3 ms·
There were people who authorized either employees or contractors to harass her, dig the dirt out on her, etc, etc, etc. There were people who read/compiled/pres
by notyourday 7y ago
There were people who authorized either employees or contractors to harass her, dig the dirt out on her, etc, etc, etc. There were people who read/compiled/presented that information to the higher ups in management/executive levels. Did those people write memos/emails to their bosses saying that based on their view they should not be doing it but since they may not be fully aware of the full context they need their boss to send reply to this memo/email and say "Yes, do it."
That's the accountability. Someone makes a decision. That someone gets to be accountable.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoAbsolutely. Maybe you don't have the full context of the story - the CEO at the time that Fowler got harassed, Travis Kalanick, ended up being that someone who's accountable.
- notyourday 7y agoIt is highly unlikely that the CEO did it all himself. It is far more likely that there were dozens if not hundreds of people that actively and willingly participated in it. Were those people terminated? That's the real question. I'm, frankly, shocked that it is presumed that by replacing a CEO rather than replacing everyone who thought going after Susan was "just doing their job, not a big deal, no need to have a boss sign off on it" is considered to be acceptable.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y agoI don't think I agree - it seems very likely that bosses all the way up the chain were signing off on it. "Let's hire investigators to discredit her" is surely not a decision that some random member of HR staff would make on their own.
- wpietri 7y agoTravis got held accountable? I see the poor fellow is only worth $2.5 billion. If that's what that means, I'd like to be held accountable too!