I'm no supporter of PR speak. The CEO ranks seem to have no problem in finding their next gig. Some some receive ludicrous compensation even when the company does poorly.
I'm just not sure what is the desired outcome here? And how do we get there?
While it's true stock has dropped like a rock since then, it's impacted corporate employee comp as well so I don't agree that stock tanking exclusively impacted the CEO and hence he has paid for the bad decisions.
However, the specific context here is this quote from the CEO:
> we were not as rigorous as we should have been in managing our team growth. That’s on me.
If the CEO admits they made a mistake that led to the current layoffs then I think it would be admirable to take personal responsibility and accept some personal consequences as a result.
I agree with that part ^
Let me frame this more broadly. _How_ and _when_ should companies adapt? There are many ways, across many timescales.
I'll give a made up example, hopefully in a reasonable ballpark. A company needs to save $250M / year. Let's say there are three options under consideration, not mutually exclusive / can be blended:
Option A: Lay off 1% of 10,000 employees, saving $250M/year.
Option B: 15% across the board salary cuts, saving $250M/year.
Option C: Lower executive and VP-level compensation packages (salary, options, stock, deferred pay, etc), saving $250M.
Fairness in service of the company goals means that all viable options are given due consideration.
It is relatively easy for a CEO to do lay offs, even if other options (lowering their own comp) has better effects.
In other words, Tony hasn't gotten paid anything from this package, and may never will.
The package is described in the revised s1, and DoorDash is required to report it because they have to account for this package (probabilistically via Monte Carlo simulations) on their books.
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001792789/8e0717f...