Better.com CEO Vishal Garg Steps Back As Employees Detail How He 'Led By Fear' (techcrunch.com) 86
Better.com CEO Vishal Garg is "taking time off" after he made the controversial decision to fire 900 workers via a Zoom call last week. While he said he is "deeply sorry" for the way the lay-offs were handled, multiple current and former employees view this as insincere damage control and a byproduct of the company's toxic work culture. An anonymous reader shares an excerpt from a TechCrunch article: This morning, employees were notified via email by the Better board of directors that Garg would be taking time off effective immediately after the "very regrettable events over the last week." The move came, according to an employee who wished not to be named, after the digital mortgage company hired a crisis firm earlier this week. For those of us following the drama over the past week -- over the past year, really -- it was not a surprise. More details around the executive's behavior have emerged, including in emails that surfaced this week in which Garg berated his own investors, Vice reported. He already had a reputation for using abusive language in emails to employees, but the treatment toward his investors was yet another shock.
In the email to employees sent this morning, the board said that during the interim period, CFO Kevin Ryan would be assuming the responsibilities of CEO. It also acknowledged that it had engaged "an independent 3rd party firm to do a leadership and cultural assessment," the results of which would be "taken into account to build a long-term sustainable and positive culture at Better." But the decision may be too little, too late. TechCrunch has spoken with multiple current and former employees who remain skeptical that a toxic culture can be reversed that quickly. Those same employees shared that the CEO's so-called "apology" -- which came after the resignations of the company's heads of PR, marketing and communications -- was widely viewed as insincere damage control. One employee said she had been thinking of resigning even before the recent events, but they finally pushed her over the edge. Garg "leads by fear," said one employee who preferred not to be named. "Nothing is ever good enough. He would threaten employees to work harder, faster and not be lazy, but there was never clarity on what the consequences might be."
In the email to employees sent this morning, the board said that during the interim period, CFO Kevin Ryan would be assuming the responsibilities of CEO. It also acknowledged that it had engaged "an independent 3rd party firm to do a leadership and cultural assessment," the results of which would be "taken into account to build a long-term sustainable and positive culture at Better." But the decision may be too little, too late. TechCrunch has spoken with multiple current and former employees who remain skeptical that a toxic culture can be reversed that quickly. Those same employees shared that the CEO's so-called "apology" -- which came after the resignations of the company's heads of PR, marketing and communications -- was widely viewed as insincere damage control. One employee said she had been thinking of resigning even before the recent events, but they finally pushed her over the edge. Garg "leads by fear," said one employee who preferred not to be named. "Nothing is ever good enough. He would threaten employees to work harder, faster and not be lazy, but there was never clarity on what the consequences might be."
$25m cash bonus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's be pretty blunt. Either this guy is in the middle of some sort of nervous breakdown, or he's a sociopath.
Re:$25m cash bonus? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not an exclusive or.
Re: (Score:2)
But a complete lack of ability to even fake empathy will implode morale. Pushing employees also requires at least shows of empathy, otherwise it's just tyranny
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're giving him too much of benefit of doubt. First look at his history. This is not new and he has multiple lawsuits following him. Including his breakoff from his former partner and best friend after he absconded with money to start Better.com.
As for the board, this is why boards are supposed to do oversight. Too many boards though are mostly speculators who are "betting" on the CEO and trying to be hands off, and sometimes even letting the CEO boss them around, rather than as investors who want to
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
or he's a sociopath.
That doesn't mean he is a bad CEO. It is often better to make utilitarian decisions based on hard facts, unclouded by emotional dithering.
In the long run, employees benefit more from a leader who pushes them to be successful rather than a CEO who feels empathy for their failures.
Do psychopaths really make better leaders? [bbc.com]
A CEO who does things that pushes employees to be successful is always without exception a good thing. That's not the question. The question is what type of communication elicits that success-bearing behavior. Looking at the analog of college basketball, there are some coaches who get the best out their players by yelling at and belittling their players. Other coaches are more of the nurturing type. Which technique produces the best outcomes depends on the constitution of the players.
The same goes for
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean he is a bad CEO.
Sociopaths work out OK for the company (as long as nobody has any ethics or anything) as long as the company's goals are well aligned with the CEO. But sooner of later, the CEO stands to win BIG if he throws the company under the bus. Since he has no sense of loyalty, duty, or responsibility, guess what happens? A number of once strong companies have been kneecapped by their crooked CEOs.
Alternatively, potential customers eventually come to understand that they might as well be making a deal with the devil
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean he is a bad CEO. It is often better to make utilitarian decisions based on hard facts, unclouded by emotional dithering.
That doesn't make him a good CEO either. People with cluster B personality disorders are usually pretty terrible leaders exactly because of the lack of emotion, they don't care about the decisions they make or their consequences and so often make extremely bad decisions when things aren't going well (making apparently good decisions when things are going well is easy, you can do that with a dartboard, it's when things aren't going well that you need a capable leader).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: $25m cash bonus? (Score:2)
American culture is shit that is True.
Re: (Score:1)
Another shitty Indian CEO doing a shitty job. A lot of Indian CEOs are just garbage at leadership and it's cultural and it needs to be addressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed on firing the board. The board appointed the CFO to be acting CEO. I've never seen that go well. People with vision and people who manage accountants, tax attorneys, and bookeepers is a venn diagram with no intersecting points.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed on firing the board.
Agree all you want.. You don't understand how Corporations work. The board (outside of election time) is the top. Nobody can fire the board. They could be recalled, if the corporation permits that. Or they could not be re-elected. But who do you think can fire the board?
And if one person has a controlling interest of the voting stock, then elections are merely a formality as that person gets to seat whomever he/she wants on the board.
Re: (Score:2)
The CFO is kind of the most important person to the board, usually. The CEO is mostly just a front-man, he's there to woo Wall Street if the company isn't public yet, and otherwise to be a mile high leader with broad generalities. Especially with a company that size you never see a CEO down in the trenches doing day to day management stuff, like firing. You leave that stuff to the COO or vice presidents.
Re: (Score:2)
The board should be fired too. I hope he has to pay it back. If not, I want to fail that spectacularly.
Who's gonna fire the board?
Re: (Score:2)
Who's gonna fire the board?
The shareholders.
But unless this affects the long-term stock price, the shareholders aren't going to care that some ex-employees had their feelings hurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's gonna fire the board?
The shareholders.
But unless this affects the long-term stock price, the shareholders aren't going to care that some ex-employees had their feelings hurt.
Assuming the largest shareholders aren't sitting on the board.... Or assuming one person doesn't have control of 50.0001% of voting stock..
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, the people who were working there were almost certainly willing to put up with it because they also had gotten large amounts of pre-IPO options.
Re:$25m cash bonus? (Score:5, Interesting)
Meh, the people who were working there were almost certainly willing to put up with it because they also had gotten large amounts of pre-IPO options.
Betcha the layoffs came just before the options vested.
Mommy (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Cash your stock options before you do it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my boy!
Why do we put up with this? (Score:2, Informative)
Plenty of other countries have solved this problem, why can't we?
Re: (Score:2)
No idea. I'm not afraid of being fired. Fire me. So far, every single time I have been fired, I quickly found another job and always with better pay.
To paraphrase Obi Wan, it seems that if you fire me, I shall earn more money than I can possibly imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried to get fired but apparently I was too useful, so I had to quit.
Actually, I left and moved to another city and they eventually stopped paying me a year and a half later.
Best decision ever.
Like I said man (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't change much, to be honest.
I have more money than I'll spend in this lifetime. It is quite comforting.
Re: Why do we put up with this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So he has competition from other potential workers meaning that he needs to produce or be replaced by someone that will. That's the nature of things. If he doesn't like the amount of work he needs to do as a journalist, then he should find a different profession that requires less work. the skill sets required for journalism do apply to several other jobs outside journalism.
Why is it a lot of what I read about "toxic work environments" comes down to employees not feeling like their employer should be dem
Re: Why do we put up with this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it a lot of what I read about "toxic work environments" comes down to employees not feeling like their employer should be demanding they continuously work harder and harder for less and less pay?
FTFY.
It is outright goddamn infuriating to see the refusal by some to acknowledge the extent to which the modern workplace is designed around wringing every last bit of life out of employees, while salaries have been replaced with 'compensation packages' designed to disguise the downward spiral of real wages. Good for you that you have not been negatively affected by it. Those like the above commenter's reporter friend have.
Re: Why do we put up with this? (Score:2)
I actually love this. I really like the challenge to get people to cooporate, and gotten pretty good at it. My bosses wonder how I manage to get them doing stuff spo
Re: (Score:2)
My experience is that reaching out to other teams and helping, even at the expense of working on your own team's stuff, leads to everyone being happier with you. The other team appreciates it. Your own team sees you having external engagement. Pretty soon it becomes part of your job.
Re: (Score:1)
why do we spend our entire lives living in fear of losing our jobs?
I don't and I never have. Why don't you stop subjecting yourself to the whims of others? This guy started a (toxic) company. Why don't you go start a (non-toxic) company?
Why do some people spend their entire lives waiting for other people to fix their problems? (And don't say you can't start a company or that it's too hard. The US/Europe is a cornucopia of small businesses all started by regular people operating, most of the time, probably out of a garage in the beginning.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Been wondering about this.
Less the lording over jobs, but an aspect of any contract negotiation is terms for breaking the contract. I mean you have NDAs, non-compete clauses, etc. as indemnity for the employer, I don't see why some consideration shouldn't also be given to the employee beyond unemployment insurance.
The employer demands a degree of continuity and stability as terms of employment. I think there should be some reciprocation for the employer.
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I used to live my life in fear of losing my job.... Then, I lost enough of them and got hired again at new ones, and realized it's all just a cycle. Any job I've worked at had a curve really, where it started out stressful and with a lot of uncertainty as I had to learn what I was expected to do there, learn the names of everyone, etc. Typically, there was some "office politics" to get a handle on too. Once all of that was figured out, the comfort level and enjoyment level of working there
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mass hysteria from social media (Score:4, Informative)
The thing is, this doesn't stand out because it's impersonal, it stands out because it's personal. Apparently he didn't just fire them on that call, he abused them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, unlike Homer, those workers were aware that the head of the company might bisect them with a laser for failure
Re: (Score:3)
Accusing the people you're firing of stealing from the company because they were under-utilized is a bit over the top, don't you think?
Re: (Score:2)
Would you feel the same way when your lawyer bills you for 30 hours but only worked 3 hours? Would you feel the same way if Uber billed you for a 3 hour trip when it was only a 20 minute trip? The company costs (especially payroll costs) are passed on to customers. If payroll is inflated through fake working hours due to "work from home" situations where many are really not working, that gets passed on to the customers.
Re:Mass hysteria from social media (Score:4, Interesting)
If I agreed on a retainer with a lawyer where I pay them for 30 hours no matter how many they actually have to work, then no. I might decide to terminate or re-negotiate the retainer to better reflect the workload, but I wouldn't say the lawyer was stealing.
Questions to ask in this case include why isn't management queuing up enough work to be done? Why haven't managers been having talks with the less productive employees? If they have and it has not done any good, why have they let deadwood accumulate?
But honestly, in cases like this where the CEO is doing the firing en-masse, it is more likely driven by trying to meet some sort of short term goal, possibly at the expense of the long term. In other words, a lay-off. More specifically, it's a lay-off where the CEO wants to let himself off the hook by claiming it's the employee's fault. Actual terminations for low productivity tend to happen one or two at a time and get handled by lower level management.
Note, subsequent events suggest my analysis is on-target and that if anyone is "stealing from the company" by under-producing, it's the CEO. That would be why he was put on "indefinite leave" with the CFO taking over in the interim and damage control consultants have been engaged. Note how CEOs that fsck up get indefinite leave (with pay) and employees who may or may not have fscked up get instant termination before Christmas.
Further investigation suggests that the CEO is a serial fsck-up.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think the outrage was over that employees were fired and the number of employees fired. It was over how they were fired. For the CEO this method was the most efficient for him. For him, it was perfectly legal to use Zoom. For me, it was classless, lazy, and cowardly. A number of employees resigned in protest [independent.co.uk]
Not mentioned ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Better.com CEO Vishal Garg is "taking time off" ...
Will that be unpaid or paid time off? None of the articles I've read have said. 'Cause the latter might seem like "stealing" -- working 0 hours while charging 8, you know, like the working 2 hours but charging 8 he accused the people he laid off of doing.
Perhaps "Better.com" will actually be so w/o him ...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another Softbank "success story" (Score:5, Informative)
Nuff said. Maybe they should have spent 5 minutes looking into Vishal's past.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/d... [forbes.com]
Best,
Re: (Score:3)
Don't confuse us with facts! /s
Mod parent +1 Informative.
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding, he's unhinged.
Ad-blocker pop-up article but you can just use Reader view.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the quote where Better says it's a fact of life that successful successful CEOs and startups get sued. Except that no, they really don't get sued that often unless there's actual reasons that the suit might succeed.
The problem with today's corporate culture (Score:5, Interesting)
Garg himself isn't even really a symptom. The fact that he was ever considered an acceptable CEO by any board of directors is a symptom of what's wrong with corporate culture and the business environment today. What's wrong are the philosophies and attitudes that led to a board of directors willing to consider someone like him to be an acceptable CEO.
Re:The problem with today's corporate culture (Score:4, Insightful)
Until we start seeing heads on pikes this will continue.
Re: The problem with today's corporate culture (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The rot is so deep, it is not this board of this company that made this jerk the CEO, almost every company board tolerates so much of assholery from their own CEOs, their own top athletes, their own media stars, .... It is simply, as long as I think you will make me profits, I will let you screw any one you want using my investments. Be my
Wasn't hired by the board. He's the founder (Score:3)
Garg is the founder of the company. He wasn't hired or approved by the board.
As a major shareholder, he would have chosen a couple of the board members (likely choosing himself). The other investors who chose/are the other board members are people who specifically chose to go into business with him.
I can't see the board of any other company hiring this Jerk. In fact, sending him to "take some time off" sounds like the board may be thinking about firing him as CEO. The founder doesn't often get fired, but it
Re: (Score:2)
To be frank, the reason he's been told to go cool off is that this issue played out in the public domain right before they go public. Having a very public bad news story right before your investors cna realize cash return is what gets the Board to fire you.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he started the company himself (using a prior startup's money, for which he's being sued). The board comes later. However once you get one investor the founder needs to realize that the company is no longer 100% his. Likely the board few over time as more investors came on board. Yes, Garg insulted the board members, but they were probably in the stage where they were about to get the big payout from going public and they didn't want to scare the golden goose.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this problem is unique to "today". I think this is an ancient problem, and one not at all easily solved.
Power (including the power that comes with the position of CEO) isn't rationed out to people based on their level of kindness, nor even competence. It is claimed by those who fight for it, and win. Whether this is morally proper or not, sustainable in the long term or not, healthy for the company/economy or not, are all secondary points.
People with the Dark Triad [wikipedia.org] of personality traits ten
The jerk is sorry his nopology was not enough. (Score:2)
Makes sense. (Score:5, Funny)
Garg "leads by fear," said one employee who preferred not to be named.
So the company is run by Gargamel who is now so bitter from his defeat by the Smurfs, even Voldermort doesn't want to be associated with him.
900 People That Were Let Go Were the Lucky Ones (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like it's a company that people wouldn't want to work at due to the toxicity that went all the way up to the CEO.
At least the ones that were let go get to file for unemployment and get severence.
The ones that resign in disgust get neither.
this is not a shocker (Score:1)
You know guys, I think he deserves this PTO. Definitely a hard time for him, absolute pity.
That damn name (Score:3)
"Better.com"
If I come across a company named "Happy Unicorn and Day Old Puppies Meadows Incorporated", I am staying the hell away from it!
Personal experience (Score:3)
I do senior-level technology work (tho now retired). I've been in three companies owned or managed by Indians. One (from a couple of decades ago now) was much like described here. Top-down pressures all the time, Stoackhold Syndrome, all of it. I swore I'd never do that again. But I did, and the later experiences were a little more balanced. I think the Indian employees were more adjusted to the over-bearing, classist management style than I was (I'm Anglo-American) and it was cringe-worthy to watch. Never liked it, but the money was good, and these days most of the technology employment is under Indian bosses, part of the reason I left. There are serious cultural issues on display here. It doesn't work for everyone. Some of the time, it just doesn't work at all.
Pretty broad generalization, not very accurate (Score:4, Insightful)
I do senior-level technology work (tho now retired). I've been in three companies owned or managed by Indians. One (from a couple of decades ago now) was much like described here. Top-down pressures all the time, Stoackhold Syndrome, all of it. I swore I'd never do that again. But I did, and the later experiences were a little more balanced. I think the Indian employees were more adjusted to the over-bearing, classist management style than I was (I'm Anglo-American) and it was cringe-worthy to watch. Never liked it, but the money was good, and these days most of the technology employment is under Indian bosses, part of the reason I left. There are serious cultural issues on display here. It doesn't work for everyone. Some of the time, it just doesn't work at all.
I've reported to probably 20 different Indian-born bosses. While some of your patterns are more common among Indian-born than say Chinese-born managers, it's really not a very accurate generalization, especially today. Many of the people I've worked with, despite being born, raised, and educated in India are quite western in their philosophies and attitudes. The majority I've worked with/for don't fit your pattern.
Some Indians are douchebags. Some aren't. The nicest bosses I've had were from India, some of the worst were as well. The actual worst I've ever had were American-born. There's, what, 1.3 billion people in India? It's not really reasonable to come up with a description that applies to them broadly, especially when talking about managing an American company.
Don't get me wrong, I am not coming at this from a political correctness standpoint. I LOVE inappropriate and insensitive generalizations, because they tell the ugly truth, but only if they're actually accurate. Your statement just isn't very representative of what I have seen across the 3 major tech towns I've worked in my career in the last 20+ years. It's a very dated view and no really nuanced enough to reflect people's daily reality.
Classism is a well-known issue in India, but it rubs Americans the wrong way. If you act like a classist asshole, no one likes you. You're actually bad for business and no one wants you around other than other classist assholes. Those type of people often have racist streaks.
I've seen 1 guy who fit your description rise through the ranks and then hit a brick wall because he's a major prick. No one lines working with him. Everyone that works for him asks to be transferred. The only reason he got promoted is because of blind luck that he stumbled upon a project that was making a lot of money...not because of what he did, but because of the fact it was someone else's great idea that the market loved. He was just a middle manager, but to got to take part of the credit for the success. The ones who surpassed him, were much more pleasant to work with.
Most elite Indian tech professionals are well educated and not particularly predictable in their working or education style. Some act like douchebags, but most see the douchebags and think they can do better and rise faster and farther by actually being competent and enjoyable to work with. Their end goal is their own personal success, not propagating their cultural ideals. Most you see who rose up the ranks rose by adapting to the style of the company, not because of their cultural background or traits picked up in their culture.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points. I'd mod you up.
US way, business is business (Score:1)
Someone thinks this "leadership" is unusual? (Score:3)
It all too common in the "move fast, break things" world.
No, not "all to common".
It's the rule, not the exception.
Let's put it this way (Score:3)
If anyone outside the C-Suite had sent the same emails this guy had, would they still be working at the company? If no, fire his ass effective immediately. No golden parachute, all stock options void, and any bonuses that may have been coming your way will instead go to the fired employees as bonus severance. Let's start holding assholes at the top to the same standards we hold assholes at the bottom.
I used better.com for a refinance this past spring (Score:2)
It went extremely well, best close I've ever had. I liked everyone I worked with. Too bad they apparently worked for an asshat.
Re: (Score:1)
Why is this CEO being vilified?? (Score:2)
The kiss of death (Score:2)
for a CEO to get this amount of publicity is not good for the long term prospects for the company.
A good number of years ago, a guy called Gerald Ratner dissed the jewellery that his shops sold.
They went bust a short time later. A true footgun moment.
IMHO, the same might apply to 'better.com'. If I worked for them, I'd already be looking for another job and not be wanting to put my time at the company on my CV/Resume.
He shouldn't step back (Score:2)
Assholes (Score:2)
No one wants to work for them.