Better phrased than what I could've done, thanks.

The company is not a charity. I expect no more from a company than to pay me for every hour I work. I can leave anytime I want and they can let me go anytime that the relationship is not mutually beneficial.

I keep a go to hell fund, an updated resume, an updated career document, a strong network of former coworkers, managers, and external recruiters and make sure my skillset is in line with the market.

But I'm assuming you expect management to be good leaders, no?

I don't think "for profit" and "good leadership" are mutually exclusive.

I expect nothing from managers. When the pay/bullshit ratio starts going in the wrong direction, I have just as much agency to leave as they do to let me go.

>I expect nothing from managers.

You don't expect them to pay you? Treat you with respect? To observe labor laws? Surely, you expect something from them. Being willing and able to walk away is not the same thing as saying you have zero expectations.

1. I expect to get paid for every hour I work.

2. I addressed the other one. When the pay/bullshit ratio goes the wrong way, I leave.

> Giving out millions in severance, while commendable, isn't a personal sacrifice.

Do y'all expect them to cut their arm off? I'm not defending pc but the OP's comment wreaks of corporate SJW.

> but I think what they're looking for is some indication that the leadership has personally sacrificed something equal to or exceeding what they expected out of their subordinates

Millions (and billions) come out of their valuation as a result. It's not like they're getting whisked away on a golden parachute.

> Millions (and billions) come out of their valuation as a result. It's not like they're getting whisked away on a golden parachute.

It's the exact opposite. They're more likely to stem the bloodletting of their valuation with layoffs extending runway or boosting profitabiliy than see it get worse.

>Do y'all expect them to cut their arm off?

That depends. Are they expecting their subordinates to cut their arms off?

I do think a lot of discussion seems to point to how we, as a society, have adjusted our social norms about what's expected out of leadership.

> Are they expecting their subordinates to cut their arms off?

Do you expect company management and subordinates to have symmetrical work obligations?

Not at all. But we seem okay with management having a larger upside, given how the pay structure ratio has continued to evolve over the last few decades. I think it's only reasonable that, with outside rewards, management expects to take on outsized risk.

It feels like the social norms have shifted to accept one but not the other. In other words, we're only supportive of an asymmetrical risk:reward ratio that favors management.

> In other words, we're only supportive of an asymmetrical risk:reward ratio that favors management.

Actually we have, the risk:reward ratio is generally consistent across founder/management vs IC.

Are you simply saying that because CEO to IC pay ratio has expanded drastically in recent years that it's not accurately accounting for the risk? You realize that ~x% cut in workforce includes managers right? In fact, often times cheaper more productive ICs stay and expensive middle management is first to go. Seems like that is accounting for it no?

I thought this discussion was centered on the CEO pay. To that extent CEO pay has ballooned and I see very little evidence that their risk has been commensurate with that growth. If anything, the structure of contracts seems to indicate the opposite.