Meta employees grill Mark Zuckerberg at all-hands meeting following layoffs(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Meta employees grill Mark Zuckerberg at all-hands meeting following layoffs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/16/zuckerberg-meta-townhall/
100 comments
> He does have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, even if that means making difficult staffing decisions
I feel like people over-index on the idea of "fiduciary responsibility to shareholders." I don't think most decisions a CEO makes are really done with shareholders specifically in mind. They do what is best for the company --for its health, growth, and sometimes survival-- and shareholders are just there for the ride. Certainly, there are some executive decisions where shareholders are the primary factors, but by and large I think they're an afterthought at best.
He over-hired, he lost faith in the direction of a big chunk of Meta's initiatives, and he now wants to pare back.
I feel like people over-index on the idea of "fiduciary responsibility to shareholders." I don't think most decisions a CEO makes are really done with shareholders specifically in mind. They do what is best for the company --for its health, growth, and sometimes survival-- and shareholders are just there for the ride. Certainly, there are some executive decisions where shareholders are the primary factors, but by and large I think they're an afterthought at best.
He over-hired, he lost faith in the direction of a big chunk of Meta's initiatives, and he now wants to pare back.
I'm really tired of this mental virus that's taken over bad CEOs, the imaginary responsibility to shareholders:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
It was actually cooked up in the 70s by Milton Friedman, and over the ensuing few decades it's gone so viral that even its opponents think it's true.
Companies have a responsibility not to just annihilate the shareholders' money for no reason whatsoever, but they have a LOT of leeway to make risky investments or go off on tangents. Executives are NOT legally or morally required to screw people over for an extra short-term buck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
It was actually cooked up in the 70s by Milton Friedman, and over the ensuing few decades it's gone so viral that even its opponents think it's true.
Companies have a responsibility not to just annihilate the shareholders' money for no reason whatsoever, but they have a LOT of leeway to make risky investments or go off on tangents. Executives are NOT legally or morally required to screw people over for an extra short-term buck.
It's more about 10-Q reports than any particular philosophy. Quarterly earnings is a big deal universally for public companies.
> NOT legally or morally required to screw people over for an extra short-term buck
I saw nothing in the Friedman doctrine that says anything about prioritizing short term results.
But if the company doesn't do what the shareholders want, the shareholders sell, and the stock price goes down.
I saw nothing in the Friedman doctrine that says anything about prioritizing short term results.
But if the company doesn't do what the shareholders want, the shareholders sell, and the stock price goes down.
Yeah, but even here you have people parroting this line about "responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits" which is blatantly untrue. You're free to be a sociopathic monster within the limits of the law, but you aren't REQUIRED to.
If you entrust your money to someone else to invest for you, what are you expecting?
Friedman had a very mystical conception of the market - viewing almost as a collective intelligence - and would say in this case that its judgment of the company strategy was correct.
I haven't seen any evidence that Friedman advocated short term profits over long term results.
His view would be that if the stock price went up as a result of some action then that action would be the right one (its orthogonal to the point about short term profits).
Agreed, this is the definition of short term profits
> this is the definition of short term profits
That's not remotely true. Stock prices are based on long term fiscal results. If shareholders get a whiff of a company sacrificing long term results for short term profits, the share price tanks.
That's not remotely true. Stock prices are based on long term fiscal results. If shareholders get a whiff of a company sacrificing long term results for short term profits, the share price tanks.
Agreed on over-indexing on "fiduciary responsibility to shareholders," and I'll go a step further.
Founders generally do what's best for the company (or try to). There are enough infamous CEOs that clearly did what's best for themselves.
Founders generally do what's best for the company (or try to). There are enough infamous CEOs that clearly did what's best for themselves.
CEOs do what's best for themselves and I'm reasonably sure people with low empathy (to put it politely) are over represented among CEOs.
While I think this is true in Zuckerberg's case, he's more concerned with his legacy than his net worth.
Just a counter-point to this, throughout my career I’ve worked closely with many CEOs who I would consider high empathy. Now I would say most often what was best for the company was also best for them personally so those outcomes were fairly well aligned.
Meta revenue growth has now stalled. It's in the interest of shareholders to invest in new revenue streams, which requires people. Paring down staff is the death spiral for tech companies.
Zuckerberg can try to hoard cash to acquire the next Instagram or YouTube, but I don't think it's going to work; it's risky. That's not what Apple did. It's not what Microsoft did.
Zuckerberg can try to hoard cash to acquire the next Instagram or YouTube, but I don't think it's going to work; it's risky. That's not what Apple did. It's not what Microsoft did.
Honestly I agree, I think "fiduciary responsibility to shareholders" is kind of a funny phrase to be honest. I don't really believe most CEOs at an individual level think of shareholders much except that stock price up means good, and stock price down means bad, and sometimes they complain and we have to justify our actions and respond politely for reasons.
To me the phrase almost is a moral shorthand for capitalism. A corporation has no inherent right to life or survival instinct the way a person does, and the phrasing and pretense of "duty to shareholders" is used to give it one by proxy. Does that make sense? So rephrasing my original post, it would be something like "We all agree it's moral to seek profit, since that's the economic system that seems to work, and his actions can be seen as in line with that, so therefore if you agree capitalism makes sense, his actions are justifiable and moral".
To me the phrase almost is a moral shorthand for capitalism. A corporation has no inherent right to life or survival instinct the way a person does, and the phrasing and pretense of "duty to shareholders" is used to give it one by proxy. Does that make sense? So rephrasing my original post, it would be something like "We all agree it's moral to seek profit, since that's the economic system that seems to work, and his actions can be seen as in line with that, so therefore if you agree capitalism makes sense, his actions are justifiable and moral".
I don't think it's even that, per se. Even putting aside profit (which possibly the CEO of Facebook can never do), it still seems like this is a straightforward case of "We think we have too many people." Profit notwithstanding, what do you do if you realize a giant chunk of your workforce is not needed?
> what do you do if you realize a giant chunk of your workforce is not needed?
It’s not like the workforce just appeared out of nowhere. They were hired by the same management who is now firing them.
Ultimately society has to choose where it wants to be on the spectrum between difficult to hire and difficult to fire, and easy to hire and easy to fire (workers can also unionize to push things further towards the “difficult” end).
It’s not like the workforce just appeared out of nowhere. They were hired by the same management who is now firing them.
Ultimately society has to choose where it wants to be on the spectrum between difficult to hire and difficult to fire, and easy to hire and easy to fire (workers can also unionize to push things further towards the “difficult” end).
It's a failure of management in any case. Just like returning cash via excessive dividends, it's an admission that the current management doesn't have the imagination required to use the assets at hand in a profitable way.
So many of the large companies today are one trick ponies trying to milk their singular profit center to the nth degree instead of diversifying into new niches.
Meta failed spectacularly in the direction they did try- but ultimately, like Google, even that (VR) was a way to expand their advertising business, rather than truly expand their footprint.
Apple seems the singular Silicon Valley company truly able to find new niches and expand their competencies. I do wish they'd stuck with Jobs original obstinate insistence of not paying dividends- it was a forcing function to keep them actively investing that cash into new ventures.
So many of the large companies today are one trick ponies trying to milk their singular profit center to the nth degree instead of diversifying into new niches.
Meta failed spectacularly in the direction they did try- but ultimately, like Google, even that (VR) was a way to expand their advertising business, rather than truly expand their footprint.
Apple seems the singular Silicon Valley company truly able to find new niches and expand their competencies. I do wish they'd stuck with Jobs original obstinate insistence of not paying dividends- it was a forcing function to keep them actively investing that cash into new ventures.
Fiduciary duty to shareholders doesn't mean you have to make a profit. You have to do whatever your shareholders want, and they don't have to want profit.
Shareholders are the people who own the company. The company is collectively their property.
The officers of a company (CEO, etc) are caretakers of that property on behalf of the shareholders.
If you own a Pizza Hut, and you hire someone to manage and run the store, their job is to make sure the store (and thus you) make a profit. The CEO has the same obligation to shareholders.
The officers of a company (CEO, etc) are caretakers of that property on behalf of the shareholders.
If you own a Pizza Hut, and you hire someone to manage and run the store, their job is to make sure the store (and thus you) make a profit. The CEO has the same obligation to shareholders.
The bar for fiduciary misconduct is pretty high. Even $10 billion on the metaverse didn't come close to it because management could say with a straight face they believe it's the future.
Fiduciary responsibility also gives company execs a very wide berth. A ceo is more likely to be fired by the board than run afoul of their fiduciary responsibility.
Let's also not forget that Zuck has more than 50% of the votes, even while owning less than half the stock. He's accountable to literally no one.
If FB/Meta was really hurting due to those "overall economic pressures" then sure, tough times, tough choices. But what is that "fiduciary responsibility to shareholders" when the company is enormously profitable and Zuckerberg himself owns a majority of the voting shares and $50b+ of the equity?
Companies will claw back your signing bonus if you quit within the first year. It seems eminently reasonable to me that a profitable company should be legally liable to pay you at least your signing bonus, if not full severance or even your first year's salary, if they pull your offer right before the start date. That $x00k doesn't matter one whit to $META but it will very likely be a source of existential crisis for the family who planned their lives around it.
Companies will claw back your signing bonus if you quit within the first year. It seems eminently reasonable to me that a profitable company should be legally liable to pay you at least your signing bonus, if not full severance or even your first year's salary, if they pull your offer right before the start date. That $x00k doesn't matter one whit to $META but it will very likely be a source of existential crisis for the family who planned their lives around it.
> [...] Zuckerberg himself owns a majority of the voting shares and $50b+ of the equity?
That doesn't make too much of a difference. If anything, it makes his duty to the rest of the shareholders more important. (In a legal sense.)
> It seems eminently reasonable to me that a profitable company should be legally liable to pay you at least your signing bonus, if not full severance or even your first year's salary, if they pull your offer right before the start date.
You are free to negotiate for such a clause in your contract. And to refuse contracts that don't have this clause.
That doesn't make too much of a difference. If anything, it makes his duty to the rest of the shareholders more important. (In a legal sense.)
> It seems eminently reasonable to me that a profitable company should be legally liable to pay you at least your signing bonus, if not full severance or even your first year's salary, if they pull your offer right before the start date.
You are free to negotiate for such a clause in your contract. And to refuse contracts that don't have this clause.
> You are free to negotiate for such a clause in your contract. And to refuse contracts that don't have this clause.
You seem to have missed the post you’re responding to’s point, since it’s making the exact point that you can’t do this; due to power disparity.
They will coerce you into mostly unenforceable non-competes and 2yr window signing bonus stipulations to scare tactic you into being a “loyal” cog, but will do nothing if you sign a contract, move half way across the country, change your entire livelihood and then decide to pull your employment offer at the last moment. And you can’t do a damn thing about it, unless you’re a .1% top engineer. That’s literally the definition of a power imbalance.
You seem to have missed the post you’re responding to’s point, since it’s making the exact point that you can’t do this; due to power disparity.
They will coerce you into mostly unenforceable non-competes and 2yr window signing bonus stipulations to scare tactic you into being a “loyal” cog, but will do nothing if you sign a contract, move half way across the country, change your entire livelihood and then decide to pull your employment offer at the last moment. And you can’t do a damn thing about it, unless you’re a .1% top engineer. That’s literally the definition of a power imbalance.
Pick companies with a better reputation, then.
Pick a better hill to die on, you’re alone.
People take companies' reputation into account all the time to decide between offers.
And yet, their reputation doesn't matter given the fact that near all of them are currently laying off massive numbers of their employees. I'm glad there are 5-100 person startups with amazing reputations, unfortunately, the vast majority of tech workers will not be able to funnel into those. It's the most basic of economics and logistics.
If you want to stubbornly die on your lonely hill go for it. I'm not interested in further conversation with you, sorry.
If you want to stubbornly die on your lonely hill go for it. I'm not interested in further conversation with you, sorry.
His responses show he doesn't have any understanding of what he's doing to people and their families. If humans were robots who didn't need shelter, food, and care, okay I guess. I may get laid off. If so, I'll go to sleep until I'm needed again. That's not how people work. Nobody wants a job with a constant threat of being laid off during the absolute worst economic times, when finding a job is hard and if you're honest with potential employers about being laid off, you'll have an automatic negative stigma attached to you.
If staff reductions are necessary, there are ways to do them within a reasonable amount of time without seriously hurting people and traumatizing everyone who's left at the company. Layoffs are bad for morale, bad for business.
Or you could look at employees like sheep or cattle to be herded and culled when it suits and when asked for justification, make completely tone deaf answers that show no compassion for the human costs of your actions, the actual points of the questions. See if your best people are still loyal and decide to stick around.
If staff reductions are necessary, there are ways to do them within a reasonable amount of time without seriously hurting people and traumatizing everyone who's left at the company. Layoffs are bad for morale, bad for business.
Or you could look at employees like sheep or cattle to be herded and culled when it suits and when asked for justification, make completely tone deaf answers that show no compassion for the human costs of your actions, the actual points of the questions. See if your best people are still loyal and decide to stick around.
> His responses show he doesn't have any understanding of what he's doing to people and their families. If humans were robots who didn't need shelter, food, and care, okay I guess.
Anyone surprised that Zuckerberg seems devoid of empathy? The laid off people can live in the Metaverse until times get good again, right?
Anyone surprised that Zuckerberg seems devoid of empathy? The laid off people can live in the Metaverse until times get good again, right?
> His responses show he doesn't have any understanding of what he's doing to people and their families.
Sheryl was the one heading up the empathy department.
Sheryl was the one heading up the empathy department.
> Legal? Yes. Justifiable? No doubt. Morally? It's grey.
Sustainable? I doubt it. Rescinding signed offers before people start is a very bad practice. If that's the trend, and they ever ask me to work for Meta, I'll want a clause like "we won't lay you off before 6 months". I'm totally ok if I don't pass probation, or if some shit happens when I'm there, but not even starting (so I cannot put "Meta" on my resume and I don't get severance) is just as if the offer was never signed.
Sustainable? I doubt it. Rescinding signed offers before people start is a very bad practice. If that's the trend, and they ever ask me to work for Meta, I'll want a clause like "we won't lay you off before 6 months". I'm totally ok if I don't pass probation, or if some shit happens when I'm there, but not even starting (so I cannot put "Meta" on my resume and I don't get severance) is just as if the offer was never signed.
> I don't think Mark's answers are necessarily unfair either, he's running a business after all. He does have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, even if that means making difficult staffing decisions (still true even if they were his fault to begin with by over-hiring). Ultimately you agree to participate in this framework by accepting a job at a public company.
The problem is, these companies haven’t been hiring to their needs. Instead they have been competitively hiring to A) try to ensure they have the best talent and B) to overinflate their engineering trajectory as a means to pad their corporate value.
This is 100% the fault of the industry and not the employees and they should be held accountable. They’ve impacted near 100k people’s livelihoods with their self-interested and idiotic business moves. So I’m not interested in their fluff answers or “fiduciary duty”.
The problem is, these companies haven’t been hiring to their needs. Instead they have been competitively hiring to A) try to ensure they have the best talent and B) to overinflate their engineering trajectory as a means to pad their corporate value.
This is 100% the fault of the industry and not the employees and they should be held accountable. They’ve impacted near 100k people’s livelihoods with their self-interested and idiotic business moves. So I’m not interested in their fluff answers or “fiduciary duty”.
Morally? Unless you uncover something fraudulent in the candidate's application, it's downright amoral, not grey at all.
"Justifiable? No doubt. Morally? It's grey."
WTF? It is absolutely NOT justifiable and very much morally despicable to pull a job offer after the person has already quit their other job.
WTF? It is absolutely NOT justifiable and very much morally despicable to pull a job offer after the person has already quit their other job.
Companies are responsible for a group of shareholders with the majority voting right. Typically it is only a few shareholders as the ownership distribution follows a power law.
So a company is responsible to those few owners and that is it.
For example, Mark is the biggest shareholder in Meta with 16.8% of shares in 2021. Together with 2 other biggest shareholders they own over 30% of the company.
So a company is responsible to those few owners and that is it.
For example, Mark is the biggest shareholder in Meta with 16.8% of shares in 2021. Together with 2 other biggest shareholders they own over 30% of the company.
It seems to me that this is extremely unlikely to be true under corporate law. Do you have a reference? In particular, there is no unique group or shareholders that makes the majority!
Even if the law or corporate statute requires that owners of, say, 10% of shares should be able to raise the concern or even block big decisions like a sale of the company, in practice the ownership is very uneven. Just 10% of owners can own 90% of shares.
For less drastic decisions where holders of 50%+1 or 2/3 of shares is enough agreement of board members and few more shareholders is often enough.
And even with less skewed share distribution views of shareholders are very broad and the board does not have troubles to form the necessary majority.
Surely shareholders coups are possible, but those are rare.
For less drastic decisions where holders of 50%+1 or 2/3 of shares is enough agreement of board members and few more shareholders is often enough.
And even with less skewed share distribution views of shareholders are very broad and the board does not have troubles to form the necessary majority.
Surely shareholders coups are possible, but those are rare.
Of all CEOs, Zuckerberg has the least to worry about in terms of his (imaginary) fiduciary duty to shareholders. The board and shareholders can’t fire him.
Stop internalizing corporate platitudes. The sooner you accept that the game is making money the sooner you can get yours and stop expecting your employer to owe you anything more than a paycheck for your work.
Stop internalizing corporate platitudes. The sooner you accept that the game is making money the sooner you can get yours and stop expecting your employer to owe you anything more than a paycheck for your work.
IMO this is pretty much how all of tech is starting to feel. Not good.
The core issue with capitalism in the US is that equity holders are considered to be more important that labor. This logic is used to justify massive layoffs like this, but why can't employees be treated at least as importantly as shareholders? After all they are the people who actually generate the wealth for the shareholders.
It's a vicious cycle, but, every time one of these internal town halls gets leaked to the internet, the execs lose the ability to speak candidly, and the workers feel like execs are completely aloof and detached from the reality on the ground.
Unfortunately, it's incredibly difficult to maintain a certain level of trust once an org gets over a certain size.
Unfortunately, it's incredibly difficult to maintain a certain level of trust once an org gets over a certain size.
It's just as well. Seeing into the twisted workings of Zuck's mind isn't going to reassure any normal people
"Oh, you saw an opportunity to save money by firing people randomly and threatening the rest, so you can get almost as much work out of us without paying bonuses or promoting people this year? Friedman[1] would be very proud of you sir!"
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
"Oh, you saw an opportunity to save money by firing people randomly and threatening the rest, so you can get almost as much work out of us without paying bonuses or promoting people this year? Friedman[1] would be very proud of you sir!"
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine
Leakers also provide a vital window into company culture for people who may need to decide whether to work there. You never get the truth about what the company and leadership is really like during the Potemkin village tour of recruiting and interviewing.
I completely agree re: Potemkin village tour of recruiting, but, those townhalls are not a window into company culture at all exactly because they get leaked.
The only way to get a candid view into company culture is to have insider friends that can tell you what it's really like to work there.
The only way to get a candid view into company culture is to have insider friends that can tell you what it's really like to work there.
Things just don't scale well over a certain size. Like social networks.
Trust after saying this wasn't going to happen again is one thing. The other is that didn't have a few months of foresight. This isn't 2008. Conditions aren't significantly worse than in November, and certainly not in a way that was unforeseeable. This time is also showing how rushed the first round was. No one thought about what work is needed. They just cut people who has a sub-par review 10 months before.
Trusting that he's being honest is half of it. Trusting that he sees a direction for the company and how that fits in the macro environment is the other.
Trusting that he's being honest is half of it. Trusting that he sees a direction for the company and how that fits in the macro environment is the other.
> They just cut people who has a sub-par review 10 months before
Did they? I left on my own a month before the layoffs and what I heard from former coworkers was that it seemed mostly random.
Did they? I left on my own a month before the layoffs and what I heard from former coworkers was that it seemed mostly random.
> Trusting that he's being honest is half of it.
Isn't this a guy who's been shady with a lot of things in Facebook's past? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook
Isn't this a guy who's been shady with a lot of things in Facebook's past? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Facebook
Employees and board members don't have the same interests in a BigCo. Sure, board members will judge Zuckerberg on whether he's getting Meta to make progress on the goals he's set in agreement with the board, which should fulfill the board's goals of increasing shareholder value.
But that's not the employee's interest. The employee is interested in whether their employment status is stable, whether their work is engaging / interesting, and whether their employer offers opportunities for advancement, in roughly that order of priority. Employers that focus on that order of priorities typically have no such problems with employee trust.
Zuckerberg might as well have said that he doesn't really care if he has employee trust anymore, because he doesn't foresee , in the short term, Meta employees willingly leaving their jobs in droves in a bad economy, trust or no trust. But smart Meta employees will keep their ears to the ground and their options open. People remember for far longer than economic boom/bust cycles.
But that's not the employee's interest. The employee is interested in whether their employment status is stable, whether their work is engaging / interesting, and whether their employer offers opportunities for advancement, in roughly that order of priority. Employers that focus on that order of priorities typically have no such problems with employee trust.
Zuckerberg might as well have said that he doesn't really care if he has employee trust anymore, because he doesn't foresee , in the short term, Meta employees willingly leaving their jobs in droves in a bad economy, trust or no trust. But smart Meta employees will keep their ears to the ground and their options open. People remember for far longer than economic boom/bust cycles.
This whole "we elites know better than our hired knowledge workers" schtik would be more interesting if the knowledge workers ever really had any say in these companies, if we had anything other than the traditional machiavellian top-down org to study & observe.
It's all a-technical product orgs pushing demands down to the technicals, everywhere, far as the eye can see.
But instead the dismal of the knowledge workers is just embraced, by anti labor disbelief like this, just chalking up the people who know systems & what we could do & their hopes as irrelevant. Strong disagree.
It's all a-technical product orgs pushing demands down to the technicals, everywhere, far as the eye can see.
But instead the dismal of the knowledge workers is just embraced, by anti labor disbelief like this, just chalking up the people who know systems & what we could do & their hopes as irrelevant. Strong disagree.
Zappos' "holacracy" kinda tried, and Valve has tried: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9aCwCKgkLo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_organization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holacracy
I don't disagree with you, I just think it's an orthogonal concern. Arguably, companies reach better decisions (and thus perform better financially) when labor has a seat at the table; better financial performance should (but doesn't always! see recent layoffs) result in more stable employment and more opportunities for advancement.
But that's beside the point about what labor's primary interest is and what the Board's and the shareholders' primary interests are.
But that's beside the point about what labor's primary interest is and what the Board's and the shareholders' primary interests are.
>But that's not the employee's interest.
Considering a large amount of an employee's compensation is shares in the company it is in their interest to increase shareholder value.
Considering a large amount of an employee's compensation is shares in the company it is in their interest to increase shareholder value.
In a BigCo, no individual employee has enough influence on share price to make a difference. Share-based compensation, in a BigCo, is simply a scheme to get public markets to pay a portion of an employee's compensation, rather than taking it out of BigCo's cash flow; employees agree to the risk involved because it may result in larger overall compensation compared a compensation scheme with a slightly larger salary and no shares. But it's much more of a lottery than a genuine chance to link harder work with higher compensation.
Okay? My point is that if Zuckerberg does something to increase the stack price it will benefit people who are getting stock based compensation. I never mentioned anything about individual employees controlling it.
Ok, I think I understand the point you were trying to make. As a statement by itself, sure, if your compensation is at least in part tied to the share price, then you have a financial interest in increasing the share price. But you don't benefit anymore from a rising share price if you get laid off and are no longer receiving any compensation, let alone share-based compensation, from the company (presumably you would sell your shares once you leave to ensure that your investment portfolio is diversified and you no longer have an insider perspective).
Put another way, imagine that you have a choice between getting $1 guaranteed, and a 50/50 chance of getting $2 or nothing. Statistically, they have the same expected value, and you would expect a random population sample to evenly split their preferences between the two options, depending on individual appetite for risk. But actually, most people will prefer the $1 guaranteed. Indeed, even when the riskier option has a much higher statistical expected value, most people still prefer the guaranteed payout. See for example https://www.quora.com/Would-you-rather-have-a-50-50-chance-a... , and there are many such examples to draw from.
So, no, I don't think employees benefit the same way from increases in stock price, as do shareholders, even when employees are also shareholders. Stability is quite simply a much stronger preference held by most employees.
Put another way, imagine that you have a choice between getting $1 guaranteed, and a 50/50 chance of getting $2 or nothing. Statistically, they have the same expected value, and you would expect a random population sample to evenly split their preferences between the two options, depending on individual appetite for risk. But actually, most people will prefer the $1 guaranteed. Indeed, even when the riskier option has a much higher statistical expected value, most people still prefer the guaranteed payout. See for example https://www.quora.com/Would-you-rather-have-a-50-50-chance-a... , and there are many such examples to draw from.
So, no, I don't think employees benefit the same way from increases in stock price, as do shareholders, even when employees are also shareholders. Stability is quite simply a much stronger preference held by most employees.
> board members will judge Zuckerberg
Not that it matters when he controls most of the voting shares.
Not that it matters when he controls most of the voting shares.
I don't see the point of questioning Mark Zuckerberg. It's the same as questioning Chat GPT. The answers are all auto-generated to sound realistic, with plenty of hedges at the end to avoid taking responsibility for anybody's misperceptions.
Employee questions have been about 6 months ahead of what Zuckerberg says. It's going to be "return to office or else" in October.
Microsoft Teams or Zoom should work on a system that injects a subtle distinction in each and every stream so you know who is the leaker. Or at least, similar to certain internal communications that vary a bit depending on the group receiving them.
Don't they already do that?
I wonder how much of this is about VR not doing so well? Huge investment but not a lot of excitement (yet).
Maybe they'll pull something out of the hat, combining slick new VR with AI, with live real-time movie making, or something.
Either way, I don't mind when big tech lay staff off instead of finding sneaky hostile ways to keep the billions of dollars in ad revenue rolling in. If things aren't going as well as hoped, then say it bluntly, deal with it, then get on with it.
Maybe they'll pull something out of the hat, combining slick new VR with AI, with live real-time movie making, or something.
Either way, I don't mind when big tech lay staff off instead of finding sneaky hostile ways to keep the billions of dollars in ad revenue rolling in. If things aren't going as well as hoped, then say it bluntly, deal with it, then get on with it.
The utopia is crashing and people are mad.
It's crazy to see all the current and ex Meta staff in here having their say on tastefulness etc, when they've made a decision that clearly requires some serious low moral character - working at Meta.
The compartmentalisation must be amazing.
The compartmentalisation must be amazing.
Maybe the people laid off won’t lap up the corporate feel-good bullshit at their next job: We’re all a family. Employees come first. You matter to us. Management is here for you. “Don’t be evil.” “Move fast and break things.” Fake work-life balance double-speak.
It's almost like it's a business arrangement.
If you expect your employer to love you and take care of you like your parents, you will be disappointed.
It's business.
If you expect your employer to love you and take care of you like your parents, you will be disappointed.
It's business.
Wouldn't exactly call it "grill".
He gave adulting answers and is business adulting more these days.
Don't see anything wrong the questions or with his answers.
He gave adulting answers and is business adulting more these days.
Don't see anything wrong the questions or with his answers.
Just a fun observation, these layoffs are happening around the same time GPT-4 was released.
Did he take full responsibility this time as well?
I'd love to see how PSC went for him. I'm sure he got "exceeds" or better, but between missing TikTok, nor being ready for Apple's privacy change, wasting time on a crypto currency and the metaverse, and a botched layoffs, he's flirting with "meets some."
[deleted]
Yeah, that'll do it.
I remember that day in November when Mark scolded all of us for even asking if this was going to happen again. He said that decision was made with surgical precision and had been planned for months, and they weren’t even thinking about it at that time. He insisted there wouldn’t be anything more that normal attrition and we needn’t speculate. Then this happens 4 months later. LMFAO
That’s called “visionary.”
Tech workers just discovered that they will be kept only if they are performant, and they are stressed about it. Welcome in the real world.
Most meta employees don't produce any value but are getting well paid because in the past meta has managed to be the most used social network. Produce value for the company and not what you believe is value and yoi will never get fired
Most meta employees don't produce any value but are getting well paid because in the past meta has managed to be the most used social network. Produce value for the company and not what you believe is value and yoi will never get fired
Sweet summer child. Who do you think determines whether you are "productive"? Your manager. If you don't play the political game and get on their side, you get fired, no matter how "productive" you think you are.
Or your entire team gets fired by their manager, because you are collectively considered unproductive. Sucks to be you if you worked on a project that was considered to be Hot New Thing that Saves the Company up until 5 minutes ago.
Or your entire team gets fired by their manager, because you are collectively considered unproductive. Sucks to be you if you worked on a project that was considered to be Hot New Thing that Saves the Company up until 5 minutes ago.
The average individual contributor in a big company is not able to meaningfully influence whether they produce value or not. They might be stuck in a team or even department with an agenda that produces little value, with no opportunities to make proactive change. It's quite intransparent in the FAANG hiring process if you will end up in such a team after your offer.
If ensuring your part of the company is working on the big picture right things becomes your responsibility, what's even the point of joining an established enterprise over a startup?
If ensuring your part of the company is working on the big picture right things becomes your responsibility, what's even the point of joining an established enterprise over a startup?
In many of these companies the system, process, algorithm, whatever that lays off individuals just informs people from senior manager down, they don't even know who's going away. How do you imagine that correlates with individual performance? The correlation is basically 0, maybe negative sometimes :-)
I don't think Mark's answers are necessarily unfair either, he's running a business after all. He does have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, even if that means making difficult staffing decisions (still true even if they were his fault to begin with by over-hiring). Ultimately you agree to participate in this framework by accepting a job at a public company.
But there is a point after which it becomes distasteful. It gives me the same sort of feeling as those stories about companies pulling offers right before the start date, after an employee has quit their previous job. Legal? Yes. Justifiable? No doubt. Morally? It's grey. And it leaves a sour taste. On an individual level, it's the kind of thing that is punished in the long run, through reputational damage. In an ideal world I would like to see companies face something similar.