3 ms·

Responsibility will turn out to be so diffuse that no individuals will be found to be liable. This is a superpower of large organizations and permeates our dail

Responsibility will turn out to be so diffuse that no individuals will be found to be liable. This is a superpower of large organizations and permeates our daily lives. Also one of the main reasons government regulation is always required. And why capatilist bros are constantly wittering about removing regulation.

lenerdenator 2y ago
> Responsibility will turn out to be so diffuse that no individuals will be found to be liable. Au contraire. Most executives will justify their pay packages by saying they shoulder all of the risk. Well, what risk? Losing their jobs? When you make in a year what most people make in an entire career, that's not a risk. Losing their wealth? See the prior statement, but take into account that they have money managers who are paid to do nothing but diversify holdings and manage risk. They can't be held liable in a civil suit as individuals; that's the entire point of incorporation. Either they have risk to justify their compensation or they don't. They don't. So we need to find some risk. When you look for another way to assign risk to increase the quality of the decisions made by c-suites, Leavenworth starts to look like a fairly attractive option. And it would be for the convicted, when you consider that the crimes actually happened in Indonesia and Ethiopia.
- thmsths 2y ago
  I fully agree. We need to adopt the same mindset they have in maritime tradition: the buck stops at the captain. If you're in charge you're responsible for the misdeeds of the people working for you. It does not matter that you did not explicitly order the bad thing or that someone took an initiative without your knowledge. At that level of pay/power/responsibility, "It was not me"/"I did not know" are NOT acceptable defenses. As the CEO you're in a unique position to ask for more controls, more safety, more audit. So unless you went above and beyond and things were truly out of your control, then yes, you should be held responsible when disaster strikes. If you think this is too much risk, then you're free to walk from the job (and the 8 figures pay package).
  - bgirard 2y ago
    Exactly. When you make the CEO responsible for things that they don't have direct visibility into normally it's amazing how suddenly they staff new positions/departments/orgs with competent folks with legitimate resources and power to oversee it properly. We should not accept large organizations, bureaucracy and lack of visibility as a deference.
  - richwater 2y ago
    All you're doing would be to kill companies above a certain size as literally every company makes mistakes and thus no one would have any interest in going to jail. A fantastic way to ruin the economy frankly.
    - thmsths 2y ago
      I am not advocating for a zero tolerance approach. In the example I mentioned, the navy, there are plenty of times when the inquiry into a disaster absolved the captain of the blame. All I am saying is that CEOs should be held to the same standards we hold licensed professions such as lawyers, doctors, engineers or pilots. Aka if something goes wrong we will scrutinize their behavior in the lead up and then determine if they took reasonable steps to prevent the issue. In that framework a CEO putting "safety first" will not have to worry in case a black swan events happen, it's the CEO who decided to do some "cost optimization" that will have to answer if the company routinely kills or injures people.
- gruez 2y ago
  >Au contraire. Most executives will justify their pay packages by saying they shoulder all of the risk. Feels like a strawman, or at least a misunderstanding of what "responsibility" is. Shareholders are willing to pay dearly for executives not because they need a fall guy in case something go wrong, they do so because someone in that position can easily fuck up the business, and therefore it's worth paying extra to get someone more qualified (at least in theory), so that doesn't happen. It's not any different than you not picking the cheapest guy on cragislist to housesit when you're on vacation. The premium isn't because you want a fall guy to sue in case your house burns down, it's so you don't end up with a guy who fucks up your house while you're away.
  - thmsths 2y ago
    You're assuming it must be one OR the other. Why can't it be both? If you're rewarded for your good decisions, it seems normal to also be punished for the bad ones, in a proportional manner.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Why can't it be both? I wasn't making a normative claim, only disagreeing with OP's characterization that executives' pay packages are justified by the threat of going to jail. >If you're rewarded for your good decisions, it seems normal to also be punished for the bad ones, in a proportional manner. FAANG engineers are paid pretty well. Should they go to jail (or even fined 5-6 figure sums) for bugs they're responsible for?
      - thmsths 2y ago
        Bugs are simply not comparable to losing 2 aircrafts and killing hundreds of people, furthermore FAANG engineers have little impact on the org individually. But we already have that kind of threats for malpractice in several fields, if an engineer or doctor makes a mistake resulting in injuries or death they will be held responsible financially and sometimes criminally.
        2y ago
madaxe_again 2y ago
Yes. This is how you end up with a gunman waiting outside the Hilton. When there is no justice, vigilantes and lynch mobs materialise.

lenerdenator 2y ago

> Responsibility will turn out to be so diffuse that no individuals will be found to be liable. Au contraire. Most executives will justify their pay packages by saying they shoulder all of the risk. Well, what risk? Losing their jobs? When you make in a year what most people make in an entire career, that's not a risk. Losing their wealth? See the prior statement, but take into account that they have money managers who are paid to do nothing but diversify holdings and manage risk. They can't be held liable in a civil suit as individuals; that's the entire point of incorporation. Either they have risk to justify their compensation or they don't. They don't. So we need to find some risk. When you look for another way to assign risk to increase the quality of the decisions made by c-suites, Leavenworth starts to look like a fairly attractive option. And it would be for the convicted, when you consider that the crimes actually happened in Indonesia and Ethiopia.

thmsths 2y ago
I fully agree. We need to adopt the same mindset they have in maritime tradition: the buck stops at the captain. If you're in charge you're responsible for the misdeeds of the people working for you. It does not matter that you did not explicitly order the bad thing or that someone took an initiative without your knowledge. At that level of pay/power/responsibility, "It was not me"/"I did not know" are NOT acceptable defenses. As the CEO you're in a unique position to ask for more controls, more safety, more audit. So unless you went above and beyond and things were truly out of your control, then yes, you should be held responsible when disaster strikes. If you think this is too much risk, then you're free to walk from the job (and the 8 figures pay package).
- bgirard 2y ago
  Exactly. When you make the CEO responsible for things that they don't have direct visibility into normally it's amazing how suddenly they staff new positions/departments/orgs with competent folks with legitimate resources and power to oversee it properly. We should not accept large organizations, bureaucracy and lack of visibility as a deference.
- richwater 2y ago
  All you're doing would be to kill companies above a certain size as literally every company makes mistakes and thus no one would have any interest in going to jail. A fantastic way to ruin the economy frankly.
  - thmsths 2y ago
    I am not advocating for a zero tolerance approach. In the example I mentioned, the navy, there are plenty of times when the inquiry into a disaster absolved the captain of the blame. All I am saying is that CEOs should be held to the same standards we hold licensed professions such as lawyers, doctors, engineers or pilots. Aka if something goes wrong we will scrutinize their behavior in the lead up and then determine if they took reasonable steps to prevent the issue. In that framework a CEO putting "safety first" will not have to worry in case a black swan events happen, it's the CEO who decided to do some "cost optimization" that will have to answer if the company routinely kills or injures people.
gruez 2y ago
>Au contraire. Most executives will justify their pay packages by saying they shoulder all of the risk. Feels like a strawman, or at least a misunderstanding of what "responsibility" is. Shareholders are willing to pay dearly for executives not because they need a fall guy in case something go wrong, they do so because someone in that position can easily fuck up the business, and therefore it's worth paying extra to get someone more qualified (at least in theory), so that doesn't happen. It's not any different than you not picking the cheapest guy on cragislist to housesit when you're on vacation. The premium isn't because you want a fall guy to sue in case your house burns down, it's so you don't end up with a guy who fucks up your house while you're away.
- thmsths 2y ago
  You're assuming it must be one OR the other. Why can't it be both? If you're rewarded for your good decisions, it seems normal to also be punished for the bad ones, in a proportional manner.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Why can't it be both? I wasn't making a normative claim, only disagreeing with OP's characterization that executives' pay packages are justified by the threat of going to jail. >If you're rewarded for your good decisions, it seems normal to also be punished for the bad ones, in a proportional manner. FAANG engineers are paid pretty well. Should they go to jail (or even fined 5-6 figure sums) for bugs they're responsible for?
    - thmsths 2y ago
      Bugs are simply not comparable to losing 2 aircrafts and killing hundreds of people, furthermore FAANG engineers have little impact on the org individually. But we already have that kind of threats for malpractice in several fields, if an engineer or doctor makes a mistake resulting in injuries or death they will be held responsible financially and sometimes criminally.
      - 2y ago

madaxe_again 2y ago

Yes. This is how you end up with a gunman waiting outside the Hilton. When there is no justice, vigilantes and lynch mobs materialise.