D&D General WotC Founder Peter Adkison On Hasbro's Layoffs

Peter Adkison, who owned Wizards of the Coast until it was sold to Hasbro in 1999, oversaw the relaunch of Dungeons & Dragons with D&D 3rd Edition. Today, he commented on this week's round of Hasbro layoffs, which have ripped through WotC. Adkison left WotC in 2000 and currently runs a production company called Hostile Work Environment.

Like many of you, I'm saddened to learn about the layoffs at Hasbro.

Caveat: I have no idea of what’s happening behind the scenes at WotC. If you’re asking who’s at fault, or to what extent it was or was not justified, that’s outside the scope of my knowledge. This post is about my own reflections.

When I read about the layoffs at Hasbro my immediate feeling was shame. Shame for when I did the same thing, at the same company (WotC, before we sold it to Hasbro).

I have made lots of mistakes, tons of them, more than I can even remember. And while I regret those mistakes, and I’m sad for those hurt, I realize it’s part of learning and it’s part of being human.

But layoffs, when handed poorly, or when they are unnecessary, aren’t just mistakes. They are failings of character. Those times when I had a failure of character, those are the moments that haunt me.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

How does Snoop Dog feel about the layoffs?

Are they offering him money to be a spokesman?

My name is Snoop, and the only thing I like more than weed is layoffs....

 

[payn]

Does Peter mention the 1995 Christmas Party of Doom, where employees, contractors, and temps had to purchase tickets to the company's Holiday Party in advance on a date prior to the layoff date?

This would of been me;

 

[beaumontsebos]

Layoffs should be seen as the result of poor management. But in today's economy, layoffs are actually considered good management because they increase shareholder wealth.

 

[Willie the Duck]

The thing about corporate layoffs is this - it's not about personal performance in any way. It is simply a function of having made a budget guess at the beginning of the year and the actual revenue of the year not meeting that forecast. In modern capitalism, you either make more money than you did last year or you have failed. Period. It's not about being profitable. It's about growing value. And when you can't do that organically through sales and licensing, you do it artificially through layoffs.

Layoffs should be seen as the result of poor management. But in today's economy, layoffs are actually considered good management because they increase shareholder wealth.

Fundamentally, much more than CEO pay, this is the issue, IMO -- that publicly traded corporations* are beholden to this separate** set of tasks surrounding a popularity contest*** with spare-funds-having people/groups of people. The stock market served a purpose (and still does... for the investors), but at this point seems genuinely detrimental to the corporations (and the people working for them) bound within the framework. It certainly seems that way whenever my company has layoffs which bleed the company of valuable employees, morale, trust, and institutional knowledge all to serve a short-term revenue goal that the shareholders demand. It's a no-one-person-decided-on-this situation or economy has slowly sauntered into, which leaves it as a no-raindrop-blames-itself-for-the-flood problem where we all vote with our dollars to maintain the frustrating status quo. There are definitely ways to address/mitigate/reverse**** this situation, but few if anyone seems to be highly motivated to fix it.
*and most corporations that wish to compete in the largest ponds end up being publicly traded (or run by people who could just as easily invest their funds into publicly traded companies in search of profit, so the corporations end up acting in a similar fashion).
**that just barely benefits the corporation itself
***that is only very loosely related to how well the business succeeds in their market, certainly long-term
****there are laws and regulations and individual decisions by people, businesses, nations and states which can work against the situation. I don't want to dismiss this notion. Without diverting into politics, that's about as much as I can say.

Re: Hasbro/Cocks -- Well, they certainly aren't earning my respect by continuing to let people go during the holidays. It also is sub-optimal that they made a number of bad choices regarding investing in physical toys when it should have been predictable that this was not the year to do so. And I too would love it if the belt-tightening meant salary cuts amongst management first. However, at the end of the day, I will say that --having ended up in this financial situation-- they didn't really have an option not cut the budget to appease the shareholders.

 

[Umbran]

But in today's economy, layoffs are actually considered good management because they increase shareholder wealth.

If we substitute "the last century or so" for "today's economy", I think I agree.

 

[Shardstone]

If we substitute "the last century or so" for "today's economy", I think I agree.

It's a trash concept no matter how many years it's been around.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The funny thing is, despite the attacks and criticism at Chris, I'd bet nearly everyone here would take the same deal he did without a second thought or complaint.

I think that's a pretty big assumption on your part.

 

[TheSword]

It wasn't just the CEO it was all the executives making a personal sacrifice.

And 9 million is too much if your laying off 20% of your workforce.

If all the executives made that kind of sacrifice this could have been avoided or at least blunted, at least the people effected would know that there is somekind of shared sacrifice with leadership doing their part.

If reducing the layoffs from 20 to 15% would be possible by sacrificing his bonus, then he should have done it, and the same with Cynthia Williams.

This is an extremely simplistic way of looking at the problem.

Where there is a calamity that puts the company in temporary financial difficulty - let’s say a product recall, or a natural disaster, or some unexpected seismic shift like Covid - then sure this a pretty noble and worthy sacrifice to make to help people get through temporary tough times.

However when the business has changed and the company has too many employees for the amount of long term revenue that is coming in, where the company’s focus has changed, or when an acquisition as doubled up similar roles, a temporary solution like Execs-don’t-get-paid doesn’t solve anything - it just delays making the correction.

The Execs job is the run the company in a healthy, efficient way, to have a team that’s appropriate for the company’s goals and to put resources (including people) where they can do the most good. Making a noble sacrifice to keep people on just in principle is just ducking a tough decision that puts everyone else at risk. If you’re saying they shouldn’t get paid for it then who else is going to do it?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Layoffs should be seen as the result of poor management. But in today's economy, layoffs are actually considered good management because they increase shareholder wealth.

This mindset is killing multiple industries, but hey, as long as the shareholders walk away happy, it's good ... right?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think that's a pretty big assumption on your part.

Get paid $9 million in total compensation to be in charge of D&D, MtG, and others? I don't think it is.