Hacker News Reader

Comment by sharemywin | Hacker News Reader

I just hate the CEO's saying "I take full responsibility for what happened"

I call bullshit. If you did you'd quit in shame.

If the bar for asking a CEO to quit is "you did not correctly predict the future" then we're going to have to ask most CEOs to quit at some point. And most employees for that matter.

The issue I have is with broad strokes generalizations that layoffs indicate a failure of a CEO. They don't necessarily mean that. Any more than shipping a bug to production indicates a failure of an engineer who should now be fired. Similarly, not laying people off is not an indicator of success. Nor is not shipping a bug to production.

The question is not "can we predict the future," but rather "did we do the right things to capture the right data to make the best decision" and if the answer to that question is yes - then any other reasonable person in the same position would likely have made a similar (if not the same) choice, and it's not clear what firing anyone does besides being punitive. Again, same for any employee that makes a mistake. This is not me giving a free pass to CEOs.

>If the bar for asking a CEO to quit is "you did not correctly predict the future" then we're going to have to ask most CEOs to quit at some point. And most employees for that matter.

Fine. But that’s not the CEO “taking responsibility”, it’s the employees who fall on the sword who take responsibility.

If I build your house out of wood and it burns down, and I say I will “take responsibility” while doing nothing while you have to buy a new house, I’m not really taking responsibility am I?

> If the bar for asking a CEO to quit is "you did not correctly predict the future" then we're going to have to ask most CEOs to quit at some point. And most employees for that matter.

I think level of responsibility for CEO should be different compared to regular employees. They get paid fuck you money and never need to work again afterwards.

There was a thread about google layoffs recently where people discussed L9s being laid off and how such people are expected to "redefine the industry" every year and walk on water in general. Yet, somehow the responsibility that seems to increase exponentially with level goes to almost junior level "oopsie couldn't predict what would happen after covid when free money stop flowing, no biggie I guess, let's just fire all these people we have hired during previous two years" for execs. It seems that the only way for them to get fired is if one of employees they sexually harassed talks and even then they get golden parachute.

The CEO job is to choose the best prediction of the future from those available to them, and make sure the company executes on it. So yes, that's the bar.

But as you just said, it's to make the _best_ prediction of the future based on those available, not necessarily the right one. You hope that over time of making enough educated bets, enough pan out correct for overall company success. Companies are often wrong about many (perhaps most) things. They're just right often enough to keep succeeding.

As the markets clearly priced in during the pandemic, this was the best prediction of the future. As measured not just by the CEO, but the response of consumers and the public markets. You would be hard-pressed, without the benefit of today's hindsight, to make a reasonable argument for why this wasn't the right decision to make based on the data in front of you.

Apple's CEO made the right decision, (Alphabet|Meta|Salesforce)'s CEOs did not.

I think it's reasonable to argue that Apple's CEO made the better decision, as opposed to the "obvious" one.

And they're paid handsomely to get it right, when it matters most. We pay them enough to comfortably retire when they get it wrong.

To get it right, even when there's a cost to themselves. Consider Parag Agrawal, who took and push for a decision most beneficial to most then-current shareholders, even when it was clear to all that he won't be CEO because of it.

If you think the CEO is making bad decisions, you should fire then before the decision, not based on the outcome.

I thought what they meant was just "you are laid off not because you had performed poorly". Of course, it is still the CEO's decision to over-hire, but the parent suggested that over-hiring was not CEO's fault either, but a necessary move to capture the additional growth.

Again it's the statement like they some how lost something.

Now if they hired those people by saying "well he hire for the quarter so you know bad quarter your probably gone."

No they made big statements about how they hire for the long term.

And return the money you earned to be spend for good of the company...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com