back to article Google's Pichai tells underlings exec bonuses will be clipped

Google's top brass told employees at a town hall meeting that executive bonuses will be cut this year as upper management addressed wide-ranging questions from staff following confirmation of extensive job cuts. The gathering came days after Google outlined plans to lay off 12,000 workers, having recruited rapidly during the …

  1. thejoelr

    Pichai is a CFO at heart.

    He only makes decisions based on profit, but then gets scared when people innovate like OpenAI. If he continues to cut anything that might generate a new 'big thing' for Google there isn't going to be one. He is the problem.

    1. pimppetgaeghsr

      Re: Pichai is a CFO at heart.

      He's an MBA from a wealthy family, I have noticed a lot of people from wealthy families doing this, and in particular immigrant families, likely because they have to distinguish themselves much more, although not exclusive it seems he is not unique in his endeavours, it is a life script reserved only for those of the wealthy irregardless of race:

      Private School-> Top University -> Banking/Consulting -> MBA -> CEO/Prime Minister

      I would certainly applaud the work ethic and priorities of these families but at the same time all we are presented with is a bunch of out of touch MBAs running the world who have never had to manage anything tough in their life and only know how to manage the expansion of managerial complexity to promote themselves, they do not create and ride the waves of economic phases and the last 12 years of loose economic policy has produced a LOT of people overconfident in their own abilities.

      They are all empire builders in the Game of Thrones that is the modern tech bubble.

      1. Snake Silver badge

        Re: wealthy family

        Private School-> Top University -> family contacts / nepotism -> Banking/Consulting -> MBA -> corporate & political lobbying / backwashing / bribery -> CEO/Prime Minister

        There, FIFY

      2. NeilPost

        Re: Pichai is a CFO at heart.

        Private School-> Top University -> family contacts / nepotism -> Banking/Consulting -> MBA -> corporate & political lobbying / backwashing / bribery -> CEO/Prime Minister -> scandal/falailing government -> resignation -> £€$ on the speakers circuit -> UN or House or Lords

        There, FIFY

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    "You can reduce your equity grants if performance is not great." -- Sundar Pichai.

    I think most executives would choose not to reduce their equity grants if performance is not great -- based on his wording, he's giving them the choice.

  3. Wellyboot Silver badge

    $36Billion profit increase - 12,000 staff canned

    Give them a $million each, after all it's only a third of the NET profit increase.

    1. pimppetgaeghsr

      Re: $36Billion profit increase - 12,000 staff canned

      After severance they probably aren't far off.

  4. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge

    Oh noes

    How will the execs get by with just their stock grants, base pay, and reduced bonuses? What of their families and children? Please, Google, lay off more employees to make things right again.

    1. Snake Silver badge

      Re: Oh noes

      They'll just have to suffer through with only THREE luxury homes available during the year, the servants on the second summer home will be 'furloughed' because the order on the yacht couldn't be modified in time with cheaper marble in the 3rd bath.

  5. Nelbert Noggins

    30,000 managers in 187,000 staff?

    I can see a prime target for where those 12,000 redundancies should hit and could well save them even more money than the ones they’re likely getting rid of.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 30,000 managers in 187,000 staff?

      Over time a few jaded managers explained some common practices around management during layoffs ....

      The upper levels of management are typically reluctant to lay off managers within their own chain, because that would in turn diminish their own (perceived) importance. Especially if they were to eliminate an entire layer between themselves and the trenches. Losing people here and there doesn't change their own org chart "status".

      However, they're only too happy to do it to other management branches. And that's where the ugly politics and ladder climbing, nepotism, favoritism, etc. plays out.

      So e.g., they explained, if you ever see an entire group culled, including the manager, that person had fallen out of favor for whatever reason, and the individual contributor employees were merely cannon fodder. It was possible, though not common, that some technology or industry turn had rendered the group's mission obsolete, and therefore the group cut could be legitimate; but usually before that happened, especially if the manager was politically popular, there would be a re-org to shuffle the manager out of harm's way for the upcoming layoffs.

      Commenting on the trend towards smaller numbers of direct reports, cynical managers explained that group size doesn't really matter anymore. The more important thing is management tree depth, presumably because that's what everyone sees on the org chart. The more layers / levels you have, the bigger wheel you are. Or so the theory goes. And if you're managing only other managers, then you should be a director (or at least have a "senior" in your title), and on up and so on for directors, VP's, GM's, presidents, and executives.

      Too cynical? I dunno. But it usually feels like management is less affected (even by proportion or percentage) by layoffs than the rank and file.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Stop paying people that do the work, that money is rightfully mine because I own a fraction of the company!"

    - John Hohn (allegedly)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like