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

"Layoffs, when handed poorly ... are failings of character."

images.jpeg

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

bedir than

Full Moon Storyteller
When the WiiU failed, instead of mass layoffs, the CEO of the company refused to take a bonus, and cut his own wage by 50%, and the rest of the executives took no bonus abd took a pay cut too.
This also wouldn't have saved Nintendo a significant number of jobs, because their CEO doesn't even make 3 million now.

Also, Cocks is not absurdly paid like most in the Fortune 1000 (Hasbro dropped out of the 500). At under 9 million in compensation his taking that same cut would have been performative, and saved less than 5% of people impacted by the layoffs.

We're not talking about a billionaire.
 

This also wouldn't have saved Nintendo a significant number of jobs, because their CEO doesn't even make 3 million now.

Also, Cocks is not absurdly paid like most in the Fortune 1000 (Hasbro dropped out of the 500). At under 9 million in compensation his taking that same cut would have been performative, and saved less than 5% of people impacted by the layoffs.

We're not talking about a billionaire.

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.
 

Dausuul

Legend
Call me crazy, but the buck should always stop with the executives. If the company is in financial trouble, they should be the first to feel the pain.

I wonder how many people could receive at least 6 months of severance with CC's $9.4M total comp...
Say we assume an average annual cost to Hasbro of $100,000 per employee. (That's not just salary; it also includes benefits, the employer's share of payroll taxes, 401(k) matching, HR and admin, et cetera -- the full cost of keeping someone on the payroll.)

Then $9.4 million would cover six months of severance, with benefits, for 188 people, or about 17% of those laid off.

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 some kind of shared sacrifice with leadership doing their part.
Agreed.

Layoffs are usually (though not always) a sign of executive failure: Either the executives hired too many people for the company's operations, or else they are weakening the company's long-term prospects to juice short-term profit margins. For leadership, cutting your own salary is a way of doing what you can -- small as it may be on an individual level -- to reduce the pain your mistakes have caused. It is also a way of holding yourself accountable, not allowing yourself to profit from failure.

And finally, it shows the remaining employees that you take this really seriously and you are going to try hard not to let it happen again. The survivors of a layoff are generally demoralized and scared. Even setting aside the moral considerations, doing anything you can to assuage those feelings is good business -- right now is when you need the remaining workers to be at their best, since they have to take up the slack of those who were let go.
 
Last edited:

Staffan

Legend
Also, Cocks is not absurdly paid like most in the Fortune 1000 (Hasbro dropped out of the 500). At under 9 million in compensation his taking that same cut would have been performative, and saved less than 5% of people impacted by the layoffs.
I, for one, would consider $9M in compensation to be well into "absurdly paid" territory. I mean, it's not Bob Iger money, but it's still absurd.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
I, for one, would consider $9M in compensation to be well into "absurdly paid" territory. I mean, it's not Bob Iger money, but it's still absurd.
Wait until you hear what we pay baseball players…

As an aside, one would need to make $9 million just to afford a home in New York or San Francisco. A small 900 so ft home built in the early 80s in San Fran goes for a cool million. And my company wants me to force relocate there? Ha!
 

DarkCrisis

Reeks of Jedi
On one hand, he apparently wasn’t doing well health wise when he sold WotC to Hasbro.

On the other hand, he sold to a Corp, wtf did he think would happen?

And Hasbro will never let the brand go. They’d rather bury it then sale it off.
 

Also, Cocks is not absurdly paid like most in the Fortune 1000 (Hasbro dropped out of the 500). At under 9 million in compensation his taking that same cut would have been performative, and saved less than 5% of people impacted by the layoffs.

We're not talking about a billionaire.
This sounds an awful lot like you’re apologizing for someone far too rich to deserve it. This person won’t be starving for Christmas.
 

Eyes of Nine

Everything's Fine
Devil's Advocate:
You lay off a bunch of employees, the ones who stay behind (in theory) will work hard and improve your business.

You cut salaries and bonuses for your VP level and up (or maybe even Sr. Director level and up); and you'll just lose VPs and Directors - but without a clear path to how to get back on track. Also, once those leaders leave, who will lead the initiatives that will get the company back on track?
/Devils Advocate

Also, heard on a podcast today about Chat GPT and other LLM AI platforms - someone asked GPT for 25 ways to improve a certain company's profitability without layoffs (apologies, I forget the company), and all 25 of them were decent, real ideas that would work. Now THAT's a use case I can get behind for generative AI!!! (I think it was this one: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podca...ausible-outcomes/id1582908812?i=1000628517946)
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top