It's been done.

Bob Mercer and Peter Brown laid themselves off from IBM when they were told to execute 10% across the board layoffs. They had argued their team was one of the highest performing teams in the company but were told that they had their quota. 10% of their team was 2 so they took the hit.

From there, they went on to run Renaissance.

IBM should have kept them.

> So in your world, the people running the business should fire themselves first?

If they are needed to continue leading, they should consider cutting their own salary until the problems are fixed. Let them take their entire compensation in just their equity for a time.

However we all know this won’t be the norm, and that’s OK. Not great, just OK.

If they're running the business, and it's at a point where it needs layoffs; sounds like they're not doing their job properly, and should be replaced with people who can-- like every other position in the business.

Not that they will-- too much self-interest.

not the parent, but accountability is supposed to be assumed up the org chart while responsibility is delegated down.

so, yeah. the people ultimately accountable for fucking shit up should probably be held accountable first and foremost.

(this is why CEOs often resign in the wake of a scandal)

Imagine the organization you are imagining in your head.

Now imagine there is a Super-boss, who is exactly like the "people running the business" (attribution needed), but one level above them.

If the Super Boss were to look at the situation, I think it'd be pretty obvious that the issue would be "The people organizing the company at the highest level" who are responsible for the failures of the company. That may involve over-hiring, which is itself a bad practice that causes unnecessary pain and (personal, financial) suffering, and would be a good cause to fire them for almost crashing my beautiful super-company that I, the Super-boss, super-founded.

You're saying that if we return the Super-boss to the realm of the fictional, then suddenly it isn't the C-suite's fault anymore?

If we're discussing should, then yeah, their heads should be the first to roll. I agree its idealistic to imagine them having the sort of decency this requires, but I agree it should be the case!

If they have to fire people, they're running it poorly, so yes?

I think you might've misspelled "ruining" a bit. It is ok, I think we have read you correctly anyway, at least I did.

An honest question: why is this being downvoted? I thought that downvoting is meant to be used when someone is trolling or bringing the level of discussion down, not when you simply disagree with someone's point. I mean sure, it's stated a bit sarcastically, but my gosh if we're going to downvote every sarcastic comment, that would include a good portion of HN comments.