6 ms·

What happens if your company supports billions of dollars in economic output, and a few employees decides to go rogue and sabotage some systems that then causes

What happens if your company supports billions of dollars in economic output, and a few employees decides to go rogue and sabotage some systems that then causes an international loss of billions of dollars, and possibly property damages and loss of life? If you were the CEO, would you take criminal/financial responsibility for that?

fzeroracer 2y ago
Does this question also equally apply to the opposite side? If an employee got so angry with how you laid them off and treated them afterwards that they decide to do what they can to damage your company? Cutting access and having security walk them out is more or less security theater. If an employee really wanted to cause damage the odds are they either already have or will still find a way. In this scenario having generous severance and treating them with respect is likely to better defuse the situation than kicking them out the door.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  This hypothetical is about what the CEO/company decides to do, not what the employee decides to do. A lot of liability "theater" is not there to prevent issues, it's to cover your ass. So no, this question doesn't apply equally to the opposite side. An employee does not take responsibility for what the company does. A lot of people wonder why CEOs are paid so much; part of that is simply to take responsibility. Ironically, a lot of people complain about useless CEOs, but if you asked them to take that responsibility for the pay, they wouldn't take it (note that that responsibility includes things like sweet talking shareholders and giving public statements on short notice on things that could nuke millions of dollars in value and create very real legal liability).
  - chasontherobot 2y ago
    Ah yes, because CEOs often face consequences for their poor decisions. They definitely don't get golden parachutes and move on to a new company when they run a company into the ground.
noisy_boy 2y ago
There is a range between kicking them out instantly and allowing them to do whatever they please. Authorizations to important systems should be immediately revoked but you can allow them some time to gather their things, access to internal chat to say their goodbyes etc. Or is that an excuse for poorly designed internal controls?
hnfong 2y ago
It's not like there aren't disgruntled employees before layoffs. If a single employee could cause billions of dollars in losses, then the company already has a big problem regardless of layoffs. It's very interesting how so many people in upper management seem to think that they can trust employees not to sabotage and cause billions of dollars in losses by paying them like 100k a year.
- FpUser 2y ago
  >"If a single employee could cause billions of dollars in losses..." This situation is endemic in smaller companies with the tight budgets.
- bitpush 2y ago
  There's a difference. An employee going rogue is different from a non employee/ex-employee doing malicious things. Only one of them would be seen as negligent.
- varenc 2y ago
  The big difference is liability exposure. If a current employee causes damage, that's one thing. But if a recently laid-off employee who retained full system access causes billions in losses, the CEO and board would face severe consequences legally and reputationally, since it would be perceived as an obvious security lapse.
  - rwmj 2y ago
    An employee who is serving their notice period is still an employee. Unless you mean truly ex-employees who still have access, in which case the company has a big problem if it cannot revoke credentials.
  - mcherm 2y ago
    This is a strange sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Effectively, your argument says that if there is any step, whether wise or foolish, kind or cruel, that some take, all must take it or risk being found negligent. That's no way to run an (overly litigious) society.
bow_ 2y ago
Right. Because only laid-off employees can cause such a damage of course (/s). This is a twisted way to look at the risk. Disgruntled employees have more reason to wreak havoc. All the more reason they should be treated as humanely as possible in a difficult period that in most cases is inflicted by the company itself.
jmpz 2y ago
This is only a problem if you treat employees in a way that makes them want to go rogue and sabotage some systems.. maybe don't fire them without warning or cause, or clear reasoning? I suppose if someone is actually able to tangibly impact some critical system, limit their access to that, but beyond that, it's just an excuse to make it sound OK to abruptly dump someone from a social and professional context. Maybe it's legal, but is it necessary? No. Is it traumatizing? Yes.
ajb 2y ago
There are companies that support billions of economic output in countries which require a notice period. If they thought it was a risk that they would be taken down be a rogue employee, they have the option of putting them on 'gardening leave' during the notice period. This is extremely rare; they know the risk is insignificant so they are more keen to get any remaining value from the relationship (work, handover). In our industry and many others, being a professional and maintaining good relations with your ex -colleagues, who form your professional network, is much more valuable than any emotional satisfaction from screwing them over, even without the risk of going to prison.
- ahtihn 2y ago
  > they have the option of putting them on 'gardening leave' during the notice period. This is extremely rare That must depend on the country. In Switzerland it's standard that employees don't work during the notice period when they're laid off.
  - ajb 2y ago
    Must do. I wonder if that's because of the wide access to weapons? Although I thought I'd heard that there still wasn't much gun violence in Switzerland.
    - ajb 2y ago
      Puzzled by why anyone would downvote a pure question. Wide distribution of guns is an obvious commonality between the US and Switzerland; if that's offensive observation please let me know why!
      - renewedrebecca 2y ago
        Probably because only the US has the kind of gun violence that you're wondering about. I don't think in Europe, the idea that someone is going to come after you with a gun because you pissed them off generally hits the radar. Someone may find the question offensive because of that.
constantcrying 2y ago
>If you were the CEO, would you take criminal/financial responsibility for that? That is obviously decided by a court. Ironically exactly this happens at VW, where getting fired is exceedingly difficult. Neither incompetence nor underperformance are enough.

fzeroracer 2y ago

Does this question also equally apply to the opposite side? If an employee got so angry with how you laid them off and treated them afterwards that they decide to do what they can to damage your company? Cutting access and having security walk them out is more or less security theater. If an employee really wanted to cause damage the odds are they either already have or will still find a way. In this scenario having generous severance and treating them with respect is likely to better defuse the situation than kicking them out the door.

Ferret7446 2y ago
This hypothetical is about what the CEO/company decides to do, not what the employee decides to do. A lot of liability "theater" is not there to prevent issues, it's to cover your ass. So no, this question doesn't apply equally to the opposite side. An employee does not take responsibility for what the company does. A lot of people wonder why CEOs are paid so much; part of that is simply to take responsibility. Ironically, a lot of people complain about useless CEOs, but if you asked them to take that responsibility for the pay, they wouldn't take it (note that that responsibility includes things like sweet talking shareholders and giving public statements on short notice on things that could nuke millions of dollars in value and create very real legal liability).
- chasontherobot 2y ago
  Ah yes, because CEOs often face consequences for their poor decisions. They definitely don't get golden parachutes and move on to a new company when they run a company into the ground.

noisy_boy 2y ago

There is a range between kicking them out instantly and allowing them to do whatever they please. Authorizations to important systems should be immediately revoked but you can allow them some time to gather their things, access to internal chat to say their goodbyes etc. Or is that an excuse for poorly designed internal controls?

hnfong 2y ago

It's not like there aren't disgruntled employees before layoffs. If a single employee could cause billions of dollars in losses, then the company already has a big problem regardless of layoffs. It's very interesting how so many people in upper management seem to think that they can trust employees not to sabotage and cause billions of dollars in losses by paying them like 100k a year.

FpUser 2y ago
>"If a single employee could cause billions of dollars in losses..." This situation is endemic in smaller companies with the tight budgets.
bitpush 2y ago
There's a difference. An employee going rogue is different from a non employee/ex-employee doing malicious things. Only one of them would be seen as negligent.
varenc 2y ago
The big difference is liability exposure. If a current employee causes damage, that's one thing. But if a recently laid-off employee who retained full system access causes billions in losses, the CEO and board would face severe consequences legally and reputationally, since it would be perceived as an obvious security lapse.
- rwmj 2y ago
  An employee who is serving their notice period is still an employee. Unless you mean truly ex-employees who still have access, in which case the company has a big problem if it cannot revoke credentials.
- mcherm 2y ago
  This is a strange sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. Effectively, your argument says that if there is any step, whether wise or foolish, kind or cruel, that some take, all must take it or risk being found negligent. That's no way to run an (overly litigious) society.

bow_ 2y ago

Right. Because only laid-off employees can cause such a damage of course (/s). This is a twisted way to look at the risk. Disgruntled employees have more reason to wreak havoc. All the more reason they should be treated as humanely as possible in a difficult period that in most cases is inflicted by the company itself.

jmpz 2y ago

This is only a problem if you treat employees in a way that makes them want to go rogue and sabotage some systems.. maybe don't fire them without warning or cause, or clear reasoning? I suppose if someone is actually able to tangibly impact some critical system, limit their access to that, but beyond that, it's just an excuse to make it sound OK to abruptly dump someone from a social and professional context. Maybe it's legal, but is it necessary? No. Is it traumatizing? Yes.

ajb 2y ago

There are companies that support billions of economic output in countries which require a notice period. If they thought it was a risk that they would be taken down be a rogue employee, they have the option of putting them on 'gardening leave' during the notice period. This is extremely rare; they know the risk is insignificant so they are more keen to get any remaining value from the relationship (work, handover). In our industry and many others, being a professional and maintaining good relations with your ex -colleagues, who form your professional network, is much more valuable than any emotional satisfaction from screwing them over, even without the risk of going to prison.

ahtihn 2y ago
> they have the option of putting them on 'gardening leave' during the notice period. This is extremely rare That must depend on the country. In Switzerland it's standard that employees don't work during the notice period when they're laid off.
- ajb 2y ago
  Must do. I wonder if that's because of the wide access to weapons? Although I thought I'd heard that there still wasn't much gun violence in Switzerland.
  - ajb 2y ago
    Puzzled by why anyone would downvote a pure question. Wide distribution of guns is an obvious commonality between the US and Switzerland; if that's offensive observation please let me know why!
    - renewedrebecca 2y ago
      Probably because only the US has the kind of gun violence that you're wondering about. I don't think in Europe, the idea that someone is going to come after you with a gun because you pissed them off generally hits the radar. Someone may find the question offensive because of that.

constantcrying 2y ago

>If you were the CEO, would you take criminal/financial responsibility for that? That is obviously decided by a court. Ironically exactly this happens at VW, where getting fired is exceedingly difficult. Neither incompetence nor underperformance are enough.