat are not as irrational as they seem.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
>Why isn’t it never something like the CEO doesn’t get any stocks that year. Performance based compensation is absolutely standard for CEOs- Both in terms of options and stock grants.
- DrillShopper 2y ago
  Do those metrics count "number of people laid off" explicitly? We know they do implicitly because laying off people makes the company more profitable, but is there any penalty for killing jobs? If not, shouldn't there be?
  - mulmen 2y ago
    The purpose of a corporation is to make money, not jobs.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      to play devils advocate, there are different levels one can look at that. From the level of the companies and owners, the goal is to make money. From the perspective of society there are tons of answers. A common answer is that companies provide goods and services that give consumers more value than they cost, thereby enriching the lives of consumers. It seems like some people, especially those who take issue with layoffs, tend to think the social purpose of companies is to give jobs/money to workers. This leads to a lot of frustration for those people because the entire economic system is set up such that jobs are an optional byproduct of making goods, not the other way around.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - duped 2y ago
      We live in a society where there are more metrics than money. The entire notion of corporate amorality is a thin veil that people use to hide their own unethical and immoral behavior. That's why I made the comment that layoffs are the trolley problem. It's an ethical question and companies don't always make the ethical choice, for example choosing profit over jobs in a downturn.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

duped 2y ago

I didn't say which track they were on in the problem, just that they're on one of them.

sangnoir 2y ago

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem, but even when it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that the company will be better-off without them How convenient (for them)! When the company is doing well, they get millions in bonuses because their irreplaceable leadership skills - which make them 2000x more valuable than the least paid worker - were instrumental to the organization's success. When the chips are down, it wasn't their fault per se, and the company still would be allegedly worse off without them, so laying-off waves of those who don't have decision-making power is the correct remedy, until the good times roll again, and senior leadership is ready to claim responsibility. It must be nice to claim "macro-economic headwinds" as justification for poor performance and poor planning, but still get paid bonuses for the never-mentioned "macro-economic tailwinds"

flappyeagle 2y ago
Go start a company already — you’re on YC forums
- sangnoir 2y ago
  I have started a company[1], but that's neither here nor there. I vehemently disagree with your insinuation that I couldn't challenge leadership culture had I not. Founding a company doesn't make one infallible or irreplaceable. Though to be fair, it doesn't feel that way when it's your company though! 1. I will note that this is an incredibly low bar.
  - flappyeagle 2y ago
    You want to be the boss. Start a company. You want someone else to control your employment, work for someone else. It’s simple.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  1. This really shouldn't be advice handily thrown out like "learn how to play guitar". You gotta spend money to make money, and if you're laid off without a plan this is the worst time to spend money. 2. I plan to one day. I very much plan not to rely on a VC for that. The purpose for my company is to not require millions to ship products users want/need and to stay extremely lean. A small team of "full stack" developers, to put it roughly. I should already be in a very solid position by myself before I come to such a crossroad. 3. I will admit I am not this "full stack" dev yet. I will still need some months/years to get to this point myself. So I'm a "student" as of now.

lucianbr 2y ago

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem What's the basis for this claim? I would rather think often it was the problem. Not absolutely every time, but most times. After all, the C-suite makes the decisions. I can not believe management decisions do not influence the course of a business. Sure, it's possible that outside circumstances were such that no decision could avoid a bad outcome. But that's a rather unlikely possibility. Most of the time, outcomes depend on decisions. Otherwise businesses would be some headless automatons. And if that was the case, we should not pay execs much at all. It's an obvious cheat: when times are good - it's all because of the leaders, when times are bad, it's all because of the environment. This is what they claim, but it is not the truth. Again, what's the basis for this claim? Any proof, studies, anything?