If a middle manager was responsible for a bad decision, their head would be on a spike. But it's the chief executive officer, so he gets a pass, if only because he's in the position of power.
Financial penalties that incentivize him to not fuck up again.
EDIT: Sure enough, Meta's stock is up ~17% since a week ago.
That tells you that companies have far too few mass layoffs.
Management has a fiduciary duty to shareholders. Stock price isn't everything, but it's still prima facie evidence of what shareholders want.
These 11k employees are not a threat to facebooks existence. Not even close. If that was the case FB stock would be tanking.
FB is pulling in record profits. They just are getting a little nervous and they are laying people off. It is ridiculous.
Put him on a PIP with a mentor? :D
Why would they need to use cloud?
If, just for the sake of argument, I said he should resign or compensate the affected people out of his own pocket, I'm fairly sure that people here would think I was being naive. People here are already saying that corporate leaders wouldnt take decisions if they had to be held responsible for the outcomes.
So we end-up with a bunch of people who everyone knows (a) are not responsible for mistakes, and (b) are tacitly understood to be able to make statements that habe no meaning. In other words, lies.
And thus the domain of trust becomes smaller and more fractured.
Saying you take responsibility is about clearing the workers of fault, it's not about thing you will reform or somehow suffer more than they will.
He could go out there and say it's not my responsibility, it is the workers fault. They underperformed. Most CEOs don't want to do that
But either way, it's still inevitable that a change in strategy would entail elimination of some of that headcount.