3 ms·
A good leader is supposed to take responsibility for the actions taken by his or her team. Failure of a unit implies failure of the leadership. In my view, the
by otterley 6y ago
A good leader is supposed to take responsibility for the actions taken by his or her team. Failure of a unit implies failure of the leadership. In my view, the right outcome happened here.
- loeg 6y ago> A good leader is supposed to take responsibility for the actions taken by his or her team. Failure of a unit implies failure of the leadership. I've heard the same "leadership principles seppuku" and sure, this would be consistent with that ethos. (In my experience, that kind of buck-stops-here ownership happens less often than not.) But this isn't the part of your comment I want to argue. > In my view, the right outcome happened here. I disagree (if it was a subordinate). If the responsible party was a more junior member of HR, I'd like to see the blowback land on the actually culpable party. (That could be in addition, or alternative, to the leader's resignation.)
- watwut 6y agoIf a junior member of HR was able to fire employee without review by other people and proper plausibly lookimg documentation, then the responsibility is 100% on whoever invented such process. Which is the lead. Because really, that would put the company not just at risk of what is going on now, but also at risk of very expensive lawsuits.
- Ballas 6y agoWould that not just lead to no good leaders over the long term? (with the good ones always resigning due to actions of their team members)