How is this responsibility defined? How is this responsibility measured? What aspects of the ex-Prisma people does this responsibility cover? What measurable and practical effects does this responsibility have when measured in one week, one month, three months, one year from now? If these targets are not met, what are the consequences of that? What are the means of enforcing that responsibility?
I seriously think we need to start asking these sorts of questions and defining some sorts of standards for this "responsibility" this sentence mentions. In all other contexts, responsibility has its very tangible practical grounding and means of enforcing that grounding. In announcements like these, it reads just like a random and inconsequential "I'm sorry".
That's what I'm worried about and that's why I'm calling BS on this. The executive uses big words like "responsibility", I'd like to know what concrete measures are then hidden behind it.
Corporations talk only BS for the past 10-15 years, words have no longer a meaning. Failures are usually rewarded, not punished, failing upwards is the norm in many places. Expectations of real responsibility, actions, etc are for people from other times, that are old or retired.
If it does not start with a 28% reduction in all areas of compensation, and full elimination of all bonus opportunities for the current calendar and fiscal year, then no responsibility has been taken.
What track record you're talking about? Last time layoffs of this size hit the market was about 15 years ago. Through these years average compensation in IT steadily rose, usually faster than market.
The responsibility companies have towards people are generally defined in (i) the contract of employment, (ii) company policies, and (iii) legislation within the relevant jurisdiction.
Outside of anything defined in these areas a company doesn't have any responsibility towards the people, including those laid off. It's an incredibly good idea to have that clear in your mind when you accept a job.
Many of us are working for, or help lead, much smaller companies who - because they weren't so spendy - are much less likely to need to invoke large scale layoffs during the current economic turmoil (no matter how careful you are, things can still go sideways though).
Nevertheless, many of our companies have been subject to the disruption of companies like Prisma (and plenty of others: Meta, Google, Shopify, and the rest) hoovering up every developer they could get at inflated salaries just because they had plenty of money to spent and a bit of an anti-competitive streak (and I note that many of the layoffs I've read about so far have mostly included staff outside of engineering and product development, so not much has changed on the latter). This has hurt our businesses, set back projects, caused a lot of stress amongst employees who've remained, and of course cost us a huge amount in rehiring.
I can't blame anyone for accepting a role with a 30 - 50% pay increase elsewhere: everyone is under financial pressure, particularly at the moment, and everyone has aspirations for their future (nothing wrong with that). But it's not all upside, and I do wish people would be more careful in assessing possible outcomes - in particular understand what they're signing up for.
When a market changes as much as it has, as rapidly as it has, over the past 3 years - be that employment or any other market - there is always going to be some sort of regression to the mean, and some element of bullwhip effect.
> I mean metrics for measuring responsibility towards the people, especially the laid-off ones - there seems to be absolutely none of these.
First: The people being laid off are shareholders too. Prisma is offering part of their salary in equity.
Second: How would a responsible lay-off other than this look like?
Severance pay: All departing team members will receive one month of additional pay per year of service, plus the payout of any accrued PTO.
Healthcare benefits:
Prismas health benefits for US employees will remain in place through February.
International contractors who don’t have government funded medical cover available will receive an extra $1,000 severance.
Equity vesting: We are waiving the equity cliff for team members who have been with us for more than 6 months but less than 1 year.
Job search support: For all those who wish to, we will do our best to connect you with the various recruitment groups within our investor community.
Equipment: Keep all of the equipment that has been issued to you during the course of your employment with Prisma.
He is taking responsibility by: 1) probably not making the same mistake in the near future again, and 2) taking money out of the company's bags and giving it to employees.
What is the alternative to this? Should Prisma keep the workers, which became unnecessary for reaching the company's goals?
Yes, it's most likely they over hired like every other tech company. But now are in an environment, where it's difficult to raise additional funds. Obviously, Prisma is now adapting and tries to lower the cash burn rate.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that most tech companies massively hired in 2019, 2020 and 2021. If it now becomes obvious, that they hired too many people, what should they do besides cutting?
Right, but on the other hand there’s no responsibility if there’s no metric. Someone took responsibility on them to have revenue enough to keep people around, someone failed at that. Maybe revenue was enough but there was a decision to cut people anyways - someone who had responsibility to keep people they’ve hired. Someone might’ve hired HR people in order to grow the company, and now they’ve decided they don’t want to so let’s cut HR people.. nothing outside of contract stands between management and a worker if there’s no syndicate. Contract is easily terminated though, with or without penalties - depending. I guess companies aren’t our friends after all?
> Right, but on the other hand there’s no responsibility if there’s no metric.
That's why I call BS on the executive saying "I take full responsibility."
> I guess companies aren’t our friends after all?
They never were and never will be unless they decide to be friends. They may create a pleasing environment to do work in and care for good atmosphere in the workplace and press for decent interpersonal communication so that work gets done smoother, but it's all about the common goal of getting work done so they can get paid so you can get paid. This isn't friendship, it's optimization.
Until your employment contract has an explicit friendship clause of some sort, or unless you own or co-own the company, you have no guarantees you are anything more than a mercenary with some legal protections that kick in if you are let go. That's the very basis of capitalism where workers are one of the many manageable resources.
There is consequence you may not consider. This company may not make it making the CEOs efforts worthless. I suspect many companies will not make it in this cycle.
Taking responsibiliy means you have work to do to correct the problem.
You spilled coffee on the table? Clean it up. That's your responsibility. It doesn't mean you need to be "punished".
In the case of layoffs, taking responsibility might mean having to face the public and the employees with the decision and having to endure the public shaming you, etc. All on behalf of the board and shareholders.
They are taking the responsibility for having overhired and are acting on this responsibility by laying off.
They are not taking responsibility in front of laid off staff in any actionable way but "you can blame me rather than human resources, PMs that cried for more engineers, investors that were looking for signs of growth via head count..." which again is a sign of taking responsibility in front of shareholders, not really employees.
You're taking it out on a guy who graduated in 2013, managed to found a company in Europe! and have it survive long enough to make it to SF, and created ~100 jobs in the process?!?!
This behavior should be celebrated, and so should the people who supported his growth as CEO of his company.
The alternative is to install a class of professional CEO punching bags at the helm of every early-stage company. Not doing that is exactly what defined Silicon Valley post dot-com.
It's measured as I get paid a ton of money because of the responsibility I have but then nothing happens when things go to shit because well, nothing happens. BTW when's my next bonus pay day?
The company was doomed the moment they started hiring at unreasonable pace because VC $$$. I have seen the same at other startups I worked at: VC pump $$$ into the company, the CEO starts bragging on doubling headcount every other quarter; people look at each other asking themselves what all this new people are going to do. Engineering now spend most of the time interviewing rather than building and delivering awesome products.
Eventually growth slows down, customers are upset because the product sucks and here we are.
Who is to blame? The CEO along with the board. So a change of CEO might be the only thing saving the company.
> The company was doomed the moment they started hiring at unreasonable pace
History disagrees. And the only reason the company exists in the first place is because of VC money. Don't join a startup if you don't want the risks associated with a startup.
> Who is to blame?
No one, because humans can't predict the future. Why are you so eager to see people punished? It's so easy to be critical when you're not the one actually responsible for building and running a company. This entire thread is an example of "tell me you know nothing about running a business without saying you know nothing about running a business".
I recently had to fire my landscaper, so based on this logic I should probably sell my house so that I can "take responsibility".
Based on LinkedIn they grew from 134 to 164 in the last 6 months. I get taking a bet in 2021 on the post-covid world being different but making that same bet in mid 2022 doesn't seem a good decision.
I'd be ok with this and other lies having legal (civil) consequences, i.e. CEOs who say this are personally liable. Obviously, this phrase would die and that's the point.
Really, it's not hard to remain authentic. Statements like "I feel terrible" are fine and even "we're trying to support everyone through this transition, both staff directly affected and their families, as well as the remaining staff who we realize shoulder increased burden." Without saying "we're doing everything we can" and other obvious lies.
“I take full responsibility” means “I am not firing these people because of their faults, I am firing them because I need to and had I better foresight, I wouldn’t have hired them in the first place”
The firing is a necessary consequence of the hiring. You can, if you want, make it harder to fire people — but if you do you will also find companies will be less willing to hire people.
Perhaps that's what the speaker intends but not what affected listeners are likely to hear. In the west, it's the speaker's responsibility to make themselves understood by the majority of listeners.
I seriously think we need to start asking these sorts of questions and defining some sorts of standards for this "responsibility" this sentence mentions. In all other contexts, responsibility has its very tangible practical grounding and means of enforcing that grounding. In announcements like these, it reads just like a random and inconsequential "I'm sorry".