3 ms·
If it matters, I was speaking as someone who led the authorization platform team for a Fortune 100 company. I do suppose this depends significantly on company c
by NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
If it matters, I was speaking as someone who led the authorization platform team for a Fortune 100 company. I do suppose this depends significantly on company culture.
In my experience: failure to abide by company policy is first-and-foremost a compliance issue; the company policy framework definitely goes above and beyond the scope of "what is criminal".
HR is primarily there to provide to manage records of employee conduct (e.g. in case of a pervasive pattern of misconduct across a number of different controls) and a sanctioning mechanism (hard conversation; formal reprimand; separation).
- dogman144 5y agoYeah def a company culture thing. I agree it’s a compliance issue, this is def GRC, and agree with your def of HR. What I notice is HR likes to really move on employees when it has legal protection to do so. What a “pervasive pattern of misconduct” is often has a law behind it in some form, as otherwise you risk a wrongful termination lawsuit. So, if you have a situation where an employee’s pattern of misconduct sources back to only, or at the root, IAM allowing it (say an extreme scenario like consistently nuking prod), there is now some gray area for those wrongful termination suits.