> "As a result, we're reducing team sizes across the organization, as well as reducing seniority in certain roles that we plan to rebuild with modified leveling over the course of this year,"
> "There is not a lot of history of laziness being rewarded with success. Hard work is an essential ingredient in any recipe for success. I embrace this, and the most successful people I know do as well."
I can't imagine a single worse strategy as a leader than to choose 'reduce pay' and 'imply laziness'. Did this guy get his management degree from the Roman empire? Just fire people and say you over-hired, holy cow.
I'm not part of the "talented executives shouldn't get paid a lot" crowd, but the important part is the talented bit.
> There is not a lot of history of laziness being rewarded with success.
A lot of inventions come about because of laziness. Some guy somewhere got tired of carrying his things around, so he invented the wheel. Of course, I don't know whether the inventor of the wheel was properly rewarded.
I had this argument with a PhD. I debated it in my head for awhile and just came to the conclusion that it's mostly that people who think hardwork is the best trait is most a self fulfilling prophecy. Accepting that to get to C You have to do AB is absolutely going to make you believe that the work is necessary. Then along comes someone who just hates doing B. definitely they're going to be viewed as lazy, but to want to optimize B, you have to be lazy.
So, what you ultimately have to accept is some hybrid thought process and red/blue roleplay to find optimized workflow, process and the rest.
> I'm not part of the "talented executives shouldn't get paid a lot" crowd, but the important part is the talented bit.
On the face of it the CEO and other executives are talented. The founders occupy the most senior positions. They have built a substantial business.
Maybe they were lucky or influential instead of talented. Perhaps things have just gone wrong and they are desperate and this is the best available option. Maybe success have made them lose touch with reality.
However it happened, we have gone from apparent talent to apparent stupidity.
Most importantly, they're choosing a path where they acknowledge that employees will receive less compensation for more work, while the management reaps massive benefits of improved stock prices.
Seriously, could have been way more clear and concise: "we over hired". But that would indicate that he dropped the ball. He's certainly not the type of CEO that would take personal responsibility. #loser
Back when I worked in manufacturing, this kind of tone was pretty common. We even called the quarterly speeches from the CEO to employees "you suck meetings" (out of earshot of the CEO, of course). As software engineering becomes less about innovation and more about a relentless slog to reach milestones, I'm not surprised that it's taking on aspects of the manufacturing world.
'...blending work and life, is not anything to shy away from'
Maybe not if you're at the executive level, where what counts as work is much different than the rest of a company. But it's generally hard to fuse say, time spent fixing bugs at a desk alone, with the rest of life.
> In the memo, Shah said employees should be prepared to work longer hours and not be afraid to let work impinge on their personal lives.
I wonder what executives should prepare for. Presumably continuing to contribute nothing of discernible value. Probably what comes when you treat humans like fungible work units to their face without even the pretense of viewing them as human.
I was head-hunted a while back from Wayfair, and I felt that it was too good to be true: 1. high pay for remote work, 2. small teams, and 3. working on interesting tech (I think it was an AI furniture preview, like Amazon has). I ultimately decided against Wayfair because I had the feeling that helping a company sell predominately low-quality Chinese furniture to unassuming Americans would further enlarge the void in my soul, and I would be working far too much. Perhaps for a year or two, it would have been a dream come true, if I didn't want to have a life outside of work...
I went to look up the CEO's compensation package in order to post a low-effort snarky HN comment but instead found[1][2] very weird compensation data for Wayfair execs. The co-founders (including the CEO) make comparatively modest money, while the generic CxO suits make huge gobs of it (mostly equity). Is this usual?
I'd still trade places with the CEO any day, though, of course.
After the IPO, the founders owned ~30% of the company. If you own that much equity:
- you don't need a salary, and
- it's already in your best interest to make the company more valuable
People who are hired from outside need to be paid a base salary, but should expect to make most of their money from increasing the value of the company, hence the need for equity grants or equity option grants.
Correct. In the past, they've pulled the "but I only take $75k out of the company" and "I pay for when I use the company jet for personal business" when discussing compensation in the past. While true, it ignores the >$1B in stock.
If I had more courage, I would have asked if the jet was available to anyone willing to pay for it.
Was recently furniture shopping, and of course browsed multiple places including Wayfair.
Wasn't long before I saw an identical sofa to one I just saw elsewhere. Hey wait a minute! A reverse Google image search on most sofas showed up in multiple places with multiple brand names. And Wayfair was rarely the cheapest.
I have no idea if they offer anything useful, but in my short stint it seemed to be a marketplace for marked up white labeled...junk.
This type of remark is embarrassing. If it’s meant to inspire employees it’s tone deaf, and if it’s meant to soothe shareholders it’s too little too late.
Wayfair was only profitable during the pandemic. Rank-and-file employees working more hours won’t fix the business model.
so he's asking for people to do more hours, for the same money.
this is a wage reduction.
how dare those slaves ask for money for work. they should just be thrown enough food to reproduce and their offsprint to survive, so as soon they die, their kids can start working in their place.
the 19th. things have never been better for rat race slaves heh.
> "There is not a lot of history of laziness being rewarded with success. Hard work is an essential ingredient in any recipe for success. I embrace this, and the most successful people I know do as well."
I can't imagine a single worse strategy as a leader than to choose 'reduce pay' and 'imply laziness'. Did this guy get his management degree from the Roman empire? Just fire people and say you over-hired, holy cow.
I'm not part of the "talented executives shouldn't get paid a lot" crowd, but the important part is the talented bit.