4 ms·
A CEO is not “just an employee”, even when they are not a founder. You don’t get to accept that much power and that much money and then pass off any responsibil
by lovich 4y ago
A CEO is not “just an employee”, even when they are not a founder. You don’t get to accept that much power and that much money and then pass off any responsibility because you have someone to answer to.
Like really, if we accept that proposition how would society function? Youd have people in charge of tens to hundreds of thousands of peoples daily lives and output who just pass the buck on any issues because they got orders? Is that in anyway functionality different from a monarchy?
- lo_zamoyski 4y agoThat seems like an uncharitable interpretation of what the OP wrote. Obviously, employees have varying degrees of power in any given company, not just the CEO. A team lead, a director, a middle manager, and so on all have varying degrees of power within an organization (at least on paper; we can speak of influence that isn't formalized). The point the OP was making is that because CEOs are ultimately employees, the same basic relevant "rules" or expectations apply to them by virtue of their employee relationship. That doesn't automatically excuse them of any wrongdoing. All employees share some responsibility and some culpability (though this part is more complex) in a company's operations. Indeed, CEOs are generally more responsible for the company's direction than any other employee, and they must assent to what the shareholders are asking them to do. (Also, you've unfairly maligned monarchies. Monarchies are not by their nature despotic, though they can be as can other forms of government. And if you want to make the analogy, then most companies are closer to monarchies than to democratic republics in the sense that at most companies, you don't have a say in who is CEO, for example.)
- adolph 4y ago>>>>> Unlike everyone else here apparently, I find [Dorsey's] attitude pretty positive. >>>> It’s pretty hard for even CEOs to control direction sometimes >>> A CEO is just an employee >> A CEO is not “just an employee” > That seems like an uncharitable interpretation No, it is a straightforward interpretation using that person's own words. It is not uncharitable to take someone at face value.
- potatototoo99 4y agoBoy are you in for a rude awakening
- yamtaddle 4y ago> Like really, if we accept that proposition how would society function? Youd have people in charge of tens to hundreds of thousands of peoples daily lives and output who just pass the buck on any issues because they got orders? Is that in anyway functionality different from a monarchy? 1) Exactly as it does. You're looking at it. 2) Yeah, that's pretty much how it's going. Like, half the time they pass the buck even when there's no-one "above" them and they were the originator of all the orders, and somehow that seems to work out much better for them than one might hope. Did you see that last presidency the US just had? 3) More like feudal aristocracy in general, not just a monarchy, except that the serfs get to pick which of several bad lords they'll serve, but you're on the right track. Welcome to the first steps toward left-libertarianism.
- lovich 4y agoThat is in no way describing left-libertarianism unless your critical of part three and think we should go back to one lord
- yamtaddle 4y agoHuh? No recognizing and being uncomfortable with this stuff is that step toward left-libertarianism. Not endorsing it. Guess I didn't make that clear enough.
- lovich 4y agoI will retract my criticism. Admittedly after dealing with the Mises Caucus I got sensitive to comments on left libertarianism. Thank you for the clarification