I think the issue comes from the idea that in tough times, good leaders take their lumps before they expect it from their team. There's lots of colloquialisms that seem to fit this:
"Leaders eat last"
"We cut the fat starting at the top"
"Leaders need to have endurance beyond their troops"
I have no skin in the game either. The severance packages are commendable, but I don't think it actually answers the OP's question about accountability. I don't want to speak for the other commenter, but I think what they're looking for is some indication that the leadership has personally sacrificed something equal to or exceeding what they expected out of their subordinates. Giving out millions in severance, while commendable, isn't a personal sacrifice.
> Giving out millions in severance, while commendable, isn't a personal sacrifice.
Do y'all expect them to cut their arm off? I'm not defending pc but the OP's comment wreaks of corporate SJW.
> but I think what they're looking for is some indication that the leadership has personally sacrificed something equal to or exceeding what they expected out of their subordinates
Millions (and billions) come out of their valuation as a result. It's not like they're getting whisked away on a golden parachute.
> Millions (and billions) come out of their valuation as a result. It's not like they're getting whisked away on a golden parachute.
It's the exact opposite. They're more likely to stem the bloodletting of their valuation with layoffs extending runway or boosting profitabiliy than see it get worse.
Not at all. But we seem okay with management having a larger upside, given how the pay structure ratio has continued to evolve over the last few decades. I think it's only reasonable that, with outside rewards, management expects to take on outsized risk.
It feels like the social norms have shifted to accept one but not the other. In other words, we're only supportive of an asymmetrical risk:reward ratio that favors management.
> In other words, we're only supportive of an asymmetrical risk:reward ratio that favors management.
Actually we have, the risk:reward ratio is generally consistent across founder/management vs IC.
Are you simply saying that because CEO to IC pay ratio has expanded drastically in recent years that it's not accurately accounting for the risk? You realize that ~x% cut in workforce includes managers right? In fact, often times cheaper more productive ICs stay and expensive middle management is first to go. Seems like that is accounting for it no?
I thought this discussion was centered on the CEO pay. To that extent CEO pay has ballooned and I see very little evidence that their risk has been commensurate with that growth. If anything, the structure of contracts seems to indicate the opposite.
The company is not a charity. I expect no more from a company than to pay me for every hour I work. I can leave anytime I want and they can let me go anytime that the relationship is not mutually beneficial.
I keep a go to hell fund, an updated resume, an updated career document, a strong network of former coworkers, managers, and external recruiters and make sure my skillset is in line with the market.
I expect nothing from managers. When the pay/bullshit ratio starts going in the wrong direction, I have just as much agency to leave as they do to let me go.
You don't expect them to pay you? Treat you with respect? To observe labor laws? Surely, you expect something from them. Being willing and able to walk away is not the same thing as saying you have zero expectations.
"Leaders eat last"
"We cut the fat starting at the top"
"Leaders need to have endurance beyond their troops"
I have no skin in the game either. The severance packages are commendable, but I don't think it actually answers the OP's question about accountability. I don't want to speak for the other commenter, but I think what they're looking for is some indication that the leadership has personally sacrificed something equal to or exceeding what they expected out of their subordinates. Giving out millions in severance, while commendable, isn't a personal sacrifice.