Live data from Hacker News

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

businessinsider.com

181–190 of 386 posts

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

#181

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…

> inflation combined with an end to the public health emergency has tempered growth expectations

You don't need to be paid a +$200M salary to know that pandemics end.

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

#182

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…

Shareholders gain by these moves too. Individually they gain less than the CEO, but they'll simp for them as long as it pays out. The free-market cannot control/contain these outsized compensations. Regulation/taxes would do a little better. Especially if USA returns to high-taxes on income/wealth.

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

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the bar for asking a CEO to quit is "you did not correctly predict the future" then we're going to have to ask most CEOs to quit at some point. And most employees for that matter. The issue I have is with broad strokes generalizations that layoffs indicate a failure of a CEO. They don't necessarily mean that. Any more than shipping a bug to production indicates a failure of an engineer who should now be fired. Sim…

The CEO job is to choose the best prediction of the future from those available to them, and make sure the company executes on it. So yes, that's the bar.

And they're paid handsomely to get it right, when it matters most. We pay them enough to comfortably retire when they get it wrong.

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

#185

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…

> inflation combined with an end to the public health emergency has tempered growth expectations You don't need to be paid a +$200M salary to know that pandemics end.

Nobody was debating whether the pandemic would end. The only debate was whether industries would snap back to operating how they did before, or if they changes would sustain. And the reality is that there was no correct answer for all industries. Some are permanently (or at least well beyond the end of the PHE) changed by this. Others went back.

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

#186

My company did a big round of layoffs and it was pretty revealing that not a single director or above were laid off. Despite reduced headcount, the org chart got DEEPER in some cases. For all the talk of bloat in the tech world, nobody wants to point fingers at directors who have little to do but schedule very expensive meetings with the directors under them.

> directors who have little to do

That's not the director's problem, so why would anyone point the finger at them? Competent directors have a lot to do, albeit mostly behind the scenes to the average employee. If they don't have a lot to do, then the problem is up the chain.

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

#187
post #20

The goal of the CEO of a publicly traded company is to make the shareholders money. As much money as possible. If laying people off is the best way to do that, they'll do it. Blaming the CEO for doing the job they were hired to do seems short-sighted. Blame the broken system that incentivizes this, that makes doing it profitable. And then, let's change the system.

I largely agree. In fact the whole fucking problem with most of this world is this concept of the bullshit stock market. I hate it with a passion so much.

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

#188

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…

Some ICs/devs make 1 mil a year

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

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CEO job is to choose the best prediction of the future from those available to them, and make sure the company executes on it. So yes, that's the bar.

But as you just said, it's to make the _best_ prediction of the future based on those available, not necessarily the right one. You hope that over time of making enough educated bets, enough pan out correct for overall company success. Companies are often wrong about many (perhaps most) things. They're just right often enough to keep succeeding. As the markets clearly priced in during the pandemic, this was the best…

Apple's CEO made the right decision, (Alphabet|Meta|Salesforce)'s CEOs did not.

I think it's reasonable to argue that Apple's CEO made the better decision, as opposed to the "obvious" one.

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

#190
Am I oversimplifying, or are the layoffs more of a predictable function of correcting for zero interest money without fear of employment lawsuits?

Money was free (zero interest) during covid. Most tech companies increased staff to keep pace with each other. A lot of these hires were in support staff and junior positions needed to support low acquisition costs of new customers. Now that interest rates went up and growth stalled, companies are trimming both unprofitable customers and excess staff. Essentially, the CEOs get a free pass to fire people without risk of employment contract lawsuits.

From founder friends of private companies, the initial wave of layoffs during early days of covid was a godsend of sorts. It allowed them to fire problematic employees without needing to go through protracted performance reviews. Then they hired new people using cheap loans 6 months later. Now they're correcting again with layoffs, keeping top performers, and shifting staff over to high leverage projects like AI.

The short of it... did CEOs really make any significant mistakes? Or did they just take advantage of the market conditions in predictable ways? i.e. They did their jobs as it's currently incentivized.

I'm not saying it's ethical to mass hire and fire. And I certainly empathize with the people who've been laid off. But perhaps it's a more accurate depiction to say the current layoffs are part of a larger strategy to reduce staff and increase bottom line in preparation for AI acquisitions. It's not a correction but a significant reshaping of tech labor force as a whole.

Post reply on HN