Would've been a different story for instance if pc/jc were diluted with new grants to departing and existing employees.
But in the face of fundraising headwinds, a decision to cut costs like this only improves (or stabilizes anyway) their ability to raise at a valuation closer to what they're looking for in this down market. The severance package here only deferred the benefit to the bottom line, but it wasn't a consequence for over-hiring and potentially disrupting lives.
In other words, the layoffs actually benefit the founders directly, and it ends up becoming a perverse incentive to over-hire and lay off again with the next boom/bust. Successful accountability means people actually avoid doing shitty things.
This is exactly how business works. You should not be surprised. Their job is to ensure the company survives and that is really it. Everyone is expendable. None of these employees were guaranteed a long leisurely employment at Stripe.
Businesses change overnight. But it's always a cyclical market. As the founders I would expect them to benefit themselves. There doesn't have to be consequences, only change and adaptation. It's just business, they aren't your family.
This is all complete nonsense. They're handing out millions of dollars they have no obligation to pay. Unlike cheap talk on the internet, this actually costs them quite a lot. This is extremely generous.
I would still take the deal. I would work there if they hired me. If there are enough people like me to continue the business, then this thing turns out to not be shitty. Only time will tell.
"Leaders eat last"
"We cut the fat starting at the top"
"Leaders need to have endurance beyond their troops"
I have no skin in the game either. The severance packages are commendable, but I don't think it actually answers the OP's question about accountability. I don't want to speak for the other commenter, but I think what they're looking for is some indication that the leadership has personally sacrificed something equal to or exceeding what they expected out of their subordinates. Giving out millions in severance, while commendable, isn't a personal sacrifice.
I keep a go to hell fund, an updated resume, an updated career document, a strong network of former coworkers, managers, and external recruiters and make sure my skillset is in line with the market.
I don't think "for profit" and "good leadership" are mutually exclusive.
You don't expect them to pay you? Treat you with respect? To observe labor laws? Surely, you expect something from them. Being willing and able to walk away is not the same thing as saying you have zero expectations.
2. I addressed the other one. When the pay/bullshit ratio goes the wrong way, I leave.
Do y'all expect them to cut their arm off? I'm not defending pc but the OP's comment wreaks of corporate SJW.
> but I think what they're looking for is some indication that the leadership has personally sacrificed something equal to or exceeding what they expected out of their subordinates
Millions (and billions) come out of their valuation as a result. It's not like they're getting whisked away on a golden parachute.
It's the exact opposite. They're more likely to stem the bloodletting of their valuation with layoffs extending runway or boosting profitabiliy than see it get worse.
That depends. Are they expecting their subordinates to cut their arms off?
I do think a lot of discussion seems to point to how we, as a society, have adjusted our social norms about what's expected out of leadership.
Do you expect company management and subordinates to have symmetrical work obligations?
It feels like the social norms have shifted to accept one but not the other. In other words, we're only supportive of an asymmetrical risk:reward ratio that favors management.
Actually we have, the risk:reward ratio is generally consistent across founder/management vs IC.
Are you simply saying that because CEO to IC pay ratio has expanded drastically in recent years that it's not accurately accounting for the risk? You realize that ~x% cut in workforce includes managers right? In fact, often times cheaper more productive ICs stay and expensive middle management is first to go. Seems like that is accounting for it no?
It’s something a lot of us are sensitized to these days because of all the narcissists who “take full responsibility” which seems to mean to them that taking the blame is a dire punishment and no other consequences are necessary.
Being the scapegoat is not a real consequence. Not getting that villa you were talking to an agent about is a consequence. Not getting your bonus at all is a consequence.
The general argument for high CEO pay is that it is a reward for their skill in the job. By that argument, if there is evidence that they're making mistakes that negatively impact the company shouldn't that directly impact them in terms of their compensation?