Because they don't decide this on their own. A smart CEO gets board approval before going on a hiring spree, so afterwards, if the CFO shows a negative forecast, everyone can go, 'Oh, who could have seen this?'
CEOs get fired if the board loses trust in their abilities.
I also think some of those CEOs should be fired, but I don't even think there was over hiring... It's more that demand went up by a lot suddenly, and then down by a lot suddenly.
The weren’t able to integrate the hires in time to meet the demand spike before it went away. So it would have been optimal to not hire into it.
Was that very difficult to see at the time? Sure, but what are those astronomical comp packages buying? Making very difficult calls correctly is their jobs.
In the eyes of the CEO and the shareholders, was it the wrong call?
The CEO hires the employees assuming ZIRP continues. ZIRP ends. He fires all the extra employees, and gets to fire employees he doesn't need from other departments too along the way. Shareholders benefit either way, and the expendable ex-employees' well-being, visa status, healthcare, etc. is someone else's problem. Market is bad so the remaining employees can't really complain either.
Macroeconomic conditions changed or demand for the product they work on wasn’t what it was expected. Tech companies are encouraged by investors to take risks which is why risk taking isn’t punished.
It's not the fault of the individual engineers, but there just aren't enough positions to fill.
Leadership is accountable to shareholders, the board, and other stakeholders to ensure financial viability.
It sucks, but it is what it is.