[erulabs]

> "As a result, we're reducing team sizes across the organization, as well as reducing seniority in certain roles that we plan to rebuild with modified leveling over the course of this year,"

> "There is not a lot of history of laziness being rewarded with success. Hard work is an essential ingredient in any recipe for success. I embrace this, and the most successful people I know do as well."

I can't imagine a single worse strategy as a leader than to choose 'reduce pay' and 'imply laziness'. Did this guy get his management degree from the Roman empire? Just fire people and say you over-hired, holy cow.

I'm not part of the "talented executives shouldn't get paid a lot" crowd, but the important part is the talented bit.

[Tommah]

> There is not a lot of history of laziness being rewarded with success.

A lot of inventions come about because of laziness. Some guy somewhere got tired of carrying his things around, so he invented the wheel. Of course, I don't know whether the inventor of the wheel was properly rewarded.

[cyanydeez]

I had this argument with a PhD. I debated it in my head for awhile and just came to the conclusion that it's mostly that people who think hardwork is the best trait is most a self fulfilling prophecy. Accepting that to get to C You have to do AB is absolutely going to make you believe that the work is necessary. Then along comes someone who just hates doing B. definitely they're going to be viewed as lazy, but to want to optimize B, you have to be lazy.

So, what you ultimately have to accept is some hybrid thought process and red/blue roleplay to find optimized workflow, process and the rest.

it's just not a useful dichotomy.

[StreetChief]

"Necessity is the mother of invention!"

[graemep]

> I'm not part of the "talented executives shouldn't get paid a lot" crowd, but the important part is the talented bit.

On the face of it the CEO and other executives are talented. The founders occupy the most senior positions. They have built a substantial business.

Maybe they were lucky or influential instead of talented. Perhaps things have just gone wrong and they are desperate and this is the best available option. Maybe success have made them lose touch with reality.

However it happened, we have gone from apparent talent to apparent stupidity.

[fatnoah]

Most importantly, they're choosing a path where they acknowledge that employees will receive less compensation for more work, while the management reaps massive benefits of improved stock prices.

[DylanSp]

Hey, that's unfair. There were some competent Roman emperors.

[syspec]

It’s not unfair, it’s wayfair

[tapatio]

LOLOLOL

[ImPostingOnHN]

> I can't imagine a single worse strategy as a leader than to choose 'reduce pay' and 'imply laziness'

Don't forget he also employed the 'fire senior team members, hollow out teams' strategy

[tapatio]

Seriously, could have been way more clear and concise: "we over hired". But that would indicate that he dropped the ball. He's certainly not the type of CEO that would take personal responsibility. #loser

[shapefrog]

> Just fire people and say you over-hired, holy cow.

That would be the "lazy" way out. It would also be simple, fast, honest, straightforward and show respect to everyone involved.

[phendrenad2]

Back when I worked in manufacturing, this kind of tone was pretty common. We even called the quarterly speeches from the CEO to employees "you suck meetings" (out of earshot of the CEO, of course). As software engineering becomes less about innovation and more about a relentless slog to reach milestones, I'm not surprised that it's taking on aspects of the manufacturing world.

[TheCleric]

The difference is that most manufacturing jobs pay overtime at least.

[phendrenad2]

Not if you're an engineer

[TheCleric]

The beatings will continue until morale improves.