3 ms·
Not quite. I suggest that a CEO should assume his responsibilities. He is quick to trash Bob[1] several times, but I see assumption of any responsibility at all
by fasteo 11y ago
Not quite. I suggest that a CEO should assume his responsibilities. He is quick to trash Bob[1] several times, but I see assumption of any responsibility at all.
[1]
Despite our note to all employees to come into the office urgently, Bob, our head IT guy, the one responsible for security and infrastructure, arrives at 11:30am.
Soon after, Bob decides it’s time for his lunch break, and we don’t see him for an hour, during the worst incident in ShapeShift’s history
- RangerScience 11y agoIt's the difference between heroic responsibility and actual causality. "Of course it's my fault. There's no-one else here who could possibly be responsible for anything". The whole subtext of this was "Here's how I fucked up in leading this company", but then the actual text is causality. It is his responsibility to make sure employees are trustworth? Yes. Is he the cause of employees abusing trust? No. He then also determined that his responsibility was to let people know what had happened, so that's what he did. He told us the things they used to figure out what happened in order to attempt (and fail, and then attempt again...) to prevent it from recurring.