4 ms·

Right, like the "GM nod". The principle that CEOs are responsible for what happens on their watch is major reason cited for their levels of compensation. You d

by nmrm2 11y ago

Right, like the "GM nod". The principle that CEOs are responsible for what happens on their watch is major reason cited for their levels of compensation. You don't get it both ways.

msandford 11y ago
I completely agree! It doesn't matter if this particular CEO knew about this particular detail, because ultimately they're responsible for the culture, the work environment, etc. If they made a bad work environment at the top, and that trickled down to someone deciding to go the cheat route rather than the honest route, that's a problem. If the CEO did things right and made a good work environment but hired a bad exec, and they applied pressure to people to cheat, and this all got done, again, can be traced back to the CEO. If the CEO did the right thing and hired a seemingly great exec and that exec hired a bad manager, well, perhaps the CEO didn't do such an exceptional job. Ultimately all organizational failures like this are failures of management, and the CEO is the top manager so it's all on him (or her) when things go sideways. But just because it's all on them doesn't mean that we can all safely conclude that they definitely had firsthand personal knowledge of the problem and gave their approval, explicit, implicit or otherwise.
wpietri 11y ago
Holy moly. I had missed reports of the "GM nod" and their cultural pathologies. What an enormous mess. 95% of people's smarts taken up with performing rituals that shield them from blame. All real communication is sub-rosa, with actual words said unrelated to meaning. The detail that really kills me is that many employees thought that taking notes in meetings related to safety issues was forbidden. There was no official word of that, of course, but lots of people believed that following unofficial, gossip-routed information was the way to succeed in their careers. What lunacy. They should have been allowed to go bankrupt.

by nmrm2 11y ago

Right, like the "GM nod". The principle that CEOs are responsible for what happens on their watch is major reason cited for their levels of compensation. You don't get it both ways.

msandford 11y ago

I completely agree! It doesn't matter if this particular CEO knew about this particular detail, because ultimately they're responsible for the culture, the work environment, etc. If they made a bad work environment at the top, and that trickled down to someone deciding to go the cheat route rather than the honest route, that's a problem. If the CEO did things right and made a good work environment but hired a bad exec, and they applied pressure to people to cheat, and this all got done, again, can be traced back to the CEO. If the CEO did the right thing and hired a seemingly great exec and that exec hired a bad manager, well, perhaps the CEO didn't do such an exceptional job. Ultimately all organizational failures like this are failures of management, and the CEO is the top manager so it's all on him (or her) when things go sideways. But just because it's all on them doesn't mean that we can all safely conclude that they definitely had firsthand personal knowledge of the problem and gave their approval, explicit, implicit or otherwise.

wpietri 11y ago

Holy moly. I had missed reports of the "GM nod" and their cultural pathologies. What an enormous mess. 95% of people's smarts taken up with performing rituals that shield them from blame. All real communication is sub-rosa, with actual words said unrelated to meaning. The detail that really kills me is that many employees thought that taking notes in meetings related to safety issues was forbidden. There was no official word of that, of course, but lots of people believed that following unofficial, gossip-routed information was the way to succeed in their careers. What lunacy. They should have been allowed to go bankrupt.