[sangnoir]

> Often that person's leadership wasn't the problem, but even when it was, that doesn't necessarily mean that the company will be better-off without them

How convenient (for them)! When the company is doing well, they get millions in bonuses because their irreplaceable leadership skills - which make them 2000x more valuable than the least paid worker - were instrumental to the organization's success.

When the chips are down, it wasn't their fault per se, and the company still would be allegedly worse off without them, so laying-off waves of those who don't have decision-making power is the correct remedy, until the good times roll again, and senior leadership is ready to claim responsibility.

It must be nice to claim "macro-economic headwinds" as justification for poor performance and poor planning, but still get paid bonuses for the never-mentioned "macro-economic tailwinds"

[JumpCrisscross]

> must be nice to claim "macro-economic headwinds" as justification for poor performance and poor planning, but still get paid bonuses for the never-mentioned "macro-economic tailwinds"

What would you do if you owned a business? Fire leadership every time they make a wrong call? Or ban them from admitting they made a wrong call?

[johnnyanmac]

>What would you do if you owned a business?

- Find the issues, the ACTUAL issues. not "the stockholders are unhappy" issues. Not the "we overhired" issues. tangible issues hurting my bottom line. Economic head/tailwins is not a tangible issue for anything (let alone performance related) so much as a means to adjust projected earnings.

- Make an action plan, give tangible, reasonable goals. Not speculation on what appeals to monopoly money. We're a software company; if we can't collect internal data, how are we handling client data with any integrity.

- If anyone in leadership acted maliciously, they are gone. Full stop. Others are corrected. I can correct ignorance or incompetency. I won't stand deception and trickery among what should all be an aligned company with aligned goals.

(note, I won't codify a need to "fire someone" everytime a mistake is made either. a mistake is a managerial failing at best and a company failing at worst. Operate in a “a rising tide lifts all boats” mentality, not blame culture)

- if action plans and projected revenues look dire and we absolutely need to, introduce cuts. Try to cut my (assuming I'm earning anything) salaries first, then other execs. If absolutely necessary after they, we do layoff rounds. Ideally this should not happen because I have a proper savings chest for the worst times, but I'm not 100% opposed to layoffs as a last resort.

now of course, all this is unnecessary because dropbox is in fact not at the point where any of this is needed. Except maybe for Monopoly money. But yes, I have thought quite a bit about this scenario. And I still know this is still a shallow exercise since I'm missing tons of looholes and other scenarios.

[sangnoir]

If I owned a controlling stake in a business, I'd fire the leadership every time there's evidence of short-term thinking. The problem with public companies is systemic: a large fraction of shareholders want short term appreciation, and so they support and reward short-term mindsets in leaders at the cost of long-term value.

[JumpCrisscross]

> I'd fire the leadership every time there's evidence of short-term thinking

Have you owned a business? Worked for a manager who thought like this? You’re describing the sort of mercurial boss who fires people for disagreeing with them.

[sangnoir]

There's nothing mercurial about firing someone over poor strategic planning. Before you hire someone, you communicate the expectations of the job, amd if an executive prioritizes quick ones over long term big wins, that is a fundamental misalignment in values - not a spur-of-the-moment dismissal.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Before you hire someone, you communicate the expectations of the job, amd if an executive prioritizes quick ones over long term big wins, that is a fundamental misalignment in values

Right, this is micromanaging leadership. You're looking for a manager to execute your vision. Not a leader. Short termism is a problem. But layoffs aren't proof of short-term thinking. If anything, they're a sign of past exuberant optimism.

[duped]

If the leadership mistakes lead to the loss of livelihood and healthcare of thousands of employees because of their mistakes, yes, they should be included in the firings, or strongly considered for them - more so than any of the people getting laid off who made no mistakes, except working for a bad leader.

[flappyeagle]

Go start a company already — you’re on YC forums

[johnnyanmac]

1. This really shouldn't be advice handily thrown out like "learn how to play guitar". You gotta spend money to make money, and if you're laid off without a plan this is the worst time to spend money.

2. I plan to one day. I very much plan not to rely on a VC for that. The purpose for my company is to not require millions to ship products users want/need and to stay extremely lean. A small team of "full stack" developers, to put it roughly. I should already be in a very solid position by myself before I come to such a crossroad.

3. I will admit I am not this "full stack" dev yet. I will still need some months/years to get to this point myself. So I'm a "student" as of now.

[flappyeagle]

No one is ready. You become ready by just doing it

[johnnyanmac]

I agree with you in spirit. In reality, the "I quit my cushy 9-5 job to make my own game" is such a meme in my industry that I want to have a plan B and C for if/when I fail.

And right now I barely have a Plan A.

[sangnoir]

I have started a company[1], but that's neither here nor there. I vehemently disagree with your insinuation that I couldn't challenge leadership culture had I not.

Founding a company doesn't make one infallible or irreplaceable. Though to be fair, it doesn't feel that way when it's your company though!

1. I will note that this is an incredibly low bar.

[flappyeagle]

You want to be the boss. Start a company. You want someone else to control your employment, work for someone else. It’s simple.