4 ms·

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

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.

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.