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 …
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.
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
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.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
