Wayfair lays off 13% of its workforce weeks after telling employees to work harder::Wayfair is laying off 1,650 employees, amounting to 13% of its global workforce, as the online home goods retailer struggled to rebound following its success amid pandemic lockdowns.
Are you suggesting the company runs with no leadership? Or are suggesting the board hires leaders with less experience? Or are you suggesting the board offers less to the leaders they attempt to hire (who - broadly - choose based on the size of their compensation, like everybody else)?
No leaders or bad leaders tend to lead to failing companies and more job losses.
Try and be specific about your proposal instead of just spluttering platitudes.
I’m suggesting that the current leaders earn their pay through definable metrics. If the company is growing why are they shedding workers? It’s an indication that management either over-hired before or is stupidly firing people now. Both are bad.
Terrible metrics are used by many companies which encourage short term profits over the long term health of the organization. I’ve seen managers make decisions to cut expenses which look good on a P&L in the short term but have terrible consequences for the organization that only become apparent two or three years later. Usually after the person who made the decision has collected their bonus and moved onto another organization.
The sad thing is those people are promoted or recruited over more stead fast leaders who can actually grow an organization because their metrics look good.
I can 100% guarantee you that 99% of all C-suites are held to very definable metrics as a large part of their compensation.
Why are you sucking so much CEO dick in this thread??
Amazing. Coherrent argument.
Argument? It’s a question. A very coherent* one.
You didn’t answer the very simple questions I asked about growth.
Ah fair enough.
If the company is growing why are they shedding workers? I mean, I don’t know, but some avenues I can imagine are: Their growth is happening in areas that aren’t people-intensive, their profit margins are lower than their competitors, they don’t have the right people to meet their strategy, they hired in anticipation of some trends continuing and they don’t, etc etc. Or a combination of the above.
I’m not saying that their leadership is blameless. I’m only saying that from the data I have, their leadership isn’t automatically to blame either.
Leadership is always to blame if there are problems. That’s what being a leader is.
Here’s an easy way to tell who to blame: if their recent projects were a success, who would get the accolades?
The executive leadership team, most likely. No one would say “they don’t automatically get credit”. So they should get the blame when things go poorly.
Co-ops are a big part of the global economy: they employ 10% of the world’s workforce and over two trillion dollars flow through their doors every year. At a co-op, there’s no single person with overarching, top-down power over everyone else, like a CEO at a traditional company.
I’d also like to point out, having spent years working with C-suite guys… They are lazy as fuck and they don’t do jack shit that a decent manager couldn’t do as well or better. For example, the manager would at least know how to not fuck up morale.
I am all for coops. What makes you think I am not. But many coops have a C-suite too - John Lewis and Coop Retail in the U.K. are big examples.