For some reason every layoff press release on HN gets the "The CEO takes responsability but doesn't actually" comments.

I'm not sure what people expect, "I will whip myself once for every employee I had to layoff to atone for overhiring during one of the biggest market bull run"?

It's especially weird considering that DoorDash is probably the company that had the best reason to overhire during a pandemic where delivery apps where being used a lot more than usual.

- have their pay adjusted to reflect the poor decision making lead to the company shrinkage

- have a portion of their stock allowance taken back and have to be re-earned based on performance

- have their other benefits and expense account cut and have to be re-earned based on performance

Basically have literally anything they benefit from have to be justified in any way as a reflection of the holistic performance of the company.

Stock allowance? Taken back where? Doordash's CEO is the founder.

None of these things are in the best interest of the company. Demotivating and losing leadership isn't going to help right the ship.

... and instead demotivating the entire workforce is somehow better?

> I will whip myself once for every employee I had to layoff

I like the sound of that! Joking aside, while physical harm may not fly I can imagine a scenario where it hits the CEOs' wallets either by losing stock options/grants or actual salary based on the number of employees they had to layoff. Because seriously, what does it even mean for the CEO to take responsibility when there are no actual consequences for them? If they're doing it to save the business (which they are) then just say that instead of saying they take responsibility as the latter is just virtue signaling.

From the investor's perspective the CEO's job is to do what's good for the company, which doesn't always involve doing what's good for some or all the employees, laying a lot of developers off is not a bad thing from the perspective of the business unless their work is needed and there is enough money to pay them.

Right, so the CEO should just say that. Effectively the layoff was out of their control. It was the best decision for the business (shareholders). The act of saying "I take full responsibility" is pure virtue signaling unless it actually has consequences for them. Instead they should say, "I made the best decision for the shareholders."

I think the bitterness comes from the big payoffs that CEOs get when the company does well. There's something upsetting about leadership taking the upside reward for the big wins but leaving the downside risk for everyone else.

A somewhat common way for CEOs to take responsibility used to be to forgo their bonuses or to take a pay cut, which while still not too meaningful, does at least involve some more responsibility than just plain PR speak.

How about the CEO saying "I'll be resigning from the company"?

What do you think people mean when they say they should take responsibility? Screaming "I declare responsibility!"?

If the CEO says they'll resign, people will say they're taking the easy way out, and anyway, it's no skin off their back because golden parachute (if they were a good negotiator when they were hired) or anyway their salary was probably high, etc.

It's an unwinnable game in the court of public opinion, so why do it? Because it signals to the underlings that the CEO is not expecting resignations from them.

"If the CEO says they'll resign, people will say they're taking the easy way out, and anyway, it's no skin off their back because golden parachute"

Nothing prevents the CEO from resigning and gifting the golden parachute back to the company. You know, if they want to "take responsibility."

Sure, but then there's the "but they already got paid a bazillion dollars"

Being CEO means making difficult decisions, and it isn't realistic to expect a CEO to only serve during good times. That said, I think it would go a long way towards appeasement if the messaging was more along the lines of "I will be withholding payment to myself until such time as we're in the black again" or something similar showing personal consequences beyond "mea culpa!" nonsense PR messaging.

Maybe it's reasonable to expect a CEO to resign when layoffs happen during a market upswing but... during a market downturn like this it's kind of inevitable to see layoffs in a services-based company when services are the some of the easiest things for consumers to scale back on when belt-tightening occurs. A change in leadership would only further hurt the people staying in the company, IMO.

Maybe start by having a sustainable growth (or you know, no growth!) so you don't have to write a completely emotionless letter explaining why you have to lay off a whole village?

Remember the CEO is also accountable to the board and investors who have certain expectations.

The morality here is hard because the end results are largely driven by the system. Sure, there are some leaders who are particularly ill-suited for their jobs from the employee POV. Unfortunately some of those leaders serve their investors quite well.

If you point one finger, you'll quickly realize you might need many more to follow the interconnected trail of power.

Also let's not forget that so much of Silicon Valley's advantageous job market is linked to investor behavior, good and bad. My point? Sure, criticize these feaux-emotional layoff letters, just don't forget to look back to see the reality distortion field already in place when you joined that job.

So what we need here is mechanisms to hold the board accountable for their failures.

Well, perception/observation bias. We never notice the companies that do grow sustainably and don't do layoffs.

You really think so? I've picked many places to work based on my perception of their business model stability and how they treat people. I'm far from perfect of course.

I think many employees and investors care about employee retention. I don't know how much it factors in, but it is something.

I meant "we" as on a news site like this, "Company Not Laying Off" will never make a headline. Yes, employees and good investors/owners do care.