3 ms·

The argument in this thread is that he's responsible for the actions of his subordinates and therefore deserves some of the punishment, not that he's directly c

by rendaw 1y ago

The argument in this thread is that he's responsible for the actions of his subordinates and therefore deserves some of the punishment, not that he's directly culpable in the crime and therefore should receive punishment. There have been many situations where corporate incentives or structures, plus the innate power imbalance, pressure low level employees to commit crimes that benefit the corporation and the fact that employers are not responsible for the actions of their employees when not directly ordered means that those structures aren't fixed.

gruez 1y ago
>The argument in this thread is that he's responsible for the actions of his subordinates and therefore deserves some of the punishment Even if the subordinates went rogue and he wasn't aware? Where do you draw the line? Should UPS's CEO be responsible if one of the delivery drivers crashed into a pedestrian?
- nkrisc 1y ago
  It's a spectrum. If the CEO creates an environment that incentivizes unsafe driving practices among their delivery drivers, either directly or indirectly, then perhaps yes, they should shoulder some portion of the responsibility. It doesn't have to be only 100% or 0% responsibility. The amount can be modulated based on their own behavior or leadership of the company. For example, if they consistently drove the company towards a culture of safety, and incentivized subordinates to prioritize safety and disincentivized unsafe practices, then perhaps they would share no responsibility for such an incident. They did what they were supposed to do. If however they set ever more aggressive profit goals and other metrics, and incentivized those at all costs among their subordinates, and presided over a company culture that focused on profits above all else, then perhaps the should share some portion of the responsibility. What is a leader without responsibility? If they reap the rewards of the successes of their subordinates, then they must also reap the outcomes of the failures of their subordinates. By any other logic, a CEO should only be paid commensurately with the tangible benefit they directly provide to the company with their own two hands.

by rendaw 1y ago

gruez 1y ago

>The argument in this thread is that he's responsible for the actions of his subordinates and therefore deserves some of the punishment Even if the subordinates went rogue and he wasn't aware? Where do you draw the line? Should UPS's CEO be responsible if one of the delivery drivers crashed into a pedestrian?

nkrisc 1y ago
It's a spectrum. If the CEO creates an environment that incentivizes unsafe driving practices among their delivery drivers, either directly or indirectly, then perhaps yes, they should shoulder some portion of the responsibility. It doesn't have to be only 100% or 0% responsibility. The amount can be modulated based on their own behavior or leadership of the company. For example, if they consistently drove the company towards a culture of safety, and incentivized subordinates to prioritize safety and disincentivized unsafe practices, then perhaps they would share no responsibility for such an incident. They did what they were supposed to do. If however they set ever more aggressive profit goals and other metrics, and incentivized those at all costs among their subordinates, and presided over a company culture that focused on profits above all else, then perhaps the should share some portion of the responsibility. What is a leader without responsibility? If they reap the rewards of the successes of their subordinates, then they must also reap the outcomes of the failures of their subordinates. By any other logic, a CEO should only be paid commensurately with the tangible benefit they directly provide to the company with their own two hands.