[rubyist5eva]

> I am very sad to make this decision. It’s a consequence of the approach that Matt and I took in scaling the company over the last year, and we take full responsibility for the impact that will have on the lives of our departing team members.

Why do CEO's always say this empty nonsense. If you accept responsibility, you accept consequences - what consequences is Geoff Schmidt going to be facing? Hurt feelings? Give me a break.

[dnissley]

This comes up every thread about layoffs -- accepting responsibility means not passing the buck and saying "it was out of our control!" or "this was due to outside circumstance X".

The explicit consequences are up to the owners of the company, not the court of public opinion. The owners wouldn't be beyond their rights to demand the CEO's resignation, although neither are they obligated to do that either since everyone makes mistakes. And as others have pointed out there are implicit consequences as well -- less trust from remaining employees, etc.

[pcurve]

Yep. This is a strike 1 for the CEO and everyone knows it.

Unless there is someone else who can do better job, it doesn't make sense for him to step down. However, I do wonder if it would appeasing to take voluntary pay cut as a more visible form of taking responsibility. Just a thought.

[bberenberg]

The business they built is failing. The emotional toll is extreme. Founders I know are either in poor health due to stress, or place an outsized emphasis on staying healthy. You and others who post this every time seem to be saying "Ah yes, you're not suffering enough in my eyes". How much suffering is enough? Should your degree of blood thirst be applied to employee actions? Are blameless retrospectives a mistake and we should start firing people for making mistakes?

[no_wizard]

I think this comes from the broader general fact that we have all lived through recessions (e.g. 2008 housing crisis) very differently with very different outcomes.

I often view these statements with knee jerk cynicism (though I recognize it as such) because too often you read about layoffs while executives get golden parachutes. Why should the CEO get the 30 million payout to leave the failing company while everyone else gets comparative peanuts and loses their job.

I can sympathize a bit with why people feel bitter about these things.

I also know some business owners and people who run start ups, those who do it with integrity do have genuine feelings they have to process around this. I try to also remember that not everyone is Jack Welch.

[jonathankoren]

To paraphrase Don Draper, that's what the insane CEO and founder stock grant is for!

[throwaway98797]

unreasonable people are unreasonable

it’s clear they want people in charge to suffer, because some other powerful person hurt them in the past

sad. start up founder have a lot of benefits but it comes with pain.

pick your poison

[ibejoeb]

At the same time, everyone in the startup game needs to know that this is a fairly likely outcome. It's just not as safe as being at an institution that can weather the storm.

I tell potential hires explicitly that this can fail, and that there's a runway, and that it's uncertain. I've seen so many places try to sell people that it's just kicking ass all the way to the bank.

So, when a CEO makes this kind of statement, I would refer back to the initial messaging before getting out my coals and rake. Nobody made anyone sign on to a nascent software company. It absolutely sucks to find yourself without income, but you've got to know your risk tolerance. And, by that, I mean you need to know how well you tolerate risk, and you need to know your exposure. If management wasn't forthright, well, that's really shitty.

[amrocha]

"Institutions that can weather the storm" like Google? Like Facebook? Amazon?

The entire industry has had layoffs, regardless of size. In fact, in my experience there's plenty of startups that are still growing and hiring the laid off talent from the big institutions. Apollo was not one of those companies, but it doesn't seem like it being a startup had any impact.

[ibejoeb]

Yeah. I figured an obligate contrarian was gonna gotcha me. Sometimes big companies do layoffs.

I stand corrected.

But, then again, the CEO does say: "we are not yet profitable: we’ve taken full advantage of outside capital to speed our growth. That was good stewardship in a time when interest rates were low and venture capital was widely available on good terms. But economic conditions have changed and we believe that it’s no longer prudent to rely on outside capital to support us"

I just don't know what to make of it. It was a healthy company.

> it doesn't seem like it being a startup had any impact

A true mystery.

[amrocha]

You're statistically wrong about layoffs. Big companies have had way more layoffs than startups. Pointing that out doesn't make me a contrarian. You can admit that you were wrong instead of digging your heels in.

[UncleMeat]

Google hasn't had layoffs in meaningful quantity.

[amrocha]

You're right, my bad. Most big companies have had them so I must have somehow thought Google did too.

[throwaway5752]

It is humblebragging and getting ahead of rumors. "We are growing strongly, but" followed by the usual platitudes about funding, taking ownership without consequences by leadership, and showing how great the severance is. There is no good reason this should be a public communication.

[celtain]

What would you prefer that they say instead? "I made no wrong decisions, I have no regrets leaving all of you unemployed."?

[pastor_bob]

"Have no illusions. This is a business. Somebody has to take a fall, and it's you. Best of luck, and don't buy the Koolaid at your next job."

[Aeolun]

“Some of you will be fired, but it’s a sacrifice we’re willing to make.”

[quonn]

Perhaps instead of „responsibility“ they should said „we are to blame“ or „it is our fault“.

[sidfthec]

"I'll be resigning when [the board/leadership] finds a replacement."

I always get massive push back when I suggest this, but it's the only remedy that makes sense. If you have to layoff 15% of the workforce when the growth was under your command, and you want to take responsibility, then step down. Own your mistake.

[quonn]

For startups such a step is likely to ruin the company. And in any case that founder would keep their stake in the company while not being able to influence it anymore. Doesn‘t make sense.

[nkohari]

That's only true if the company is better-suited to be run by someone else. CEOs are prominent, but they're still just people. A person can make mistakes and still be the best person for the job.

[tshaddox]

What if the board doesn't want you to quit? Surely it's better to do what's best for the company going forward rather than to broadcast your self-flagellation.

[yCombLinks]

The goal of the business isn't to maximize employment. It's to maximize profits. Getting rid of employees doesn't mean the CEO did a bad job of maximizing profits.

[sokoloff]

If they're the best person to lead the company, that's what should continue to happen for the benefit of the other 85% of employees.

[Rooster61]

> what consequences is Geoff Schmidt going to be facing?

Loss in confidence of his employees, fear of mass exodus, pressure from stakeholders, etc...

I don't usually defend CEO's, and it sounds like this one has committed some pretty serious errors, but I certainly would not want to be sending that email out.