i hate this trend of ceos saying they take responsibility. Reminds me of lord farquuad, "some of you may die, but that is a price i'm willing to pay"
Yeah we know you're responsible for it, but how are you being held accountable for it?
No one will remember in two years time, but my hope is it'll factor into candidates' decisions around whether to pursue a career with Stripe. If I've got senior executives without accountability, it's a distraction to my ability to deliver the product as well as to lead my own teams supporting their vision because it means I can't rely on them, and this outcome with absolutely no accountability behind it is a good enough reason for me to never want to join Stripe in the future.
(Tbf, I'm sure he was told to resign. But that's largely because the Navy has tried to institute a culture of accountability, albeit imperfectly)
Also, Japanese execs are paid substantially less than their US/UK counterparts.
I doubt that it has happened in quite a while, but there have been CEOs that have committed suicide, when their companies failed.
Doubt that will catch on, in the US.
A lot of the nice stuff that musicians and actors have, is actually owned by the company.
Gilded cage, so to speak.
After having to layoff a lot of their staff in the 90s, Chouinard decided to switch his compagny values and reason of being.
This article sums it up I guess, https://medium.com/@adamler/limiting-the-engines-of-growth-a...
https://www.fastcompany.com/3056662/she-created-netflixs-cul...
Remember, “companies don’t exist to make you happy. You know that, right? The business doesn’t exist to serve you. The business exists to serve your customers,” reminds McCord.
she was apparently a big deal but i think you gave her more credit than deserved there heheh
Good examples of accountability to the board? All over. But boards care (by mandate) only about profit unless specified otherwise. There's no incentive for a board to care about whether people are put out on the street either; it's one of the major reasons for why unions exist and are successful: they provide a mechanism for accountability that ties adverse employee decisions back to future revenue loss.
Tl;Dr: nope, and that's sadly by design because why would anyone be self-accountable when the consequences hit the wallet? I was hoping for a ray of light to pierce the dark.
Why would the union do this? It seems like a contrived example to prove a point. Unions would conceivably benefit from more hires because they would have more union membership.
My anecdotal experience is that unions are a massive benefit to laid-off employees. Laid off employees were given 80% pay while they waited with a known re-hire date. In other cases, they are given priority when the company is looking to rehire with an unknown rehire date. Unions have downsides, for sure, but I don't think your example points them out here.
And my example was simply continuing the original poster’s insinuation that a union could have helped management avoid the over hiring mistake they were about to make by making the consequences of that mistake greater.
What you said does make sense though. The union apprentiships were extremely competitive, possibly because they were constrained to low numbers.
Why do people keep working and earning more when they are set for life--what actual practical purpose does megawealth serve once you've guaranteed your standard of living for you and your offspring? The purpose is lack of accountability. Megawealth means you can spend every remaining day of your life screwing up, and besides doing something illegal that lands you in jail, you'll never suffer a consequence.
I think this is the wrong question to ask -- "what end is this a means to anymore". One of the largest challenges in life is pursuit of meaning, and Zuck has, at least he thinks, found it. He still has consequences, but they are higher up on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
You could argue that those in charge should have enough at stake to feel the burn of a layoff like this, but this issue isn't dissimilar to biology. We often make local (and temporary) sacrifices on behalf our own bodies, knowing "we" will still be around afterwards to enjoy life and the removed parts won't (removing limbs, wiping out blood cells, organ removal, etc.). This isn't 1:1 with Zuck, because Zuck is more than just his role in Meta, but close enough.
Actually, yes, as it could open up career opportunities for others further down the totem pole. At almost every company I've ever worked, the CxO, SVP, VP roles were all hogged up by already-set-for-life people (or people who became set for life by working there a few years). They just hang on to those very senior roles like barnacles, while the rank and file fight each other their whole careers for a few open Director or manager roles.
If already-rich people could just admit they won the game and gracefully resign to "spend more time with their family" or "look down their noses" or whatever rich people like to do, maybe some of those Directors could be promoted to VPs and some of those managers could be promoted to Director and so on. This would help refresh the tree a little, cycle new blood through leadership, and help even more people climb the ladder.
If they just give it to you straight, there’s no bullshit - the people fired may be mad or upset but they'll be mad or upset regardless because being fired sucks. If they start hand-wringing, talking about how painful it was for them and how they take full responsibility people will ask “hang on, how exactly is this painful for you? how are you taking responsibility, what are you doing about it?”
Is that ritual suicide?