People aren't mad at the line, they are mad at the CEOs hiding behind that line.

We're all aware that hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, but its ubiquity doesn't make it any more pleasant.

It's perfectly reasonable to be upset with the phrase. Using a "stock line" with no intent behind it when you're putting someone through a traumatic event is shitty behaviour. If the phrase changes, get mad at the new phrase, because the behaviour is still unacceptable.

This seems to be a principle that is more honored in the breach.

Silicon Valley has about as much to do with reality as Hollywood, so... Consequences? What are those?

IMO the "I take full responsibility" line isn't directed at the people being laid off; It's directed at the people who are left.

It says to the middle management layer "I'm not going to blame or fire you because we had to lay people off."

No, it is aimed at the shareholders and the press and its purpose is to ensure that the ship is in safe hands and please don't fire the CEO.

>What would it look like for a CEO to “take responsibility” for layoffs?

The first two are of no meaningful consequence to even a single millionaire CEO. CEO positions may actually get paid large sums of money when they leave. Those CEOs could then immediately retire to modest conditions and do nothing for the rest of their lives.

Working harder might be impactful, but considering companies have done cyclical layoffs before and are doing it again, how much confidence does saying that really garner?

Sp they can't take responsibility to the same magnitude of the people getting laid off - especially in the US where you lose health insurance.

A real consequence would be taking their own wages and using it to pay people so they aren't laid off. Then they would be taking cooperative responsibility for their own failures.

But consequences do flow toward power. When a CEO lays off people, it is usually to preserve or grow value to the shareholders. There is a reward for layoffs, otherwise they wouldn't happen. The confusion is in the nature of the consequences: detriments tend to flow toward the least empowered, benefits to the most.

I think what the author is trying to say is that the CEO should bear some cost for layoffs that were caused by mismanagement. But one person's mismanagement is another's calculated risk gone bad. A decision that turns out to be wrong in fact can be right in principle, in which case you would be punishing the CEO for doing the right thing.

The imbalance in power referred to in the article is an inextricable feature of capitalism. It cannot be removed, only countered. Theoretically, the more economic equality that there is generally, the more leverage employees will have in the marketplace. There are structural changes that can be made to core capitalism to achieve this, but trying to second guess layoff decisions is not a good solution.