3 ms·

And the level of risk the CEO/C Suite would have to take on would be insane. Who would want to be in charge of an aerospace company if there was a real risk tha

by roenxi 2y ago

And the level of risk the CEO/C Suite would have to take on would be insane. Who would want to be in charge of an aerospace company if there was a real risk that you'd get charged with murder if you don't have an almost psychic insight into the technical decisions of your company? There'd be a filtering effect where the best and brightest avoid industries where we need them to be. That standard would likely reduce the quality of the leadership and bias it further towards people who are delusional about safety.

tossandthrow 2y ago
Why, again, are the c suite being paid as much as they do if not to take on this risk?
- roenxi 2y ago
  To fullfill their role? Management and making decisions? Taking on personal risk has never been a part of the C suite beyond the tradition of giving them shares as part of their compensation. Shareholders use positive incentives, not negative ones. Because positive incentives generally lead to better results in this case.
  - tossandthrow 2y ago
    Seems like the US has some really weird rules in this regard then. For the C-suite to take on personal risk is literally a part of the role where I live. the central business registry register those holding these roles for that exact reason.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    In this case they've clearly done the opposite. You seem to be arguing that the C-suite can do anything it wants to. As long as it does it in an official capacity, it can cause whatever harm it wants. That seems like a very strange argument. Do you believe corporations and corporate officers have no moral obligation to act ethically? Because if so, I'm finding it hard to understand the difference between a corporation and a crime family.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  We need them energetic and vigorous! /s
soco 2y ago
If what Boeing management has to offer means "quality" then I'll gladly take less of it, thank you. Same with VW and all those managers which went away unscathed enjoying their golden parachutes, for basically leading schemes for killing people.
sgarland 2y ago
Gee, maybe we’d get people who are knowledgeable and care about engineering rigor, instead of MBAs whose sole goal is to make the share price go up.
perilunar 2y ago
Sounds good to me. We'd end up with aerospace companies run by engineers who understand the technical decisions in detail, instead of MBAs and accountants.
maxsilver 2y ago
> Who would want to be in charge of an aerospace company if there was a real risk that you'd get charged with murder if you don't have an almost psychic insight into the technical decisions of your company? You say this like it's crazy, but we literally already do this with Doctors and Surgeons, it's not as tricky as you make it sound. There's no valid reason that CEO/C-Suite folks get to forever escape any responsibility and accountability.
- celdon25 2y ago
  > it's not as tricky as you make it sound. Citation needed + dubious analogy
TylerE 2y ago
Will that make the best and brightest avoid it, or the worst, cheatingest, and laziest?

by roenxi 2y ago

tossandthrow 2y ago

Why, again, are the c suite being paid as much as they do if not to take on this risk?

roenxi 2y ago
To fullfill their role? Management and making decisions? Taking on personal risk has never been a part of the C suite beyond the tradition of giving them shares as part of their compensation. Shareholders use positive incentives, not negative ones. Because positive incentives generally lead to better results in this case.
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  Seems like the US has some really weird rules in this regard then. For the C-suite to take on personal risk is literally a part of the role where I live. the central business registry register those holding these roles for that exact reason.
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  In this case they've clearly done the opposite. You seem to be arguing that the C-suite can do anything it wants to. As long as it does it in an official capacity, it can cause whatever harm it wants. That seems like a very strange argument. Do you believe corporations and corporate officers have no moral obligation to act ethically? Because if so, I'm finding it hard to understand the difference between a corporation and a crime family.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
actionfromafar 2y ago
We need them energetic and vigorous! /s

soco 2y ago

If what Boeing management has to offer means "quality" then I'll gladly take less of it, thank you. Same with VW and all those managers which went away unscathed enjoying their golden parachutes, for basically leading schemes for killing people.

sgarland 2y ago

Gee, maybe we’d get people who are knowledgeable and care about engineering rigor, instead of MBAs whose sole goal is to make the share price go up.

perilunar 2y ago

Sounds good to me. We'd end up with aerospace companies run by engineers who understand the technical decisions in detail, instead of MBAs and accountants.

maxsilver 2y ago

> Who would want to be in charge of an aerospace company if there was a real risk that you'd get charged with murder if you don't have an almost psychic insight into the technical decisions of your company? You say this like it's crazy, but we literally already do this with Doctors and Surgeons, it's not as tricky as you make it sound. There's no valid reason that CEO/C-Suite folks get to forever escape any responsibility and accountability.

celdon25 2y ago
> it's not as tricky as you make it sound. Citation needed + dubious analogy

TylerE 2y ago

Will that make the best and brightest avoid it, or the worst, cheatingest, and laziest?