2 ms·
That's the professional way to do it (and if it doesn't get addressed, there's nothing more he can do). I'd argue that if your boss is refusing to act on a ser
by onion2k 5y ago
That's the professional way to do it (and if it doesn't get addressed, there's nothing more he can do).
I'd argue that if your boss is refusing to act on a serious security concern you have a moral duty to take it further up the hierarchy yourself, and to (responsibly) disclose to the government/public if the company won't listen. Shrugging and saying "Well, I tried!" isn't good enough.
- yial 5y agoI agree - looking at the organizational directives I've worked on creating during my career, many specify that if you supervisor/manager/director does not act on an issue that is critical, that you are empowered to continue ahead and/or request followup. There are more things and nuances specified, but the idea of "this is critical, but oh well my manager ignored me... nothing more I can do." doesn't seem to breed organizational success. (By no means I am advocating for insubordination per se.)
- xiphias2 5y agoI was also talking about going up the hierarchy, but I'm afraid that he went to other bosses that made his division look bad. I would never go public without going to a lawyer first, and getting enough proofs (emails) that I did everything I could to raise alert in a responsible way inside the company first. Edit: after rereading the article I thing we just don't have enough data to know how things happened exactly.
- gorjusborg 5y agoWith a company like VW (who has used engineers as scapegoats in the past), I'd just want to make sure there was a paper trail that indicates I did the right thing. Then I'd feel okay letting the business making the final call.