3 ms·

A strategy like "manage endpoints" would not be satisfied if people are actively able to avoid it, no? Wouldn't that mean the board's strategy is being ignored

A strategy like "manage endpoints" would not be satisfied if people are actively able to avoid it, no? Wouldn't that mean the board's strategy is being ignored and evidence of it concealed by the CEO?

SilverBirch 4y ago
The question isn't "Right at this moment is everything good" it's "do we have a strategy to get to the point where everything is good". So sure, the first thing you're going to find when you implement endpoint management is lots of devices are breaching the requirements, the important thing is to then address that - not to just go back to the board and say "things are really bad".
- peteradio 4y ago
  I'm curious where the line might be then, at what point would it be problematic for the CEO to prevent this particular issue surfacing? Or is the onus on the board to ask for specific feedback?
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    I think there's two clear criteria for what would rise to the board: Firstly, somthing that clearly raises legal liability - for example discovering a hack that must be disclosed publicly, that sort of thing. Or something that clearly causes a rethink in strategy. Now, I could absolutely see a scenario where Mudge comes in and goes "This is terrible, we need to massively change our plan and massively increase our focus on security" and Agrawal basically disagrees. At the end of the day it's a judgement call, so it's down to Agrawal.
    - peteradio 4y ago
      I could see a CEO getting in the way of a pretty clear board mandate and getting fired for it, maybe there needs to be a sacrificial someone to make that happen. I haven't really seen good evidence in my short tenure to believe that one man should be making all judgement calls for a business, although that is how I guess everything is structured for some reason. Thanks for the insights.
danielmarkbruce 4y ago
If the CEO put the level of detail around endpoint security that "mudge" implies he should have, the board would wonder if they've hired the wrong CEO.

SilverBirch 4y ago

The question isn't "Right at this moment is everything good" it's "do we have a strategy to get to the point where everything is good". So sure, the first thing you're going to find when you implement endpoint management is lots of devices are breaching the requirements, the important thing is to then address that - not to just go back to the board and say "things are really bad".

peteradio 4y ago
I'm curious where the line might be then, at what point would it be problematic for the CEO to prevent this particular issue surfacing? Or is the onus on the board to ask for specific feedback?
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  I think there's two clear criteria for what would rise to the board: Firstly, somthing that clearly raises legal liability - for example discovering a hack that must be disclosed publicly, that sort of thing. Or something that clearly causes a rethink in strategy. Now, I could absolutely see a scenario where Mudge comes in and goes "This is terrible, we need to massively change our plan and massively increase our focus on security" and Agrawal basically disagrees. At the end of the day it's a judgement call, so it's down to Agrawal.
  - peteradio 4y ago
    I could see a CEO getting in the way of a pretty clear board mandate and getting fired for it, maybe there needs to be a sacrificial someone to make that happen. I haven't really seen good evidence in my short tenure to believe that one man should be making all judgement calls for a business, although that is how I guess everything is structured for some reason. Thanks for the insights.

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

If the CEO put the level of detail around endpoint security that "mudge" implies he should have, the board would wonder if they've hired the wrong CEO.