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.