Comment by SaltyBackendGuy
13 hours ago
In recent memory of companies I've worked for, even the absolute WORST executives haven't gotten fired. They always announce that "it's time for another adventure" or "I am taking a break". So I am not shocked they didn't fire him, although the board is now probably wishing they did.
Had a President make a big ordeal about leaving "for health reasons". His LinkedIn had him at a new company within a couple months doing the same thing.
Had a CISO leave for "personal" reasons. Talked to him a couple years later and yeah, he was fired.
Steal 20$ out of a cash register and make the local news. Waste a billion dollars at a corp and make insane decisions and ride out on a golden parachute. Its a fucked up world.
In fairness, I don't think stealing $20 makes the local news these days, unless you live in a town of 300 people. There's a lot of antisocial behavior that goes unreported.
But moreover: I guess there's a presumption, whether fair or not, that well-paid executives overseen by wealthy boards of directors are pre-vetted and act in good faith, whether or not those actions pan out and make money; versus robbery or violent crime that people recoil from, that assumption of good faith isn't there, because it's self-evident to ordinary people that there is no justification for such actions.
I would argue there is a broad difference in ethicality and reason between the bottom and top of the food chain, making these examples less clear cut. If your plan as a low level employee doesn't work out you still get fired and the consequences are far greater.
> I don't think stealing $20 makes the local news these days
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Emmely
Got fired because she redeemed two orphaned bottle deposit slips worth 1,30€ (in 2009, so more like 1,50€ in today's money /s). Caused a nation-wide discussion.
2 replies →
You are comparing robbery with ineptitude. They are two different things. If your ineptitude makes a 20$ loss you may not be fired as well. Billion dollars wasted at corp still is not billion dollars at the exec pockets (that would be theft and he would be facing charges). That the exec pockets millions regardles of the losses incurred by corp, even when it sounds awful to you or to me, is a problem between the corp and the exec.
Robbery and ineptitude are different things, but the situations described by OP are often special blends of the two.
> Steal 20$ out of a cash register and make the local news. Waste a billion dollars at a corp and make insane decisions and ride out on a golden parachute. Its a fucked up world.
I think if we are just looking at the media:
Most journalists wouldn't consider some nobody stealing $20 to be newsworthy in itself.
Most corporate scandals receive extensive media coverage. Even a CEO who was merely incompetent instead of corrupt, is still likely to get some bad press.
Now, you are completely right that the non-media consequences are very different – significant chance of criminal record (although in many jurisdictions, there are mechanisms which first-time offenders on minor charges can use to escape getting one) vs a multi-million dollar severance payment.
The issue with "golden parachutes" – if someone's employment contract creates an entitlement to a severance payment (and in some jurisdictions employment law creates one even if the contract itself doesn't) – then you generally have to pay them unless you terminate for "misconduct" (often even "serious misconduct"). The problem with terminating for "misconduct", is it creates a big incentive for the terminated employee to sue to try to get the severance payment they'd otherwise receive, and the larger the payment, the bigger the motivation – which creates an expensive legal and PR headache. The PR issue is especially acute for senior executives–a junior employee suing over a severance dispute will get a lot less media coverage than a former CEO doing it. So, unless the conduct was extremely egregious, there is a strong incentive for the employer/board to just pay the severance out and make the legal and PR headache go away.
There is also the issue that the next person stepping into their shoes to clean up the mess is being recruited exactly during this time. And if your company gets a reputation for not paying out prenegotiated severances or nitpicking over them, it makes the next candidate that much more wary.
So you would prefer a media circus and investor scrutiny when your employer's executives are fired for failures or misconduct? This is likely to cause the price of the shares to drop, including any ESPP and stock grants you and your coworkers have vested. Is the satisfaction of seeing an executive dragged through the mud worth losing a chunk of your net worth to you, no matter how much the exec deserves it? I'd rather keep the money, personally.
Maybe if there were consequences, there wouldn't be so much corruption that leads to these silent firings.
Satisfaction? It’s about truth and justice, investors deserve to know about executive malfeasance
Yes, I’d prefer that investors know that the new executive is not going to continue the same crap and same level of poor judgement. Want them to know the replacement is looking to do more than wear a golden parachute.
Imagine if investors actually thought the personnel change was a positive one…
> So you would prefer a media circus and investor scrutiny when your employer's executives are fired for failures or misconduct?
Yes, as a warning to the other executives.
Signed,
The Shareholders
"Someone! Think of the shareholders!"
> Is the satisfaction of seeing an executive dragged through the mud worth losing a chunk of your net worth to you, no matter how much the exec deserves it?
Yes. There is far too little truth and justice in this world, most especially for corporate executives.
> I'd rather keep the money, personally.
Of course, me too buddy, me too. But some things are more important, don't you think? It would be a much much better world if the wealthy and powerful had to think carefully before acting. Think carefully before that action of misconduct. Bear the responsibility for their actions. Be afraid of the consequences.
1 reply →
> Steal 20$ out of a cash register and make the local news. Waste a billion dollars at a corp and make insane decisions and ride out on a golden parachute.
Getting pushed out of a position is very career damaging at the executive level. Those golden parachutes are pretty rare, too. Most of the executives I know from companies you haven't heard of (and some that you maybe have) who were pushed out took a huge hit to their careers after that. The best play is to start calling up executive recruiters and try to get any job as soon as possible once the writing is on the wall that you're being fired.
And come on, stealing $20 doesn't register these days.
> And come on, stealing $20 doesn't register these days
and come on, you know exactly what is meant here. An individual steals something, they get punished. Executives of the largest banks create a scheme that ultimately crashes the world economy and nobody goes to jail. Quibbling on the example's use of $20 is just strange
Ah, but they take the big risks, you see. Someone has to do it.
Barring truly bad behavior this is how executives get fired.
See his other comments in HN in the previous wp “incident”, simply said he _is_ nut
Yes, I sometimes have a very low tolerance for idiots.
Executives do not get fired like other employees. They have contracts that usually prevent standard dismissal unless they have done something illegal. When they are 'fired', they are still a protected class. Hence the narrative spin: a new 'ceremonial' role, spending time with family, etc. etc.
Make no mistake, he has been fired. It just looks different than a call with HR or a manager and office security telling you to pack up your $hit and leave.
Those phrases often imply that they were fired or asked to resign - although the deniability can be useful, which is why they’re so often used. As a recent example, Fidji Simo went on leave from her role at OpenAI several months before leaving. Although I don’t know for sure, I would suppose that she was essentially fired when she went on leave, and the subsequent success of Codex after she went on leave confirmed the decision to fire her. It’s possible that, if Codex hadn’t been a success, she might have been brought back, so putting her on leave was useful for optionality.
People go on leave regularly for health reasons, and Fidji Simo has been quite open about her health. Unless you have evidence of your claim, the official explanation is simplest. That's especially the case here since firing someone on health leave can expose you to lawsuits under labor law in the US and many other countries.
Fidji Simo has well documented chronic health issues so there’s no reason to assume that the ostensible and actual reasoning are far apart there.
But the fact that she went on leave just as it became clear that Anthropic looked to be hitting escape velocity is suspicious, although not dispositive. When she was hired, her health issues also stopped her from coming into the office, but she still worked from home.
Spend more time with my family :).
Firing a CEO makes your company look bad. Even if you are firing them, you don't say you're firing them.
Like sama? (Hope I don't get dang'ed for being political, especially against a ycombi founder...)