"As CEO, I take full responsibility for this decision"
Oh hey another one that takes responsibility by taking on 0 consequences.
"But make no mistake. Though they're the ones leaving, it is I who must remain and bear the heavy burden of their failure."
I just about had to change my underwear after that scene.
But what would that even look like? A fine? That would probably make no practical difference, and would discourage them from making changes that need to be made. Fire them? Then you would probably get a worse decision maker in the driver seat going forward, who also didn't learn from experience of going through layoffs.
Layoffs are awful. They affect lives and families deeply. But all businesses don't go up and to the right forever. Reductions are a necessary part of running competitive companies.
How big of a bonus will this CEO get this year? Last year?
> As CEO, I take full responsibility for this decision and the circumstances that led to it, and I’m truly sorry to those impacted by this change.
Not to be an apologist, but I bet Drew really does feel responsible. He’s not professional management, and he always acted like Dropbox was his kid, at least from what I saw working there. I’m sure this feels shitty to him, though it’s obviously worse for the people laid off.
Not saying it's enough, not saying that's the only way, but I find it peculiar that this seems to be unthinkable.
> Iwata ran the Kyoto, Japan-based video game company [Nintendo] from 2002 until his death in 2015. To avoid layoffs, Iwata took a 50% pay cut to help pay for employee salaries, saying a fully-staffed Nintendo would have a better chance of rebounding. [0]
[0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/13/nintendo-ceo-once-halved-sal...
Edit: to expand on my point re virtue signalling: the article states the CEO took a salary cut, not total compensation (and it doesn’t elaborate on the value of the cut). Salary is a small fraction of CEO total compensation - the bulk of which is stock based, and even in the event that stock grants were also cut, the CEO surely already had significant stock. Cutting a relatively small component of compensation in order to boost the stock price which disproportionately adds to the CEO’s personal wealth seems like virtue signalling to me. If the CEO said “shareholders be damned, morale and culture are all that matters in the long run, no layoffs etc etc” that would seem more meaningful.
What would someone need to do in order to avoid being reduced to a virtue signaller?
Right now, there is no actual downside for executives. Just less upside. Did they earn XX Million this year or XXX Million. Some tangible downside would be nice.
I mean, heck, why aren't they fired? And really, it's more then middle management where that'd make a huge difference. If bad performance led to actual shakeups in the entrenched middle management, we might actually see business practices change rather than continue on through the established fiefdoms and petty corporate politics.
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/these-20-companies-have-bigg...
In other words this kind of behavior wouldn't be viewed as all that surprising locally.
There's an Indonesian joke based on the word "responsibility" which is "tanggung jawab". "Tanggung" in this context means to carry the consequences, and "jawab" is to answer. One can say to a friend "We have to share this responsibility. I'll do the answering, and you'll do the carrying of the consequences."
It's often offensively insincere.
Why?
> who also didn't learn from experience of going through layoffs
That's actually a valid point. We don't commonly fire normal employees for mistakes. The counterargument is CEOs aren't normal employees.
Cool, can we pay you intern wages then?
[EDIT] To make this a bit more substantive: I think this is a sign both that we need to stop with this whole professional-managerial-class horse-shit, promote people who know how to do the actual work of the business, and reduce exec wages because the job's simply not all that damn special and the comp shouldn't be so high that only godlike-perfect performance could possibly justify it, because in truth nobody's that good at it.
Step one of this would be reducing M&A activity (hellooooo antitrust enforcement) and reigning in the power of finance, since letting Wall Street suits put their HBS frat brothers in charge of everything is at the heart of why this stuff's how it is.
“As CEO, I’m truly sorry to those impacted. But I strongly believe that this change is what is needed now to make sure Dropbox can thrive in the future.”
"I'm the sole person who made this decision" is probably closer what they are trying to say.
There’s no need for a CEO to bring themselves and their feelings into the conversation. It’s this weird attempt at empathy that fails, because the CEO isn’t making any sacrifices.
Just say that there are layoffs. Most rational people who have been in any business for more than a few years recognize them as an unfortunate part of the business cycle.
Mass layoffs -- unless the company is actually tanking and on its last leg, which isn't the case with any of the tech companies who have been doing this recently -- cause the share price to rise. CEO pay, or at least bonuses, are often tied to the share price.
So a CEO is rewarded instead.
So all this crap is just cargo-culting our current management paradigm, and/or execs cooperating to suppress wages and weaken labor, which had gotten a bit too uppity after Covid (that's one thing waves of layoffs like this do accomplish).
Perhaps you've misinterpreted that statement? It is the board that takes on greater risk with executives as compared to other employees. The executives are given the keys to the kingdom, which means only an exceedingly small group of trusted individuals can be considered for the job. By the transitive properties of supply and demand, when supply is limited, price goes up.
No - as a consequence of poorly planning cost controls. It's not that the people don't need to be laid off for the health of the company, but that the executives who made the bad decisions don't get the boot along with them, in favor of more cautious or frugal leaders.
Well they're the one asking to "take responsibility" here, the fact that they claim responsibility yet nothing happens is exactly why people don't like this phrasing.
Also who the fuck else can be responsible anyways ? The cook ? The guy who mops the fucking floor ?
“you would probably get a worse decision maker in the driver seat going forward, who also didn't learn from experience of going through layoffs” or you would maybe get a better decision maker who didn't have to layoff — or hire unnecessary — workers in the first place? Ridiculous speculation.
Responsibility without consequences just means failing upward. That's why we have a gilded executive class of people who are barely qualified to run a local Taco Bell franchise.
Simple: they sure love to talk a big game about responsibilities and taking responsibilities. Until it's time to actually do it. For the good of the company of course (if the company is in such dire straits, as the most highly paid employee - and probably not the hardest working one - why don't you take a big pay cut? For the good of the company of course).
That's what people don't take well.
It's amazing this still has to be explained.
The other two options: blame employees(someone not you), or take some form of punishment as an individual.
I too do it sometimes, and I feel bad each time. I at least tell people what it is and that it's just the reality of the situation. I'm not gonna commit career suicide and jeopardize my family's livelihood but I also won't blame them. So I follow the meaningless middle road where the status quo mostly stays and we all at least learn from it.
At least they learned not to trust you, though.
Obviously you as a CEO failed at doing second.
Now question is do you fire yourself and try to get a better CEO or you choose to fire 20% and generate more profits.
If it's up to the workforce they probably choose to fire CEO. But if it's upto the CEO he choose to fire the 20%.
Do you also object to sales reps or athletes making less money after a long period of performing poorly?
Um... yeah. Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I want.
I used to work at a Dairy Queen. One dude there had been working there for a couple years. Unfortunately, one shift his drawer came up a dollar short. Our cutoff was 5 cents - a nickel - over or under. He was immediately terminated, of course.
He cost the company one dollar. A Dairy Queen cashier making minimum wage is held to a higher standard of accountability.
Conflict theorists think that every event is a result of power struggler. So if someone gets hurt, someone must be punished for that.
Mistake theorists think that the world is complex and sometimes bad stuff happens because most people operate with good intentions most of the time. Often, that means no punishment needs to be metted out.
To mistake theorists, conflict theorists look like ideological blood thirsty savages. To conflict theorists, mistake theorists look like enemy troops.
This is a gross oversimplification but it always shocks me to see how much more conflict theorists there are on hn now than before. So many comments here blaming the CEO or capitalism, most of which are going off extremely scant information.
What consequences do you want the CEO to face? A token reduction in pay? Being fired?
Considering dropbox is not facing some economic recession outside of its control we can only blame the CEO's incompetence.
Do you genuinely believe that the record profits are due to the layoffs, and not just because we just lucked out to enter a new bubble?
Lmao what? Outside of being absolutely skint and unable to make payroll, that's pretty much the only reason to fire someone (I mean other than misconduct, which is also a type of incompetence)
Let's say you believe you have an opportunity that will double the value of the company, with a 30% probability, or cost the company 10% of it's value. This means it has an expected value of +21%. This is pretty good, and exactly the sort of thing shareholders want from their management. So you increase headcount and pursue the opportunity.
In the 70% scenario when that doesn't work, you have to downsize. Failure is not just possible, it's probable. That doesn't mean that the CEO mismanaged...they may have, I don't know the Dropbox details. But in the scenario where they haven't mismanaged, what do you want? Do you want companies to never take these risks in the first place?
Probably the part where they very directly attributed the layoff to mismanagement.
> We’ve heard from many of you that our organizational structure has become overly complex, with excess layers of management slowing us down.
> [We're] designing a flatter, more efficient team structure overall.
If it's "just a bet" and not mismanagement, then we should tell people that, shouldn't we?
The reality is that these bets are only bets for the people getting hired/laid off, and they don't even know they are betting in the first place. Even worse because we're not talking about simply losing money here. Losing a job is many times a life changing event in real people's lives. It's not like someone betting on a stock.
That's why there should be consequences for the ones making those decisions. They get the most rewards, but none of the punishment. How's that fair in any shape or form?
Employees have responsibility to due diligence their employers.
But at the end of the day, employment is at will. It's a risk we all take.
I understand the anger in this scenario as employees, but I don’t think doing layoffs means leadership is clearly incompetent. Running a company is hard.
Doing layoffs definitely says something about the company’s values and current standing, but I don’t think it necessarily means the CEO is bad.
It occurs to me that there is no failure of performance a CEO can produce and be held responsible for. Are these CEOs really so irreplaceable that when they bet incorrectly they can't be replaced?
20% of employees have been fired. The CEO directly cited mismanagement as the cause. And yet, its impossible to fire him because "its a learning experience" or "think of the upside!".
A CEO being fired does not mean the company falls into the abyss. The company still exists and can hire a new CEO. I'm certain there are plenty of fools more than willing to risk the livelihoods of 20% of Dropbox's staff in exchange for a mansion in Miami.
That’s the thing though, another comment nailed this perfectly. If they made a +EV decision to hire more people, but the preverbal roulette wheel landed on 00, maybe it’s not a bad bet that they should be fired for.
The explicit reason given was "economic headwinds" and bad organizational structure. If in your role as CEO you have left the company in a poor position to handle normal, cyclical slowdowns then you are a failure. If in your role as CEO you have produced an org chart which burns money and slows progress then you are a failure. You should be replaced. Period.
So if you were an IC and were on a project that failed (or even just didn't succeed enough), God help you. Many folks just quit when they saw a project going sideways, or tried to escape/transfer. Alternatively, people would report green statuses and hope someone else fell over first so they wouldn't be the root-cause.
Obviously this caused many problems. It was very hard to execute projects with lots of people or teams, and/or that took a long (>3mo) time. It came to a head when finally a major initiative missed another deadline "just barely" and it finally tripped circuit breakers and someone went in and did a full Inquisition. Yeah no the project was f'd and they basically just gave up ("pivoted") to an adjacent goal. Their official diagnosis/RCA was "people were too scared to report red, so everyone prettied up their status reports a bit, and that was compounded by each roll-up status report also prettying up the status.
Literally no leadership changes happened as a result of this. Then I got laid off. (Unrelated, just the big layoffs of 22. I was not directly involved in this, I was in big data and this was all happening in the main product infra stuff).
So yeah. Your project fails? Bye. But your f'd up performance grinder culture causes literally hundreds of people to behave so out-of-alignment with the actual company goals? Nah man stick around for 2 more years and leave at your leisure over some other petty squabble.
putting an employee elected representative on the board
negotiating the layoffs and severance with employees (e.g., giving folks the opportunity to voluntarily take layoffs to reduce the number of involuntary layoffs).
If they overhired so much the CEO has wasted a ton of shareholder money. Pay for performance, right? Perform poorly, you should expect less pay.
For example, if I lead a team that fails, the team will be disbanded and I will be either fired or demoted. (obviously if there are external factors I/we might be reprieved )
If the CEO leads an aggressive strategy that doesn't playout, they rarely get fired and certainly don't get demoted.
If the company miscalculated, or mismanaged, to the degree that it suddenly has to cut 20% of its workforce in order to survive (or give shareholders what they want), then yeah, that's a pretty big mistake, and your head should be the first one to roll.
I bet you'd have a lot fewer CEOs calling for mass layoffs.
I suspect you wouldn't see these comments if CEO pay was on the same order of magnitude as the people who actually work at the companies they run. Watching someone treat your livelihood like a toy, while also being rewarded with more money than any person will ever need, is a bit grating.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/02/13/nintendo-ceo-once-halved-sal...
I mean, this is actually taking responsibility for your decisions as CEO.
Why do we think they'd do any better next time if there are no consequences to their poor leadership?
I can think of all sorts examples.
And if a company hires too many people for a few years and then right-sizes, isn’t that better for the economy overall than if they simply stayed small the whole time? They still paid salaries for those years and added to the overall level of employment.
Do you want a system where CEOs are hesitant to hire? Or where they’re afraid to right-size the workforce and instead run the whole company out of business?
There’s literally zero logic to your position, just feelings and Monday morning quarterbacking.