That was the lamest statement I've heard in 10 years of working in IT.
11 replies (most recent on top)
Yes it was not a good thing to say. It just keeps everyone living in fear and again demonstrates that SM and the rest of the ELT are not capable of running the company. There is simply zero leadership traits in these people
@hmi+1u1zouGJ If people have had enough and are ready to leave, essentially, they have already checked out anyway. There is absolutely no point in trying to keep them
Anyone who gives a thread of belief in the executive team is beyond naive. Mr 'urs is min' fifth tellatubbie has a liar face. Telling the team in India in March ' we held off on raises to save 200 jobs' and gut 200 jobs in April is diabolical. And assured Sept cuts will justify the few bumps in pay of what remains in Oct.
SM is a dud. No way would he show any form of leadership by docking the $17m he gets paid to save some people from getting laid off.
To come out and say 10% cuts is just atrocious and shows how badly in shape the company is. Run into the ground by continual bad management decisions by people with no experience. He came into the role saying it was his first CEO and he has proven that he was not ready.
@vik+1u1zouGJ Because anyone with any brain cells left would take the package and go
Apparently, HR doesn't want to allow for voluntary redundancies for whatever silly reasons
What irritates me about the keep working hard, is that a lot of very hardworking people will lose their jobs while, lazy, overpaid deadweight will retain theirs. My manager is someone who wants to leave, maybe they should ask for volunteers or nominations.
@iss+1u1zouGJ Never in doubt they'd never consider their own pay cut. But in a hugely hypothetical world, they would have won the whole company support and trust back if they did. It would have been worth 1000x more than repeating a line "we are in this together".
Notice that SM answered why cutting people seems to be the yearly action plan for long-term growth and profitability. However, he did NOT answer if ELT would be willing to take a pay-cut.
So, let's read between the lines - what he's saying (though not aloud) is "we're willing to risk your livelihood to 'protect the 6000' but not our own."
So annoying
The line about commitment was especially irritating 🙄🙄🙄