4 ms·

Doesn't pass the smell test as someone who has been on boards that made these decisions. This would be like saying cloud spend was circular because F1000 tech

Doesn't pass the smell test as someone who has been on boards that made these decisions. This would be like saying cloud spend was circular because F1000 tech companies represent the majority of cloud spend from a revenue perspective, but tend to sell or partner with those same organizations. For example, AWS and Zscaler, or GCP and Broadcom. Reality is, a lot of product lines were formed or overhired with little-to-no business justification during the late 2010s and early 2020s. Most of us are now cleaning shop and axing those product lines and features that cannot be attached to tangible revenue generation. Inevitably this leads to ICs getting axed. If you want to blame someone, blame EMs, PMs, Principal SWEs, and VPs who decided to launch product lines and features for their resume instead of for business justification. (Edit: that said, BeFlatXIII is right that we probably won't have hired most people if this didn't happen at all) Additionally, comp expectations just got too high - most new grads are not worth $150k-200k TC (some absolutely are though)

shermantanktop 1y ago
Agree with a lot of this. But on the last point, that’s the “blame middle management” theory. And I have seen outrageous, florid displays of exactly that behavior in those ranks. But the CEOs have been there all along, doing the math on ZIRP and getting caught up in FOMO. They could have tightened their belts at any time, or demanded better justifications for investments. Why didn’t they?
- alephnerd 1y ago
  > But the CEOs have been there all along, doing the math on ZIRP and getting caught up in FOMO. They could have tightened their belts at any time, or demanded better justifications for investments. Why didn’t they? Because the job of a CEO is not to micromanage. The whole point of hiring middle management is to keep CEOs out of micromanaging decisions. The job of C-suite is to 1. Be the arbitrator between different orgs 2. Be the primary salesperson - a large portion of corporations will not purchase without a CEO or CTO being in the same room and giving the same promises 3. Manage investor and board relations We (c-suite, boards) give middle management significant autonomy to shape roadmaps and organizational structure explicitly because we assume they are adults as well. Some amount of lossage and BS is expected, but the kind of financial slack that existed a couple years ago to cushion these blows doesn't exist anymore.
  - bix6 1y ago
    If you (c-suite, boards) aren’t giving direction then how are the middle managers supposed to know what to build so that it aligns with long term growth goals? This feels like abdicating responsibility and then firing people for building the wrong thing when you never told them what to build in the first place?
    - alephnerd 1y ago
      > you (c-suite, boards) aren’t giving direction then how are the middle managers supposed to know what to build so that it aligns with long term growth goals... > This feels like abdicating responsibility... How a tech company is supposed to work is: 1. You get feedback from a cohort of customers. This is primarily collected by the CEO and Sales, as well as PMs. 2. Based on feedback collected, you then decide what to prioritize or build. This is primarily done by Product Management 3. Based on the scoped feature, you then try to understand how long it takes to build and what is the expected cost to build. This is primarily done by Engineering Management and a bit of Product Management 4. Based on the scoped proposal, now you try to project net new ARR and COGS that can be attributed to that proposal. This is done by Product Management with coordination with Sales and a subset of Engineering Management 5. Based on the set of proposals that have come in from all PMs and EMs, you now decide which ones make sense with existing customer demand, and which can drive revenue. This is done by Product and Engineering Leadership. 6. Based on those proposals that passed muster, you now propose an annual operating plan (AOP) to the board to justify headcount allocation. This is done by the C-Suite. In a normal tech company, the primary steps (2-5) are done without the CEO in the conversation because that is not the job of the CEO. Their job is supposed to be the Sales and Customer Relations Manager for your largest 20 accounts, Investor Relation Management, and arbitrate between the various different functions within an organization. A CEO is not expected to take part in the larger product creation lifecycle because it creates fear amongst ICs, because no one below the VP level wants to give a CEO unadulterated feedback - even if they really trust them - because of the power differential. This is why most CEO-driven initiatives have been severe boondoggles, such as Zuckerberg and the Metaverse, because no one could tell Mark otherwise and expect to keep their job - even people as powerful internally as Sheryl Sandberg (COO), Mike Schroepfer (CTO), and Marne Levine (CBO). We are all adults. It is expected that people in your reporting structure are adults who are aligned with the primary incentive of the business - generate growing revenue while maintaining or enhancing COGS. Mind you, this is the ideal world. Like everything else, humans muck it up. Boards, C-Suites, Mid-Level managers, and line level ICs all have various relationships with each other, and in a lot of cases, rational business decisions are disincentivized in order to prioritize personal decisions.
jonway 1y ago
I dunno, it doesn't pass the smell test that for a decade everyone was adding useless products and now in '25 they're all having their come-to-jesus. I also don't that buy everyone is firing to spend on AI either.
- disgruntledphd2 1y ago
  It's more that they intend to spend loads and loads on capital spend (for AI). Therefore, they should lay people off to keep margin constant. Now clearly they believe that the capex is worth it, but they're mostly trying to manage their share price.
peacebeard 1y ago
> If you want to blame someone, blame EMs, PMs, Principal SWEs, and VPs who decided to launch product lines and features for their resume instead of for business justification. And the people in charge had no say in the matter.
BeFlatXIII 1y ago
> If you want to blame someone, blame EMs, PMs, Principal SWEs, and VPs who decided to launch product lines and features for their resume instead of for business justification. Arguably, thank them. The alternate is more likely that those jobs never would've existed, not that they'd have the same jobs with same TC but somehow in profitable business units. Enjoy having milked the job while it lasted instead of being stuck in a lower-paying career the entire time.

shermantanktop 1y ago

Agree with a lot of this. But on the last point, that’s the “blame middle management” theory. And I have seen outrageous, florid displays of exactly that behavior in those ranks. But the CEOs have been there all along, doing the math on ZIRP and getting caught up in FOMO. They could have tightened their belts at any time, or demanded better justifications for investments. Why didn’t they?

alephnerd 1y ago
> But the CEOs have been there all along, doing the math on ZIRP and getting caught up in FOMO. They could have tightened their belts at any time, or demanded better justifications for investments. Why didn’t they? Because the job of a CEO is not to micromanage. The whole point of hiring middle management is to keep CEOs out of micromanaging decisions. The job of C-suite is to 1. Be the arbitrator between different orgs 2. Be the primary salesperson - a large portion of corporations will not purchase without a CEO or CTO being in the same room and giving the same promises 3. Manage investor and board relations We (c-suite, boards) give middle management significant autonomy to shape roadmaps and organizational structure explicitly because we assume they are adults as well. Some amount of lossage and BS is expected, but the kind of financial slack that existed a couple years ago to cushion these blows doesn't exist anymore.
- bix6 1y ago
  If you (c-suite, boards) aren’t giving direction then how are the middle managers supposed to know what to build so that it aligns with long term growth goals? This feels like abdicating responsibility and then firing people for building the wrong thing when you never told them what to build in the first place?
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    > you (c-suite, boards) aren’t giving direction then how are the middle managers supposed to know what to build so that it aligns with long term growth goals... > This feels like abdicating responsibility... How a tech company is supposed to work is: 1. You get feedback from a cohort of customers. This is primarily collected by the CEO and Sales, as well as PMs. 2. Based on feedback collected, you then decide what to prioritize or build. This is primarily done by Product Management 3. Based on the scoped feature, you then try to understand how long it takes to build and what is the expected cost to build. This is primarily done by Engineering Management and a bit of Product Management 4. Based on the scoped proposal, now you try to project net new ARR and COGS that can be attributed to that proposal. This is done by Product Management with coordination with Sales and a subset of Engineering Management 5. Based on the set of proposals that have come in from all PMs and EMs, you now decide which ones make sense with existing customer demand, and which can drive revenue. This is done by Product and Engineering Leadership. 6. Based on those proposals that passed muster, you now propose an annual operating plan (AOP) to the board to justify headcount allocation. This is done by the C-Suite. In a normal tech company, the primary steps (2-5) are done without the CEO in the conversation because that is not the job of the CEO. Their job is supposed to be the Sales and Customer Relations Manager for your largest 20 accounts, Investor Relation Management, and arbitrate between the various different functions within an organization. A CEO is not expected to take part in the larger product creation lifecycle because it creates fear amongst ICs, because no one below the VP level wants to give a CEO unadulterated feedback - even if they really trust them - because of the power differential. This is why most CEO-driven initiatives have been severe boondoggles, such as Zuckerberg and the Metaverse, because no one could tell Mark otherwise and expect to keep their job - even people as powerful internally as Sheryl Sandberg (COO), Mike Schroepfer (CTO), and Marne Levine (CBO). We are all adults. It is expected that people in your reporting structure are adults who are aligned with the primary incentive of the business - generate growing revenue while maintaining or enhancing COGS. Mind you, this is the ideal world. Like everything else, humans muck it up. Boards, C-Suites, Mid-Level managers, and line level ICs all have various relationships with each other, and in a lot of cases, rational business decisions are disincentivized in order to prioritize personal decisions.

jonway 1y ago

I dunno, it doesn't pass the smell test that for a decade everyone was adding useless products and now in '25 they're all having their come-to-jesus. I also don't that buy everyone is firing to spend on AI either.

disgruntledphd2 1y ago
It's more that they intend to spend loads and loads on capital spend (for AI). Therefore, they should lay people off to keep margin constant. Now clearly they believe that the capex is worth it, but they're mostly trying to manage their share price.

peacebeard 1y ago

> If you want to blame someone, blame EMs, PMs, Principal SWEs, and VPs who decided to launch product lines and features for their resume instead of for business justification. And the people in charge had no say in the matter.

BeFlatXIII 1y ago

> If you want to blame someone, blame EMs, PMs, Principal SWEs, and VPs who decided to launch product lines and features for their resume instead of for business justification. Arguably, thank them. The alternate is more likely that those jobs never would've existed, not that they'd have the same jobs with same TC but somehow in profitable business units. Enjoy having milked the job while it lasted instead of being stuck in a lower-paying career the entire time.