3 ms·
It’s because, and I say this as a person who has made these calls, some leaders do feel a genuine responsibility for the people that work for them. Perhaps too,
by K0balt 3mo ago
It’s because, and I say this as a person who has made these calls, some leaders do feel a genuine responsibility for the people that work for them. Perhaps too, the ones that don’t, want people to think that they do. But as a founder and CEO by far the most emotionally taxing thing I have ever had to do is cut staff for the good of the company. You want to treat people the way you would want to be treated if you were in their shoes, but it doesn’t change the realities of the operation.
This case is clearly AI enabled “right sizing”, and it is inevitable for companies that aren’t seeing explosive growth. It seems like they are handing it well, better than most. Good for them.
- ltbarcly3 3mo agoThey feel a genuine responsibility to avoid the buzzing sound in their head that results from trying to believe and make other people believe they feel a genuine responsibility for people while taking actions that are the polar opposite of anything that you do to someone you feel responsible for purely to increase your own and your investors wealth. It's fine to fire people, and the severance here is very generous. Business leaders who need to feel like they are a generous parent or 'different' are weak and lying to themselves. Finally while the severance is generous and to be applauded, all of the phrasing under the guise of caring about people was very transparently just an excuse to say over and over "we are making money and we aren't doing this because we have to" to his investors, which just rubs it in the face of the people being fired over and over. One final insult I guess.
- codegeek 3mo agoI am a founder/CEO myself (a very small company so I don't have experience of mass layoffs for full disclosure). However, I don't get this explanation. If you feel genuine responsibility for the people, then figure out a way to NOT fire them. Or be honest and admit that the company needs to make more money/cut costs. Trust me, no one wants to hear "we love you so much but we have to fire you and I feel so bad". It just doesn't land. Be honest, be open and be willing to provide a good severance.
- ryandrake 3mo agoIt reminds me of that meme template. “I feel responsible for this layoff.” “Responsible enough to mitigate it or lay yourself off?” “Well, no, not that responsible…”
- stronglikedan 3mo agoWhat an illogical and unrealistic meme template that is...
- linkjuice4all 3mo agoYes, much like the “we’re all family but we’re reducing headcount by…” Treat people like professionals: admit that you did a bad job but that you’d rather protect yourself and not give up any of your salary/benefits and instead you are going to layoff your “family”.
- ponector 3mo agoWe are all family! They just forgot to mention it is a pretty dysfunctional one.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- scottLobster 3mo agoIt's not illogical, it's called leading by example. You consider it unrealistic because most corporate leadership, especially in America, never feels like doing it. Samsung executives by contrast have a tradition of taking serious pay cuts during bad years. Which is still largely performative given their existing wealth and status, but is at least is a measurable material sacrifice.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- keiferski 3mo ago
- nightski 3mo agoThese posts seem more like emotional therapy for the founder, helping them cope. It's not about the people being let go at all.
- ecocentrik 3mo agoYou should really look into who Jack Conte is and why he created Patreon. He's a smart guy who relies heavily on maintaining a positive social image and is more emotionally aware and stable than most tech founders. I imagine from his perspective the decision, severance and post were all just the smart thing to do.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- ghostly_s 3mo agoHis name is Jack, and I would describe him as a deeply weird narcissist. You got the "relies heavily on maintaining a positive social image" part right.
- ecocentrik 3mo agoThat was a typo... thanks. I wasn't suggesting that he or anyone else is 100% altruistic but he seems like he genuinely thrives on collaboration.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- ecocentrik 3mo agoEven founders that don't naturally empathize with employees they need to cut encounter a process that is emotionally taxing. It's just not an easy thing to do. If you handle layoffs badly it can impact your earnings potential, your social image and your psychological health.
- SetTheorist 3mo agoThe "realities" being that increasing profits for a few people is more important than the lives of the people doing the actual work?
- SetTheorist 3mo agoThe "realities" being that increasing profits for a few people is more important than the lives of the people doing the actual work?
- 999900000999 3mo agoAs someone who has been laid off or fired a few times. Just tell me when my last day is and cut my check. At this point I assume every employer wants to screw me in one way or another. My first salaried job replaced me behind my back since I went remote to look after a dying family member. Corporations by definition are sociopathic entities. They can not ‘care’ about anything aside from maximizing profits. Once I was on a call receiving the bad news and I immediately texted another job opportunity right then and there. We’re not family , and we’re definitely not friends.
- Grombobulous 3mo agoI think what you’re describing is only a fraction of leaders and possibly a small minority of them. This concept is especially not applicable to profitable companies who have layoffs anyway. Hyper-optimization and AI adoption isn’t actually a business requirement if your business is making a profit. Plenty of businesses refuse to play that game and still make themselves a good living. Founders who want to claim emotional connection to their employees should think about things like converting the company to full employee ownership rather than thinking of themselves as a paternal benevolent dictator.
- vladms 3mo agoThe profit by itself does not tell the whole story. There are loan repayments, investments and possibly other financial deals. > Founders who want to claim emotional connection to their employees should think about things like converting the company to full employee ownership In a previous (very small) company I worked we have tried something similar that and, guess what, some people refused. They just preferred market level salary, freedom and no ownership worries, rather than take some risks. They were good employees so we just continued with them. But I learned that not everybody has the same views and wishes, and life is quite complex (I was a founder and was always interested by ownership, so was quite surprised about their reaction).
- SoftTalker 3mo agoJust as most organizations beyond a certain size will have a few people who reach a plateau where they are content and do not want any more responsibilities or pay. They don't want a new title, they don't want more prestige, they don't even want a raise. They just want to do what they do.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- whatever1 3mo agoWhy a company has to survive but not its people? For example when it comes to the IRS bill, the company will literally cease operations and sell all of its assets to pay IRS. Why the employees do not deserve this?
- scott_w 3mo ago> Why a company has to survive but not its people? If the company collapses, those people lose their jobs anyway? > Why the employees do not deserve this? It's not about what employees "deserve," it's about the simple fact that the law allows the tax authorities to wind up a business to cover the tax bill. See the UK, where HMRC wound up Rangers FC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_and_liquidation_of_the_Rangers_Football_Club_plc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_and_liquidation...).
- whatever1 3mo agoExactly. With stroke of a pen a company is less important than its ability to pay taxes. So we can put people above companies. With a stroke of a pen.
- scott_w 3mo agoDid you miss this part? > If the company collapses, those people lose their jobs anyway? We can do what you suggest but the result is the same for the people being laid off.
- rendaw 3mo agoWhy is AI enabled right sizing inevitable for companies that are profitable but not seeing explosive growth?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- TitaRusell 3mo agoEmployees are a disposable product. Need to ramp up fast? Hire some bodies. Don't worry you can ditch them in 3 months just in time to make shareholders happy. Ofcourse the corporate class starts complaining nobody has loyalty and passion anymore.