9 ms·

The problem is that finding the people responsible can be extremely hard, so you have to go against the corporation itself. Punishing a corporation is easy, bu

The problem is that finding the people responsible can be extremely hard, so you have to go against the corporation itself. Punishing a corporation is easy, but the government hates doing it for obvious reasons. It means ruining something which is useful to you and punishing tens of thousands of completely innocent people, with inevitable layoffs. What Boeing really needs is a complete change in management culture, as that was the real root cause for the MAX disasters, but that is impossible to enforce, you can't even really verify that it has happened. I also think people don't understand how extremely lucky Boeing is. If all of this had happened during a time of low demand the company would be facing a far more dire situation, likely with many major airlines canceling orders. But since airplane demand is very high and order books are full, airlines have to keep their orders at Boeing if they want new planes.

lordnacho 2y ago
Why can't the government mandate a board replacement? The board can figure out for themselves who is responsible, I would guess the finger would typically point at the CEO.
- davedx 2y ago
  Boards are often toothless though, just look at Tesla's. Replace the C-suite. This is done frequently in M&A's and other corporate strategies in extremis. Fire the guys at the top and replace them with people with good track records.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    You can rotate people in and out of the C-suite, but incentives and culture aren’t going to change. These people are largely figureheads that get paid a lot of money because they are Ivy Leaguers whose friends on company boards who set their salaries are all Ivy Leaguers, too. It’s not like Boeing is going to get a new CEO and then suddenly middle management is going to start prioritizing safety, engineering rigor, and risk management over profit.
    - quotemstr 2y ago
      Counterexample: Nadella
    - fwip 2y ago
      If the new CEO doesn't want to go to jail, then they'll make the changes.
    - davedx 2y ago
      Who do you think sets the incentives? This conversation is so weird to me, I don't get what people are arguing: is the argument that it's better to replace middle management than top level management? That we shouldn't do anything? What?
- sonzohan 2y ago
  You would keep the status quo. The problem with Boeing is the replacement of a strong engineering-first culture with a profit-first culture over decades. It's a classic playbook: acquire company, erode product quality and culture for profit, pay out shareholders, discard hollowed-out husk.
lupusreal 2y ago
How do you even "change management culture" without punishing people who are innocent of any crime other than being a manager who embodies the sort of management culture you're trying to stamp out? If you limit yourself to firing/prosecuting the specific managers that committed fraud/etc this time nothing will change because those guys only existed in the org and operated that way because of the broader management context. Sweeping layoffs are probably a necessarily prerequisite for fixing Boeing.
- immibis 2y ago
  "How do you eliminate fraud from a company without punishing managers who are innocent of any crime other than being a manager who embodies a management culture that promotes fraud?" Idk, doesn't sound like a problem to me.
  - Sakos 2y ago
    Agree. Seems like great incentive for the next replacement manager to not turn a blind eye or be willfully ignorant like it's not their problem.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    My point is that this should be done, and trying to avoid those sweeping layoffs is misguided.
davedx 2y ago
> The problem is that finding the people responsible can be extremely hard > What Boeing really needs is a complete change in management culture Who is ultimately responsible for management at a company though? The CEO and the other C-level people. This isn't really the daunting difficult problem you make it out to be: the buck stops at the C-suite. Who else could possibly be ultimately responsible??
- constantcrying 2y ago
  You can not punish someone for a crime they didn't commit and had no knowledge of. That is ridiculous and a perversion of justice.
  - squigz 2y ago
    It seems to me the real perversion of justice is executives constantly avoiding consequences for their actions
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      It is not illegal to be a bad CEO. CEOs, surprisingly are protected by the law as well.
      - asimpletune 2y ago
        Maybe in some cases it should be?
        Arnt 2y ago
        It is in some cases.
      - thoronton 2y ago
        If you are such a bad CEO that over 200 People die because of your bad management, then that should definitely be illegal. For what do they get the millions if not for taking responsibility?
archerx 2y ago
Make the CEO responsible, want those big rewards (high ceo pay) get ready to deal with big responsibility. I’m sure if CEOs were criminally liable things would change very quickly.
- lordnacho 2y ago
  Yeah, this is key. I don't see why the system shouldn't be set up that way. Company does something criminal, now boss is considered a criminal.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    That is a perversion of justice. You can not transfer criminal liability for money. Your employees can be criminals regardless of culture. The precedent this would set is ridiculous.
    - abenga 2y ago
      Who should be responsible for a company's crimes if not the people who make decisions in the company? If we want companies to have legal personhood, how about they suffer the same perils of breaking the law (prison time, etc)? Fines are just a price we set on breaking the law.
      - constantcrying 2y ago
        >Who should be responsible for a company's crimes if not the people who make decisions in the company? The person committing that crime. >If we want companies to have legal personhood, how about they suffer the same perils of breaking the law (prison time, etc)? Companies can not be put to jail.
        abenga 2y ago
        The people committing the crime include those who make the decisions. Hiring an assassin makes me guilty of murder.
tgv 2y ago
This is such a "this looks tough, I don't feel like doing it" take. Who is responsible? As others have said, the structure of a corporation defines that. If person A has to do what person B says, then B is responsible. If B "didn't know", then B has been lacking. It also avoids sacking the "innocent people" and it sets an example for other companies. The greedy corporate culture really needs a bit of check-and-balance.
- bluGill 2y ago
  We do however have to allow for person A intentionally hiding from person B what they are doing. Person A should check, but it is impossible to see everything so we do have to allow for person B committing fraud to hide from audits.
  - tgv 2y ago
    Sure. But then B should prove that A did so. And even then, if B had threatened A, even implicitly, B can still be considered responsible for the fact that A didn't inform.
pmontra 2y ago
This is simplistic, but it's a start for a discussion: you look at the organizational chart, start from the bottom where the people working on the product are, punish all the line from there up to the board (all the C*). Then people will start asking questions about what they are told to do, because they know that if they do something wrong they're going to jail or have to pay the fines themselves, not a bank account of the company. And they won't have much else to go to get shielded from responsibility, because all jobs will be like that. Even our own jobs.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
underseacables 2y ago
The CEO. America does not put CEOs in prison anymore. Yes, the occasional CEO will go to jail for fraud, but when people actually die, like this, the CEO and the executive suite goes unpunished. When the justice system starts putting CEOs in jail, is when we will see their behavior change. Until then, all of this with Boeing is nothing more than lawyers and legal fees.
ralferoo 2y ago
> I also think people don't understand how extremely lucky Boeing is. Disagree. I think most people can see how lucky it is for them that they can avoid an expensive and protracted court case, just say "oh yeah, we're guilty of a serious fraud" and the only consequence is some fines that amount to about 1% of their annual revenue. With consequences like that, it seems like the government is actively encouraging them to commit fraud...
dralley 2y ago
>I also think people don't understand how extremely lucky Boeing is. If all of this had happened during a time of low demand the company would be facing a far more dire situation, likely with many major airlines canceling orders. But since airplane demand is very high and order books are full, airlines have to keep their orders at Boeing if they want new planes. And as it stands they've already been losing money for the past 5 years. They could be losing a lot more money. Granted a lot of those losses are due to their own mismanagement of projects like KC-46, Starliner, AF1, etc.
ajsnigrutin 2y ago
> The problem is that finding the people responsible can be extremely hard, so you have to go against the corporation itself. It's funny... when some people get paid A LOT of money, it's because they have "a lot of responsibilities", but when something goes wrong, those responsibilities suddenly vanish.
snewman 2y ago
> What Boeing really needs is a complete change in management culture, as that was the real root cause for the MAX disasters, but that is impossible to enforce, you can't even really verify that it has happened. Serious question: why not? Why couldn't we require Boeing to change its culture, and then verify and enforce that change? Verification might involve periodically interviewing employees across all levels of the organization, performing spot checks and audits to make sure that procedures are being followed (no more failing to enter a work item into the system), and so forth. (I don't mean to imply that this would be feasible under current regulatory law – I have no idea whether that is the case or not. I'm just saying that you could imagine a world where this could be done.)
treflop 2y ago
What Boeing needs is competition. There is Airbus, which apparently doesn’t scare them enough, but there used to be a lot more in Boeing’s earlier years. Unfortunately an airplane building company has high upstart costs and is also not a cool industry to get into.
marcosdumay 2y ago
> It means ruining something which is useful to you and punishing tens of thousands of completely innocent people, with inevitable layoffs. There are no layoffs of you apply the punishment into the shareholders. Confiscate enough of the company proportionally to the fine value. Shareholders are, of course, free to sue the actual decision makers afterwards to pin down any non-mandated illegal behavior and recover their losses.

lordnacho 2y ago

Why can't the government mandate a board replacement? The board can figure out for themselves who is responsible, I would guess the finger would typically point at the CEO.

davedx 2y ago
Boards are often toothless though, just look at Tesla's. Replace the C-suite. This is done frequently in M&A's and other corporate strategies in extremis. Fire the guys at the top and replace them with people with good track records.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  You can rotate people in and out of the C-suite, but incentives and culture aren’t going to change. These people are largely figureheads that get paid a lot of money because they are Ivy Leaguers whose friends on company boards who set their salaries are all Ivy Leaguers, too. It’s not like Boeing is going to get a new CEO and then suddenly middle management is going to start prioritizing safety, engineering rigor, and risk management over profit.
  - quotemstr 2y ago
    Counterexample: Nadella
  - fwip 2y ago
    If the new CEO doesn't want to go to jail, then they'll make the changes.
  - davedx 2y ago
    Who do you think sets the incentives? This conversation is so weird to me, I don't get what people are arguing: is the argument that it's better to replace middle management than top level management? That we shouldn't do anything? What?
sonzohan 2y ago
You would keep the status quo. The problem with Boeing is the replacement of a strong engineering-first culture with a profit-first culture over decades. It's a classic playbook: acquire company, erode product quality and culture for profit, pay out shareholders, discard hollowed-out husk.

lupusreal 2y ago

How do you even "change management culture" without punishing people who are innocent of any crime other than being a manager who embodies the sort of management culture you're trying to stamp out? If you limit yourself to firing/prosecuting the specific managers that committed fraud/etc this time nothing will change because those guys only existed in the org and operated that way because of the broader management context. Sweeping layoffs are probably a necessarily prerequisite for fixing Boeing.

immibis 2y ago
"How do you eliminate fraud from a company without punishing managers who are innocent of any crime other than being a manager who embodies a management culture that promotes fraud?" Idk, doesn't sound like a problem to me.
- Sakos 2y ago
  Agree. Seems like great incentive for the next replacement manager to not turn a blind eye or be willfully ignorant like it's not their problem.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  My point is that this should be done, and trying to avoid those sweeping layoffs is misguided.

davedx 2y ago

> The problem is that finding the people responsible can be extremely hard > What Boeing really needs is a complete change in management culture Who is ultimately responsible for management at a company though? The CEO and the other C-level people. This isn't really the daunting difficult problem you make it out to be: the buck stops at the C-suite. Who else could possibly be ultimately responsible??

constantcrying 2y ago
You can not punish someone for a crime they didn't commit and had no knowledge of. That is ridiculous and a perversion of justice.
- squigz 2y ago
  It seems to me the real perversion of justice is executives constantly avoiding consequences for their actions
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    It is not illegal to be a bad CEO. CEOs, surprisingly are protected by the law as well.
    - asimpletune 2y ago
      Maybe in some cases it should be?
      - Arnt 2y ago
        It is in some cases.
    - thoronton 2y ago
      If you are such a bad CEO that over 200 People die because of your bad management, then that should definitely be illegal. For what do they get the millions if not for taking responsibility?

archerx 2y ago

Make the CEO responsible, want those big rewards (high ceo pay) get ready to deal with big responsibility. I’m sure if CEOs were criminally liable things would change very quickly.

lordnacho 2y ago
Yeah, this is key. I don't see why the system shouldn't be set up that way. Company does something criminal, now boss is considered a criminal.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  That is a perversion of justice. You can not transfer criminal liability for money. Your employees can be criminals regardless of culture. The precedent this would set is ridiculous.
  - abenga 2y ago
    Who should be responsible for a company's crimes if not the people who make decisions in the company? If we want companies to have legal personhood, how about they suffer the same perils of breaking the law (prison time, etc)? Fines are just a price we set on breaking the law.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      >Who should be responsible for a company's crimes if not the people who make decisions in the company? The person committing that crime. >If we want companies to have legal personhood, how about they suffer the same perils of breaking the law (prison time, etc)? Companies can not be put to jail.
      - abenga 2y ago
        The people committing the crime include those who make the decisions. Hiring an assassin makes me guilty of murder.

tgv 2y ago

This is such a "this looks tough, I don't feel like doing it" take. Who is responsible? As others have said, the structure of a corporation defines that. If person A has to do what person B says, then B is responsible. If B "didn't know", then B has been lacking. It also avoids sacking the "innocent people" and it sets an example for other companies. The greedy corporate culture really needs a bit of check-and-balance.

bluGill 2y ago
We do however have to allow for person A intentionally hiding from person B what they are doing. Person A should check, but it is impossible to see everything so we do have to allow for person B committing fraud to hide from audits.
- tgv 2y ago
  Sure. But then B should prove that A did so. And even then, if B had threatened A, even implicitly, B can still be considered responsible for the fact that A didn't inform.

pmontra 2y ago

This is simplistic, but it's a start for a discussion: you look at the organizational chart, start from the bottom where the people working on the product are, punish all the line from there up to the board (all the C*). Then people will start asking questions about what they are told to do, because they know that if they do something wrong they're going to jail or have to pay the fines themselves, not a bank account of the company. And they won't have much else to go to get shielded from responsibility, because all jobs will be like that. Even our own jobs.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

underseacables 2y ago

The CEO. America does not put CEOs in prison anymore. Yes, the occasional CEO will go to jail for fraud, but when people actually die, like this, the CEO and the executive suite goes unpunished. When the justice system starts putting CEOs in jail, is when we will see their behavior change. Until then, all of this with Boeing is nothing more than lawyers and legal fees.

ralferoo 2y ago

> I also think people don't understand how extremely lucky Boeing is. Disagree. I think most people can see how lucky it is for them that they can avoid an expensive and protracted court case, just say "oh yeah, we're guilty of a serious fraud" and the only consequence is some fines that amount to about 1% of their annual revenue. With consequences like that, it seems like the government is actively encouraging them to commit fraud...

dralley 2y ago

>I also think people don't understand how extremely lucky Boeing is. If all of this had happened during a time of low demand the company would be facing a far more dire situation, likely with many major airlines canceling orders. But since airplane demand is very high and order books are full, airlines have to keep their orders at Boeing if they want new planes. And as it stands they've already been losing money for the past 5 years. They could be losing a lot more money. Granted a lot of those losses are due to their own mismanagement of projects like KC-46, Starliner, AF1, etc.

ajsnigrutin 2y ago

> The problem is that finding the people responsible can be extremely hard, so you have to go against the corporation itself. It's funny... when some people get paid A LOT of money, it's because they have "a lot of responsibilities", but when something goes wrong, those responsibilities suddenly vanish.

snewman 2y ago

> What Boeing really needs is a complete change in management culture, as that was the real root cause for the MAX disasters, but that is impossible to enforce, you can't even really verify that it has happened. Serious question: why not? Why couldn't we require Boeing to change its culture, and then verify and enforce that change? Verification might involve periodically interviewing employees across all levels of the organization, performing spot checks and audits to make sure that procedures are being followed (no more failing to enter a work item into the system), and so forth. (I don't mean to imply that this would be feasible under current regulatory law – I have no idea whether that is the case or not. I'm just saying that you could imagine a world where this could be done.)

treflop 2y ago

What Boeing needs is competition. There is Airbus, which apparently doesn’t scare them enough, but there used to be a lot more in Boeing’s earlier years. Unfortunately an airplane building company has high upstart costs and is also not a cool industry to get into.

marcosdumay 2y ago

> It means ruining something which is useful to you and punishing tens of thousands of completely innocent people, with inevitable layoffs. There are no layoffs of you apply the punishment into the shareholders. Confiscate enough of the company proportionally to the fine value. Shareholders are, of course, free to sue the actual decision makers afterwards to pin down any non-mandated illegal behavior and recover their losses.