Being sorry - check
Takes full responsibility - check
Layoffs are still there
Takes full responsibility - check
Layoffs are still there
Feels like a weird hill to die on, and more like a crabs in the bucket mentality that doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things. In the end I'm still unemployed and whatever happens to my ex-CEO doesn't change my situation one bit.
As I grew older and experienced my share of layoffs, I stopped caring about what happens to those responsible for me getting laid off, as my energy is better spent on improving my situation and my life instead of ruminating how Krama vengeance would make me feel better.
No, of course not. But he is the leader, and he guided the company to a point where certain areas became "over-invested or under-performing." In other words, he didn’t do a good job. So, it should be him stepping down. Nobody ever said being a CEO would be easy.
And now he's fixing it by cutting those under-performing areas.
>So, it should be him stepping down.
Why? How would that help the company get better? Do you think competent CEOs are like cogs that you can pick a new one from the stack of LinkedIn applications whenever the old one makes a mistake, and then slot him in the existing machine and everything will magically work better?
>Nobody ever said being a CEO would be easy.
Exactly. That's why you don't rush to replace the devil you know with the devil you don't.
It's the same devil with the same playbook. They all know each other at that level.
And yes, they are doing that in some sectors (and some CEO's want that). Less in tech, but I suspect more shakeups once the AI bubble ends.
Why don't you start your own company so you can be a model angelic CEO then? Why bother working for these "evil" guys? Or work for a local mom and pop shop instead of a publicly traded company?
>work for a local mom and pop shop instead of a publicly traded company?
I'm open to it. They literally aren't hiring tho. They get the most impacted in a downturn, so I get it.
I'd like to point out that there are other possible outcomes, like (say) the CEO and entire C-suite cutting their salary to $1 for a year (it's not like this will render any of them homeless).
IMHO, that would actually constitute "taking full responsibility", as opposed to parroting words that don't connect to the reality of the situation.
What's the point of being CEO then? Have the stress of running a company while working for free? Who would ever want to do that?
I don't know. As you said, it's a waste of energy to wonder about other people and their endeavors. Better to focus on me.
And I need the money. CEOs don't. Feels odd to go from "don't spend your energy thinking about other rich people" and then go "but rich people 'want' money" when someone makes a suggestion.
>Have the stress of running a company while working for free? Who would ever want to do that?
Again, don't know. But I suspect that most people at a CEO level are not just in it for money. There's easier, less stressful ways for millionaire to accrue money.
That's some silly delulu shit right there. Imma end this conversation with you right here since you're not arguing in good faith as you've already made up your mind, so it's a waste of my energy and time to continue this any further.
Please don't break the rules if you want to stay a part of this community.
What did you expect productive about this whole conversation?
Did you expect to see the magic formula/solution to people getting laid off from well paying tech companies and somehow I got in the way of that?
We're all just chatting here speaking our minds which has the real world practival equivalent of shouting into the void. There's no real value to be had here.
but it doesn't work like that in the western world.
>As I grew older and experienced my share of layoffs, I stopped caring about what happens to those responsible for me getting laid off, as my energy is better spent on improving my situation and my life instead of ruminating how Krama vengeance would make me feel better.
The tree remembers. If I have nothing else it's my pride for my craft. I'll probably never have some revenge arc, but I sure will take it personally the next time that company tries to make deals with me later in my career.
Call it cultural; I don't like being treated as a slave. Respect your fellow man, regardless of background or walk of life.
You don't do deals with companies who fire people? You wouldn't be working for any company in the world then. IIRC in communism they never fired people, maybe that system will serve you better. Oh wait...
>I don't like being treated as a slave.
"Sent from my iPhone sipping my latte in California"
I wish you all spoiled rich western workers would stop using the slave word so easily whenever an employer does something to you, as it dilutes the meaning and the severity of the word. Similar with the over misuse of the words woke and nazi.
Please read up on what slavery actually meant and the lives of actual slaves. Working in tech in the richest country in the world, and being fired by Dropbox isn't even remotely in the same ball-planet as slavery.
As CEO, it's his responsibility to make/approve the decision to do the layoffs, or not. The buck stops with him. That's all that it means. It doesn't mean he's liable for any hardships.
The moral meaning of responsibility here means that the CEO takes responsibility for the lives and livelihoods of those affected -- which does feel a bit hollow when the CEO presumably is not only not affected negatively, but probably will be rewarded for increasing shareholder value.
If "responsibility" only constitutes "I pull the trigger, and I don't care what happens as a result", then that is a fairly weak kind of leadership -- ostensibly not very different from a child doing whatever they want in a consequence-free manner.
I want to believe that "responsibility" not only constitutes "I can make things happen", but that "I am willing to Make Things Right if my actions cause things to go sideways".
If I'm wrong, then we live in a world where "taking responsibility" means "using power", and "I take full responsibility" means "yes, I used my power to do that" and that's Not Good Enough to call such people "Leaders".
You may have it in your job description the responsibility to do performance reviews on your reports. Those reviews can make or break a career. If you do them honestly and with the consideration they deserve, you should not be expected to personally bear the consequences of giving someone a deserved poor review.
It's too bad we don't live in a perfect world where everyone has a job and is never at risk of losing it. But if wishes where horses.....
Fitting for a movie from a studio made out of spite for another future trillionaire empire.
There needs to be more explanation on where the CEO screwed up that badly and the consequences for the management.
Both options should directly imply that the CEO should earn less. Either you're running a smaller, simpler company, or you sucked at your job.
Eat the loss.
They reached market saturation, which isn't the same thing as failing.
If I'm on-call, I'm responsible to carry my laptop with me and be available immediately to fix critical issues. I don't just say "I take responsibility of being on-call", and the leave my laptop at home, get drunk and fall asleep in a bar for the weekend. That's called being irresponsible.
So this CEO is saying, "if I do my job poorly I understand I could get fired."
But, did he/she do their job poorly? That's the thing I can't figure out quite yet. It seems it was bad for the laid off people, but maybe not for Dropbox?
If I got a million dollar parachute when I do my job badly, I would love to "take responsibility" as well. Fuck the people, I get paid either way here.
> But, did he/she do their job poorly?
in a fiduciary sence short term, no. So shareholders are happy since that's all their care about.
Long term, who knows? I don't see them closing the gap with Google nor Microsoft so this could just accelerate that downfall.
in a spirit of, as some politician say, "creating jobs and stimulating the economy", absolutely awfully. We have 500 more workers out on an awful job market and it's not because DBX wasn't profitable. They simply dropped workers to prepare for a bad time that the US economy doesn't want to admit out loud.
I guess the government for not regulating this kind of thing to begin with. but that's a bit out of DBX's purview.
then they probably should
not saying I should go work for McKinsey, just noticing that unnecessary payments are likely happening. companies don't exist to employ people. employees exist to help companies. just make everyone a decent shareholder with decent liquidity and move on when the employee isn't necessary.
Companies in society exist to serve the customer, provide labor opportunities, and overall stimulate the economy (all of which is needed to make money).
This mentality above is exactly why the latter half of Millensials and Gen Z were demystified by the labor market and simply don't take the kind of "loyalty" narrative of the older generations. You can't talk family, layoff "family" every 2 years regardless of talent and pretend that "hard workers get rewarded". So you'll get the bare minimum, you will get no overtime when you request it (especially if you aren't paying 1.5x), and you probably won't even get the long dead 2 weeks notice when I move on.
You can't expect much more "help" when you can't give the basic modicrum of respect to your help.
> just make everyone a decent shareholder with decent liquidity and move on when the employee isn't necessary.
most jobs don't have RSUs. Not even in tech.
If only we had the equivalent on the other side to balance the equation. Some kind of a group of individual employees, who work together to counter wage suppression efforts.
That's really the main saving grace for this industry; the scalability that a few employees can still provide a solution that makes corporations with hundreds of thousands of workers sweat. That's why they surged salaries so aggressively in the 00's and half the '10's
That's also the reason why unionization will be a hard argument among tech workers. Slowly starting to happen in the games industry, so that at least confirms there IS a breaking point somewhere for that to happen.
None come to my mind, do you have any examples?
Well run companies laying off 20% of the global staff a year after laying off 20% of the global staff?
Saying e.g. what is the impact on the situation for those responsible might be nice - no bonuses for next year? A plan in place so that this doesn't happen again? Stepping down as a CEO?
I mean, if I take responsibility for e.g. wrong tax filing, I pay the fine penalty, and/or go to jail.
Saying "I take responsibility" some kind of failure while having no consequences for said failure is not taking responsibility.
If you knock a girl up and you "take responsibility" it means you getting married.
If you are in a car wreck and you "take responsibility" it means you are paying for repairs.
If you commit a crime and "take responsibility" you are going to jail.
So if a CEO is "taking responsibility" it should be something like that second case, dollars from their own pocket to the effected party.
I'd love to hear you explain how I can get out of paying my car insurance of alimony though with this line of reasoning, though. Could be useful one day.
Much like employment, each party can cancel. You didn't sign a lifelong contract for insurance.