Thread regarding Charles Schwab Corp. layoffs

• BEEP BEEP company great BEEP BEEP more money for me BEEP BEEP no more travel for you just free tshirt BEEP BEEP get into office mercenaries BEEP BEEP recharge of money needed*

@er You are on the wrong board asking that question. If you run across an employee at work, in a meeting, gushing about him, then it's 99% BS to avoid being on a RIF list. I don't understand the insistence that there's a fan club for him unless you're an institutional or insider shareholder.

@2a5 Five year old liberal kids are statistically wealthier, more successful, more educated and more empathetic than other kids. The question is why anyone would be anti-liberal unless it makes them think they're more race oriented.

@2a5 The question is what Rick’s supporters find impressive about his leadership. I can’t tell if you’re actually a fan with something to add, or if you’re just here to complain about five-year-olds and their politics.

@1t6 you act like bunch of 5 year old liberal kids and deserve to get scolded.

@1kh Fair point. His deference to power and willingness to scold employees is probably what impressed the board (Chuck) & got him the job. It just isn’t impressive to the workforce and explains why most people don’t like him.

@1k7 Ricky doesn’t interfere with Chuck’s Oval ingratiation. That’s why politics are relevant to this discussion. The money donated, the messages communicated, and the labor and stock impacts.

This thread is about Schwab leadership.The repeated attempted to pivot to national politics feels off-topic. If the goal is to derail it or get it flagged, that’s unfortunate.

The original question still stands: what is actually impressive about Rick’s leadership?

A week later, and “modern CEO” seems to be the only answer. That’s a board credential, not a people leadership trait. If Schwab values employee trust, that gap should matter. If not, then Rick is a perfect fit.

@16m What in the actual f**k does being in the office have to do with engagement? These people are clueless.

@vb it was a quotes from Marty Cagan - mercenary vs missionary: In Inspired, Marty Cagan defines "missionaries" as passionate, empowered product teams deeply invested in solving user problems, while "mercenaries" are competent but disengaged, building only what they are told.
So he read a book, but can he execute? Not holding my breath. But yeah it was a jab wrapped up in a compliment - you get sh-t done but not “engaged” - translation, he wants our a**es back in office, if not “engaged” then You’re not part of Mckinsey transformation vision of keeping blah blah 🙄. He literally read a book and is quoting it

@v8 bored eh?

@ny no one is arguing if he meant what he said re: mercenaries.

The question is what do supporters of Rick find impressive about his leadership?

watch out the bored is grooming N33sha

You hate him because you ain’t him and ain’t got his millions while you shop at dollar stores

I would argue he did say what he meant when he called 100% WFH employees mercenaries. But then a lot of you got your feelings hurt. Not an insult, sorry.

@er his hairline.

Rick’s leadership is impressive if you’re a shareholder or a majority of your comp package comes in the form of equity, but he’s done absolutely nothing impressive as far as leading his workforce. Employee morale has basically collapsed over the last 2 years, the company culture is toxic and rewards politics over performance, and pay has stagnated, despite how well the company is doing. I’d have a little more respect for Rick if he’d say what he means instead of constantly dancing around the point, but I guess that’s to be expected for someone as inept at managing their workforce as Rick is.

None of us employees trust this guy

He’s not built to lead people, only to operate in the boardroom. And every time he tries to perform leadership in front of the workforce that becomes more obvious.

It’s hard to feel sympathy for him though when he’s paid hundreds of times more than the thousands of employees watching him expose how far out of his depth he is.

@er I think the answer is not much. He’s a modern-day overpaid CEO whose job is to work for the board, not to lead people.

So when he is forced to talk to the workforce, he ends up using terms like “mercenary” and exposes how poorly he understands the role he’s pretending to play.

@ea I agree with your assessment of how the system works, but it still doesn’t answer what’s actually impressive about Rick.

If the answer is his shamelessness, the way he attempts to use the language of leadership and loyalty while operating as a purely self-protective, shareholder-first executive, that isn’t something most people find impressive.

I’m genuinely asking what others see. What do people actually find impressive about him?

Worst-er is another Dave. Silver spooned, no real experience, thinks the world works that way. And for him it does. No different than the nepo baby crashing daddy’s Ferrari.

The modern CEO isn't a builder; they’re a fiduciary mechanic. Since the 1990s, the 'social contract'—where loyalty bought security—has been traded for shareholder primacy. In today’s boardroom, an employee isn't an asset to be nurtured; they are a line-item expense to be optimized.

We’ve entered the era of the 'Short-Term Trap.' Why risk a five-year strategic moonshot when you can juice the stock price by Friday? Boards no longer reward the slow build of a billion-dollar future; they crave the immediate $50M hit of a stock buyback or a cost-cutting spree. If you believe your 'work family' ranks higher than next quarter’s EPS, you aren't just mistaken—you’re the product.

Some clear features of this...
Labor View - It's a variable cost to be minimized vs capital investment to be grown
Capital Use- Stock buybacks & dividends vs R&D and infrastructure
CEO Tenure -~5 years (get in, spike price, exit) vs 10–20 years (build a legacy)
Success Metric - Quarterly EPS (Earnings Per Share) vs Market share & 10-year moat