Their lot (VP-level certainly) rotates in and out, often with 3-4 layers of middle management between them and the crews executing, which makes direct assignment of blame exceedingly difficult. Every 3-4 years you get a near-complete rotation of leadership in an area of †he business, and any memory of what anyone was trying to achieve before is forgotten, either intentionally or unintentionally, and then you do it all over again.

So many times you see reporting on a round of layoffs and it quotes the CEO saying “I take responsibility.” But… how? It seems like the actual responsibility is being borne by the people who just lost their livelihood. What exactly is this definition of responsibility where you experience no negative effects whatsoever?

> I think cuts should start with leadership.

That would be fair, but leadership decides who to cut, so... here's your belongings, please be out of the building by noon.

And that one CEO is paid 100x to 1000x more than their SDEs, while SDEs create more value for the company.

But, you are moving the goal post.