3 ms·
Interesting wording, because he's not the owner. What he owns is enough voting rights that nobody can challenge his decisions. And also interesting in the sens
by zmmmmm 5mo ago
Interesting wording, because he's not the owner. What he owns is enough voting rights that nobody can challenge his decisions.
And also interesting in the sense that, this is what he claimed to actually do a few years ago. He had a "year of efficiency" where he significantly flattened and restructured the org, losing tens of thousands of staff. At that time I even defended him precisely due to this reasoning - if execution is failing you need a reboot. Well he did the reboot and it is still failing.
- ffsm8 5mo agoAgain, I'm just an armchair analyst, but in that year of efficiency,his aim was to reduce wastage, removing low performers etc. That kind of trimming entrenches previous culture even more, which can be desirable - but not in this particular case where the culture itself is the issue. At that point you can't trim, you need to decimate. The layoffs at that time were several waves of around 10% - unless I misremember? If he instead did two waves with 40% each and slowly rebuilt from scratch, it'd be a different story.
- kelnos 5mo ago> Interesting wording, because he's not the owner. What he owns is enough voting rights that nobody can challenge his decisions. So he's the owner, for the definition that matters for GP's argument.