[varsketiz]

There's many comments about what does "I the take full responsibility mean" in these threads about layoffs. I'm curious - what do you think it means and should mean? I take that a company offering better severance than required by law is taking at least some responsibility.

[mrtksn]

Unless there's an apology and resignation It means they executed as expected when the money was pouring and not pouring. For some reason workers tend to believe that the CEO is taking responsibility for the hardships the workers will face and that's obviously not true. If the CEO was the one in fault and the workers were great talent that must be let go, then obviously the CEO should have been fired and not the workers.

When they take responsibility they don't admit wrongdoing or remorse, they simply explain what they did and probably expect a pat on the back. CEO's and workers have different responsibilities.

If you think that people shouldn't be fired in hired at whim, that's why employment are for. If you think that you are being wronged, that's why there are worker rights.

It's easy to say that Europe or UK are socialist in a booming market. As it might turn out, maybe they have a point.

[qudat]

Taking full responsibility should probably mean change in leadership. People are getting fired for their mistake, why should they also not step down?

I’m indifferent tbh, leadership and investors can do what they want, but “taking full responsibility” is not the same as “feeling bad about firing colleagues”