Tech CEOs Should Be Held Accountable, or Even Fired, Amid Layoffs

Post by manuelabeledo » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 5:35 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #127

manuelabeledo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me put it this way. If I were to hire an engineer that writes 10x more code than the next, but all the code needs to be rewritten after a year because he made some very questionable decisions, I would definitely fire that guy. Similarly, if I hire a CEO who hires 20,000 people, then lays 12,000 off after a year, I would have to question his ability as the head of the company. It is not about being able to predict…

Alphabet is absolutely posting troublesome trends in their revenue reports. Google ad results down, YouTube results down two quarters in a row… That’s what pays the bills at Alphabet.

Post by cnelsenmilt » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 5:39 PM UTC

dnissley wrote: post #139

bastardoperator wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of this addresses the responsibility part.

Who holds the ceo responsible? The board. If the board themselves would have made the same hiring calls, it's unlikely they could fault the ceo for making those calls as well. By extension -- who doesn't hold the ceo responsible? The court of public opinion, which is what all of these comments and articles spilling barrels of ink on this issue think should be the case, but is not actually the case (and for obviously…

Post by koonsolo » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

jackmott42 wrote: post #172

colinmorelli wrote: post #86

Regardless of individual opinions on whether CEOs should be terminated for layoffs or not - there's a surprising amount of comments here that seem to not understand that growing companies don't hire for today, but for where they want to be tomorrow. Where you want to be tomorrow is based on where you and your investors believe the world is going. If the world materially changes enough to shift your expectations about…

It is a very odd discussion to have since, even when running a company well, no public company should be compensating its CEO to the tune of even 1 million a year. It is absolutely a ruling class leeching off society that this happens. It doesn't happen everywhere or even in america in the past, big companies can be run without this behavior. It isn't supply and demand, it is cronyism. Should a CEO be allowed to get…

Post by colinmorelli » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 5:40 PM UTC

trilobyte wrote: post #161

colinmorelli wrote: post #86

Regardless of individual opinions on whether CEOs should be terminated for layoffs or not - there's a surprising amount of comments here that seem to not understand that growing companies don't hire for today, but for where they want to be tomorrow. Where you want to be tomorrow is based on where you and your investors believe the world is going. If the world materially changes enough to shift your expectations about…

Stepping back from any emotional assessment, the growth of these businesses was not commensurate with the hiring. You can look at both the financial reporting and the economic indicators from that period and a reasonable measure of growth was warranted but not at the level these companies [edited from "comments"] hired at. It was more of an irrational tragedy of the commons, where companies were hiring because they w…

Post by welshwelsh » Mon, Feb 06, 2023, 5:42 PM UTC

nblgbg wrote: post #52

All the CEOs are just saying they are taking the full responsibility without any consequences, not even reducing their pay which is hypocratic. At the least, they have to really tell how they are taking the responsibility not just words!