4 ms·

Sure. But if you won’t take any pain don’t go around with that holier than thou attitude talking about how you take full responsibility.

wilg 4y ago
It sounds like a definitional issue of what responsibility is. What "pain" should they "take"? And why?
- bjornsing 4y ago
  My point is not that they should take “pain”. My point is that they shouldn’t go around talking about “taking full responsibility” when there is no negative consequence for them. I guess it’s just an emotional / cultural norm. E.g. if somebody is committed of a crime and says “I take full responsibility for my actions” to the judge just before being sentenced, then that is a very strong signal of character for me. But if somebody says “I take full responsibility for my actions” just before jumping in an Uber to go to a luxury dinner with the board of directors, then that does not impress me and I perceive it as a cheap attempt to reap the social benefits of saying that phrase with none of the potential costs.
  - wilg 4y ago
    What I'm trying to drive at is whether there is any satisfactory way for a CEO in this position to "take responsibility for their actions" without raising your ire. What would they have to do? Then we can look at whether that's a reasonable thing to expect of someone in such a position. My initial instinct is that this line of argument is more like venting than it is any kind of real suggestion for behavior change.
    - jsnell 4y ago
      Of course they aren't going to actually suffer any consequences. We all know that's not how this works, which is exactly why it's so risible. But something reasonable and totally under their own control is to not brag about holding themselves accountable when they know nothing will happen. It's basically making the layoff about themselves, rather than the poor sods who just lost their jobs. (There's some other common patterns in that vein too, e.g. "this is the hardest decision I've ever had to do".) If you want to acknowledge being at fault, that's totally fine. Just write the facts. The over-hiring was a mistake, and you're the one who made that decision. Don't dress it up into a personal journey of failure and redemption.
      - bjornsing 4y ago
        Yes. It’s when (some) CEOs try to use this as just another brand building opportunity that it draws my ire.
      - wilg 4y ago
        How is saying "accountability rests with me as the CEO" different from saying that they're the one who made the decision? Is that really dressing it up? Or just saying the same thing with different words? It really seems like you have a different definition of "accountability" than other people.
        bjornsing 4y ago
        I think it’s you how’s confused about the words involved here. For example you switch between the concepts “take responsibility” and “be accountable” as if they were the same thing. They’re not.
        wilg 4y ago
        The dictionary definition of "accountable" is this: "required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible"

wilg 4y ago

It sounds like a definitional issue of what responsibility is. What "pain" should they "take"? And why?

bjornsing 4y ago
My point is not that they should take “pain”. My point is that they shouldn’t go around talking about “taking full responsibility” when there is no negative consequence for them. I guess it’s just an emotional / cultural norm. E.g. if somebody is committed of a crime and says “I take full responsibility for my actions” to the judge just before being sentenced, then that is a very strong signal of character for me. But if somebody says “I take full responsibility for my actions” just before jumping in an Uber to go to a luxury dinner with the board of directors, then that does not impress me and I perceive it as a cheap attempt to reap the social benefits of saying that phrase with none of the potential costs.
- wilg 4y ago
  What I'm trying to drive at is whether there is any satisfactory way for a CEO in this position to "take responsibility for their actions" without raising your ire. What would they have to do? Then we can look at whether that's a reasonable thing to expect of someone in such a position. My initial instinct is that this line of argument is more like venting than it is any kind of real suggestion for behavior change.
  - jsnell 4y ago
    Of course they aren't going to actually suffer any consequences. We all know that's not how this works, which is exactly why it's so risible. But something reasonable and totally under their own control is to not brag about holding themselves accountable when they know nothing will happen. It's basically making the layoff about themselves, rather than the poor sods who just lost their jobs. (There's some other common patterns in that vein too, e.g. "this is the hardest decision I've ever had to do".) If you want to acknowledge being at fault, that's totally fine. Just write the facts. The over-hiring was a mistake, and you're the one who made that decision. Don't dress it up into a personal journey of failure and redemption.
    - bjornsing 4y ago
      Yes. It’s when (some) CEOs try to use this as just another brand building opportunity that it draws my ire.
    - wilg 4y ago
      How is saying "accountability rests with me as the CEO" different from saying that they're the one who made the decision? Is that really dressing it up? Or just saying the same thing with different words? It really seems like you have a different definition of "accountability" than other people.
      - bjornsing 4y ago
        I think it’s you how’s confused about the words involved here. For example you switch between the concepts “take responsibility” and “be accountable” as if they were the same thing. They’re not.
        wilg 4y ago
        The dictionary definition of "accountable" is this: "required or expected to justify actions or decisions; responsible"