Employees can resign, users and customers can go elsewhere.
How does this relate to the mistake of vastly overhiring?
How does it relate to him being accountable? As the user up thread stated he is literally not accountable because he answers to no one
> As the user up thread stated
That was me.
> he is literally not accountable because he answers to no one
Zuck said he wanted to take accountability for overhiring and then having to do layoffs. So the question is, what does the theoretical possibility of employees resigning or users leaving have to do with accountability for overhiring and layoffs?
It has nothing to do with accountability. The reason that everyone has a visceral response to him saying he accountable is because we know it is not true
Sorry, I was confused by your reply. I thought you were arguing with me? Maybe not. But I'm still confused by it.
Ah, no. I’m in agreement that he is not being accountable. I am perhaps taking it farther in arguing that he is incapable of being accountable given how meta is structured
And this is one downside to the unitary CEO/COB.
He, like Vladimir Putin, is only accountable to himself.
Ideally, society should not allow this type of business structure if a company is public or a reasonably large size (say 5k employees).
This is very far from Zuck's first mistake. In any case, though, I offered an alternative: making himself accountable to the board of directors. He is not accountable. He can't be fired, he can only resign. The fundamental problem is that Zuck gets to define the terms of his own accountability, which is almost an oxymoron.