It's like people didn't read the statement at all. He clearly says they're going to invest more into engineering and some other shit... so it's not about money. They're going to spend more fucking money. This sounds like a bunch of people got their jobs automated away through algorithms or intelligent systems or just whatever innovation you wanna chalk it up to, and they redundant to the company, so they gotta go.

This is why I will never be a CEO. I'd just come right out and say, "17% of you are expendable and I had your jobs replaced by scripts and a few machines. I'm going to use that money to buy more machines, hire more brilliant engineers, and see what percentage of the company I can replace by next year."

Forget about CEO, could you even be a competent manager if that's how you think?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but this is how an extraordinarily large amount of high-level individuals think - they just won't admit it.

If you're able to automate a large portion of your workforce, why wouldn't you? You'll be rewarded for it in every aspect. You'll be praised by the Board of Directors for cutting costs and improving productivity (since algorithms and robots don't have to sleep, never get tired, never call in sick, never get drunk and shit in their husband's bed, etc.). You'll be praised by Wall Street as a "visionary, technologically-minded thinker / leader".

There's zero downside for you.

There's enormous downside for parts of society.

The difference is, I'm willing to admit that when I do this, it's directly to my benefit.

Thanks for 'breaking it to me', I had no idea /s

Have you considered that part of the fabric of civilized society is...being civil with the people that you interact with, and require cooperation from?

You can hold any opinion of them that you like, but the difference between a competent manager and an incompetent one is how they can translate their personal disdain for their direct reports, in a way that doesn't treat them like cogs, and improves their performance on the things they're responsible for.

This is just patently untrue and plays out in every office across the entire world every day.

What makes someone a competent manager is whether or not they complete their assigned tasks and projects that come down from above.

You don't like people who are direct and brutal in their feedback. Got it.

Hell, you can turn back the clock to 2004-2008 World of Warcraft and see this for yourself. The best guilds in the world had leadership that was brutally forthright - bordering on downright cruel - to their membership, but they still managed to execute, because when everyone's goals are aligned, you'll be surprised the shit people are willing to entertain. And not only were these people not being paid, they had to pay to play the damn game!

And yes, I know the analogy doesn't map perfectly onto work for several reasons, but the crux of the idea is there: a harsh taskmaster can move mountains with a little bit of fear (I'll replace you with a shell script if your performance doesn't improve) and a lot of honesty.

In the future, you could save us both a lot of time and effort by just saying, "I don't like this management style."

But I've seen it in video games, I've seen it in startups, I've seen it in Fortune 500 companies, and I've seen it in the military. Properly implemented, it works wonders.

That is the one and only purpose of high tech. To automate work and improve efficiency (I.E. make people redundant). Be that automating the work of acquiring and connecting eyeballs to adds or getting rid of Janice the nice secretary from the 80s to going from 50 to 5 production planners at a factory.

It was fine when I was an external developer, but when I switched over to an in-house role it sucked seeing the fear in departments that I turned my gaze to :(

I don't think you can be a competent manager if that's not how you think.