Yeah it's weird how the C-suites never have to personally bear responsibility despite being the one either making these decisions or fostering the environment in which these decisions are made.

How come companies are allowed to fire even one employee before the decision makers are bled of all money they have? Shouldn't the life-ruining start with the ones who are responsible?!

[–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I guess the reasoning is

The company is doing great => the CEO does a great job

Company needs to downsize=> can't afford a change in leadership in these trying times

It gets more complicated when the CEO is also a founder/owner

[–] Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

I would be happy if they just didn't get their bonuses and the downsizing started with their pays ale before anyone got fired. Of we can't have that, think of their poor third yachts.

[–] Abnorc@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I could be wrong here, but the CEO is at the mercy of the board as well in many situations. If they could just manage the company well without pressure to make decisions that benefit the shareholders more than the company itself, you would see more good CEOs.

Since they're basically pressured into ruining companies a lot of the time, the only reasonable way to hire people is to offer them good severance packages and incentives to do so. If you really held them responsible, no one in their right mind would do it.

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

But doesn't that just move the same point?

Why is the board not held accountable for fostering the atmosphere via pressure on the CEO then? So the buck ultimately passes to them, they had every chance to rectify the situation, including replacing the C-suites if they don't think the current ones are fit for the job?

I know, they just think of the shareholders and their pockets, but that's my point: If you get money when your decisions make the company more profitable, maybe your decisions should lose you money when they do the opposite.
And specifically, I mean long-term. Not just based on share-price. You meddled with the company. If it tanks, you held X% of their money for Y% of the time, that's how much you're in the hole for now as your decisions were ultimately responsible for that percentage of the total decision space cash the company ever had in its time.

Plus, I don't think that excuses CEOs from having 0 integrity. Yeah they could get voted to be replaced, but that doesn't excuse it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as an analogy, soldiers are supposed to refuse inhuman orders, no? Just that the board tells them to ruin 1900 people's lives doesn't mean they get a clean bill for the moral implications of being the one to pull the trigger on that.
Pluuuuuuus... isn't it the CEO who would make the decision to take a company private again? So they could always reverse course if they mind the shareholders meddling too much?

[–] Abnorc@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Neither CEOs nor Boards are less accountable IMO. That just explains why they behave the way that they do. In a better world, there'd be incentives for those in power to do the right thing, but it just doesn't play out that way much of the time. It's probably because it's hard to design those incentives well in the first place while simultaneously preventing bad actors from ruining it.