3 ms·

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 i

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.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    This just means there is nuance to correctly assigning blame.
- beefield 6y ago
  > it's unrealistic to expect the CEO to even know that that local walmart exists Maybe, just maybe we then should not have so large entities that nobody can be responsible for? Limited liability is a massive handout from society to the owners of the Limited liability company and should be priced accordingly. (I do not propose banning limited liability. I propose being more selective how and which operations actually deserve limited liability. And tax it appropriately.)
  - ajsnigrutin 6y ago
    But this is true even with companies that have only two stores. Even one if it's open for more than one shift.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    > just maybe we then should not have so large entities that nobody can be responsible for But who says no one is responsible? There are clearly guilty parties, just not the CEO.
  - Symmetry 6y ago
    That would be nice in a way but then we couldn't have complicated products like laptops or iPhones. Abstraction barriers aren't optional when managing sufficiently complex processes.
Chris2048 6y ago
> but it's actually impossible for them but what is "them" in this case. You are talking about the corporation, but does this mean CEOs, managers, or some combination of the two? I'm not sure I'm arguing along those lines at all. What I'm saying is most CEOs are far removed from anything direct, but I'm not sure how that translates to "and therefore no one is". > They should be ultimately responsible for the entire organization I disagree. You don't really argue why, and I argue, at least, that it's not at all practically. Best case it leads to scapegoating the CEO for things they aren't best positioned to control, and/or executive-levels micromanaging lower levels for fear of liability.

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.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  This just means there is nuance to correctly assigning blame.
beefield 6y ago
> it's unrealistic to expect the CEO to even know that that local walmart exists Maybe, just maybe we then should not have so large entities that nobody can be responsible for? Limited liability is a massive handout from society to the owners of the Limited liability company and should be priced accordingly. (I do not propose banning limited liability. I propose being more selective how and which operations actually deserve limited liability. And tax it appropriately.)
- ajsnigrutin 6y ago
  But this is true even with companies that have only two stores. Even one if it's open for more than one shift.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > just maybe we then should not have so large entities that nobody can be responsible for But who says no one is responsible? There are clearly guilty parties, just not the CEO.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  That would be nice in a way but then we couldn't have complicated products like laptops or iPhones. Abstraction barriers aren't optional when managing sufficiently complex processes.

Chris2048 6y ago

> but it's actually impossible for them but what is "them" in this case. You are talking about the corporation, but does this mean CEOs, managers, or some combination of the two? I'm not sure I'm arguing along those lines at all. What I'm saying is most CEOs are far removed from anything direct, but I'm not sure how that translates to "and therefore no one is". > They should be ultimately responsible for the entire organization I disagree. You don't really argue why, and I argue, at least, that it's not at all practically. Best case it leads to scapegoating the CEO for things they aren't best positioned to control, and/or executive-levels micromanaging lower levels for fear of liability.