He gotta protect his bonus
Surely that means he also took a hefty pay cut to keep on as many people as possible. Wouldn’t that be what accepting accountability looks like?
Found the commie! /s
Accountability: : the quality or state of being accountable
especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one’s actionsHe’s literally saying “this is my fault.” That doesn’t mean he’s willing to suffer the consequences personally. Not defending his decisions, just pointing out that people seem to be misunderstanding what “accountable” means.
This is usually (expected) followed up with… “well, the fuck are you going to do about it, then” and this fuckface decided to pussy out and fuck over 500 people.
So I mean, half right, but that’s still a giant red F in my book.
We had layoffs last year, and two of the managers opted to quit their jobs rather than fire an additional staff member.
Sadly their replacements are not as nice.
My manager just went on vacation the week they laid off his team. Didn’t hear a word from that coward after the fact.
That’s not what accountability means
CEOs are not good people.
Few people are truly good people.
CEOs have a weird propensity toward being bad which is above average, or maybe have higher risk of it by being in so much power
Sociopathic tendencies
CEO Drew Houston will remain in his job.
So not full accountability.
“full accountability” means moving those 500 workers’ salaries into his paycheck.
Don’t forget the bonus for cutting costs!
How very noble of him.
It’s the sentiment that counts.
I mean the other option would have been to keep these staff and leverage them to drive innovative solutions with your product or possibly close open feature requests and bug submissions. I mean, these 500 people could have worked towards new initiatives to grow the business as they are keenly aware of the drop box business already and would be able to execute quickly on new initiatives. There are so many interesting places that drop box could expand into and they are instead choosing to layoff staff that could get them there.
As usual, it’s only ever about maximizing shareholder value in the short term.
I dunno, maybe its time for Dropbox to just slowly decline and eventually exit? I don’t see what they could possibly pivot into that isnt already covered by Google, Microsoft, Proton, etc. They had years of first mover advantage they could have pivoted off, but thats long behind them.
That said, if thats their plan, then the C suite needs to have their pay cut to the bone as well. CEOs get the big bucks because they make the big decisions to grow the company. If they arent growing, they should be the first cut.
I went through a round of layoffs at my last company. They laid off around 15% and then went hiring, people who just had their teams cut in half and their workload doubled and had to say goodbye to colleagues with years of experience were then told to do 3-4 interviews a week to hire new talent.
It was all just a yank of the choke chain. Management wanted labor to know that they could replace you. Our most senior people burned out and I left after staying longer than I really should have to try to help out my teammates.
Layoffs like this are about obedience and control and showing the investors that you are willing to break people to return them a healthy profit.
“As CEO, I take full responsibility for this decision and the circumstances that led to it, and I’m truly sorry to those impacted by this change,” he wrote. “This market is moving fast and investors are pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into this space. This both validates the opportunity we’ve been pursuing and underscores the need for even more urgency, even more aggressive investment, and decisive action.”
Lol
Leaders often claim that they are taking accountability when they screw up—and they should, as CEOs like Houston are the ones who mismanaged the company to the point of requiring layoffs in the first place. But rarely does “taking accountability” actually amount to much of anything. The most notable recent example is perhaps that Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella asked the company’s board to reduce his pay in light of the major Crowdstrike hack. But in that case, his overall compensation still increased for the year by $30 million. Just, a little less up.
But, no, I’m keeping my bonus.
Why does he looks on that photo a bit like Muskrat?
Weasels of a feather?
Uh. I don’t follow, what do you mean?
This, except they’re weasels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds_of_a_feather_flock_together
I see, thanks for teaching me something new :)
Okay, then you be the sole worker then if you want this ‘responsibility’. See how far you get.
It’s easy to take full accountability for no consequences.
Should there be consequences? Layoffs are a normal response to a lack of business. Exorbitant CEO pay is a separate issue, it should be reduced even before people are laid off.
In most states where unions are not overregulated like in the US, a layoff has at least the consequence of substantial severances, and the business being unable to hire back for the positions it just laid off without incurring very significant fines.
“I declare accountability!”
MF looks like wish.com Elon Musk, didn’t think that was even possible, but I guess the Rubber Barons have a type.
yes! I am not alone with that impression.
So brave!
“This hurts me more than it hurts you”
I wish someone would keep a list of all the companies that have laid employees off in the last few years, so we can keep tabs on who to not give our business to.
Well, if dropbox can exist without those 500 employees, then it’s logical. You don’t judge success of a business by how many people it employs
The employees are more important than the boss. So yeah, I do count those jobs and feel it means something significant. Also, what does “logical” even mean to you? If the boss cut his own pay, he could have kept the employees. That’s just as logical, isn’t it? So you’re not talking about logic, are you.
If you want to talk about values, let’s do it. Please explain why multi millionaires (and richer) matter more than everyone else. Please.
Company is not a charity. There is a difference.
Suppose that dropbox employs twice as many people as other cloud providers. Would you be willing to pay them the twice amount for the same product the competition offers just because they employ more people?
You know, we live in the world of competition where you need to be ahead your rivals, otherwise your company fails (and all employees lose their jobs). So cutting costs where it’s possible makes perfect sense, especially if the employees can be replaced by computers or sth.
The problem is that we judge its success by how much the wealthiest people bet on its success in a glorified casino instead of anything else, like its positive impact on society.
A plane can continue to fly without a pilot. The problem is not “continuing to exist”, but continued success or a spectacular crash.
Also, I’d bet on Dropbox being able to function quite well without its CEO.
Sure, if the CEO is replaced by someone else who can manage the company, sure. But you cannot generally expect people to manage themselves. That’s why communism never worked and never will.
Also, what is according to you a glorified casino?
Your comment does not make sense. In communist countries, companies still have CEOs, they just don’t have private shareholders, they are owned by the state. Not that I care about that.
And what I call a casino is the NYSE, when stocks offering no dividends are pumped to the stratosphere, with purely speculative buys.
Imagine calling stocks a casino xD
Imagine calling stocks your economy.
Not all stocks, though, just the ones with sharp upward trends despite the fundamentals and no dividends or voting rights. How are they different from a big-tech backed shitcoin? You don’t get part of the economic output or even the influence, they are simply a token given to you by a random corpo saying it will be worth more next month.
You could argue that you can judge their success based on the ratio of employees they used to employ versus how many they employ now.
So if I have a small computer repair store and want to make it more successful, I should employ at least million people, so the ratio goes up?
Would be easier to keep a list of those that didn’t.
