8 ms·

Doesn't the buck stop with the CEO ? or are we going to look the other way because she is playing the "Pregnant Woman Victim" card and the "Brown Man bad" card.

Doesn't the buck stop with the CEO ? or are we going to look the other way because she is playing the "Pregnant Woman Victim" card and the "Brown Man bad" card. I hope she gets the same sentence as he did. But you never know. She took all the glory and limelight as the CEO and now it is time to suffer the consequences of the fraud as well.

knodi123 4y ago
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  She said that he was an abusive partner at home, and abusive to her at work. The latter makes no sense, because if so, why didn't she fire him before they moved in together. You don't abuse/harass your boss and expect to get away with it.
  - cdf 4y ago
    Balwani wasnt just any employee. He was a significant debtor(investor?) to the company and could blackmail Holmes for her role in the fraud. Not saying Holmes is innocent or powerless, but it is not entirely fair to suggest she can fire him any time as he does have significant power over her.
  - foldr 4y ago
    While I’m not generally inclined to believe a word that Elizabeth Holmes says, it’s a fact that people do sometimes stay with abusive partners.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      Oh absolutely. I was careful to word things the way I did - because I get that with intimate partner violence (I believe he was "only" accused of being mentally and emotionally abusive, not physically). And it would have become an order of magnitude more difficult when cohabiting. But if they're not living with you, and at the time, your employee, I think the "why did you not fire this person" question is pretty valid - given that she had zero hesitation in firing multitudes of people very close to her for even slightly rocking the boat.
  - robonerd 4y ago
- muh_gradle 4y ago
  She absolutely blamed him and has tried to use him as the evil mastermind.
paxys 4y ago
Plausible deniability is a thing. The CEO isn't going to be responsible if, say, some low-level employee is doing insider trading. Obviously not the case here, but it is still possible that Elizabeth Holmes and Balwani are both guilty of different things, and the latter incriminated himself more in the process.
refurb 4y ago
Doesn't the buck stop with the CEO? Most big companies I’ve worked in the entire C-suite has their own fiefdoms. The CEO has direct reports in their C-levels, but the C-levels “own” their own orgs that the CEO isn’t as close to. The relationship between a CEO and a COO is much closer to a equal relationship than a boss and subordinate.

knodi123 4y ago

FireBeyond 4y ago
She said that he was an abusive partner at home, and abusive to her at work. The latter makes no sense, because if so, why didn't she fire him before they moved in together. You don't abuse/harass your boss and expect to get away with it.
- cdf 4y ago
  Balwani wasnt just any employee. He was a significant debtor(investor?) to the company and could blackmail Holmes for her role in the fraud. Not saying Holmes is innocent or powerless, but it is not entirely fair to suggest she can fire him any time as he does have significant power over her.
- foldr 4y ago
  While I’m not generally inclined to believe a word that Elizabeth Holmes says, it’s a fact that people do sometimes stay with abusive partners.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    Oh absolutely. I was careful to word things the way I did - because I get that with intimate partner violence (I believe he was "only" accused of being mentally and emotionally abusive, not physically). And it would have become an order of magnitude more difficult when cohabiting. But if they're not living with you, and at the time, your employee, I think the "why did you not fire this person" question is pretty valid - given that she had zero hesitation in firing multitudes of people very close to her for even slightly rocking the boat.
- robonerd 4y ago
muh_gradle 4y ago
She absolutely blamed him and has tried to use him as the evil mastermind.

paxys 4y ago

Plausible deniability is a thing. The CEO isn't going to be responsible if, say, some low-level employee is doing insider trading. Obviously not the case here, but it is still possible that Elizabeth Holmes and Balwani are both guilty of different things, and the latter incriminated himself more in the process.

refurb 4y ago

Doesn't the buck stop with the CEO? Most big companies I’ve worked in the entire C-suite has their own fiefdoms. The CEO has direct reports in their C-levels, but the C-levels “own” their own orgs that the CEO isn’t as close to. The relationship between a CEO and a COO is much closer to a equal relationship than a boss and subordinate.