undefined | Better HN

0 pointsshock5y ago0 comments

Yes, I specifically addressed that point in my post:

> I agree that it would have been an insignificant number of the 250 people fired, but it would have made a difference in the life of the employees not fired and it would have given meaning to her words.

Are you saying it would not have been worth it?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

Spivak5y ago· 2 in thread

Like it definitely wouldn't have been worth it. Playing some weird self-sacrifice game to save a few highly skilled employees that will absolutely be able to find work elsewhere is silly.

Yes the whole situation sucks, layoffs are never fun. I'm sure this decision was genuinely hard for her to make and she doesn't need to self-flagellate to prove to anyone that she cared.

shockOP5y ago

> Playing some weird self-sacrifice game to save a few highly skilled employees that will absolutely be able to find work elsewhere is silly.

Silly or not, it would have shown that Mitchell Baker is a leader. This way it shows that she is not.

Guess what happens to organizations without a leader.

zaroth5y ago

The layoffs themselves show that Mitchell Baker is a leader. Layoffs are by far the hardest thing for a CEO to do. Assessing the reality of their market position, examining their future opportunities and revenue streams, and positioning the company to still be around in 10 years sometimes means deciding that the people you have currently aren’t the people you need to ultimately be successful and stay in business.

You should never give a CEO a pay cut for doing their job and making the hard decisions to help keep the company in the black.

3 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse