121–130 of 543 posts
He's compensate to maximize shareholder returns, not to keep people in a job. The people are employed for the same reason and when their RoI is below the threshold then you need to right the ship. This is what a CEO is partly there to do.
Which, while true, is a really shitty system, as evidenced by the headline.
He's compensate to maximize shareholder returns, not to keep people in a job. The people are employed for the same reason and when their RoI is below the threshold then you need to right the ship. This is what a CEO is partly there to do.
Which, while true, is a really shitty system, as evidenced by the headline.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ones I know that did not post on social media did not want to be fired. Consider the selection bias of people posting on social media. Also consider people would want to be positive on social media to keep their future employment prospects.
>The ones I know that did not post on social media did not want to be fired. If they were mad about it, they would have posted, wouldn't they? Silence is violence and all that.
If anything, it is easy to see an incentive not to post negative things online, as you can see on LinkedIn everyday.
If you ever have been in leadership interviews then you will know that firing people is one of the quality one needs to evaluate or prove. This is just business as usual for these roles and a lot of people shy away from these roles due to "responsibilities" such as this.
Interesting way to frame it. It would seem the position only attracts "hangmen"? I suppose that is (one of the many reasons) why I am not currently sailing in my yacht across the Pacific.
I simply don’t see what good this CEO has done. He’s destroyed googles reputation with developers. Destroyed customer trust in Google products. Done nothing to fix googles reputation for terrible customer service. Led Google to third place in cloud computing. AND been thrashed by Microsoft / ChatGPT, putting Googles core business at risk. Why is this guy CEO?
... And getting caught flat-footed against Microsoft (and Adobe, but but not as loudly) in the precise field Alphabet is supposedly the insurmountable leader. Remind me again how big-co CEOs assume "all the risk"?
“While Firing Thousands” That’s not the original title just added by OP for drama. It’s an editorialized title. “Alphabet CEO’s Pay Soars to $226 Million on Huge Stock Award” It’s a Bloomberg article not the Guardian
> “While Firing Thousands” While correcting for the mistake of inflated bloat from recruiting? Industry wide pattern is emerging useless hires.
Like I get that you're a high impact person and you should have the proper incentives to lead the company in the right direction, but do the crazy compensations actually achieve that? Like is there any difference between $100M and $200M? Both of those numbers are way higher than anyone and their children can use in their entire lifetimes, why do you even care which sum you get? Does Sundar Pichai actually look at his paycheck and say "Oh boy, I got $226M instead of the measly $150M [0] I got last year, hard work sure is paying off, I better keep at it."
[0] I made that number up