3 ms·
Just because you don’t see the value in someone taking responsibility in the absence of material consequences doesn’t mean it’s not meaningful to most people. Y
by DiggyJohnson 4y ago
Just because you don’t see the value in someone taking responsibility in the absence of material consequences doesn’t mean it’s not meaningful to most people. You seem to have a very litigious perspective on this.
To me, this is him being clear that the decisions that led to this situation are on him, and not the employees. That’s a very clear statement, one that I would consider quite meaningful.
- wpietri 4y agoYes, I understand what the words mean, thanks. The question for me is how empty the words are. Compare that with, say, CEOs who take pay cuts during downturns: https://www.google.com/search?q=ceo+takes+a+pay+cut+-price+-gravity https://www.google.com/search?q=ceo+takes+a+pay+cut+-price+-... Between the two sorts of CEO, it seems pretty clear that one is more serious about taking responsibility for their mistakes.
- amerkhalid 4y agoI still don't understand. If an employee had over-hired at this scale, that employee would have been fired along with their over-hired staff. Or maybe, at least, demoted. So what does taking responsibility here really means?
- Aeolun 4y ago> If an employee had over-hired at this scale, that employee would have been fired along with their over-hired staff. Only if they are part of a sick organisation. In a healthy one, if the fault was that employees, and it’s a first offence, they’d be responsible for rectifying the issue they caused.