| ▲ | alvah 2 days ago |
| >I'm of the mindset that any time a company does layoffs, they should start from the top And work down. Oh, to be young and idealistic again! So in your world, the people running the business should fire themselves first? |
|
| ▲ | ted_dunning 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's been done. Bob Mercer and Peter Brown laid themselves off from IBM when they were told to execute 10% across the board layoffs. They had argued their team was one of the highest performing teams in the company but were told that they had their quota. 10% of their team was 2 so they took the hit. From there, they went on to run Renaissance. IBM should have kept them. |
|
| ▲ | mathgeek 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > So in your world, the people running the business should fire themselves first? If they are needed to continue leading, they should consider cutting their own salary until the problems are fixed. Let them take their entire compensation in just their equity for a time. However we all know this won’t be the norm, and that’s OK. Not great, just OK. |
| |
| ▲ | ted_dunning 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Been there and done that. One startup I was at instituted a 50% pay cut for senior execs, 25% for the level below that and no cut below that. The CEO took a 100% pay cut. This let us get through a short rough patch without layoffs. | | |
| ▲ | leosarev a day ago | parent [-] | | I worked at middle-sized company that instituted a pay cuts, cutting all bonuses and stopping raises.
After year, company lost almost every person in tech managenent and most of team leaders, their clients actively executing forking rights and no one believes in company future now. I once heard wise words from some CEO. In harsh times, clients do not want cheaper and worse services from us. They want less services. So we are moving out headcount down, while keeping pay and even execute raises for those who stay. | | |
| ▲ | pdimitar a day ago | parent [-] | | Can you explain why this is wise? I'd say most execs leaving is usually a net positive. You are framing it as a tragedy and I am just not seeing it. From where I am standing, leeches that are only there for fat bonuses left. Where's the loss? And the measure you described also doesn't follow. Bad times always end and then you have a worse product. Will the execs pick up the new tech work? |
|
| |
| ▲ | hinkley a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I do know of one guy who took a pay cut because unless he hamstrung his own team badly he was looking at needing to lay off about 2.3 people and so he cut his own salary to make it 2 instead of 3. That's one story surrounded by a hell of a lot of shitheel stories. | |
| ▲ | dboreham 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Jim Barksdale enters the room. |
|
|
| ▲ | icehawk 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If they're running the business, and it's at a point where it needs layoffs; sounds like they're not doing their job properly, and should be replaced with people who can-- like every other position in the business. Not that they will-- too much self-interest. |
|
| ▲ | dijksterhuis 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| not the parent, but accountability is supposed to be assumed up the org chart while responsibility is delegated down. so, yeah. the people ultimately accountable for fucking shit up should probably be held accountable first and foremost. (this is why CEOs often resign in the wake of a scandal) |
|
| ▲ | alxjrvs a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Imagine the organization you are imagining in your head. Now imagine there is a Super-boss, who is exactly like the "people running the business" (attribution needed), but one level above them. If the Super Boss were to look at the situation, I think it'd be pretty obvious that the issue would be "The people organizing the company at the highest level" who are responsible for the failures of the company. That may involve over-hiring, which is itself a bad practice that causes unnecessary pain and (personal, financial) suffering, and would be a good cause to fire them for almost crashing my beautiful super-company that I, the Super-boss, super-founded. You're saying that if we return the Super-boss to the realm of the fictional, then suddenly it isn't the C-suite's fault anymore? If we're discussing should, then yeah, their heads should be the first to roll. I agree its idealistic to imagine them having the sort of decency this requires, but I agree it should be the case! |
|
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If they have to fire people, they're running it poorly, so yes? |
| |
| ▲ | alvah a day ago | parent [-] | | If you've spent any time in business at all, you know it's always the tea lady who gets fired first and the managers last. Many commenters here seem to live in some kind of fantasy world. | | |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta a day ago | parent [-] | | >the people running the business should fire themselves first? You were questioning whether they should, not whether they will. That's what people are responding to. They understand perfectly well who will get fired first. | | |
| ▲ | alvah a day ago | parent [-] | | I was questioning the idealism actually. There’s not much to be achieved by wishing the world was a certain way, it’s generally more useful to deal with the world as it is. | | |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta a day ago | parent | next [-] | | What idealism? The person you responded to said they didn't expect things to change unless there were real consequences. Not expecting things to change is the opposite of idealism. But even if they were idealistic, arguing with people for wishing the world was better is a genuinely odd thing. If you followed your beliefs, wouldn't you understand that telling people not to wish for things is pointless? If you actually dealt with the world as it is, you would not argue with people on the Internet because changing somebody's mind, particularly in the way you are attempting to do it, is just as much wishful thinking as hoping that CEOs will fire themselves. | | |
| ▲ | alvah 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | "I'm of the mindset that any time a company does layoffs, they should start from the top And work down" That idealism. | | |
| ▲ | InsideOutSanta 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's stating a preference. Having a preference is not idealism because idealism requires some amount of belief that the preference can be achieved. "I believe I will be a millionaire by age 30" is idealism. "I won't be a millionaire by age 30 unless I rob a bank, but I should" is not idealism; it's just a factual statement about one's preference for wealth. And, again, why are you arguing with me at all? If you followed your advice, you'd understand that it is pure idealism to expect me to change my mind. As somebody once said, "There’s not much to be achieved by wishing the world was a certain way; it’s generally more useful to deal with the world as it is." It's odd to scold people for stating their preferences, and it's even odder to scold them for something you seem to be doing yourself. If you actually believed in the things you advocate for, you would not be in this thread. |
|
| |
| ▲ | no_wizard a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | If we don't talk about what we feel is ideal, we can never strive to achieve it. Its really important to discuss idealism for that reason alone | | |
| ▲ | alvah a day ago | parent [-] | | Good luck with changing human nature, i.e. persuading managers to voluntarily act against their own self-interest. That’s just not how people work. What you say is true in some cases, but not in all cases. | | |
| ▲ | no_wizard a day ago | parent [-] | | Can't even try if we don't talk about it. The issue with line of 'clear thinking' is it leaves no room for change. If enough people take talk into action, we could reasonably see a change in behavior. It may come from sources than we don't expect, but it can happen all the same and we only have a chance at getting there if we are wiling to talk about what is ideal and raising that awareness. Its an important piece of that puzzle |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | copypasterepeat a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| An honest question: why is this being downvoted? I thought that downvoting is meant to be used when someone is trolling or bringing the level of discussion down, not when you simply disagree with someone's point. I mean sure, it's stated a bit sarcastically, but my gosh if we're going to downvote every sarcastic comment, that would include a good portion of HN comments. |
| |
| ▲ | itishappy a day ago | parent | next [-] | | My read is that the parent is immature and needs to be reminded that "starting at the top" means the people in charge. What does it add to the discussion? | | | |
| ▲ | alvah a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I probably failed to account for the differing backgrounds of HN commenters & the resulting overly-literal interpretation of sarcasm, to be fair to the downvoters. Of course the owners & managers should take responsibility for poor corporate performance. |
|
