[l33t7332273]

What if managing the company correctly requires hundreds of people losing their jobs?

I understand the anger in this scenario as employees, but I don’t think doing layoffs means leadership is clearly incompetent. Running a company is hard.

Doing layoffs definitely says something about the company’s values and current standing, but I don’t think it necessarily means the CEO is bad.

[cma256]

> What if managing the company correctly requires hundreds of people losing their jobs?

It occurs to me that there is no failure of performance a CEO can produce and be held responsible for. Are these CEOs really so irreplaceable that when they bet incorrectly they can't be replaced?

20% of employees have been fired. The CEO directly cited mismanagement as the cause. And yet, its impossible to fire him because "its a learning experience" or "think of the upside!".

A CEO being fired does not mean the company falls into the abyss. The company still exists and can hire a new CEO. I'm certain there are plenty of fools more than willing to risk the livelihoods of 20% of Dropbox's staff in exchange for a mansion in Miami.

[l33t7332273]

> Are these CEOs really so irreplaceable that when they bet incorrectly they can't be replaced?

That’s the thing though, another comment nailed this perfectly. If they made a +EV decision to hire more people, but the preverbal roulette wheel landed on 00, maybe it’s not a bad bet that they should be fired for.

[cma256]

It needs to be repeated until its acknowledged: "risk management" wasn't the reason given for the layoffs.

The explicit reason given was "economic headwinds" and bad organizational structure. If in your role as CEO you have left the company in a poor position to handle normal, cyclical slowdowns then you are a failure. If in your role as CEO you have produced an org chart which burns money and slows progress then you are a failure. You should be replaced. Period.