[BrentOzar]

> I take sole accountability for where we are today. I am deeply and profoundly sorry. I will be taking a 25% cut in base pay. Additionally, more than 75% of my total compensation is directly tied to Indeed revenue growth, and is at risk given current trends.

That’s how you tell people you’re accountable.

[Vespasian]

Maybe I'm imagining it but this letter seems a lot more direct than the other ones.

"People loosing jobs" instead of "Puffys getting the opportunity to move on.".

Also their yes/no mail has a clear title and they lay down policy that fired people get to use slack for a few days to "say goodbye to friends" etc.

Not great obviously (it's still kicking them out) but at least they are not adding insult to injury.

[santoshalper]

Yes, this is among the best letters of this kind that I have read.

[SamuelAdams]

To be fair, stock prices typically go up after layoffs are announced. So it’s not like he is losing money.

[s1artibartfast]

stock proce isnt revenue growth.

IF comp is tied to revenue, it doesn't matter if the stock goes to the moon.

The stock goes up because investors think that revenue will go up if they pay fewer salaries.

[zdbrandon]

Profits, not revenue. But the point remains.

[s1artibartfast]

FairPoint, the article said Revenue so even layoffs won't help unless they shift there expenses from Devs to marketing or something like that

[roflyear]

Higher stock value helps companies achieve things. See GME

[s1artibartfast]

For most companies stock value is meaningless in terms of achieving things. It doesn't put more money in their pocket to pursue development unless they do additional stock offering, which is very unusual for a mature company.

[roflyear]

That's not true: from my understanding equity compensation plans fit in here, and that's the vast majority of companies (or really nearly all of them, at least for executive staff).

[jwilber]

Lol. A 25% cut and “my revenue is at risk” is meaningless when you make more in a year than most of your employees will even retire with.

It’s crazy we don’t hold CEO’s to the same rigorous standards as employees, despite their importance (as measured by salary) being x 100 that of the average employee. Low risk, high reward.

[DangitBobby]

It's not completely meaningless.

[jwilber]

When compared to the stress it causes for those impacted, I’m going to disagree and claim that it’s entirely meaningless. Given that most of his compensation comes from stock, losing a few 100k at most in salary is nothing.

[icelancer]

What is something the CEO could say or pay cut he could take that would make these comments not appear in a HN thread?

[Vespasian]

Nothing most likely because the fact remains that the CEOs of these companies do never face the same existential crisis as many of their employees do when loosing their job.

They can (and many probably do) put a small amount of their income into conservative boring low yield investments and still be set for Life if everything else collapses. Maybe not with the yacht, prestige or power they hoped for but still more comfortable than most of the population.

The best a CEO can do is take responsibility by making a significant financial sacrifice and not bullshit their former employees on the way out. I think this letter does it as best as possible given the circumstances but it can't bridge the gap between them and most people.

CEOs chose to be in that position and I'm sure they can handle a little criticism from the internet

[nunobrito]

Yep. Quite rare to see this kind of accountability.