[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.