4 ms·
I’ve always been critical of headlines that frame the company as the culprit—especially when the company can’t be sent to prison or face personal consequences.
by rrgok 1y ago
I’ve always been critical of headlines that frame the company as the culprit—especially when the company can’t be sent to prison or face personal consequences. No, it wasn’t "Apple" that violated antitrust laws—Tim Cook approved the actions. Apple doesn't make decisions on its own; it operates under the direction and vision of the people in charge.
It's far too convenient for C-level executives to reap the rewards when their leadership drives profits, only to shift blame to "the company" when things go wrong. Accountability should work both ways.
- Wobbles42 1y agoNo one ever suggests that we hold the owners of companies liable for what their companies do. I know that this is the entire point of limited liability corporations -- to divorce ownership from responsibility -- but maybe that wasn't such a good idea.
- jorams 1y agoI agree with the core of your sentiment, but I don't think moving the framing from the company to the person is the answer. It makes it too easy for a company to put the blame on an individual that has conveniently been fired (either for the relevant reason or any other) and then act like the problem is solved. The individuals most responsible should face personal consequences. The company should also face consequences. As they say: One bad apple spoils the bunch. (no pun intended)