6 ms·

For criminal behaviour from the organisation, the burden of proof needs to be reversed. The CEO should need to prove they did not know and did not endorse tacit

by harry8 6y ago

For criminal behaviour from the organisation, the burden of proof needs to be reversed. The CEO should need to prove they did not know and did not endorse tacitally or otherwise and would have reacted strongly to prevent and effectively sanction those responsible if they had found out in advance. It's their job to know. Only if they are a victim of a genuine criminal conspiracy performed by other employees and it can be shown without the CEO's knowledge should there be any defence. CEO's are quite happy to tell people to do things without telling them to do the thing. That has been going on for centuries. Shakespeare wrote whole plays about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...

will_pseudonym 6y ago
OT, but "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" reminds me of a funny Mitchell and Webb sketch about evil villains using ambiguous phrases when ordering their henchmen to kill someone. (NSFW) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY
- interestica 6y ago
  Corporations will hire 'plausible deniability officers' specifically to obfuscate decisions.
Chris2048 6y ago
I don't think CEO is the right level. It may be the top position with high pay, but a CEO is so high up the food-chain that they touch very little. Any level of management with a direct responsibility is where blame should lie.
- Larrikin 6y ago
  This is the same argument that tech corporations say should apply to them. They should be allowed to grow uncontrollably to make as much money as possible but it's actually impossible for them to know the details (moderate content in this specific iteration of the argument) of what they have grown. The point of this thread is the same argument against that very idea. If the organization is so big that the CEO believes that, it shouldn't matter. They should be ultimately responsible for the entire organization. No one forced the company to be that big and no one made them take the job.
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    But you can't know all of that. Imagine some local wallmart having an issue with something (eg. a bunch of expired chemicals, that have to be disposed as dengerous), and they don't want to deal with that in a proper way, and some local manager tells some local worker, to just dump the chemicals into a stream behind the wallmart. Usually noone notices stuff like that, if the chemicals are not "too bad" (=fish die), the worker will lose his/her job if (s)he doesn't do it, and the manager will get someone else to do it. If the worker reports it, it's his word against the managers, the manager will just say it was leaked rainwater, and that they asked the worker to spill it in the gutter, so the worker has no real choice, if they want to feed the kids that night. People above the manager have no idea about that local wallmart, and that one time issue. Then, the worker dumps the chemicals into the stream, the chemicals just happen to be very dangerous, and a million fish die in the river downstream. Is the CEO really the guilty on here? Did he really know? On the other hand, you have the VW dieselgate, where a whole team had to work on the software, and atleast a few level of mangers had to have known about the issue. But on the corporate ladder, where every level is squeezing the level below it to "do more", "bring in more profits", it's possible that some manager in charge of something actually didn't tell the people above him, just how exactly he solved the exhaust issue, just that he solved it, and saved millions of euros (and got a huge bonus). On the other hand, coordinating a big team of coders, and such info not getting to higher ups or to members of different teams in the same company (with different managers) is probably unlikely. What i'm trying to say is, that blaming the CEO by default is bad, because in the first case, it's unrealistic to expect the CEO to even know that that local walmart exists.... and in the second case, that there should be a very thourough investigation just how high the knowledge went, and have the whole chain of comand held responsible.
    - canofbars 6y ago
      The problem is management can just abuse this by saying something like "Dispose of these chemicals safely, you have 5 minutes to be back". The manager clearly said to do it safely but 5 minutes only leaves time to dump them unsafely. How do you assign blame to the manager or even higher systems which tell people to do these things without literally saying it.
- CRConrad 6y ago
  > I don't think CEO is the right level. It may be the top position with high pay, but a CEO is so high up the food-chain that they touch very little. Funny then how the CEO is the right level to take that high pay, which is generally defended as compensation for the ultimate responsibility. Either the CEO is responsible for what happens under his reign, or he isn't. If he is, why shouldn't he shoulder the blame for the bad parts; if he isn't, why should he be paid for the good parts?
- wpietri 6y ago
  If a CEO is so high up the food chain that nothing they do matters, then why should they have the high pay? I don't understand the notion that they're responsible for all of the good things their employees do but none of the bad ones. Especially when, as here, it's the bad ones that are so profitable.
- PakG1 6y ago
  It is the CEO's job to set the organizational culture and expectations. CEO doesn't need to know what's going on farther down the food chain, but the CEO is responsible for setting the culture in which they make their decisions.

by harry8 6y ago

will_pseudonym 6y ago

OT, but "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" reminds me of a funny Mitchell and Webb sketch about evil villains using ambiguous phrases when ordering their henchmen to kill someone. (NSFW) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6cake3bwnY

interestica 6y ago
Corporations will hire 'plausible deniability officers' specifically to obfuscate decisions.

Chris2048 6y ago

I don't think CEO is the right level. It may be the top position with high pay, but a CEO is so high up the food-chain that they touch very little. Any level of management with a direct responsibility is where blame should lie.

Larrikin 6y ago
This is the same argument that tech corporations say should apply to them. They should be allowed to grow uncontrollably to make as much money as possible but it's actually impossible for them to know the details (moderate content in this specific iteration of the argument) of what they have grown. The point of this thread is the same argument against that very idea. If the organization is so big that the CEO believes that, it shouldn't matter. They should be ultimately responsible for the entire organization. No one forced the company to be that big and no one made them take the job.
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  But you can't know all of that. Imagine some local wallmart having an issue with something (eg. a bunch of expired chemicals, that have to be disposed as dengerous), and they don't want to deal with that in a proper way, and some local manager tells some local worker, to just dump the chemicals into a stream behind the wallmart. Usually noone notices stuff like that, if the chemicals are not "too bad" (=fish die), the worker will lose his/her job if (s)he doesn't do it, and the manager will get someone else to do it. If the worker reports it, it's his word against the managers, the manager will just say it was leaked rainwater, and that they asked the worker to spill it in the gutter, so the worker has no real choice, if they want to feed the kids that night. People above the manager have no idea about that local wallmart, and that one time issue. Then, the worker dumps the chemicals into the stream, the chemicals just happen to be very dangerous, and a million fish die in the river downstream. Is the CEO really the guilty on here? Did he really know? On the other hand, you have the VW dieselgate, where a whole team had to work on the software, and atleast a few level of mangers had to have known about the issue. But on the corporate ladder, where every level is squeezing the level below it to "do more", "bring in more profits", it's possible that some manager in charge of something actually didn't tell the people above him, just how exactly he solved the exhaust issue, just that he solved it, and saved millions of euros (and got a huge bonus). On the other hand, coordinating a big team of coders, and such info not getting to higher ups or to members of different teams in the same company (with different managers) is probably unlikely. What i'm trying to say is, that blaming the CEO by default is bad, because in the first case, it's unrealistic to expect the CEO to even know that that local walmart exists.... and in the second case, that there should be a very thourough investigation just how high the knowledge went, and have the whole chain of comand held responsible.
  - canofbars 6y ago
    The problem is management can just abuse this by saying something like "Dispose of these chemicals safely, you have 5 minutes to be back". The manager clearly said to do it safely but 5 minutes only leaves time to dump them unsafely. How do you assign blame to the manager or even higher systems which tell people to do these things without literally saying it.
CRConrad 6y ago
> I don't think CEO is the right level. It may be the top position with high pay, but a CEO is so high up the food-chain that they touch very little. Funny then how the CEO is the right level to take that high pay, which is generally defended as compensation for the ultimate responsibility. Either the CEO is responsible for what happens under his reign, or he isn't. If he is, why shouldn't he shoulder the blame for the bad parts; if he isn't, why should he be paid for the good parts?
wpietri 6y ago
If a CEO is so high up the food chain that nothing they do matters, then why should they have the high pay? I don't understand the notion that they're responsible for all of the good things their employees do but none of the bad ones. Especially when, as here, it's the bad ones that are so profitable.
PakG1 6y ago
It is the CEO's job to set the organizational culture and expectations. CEO doesn't need to know what's going on farther down the food chain, but the CEO is responsible for setting the culture in which they make their decisions.