
Mark Zuckerberg should at least step down as Facebook chairman - aaronbrethorst
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/embattled-and-in-over-his-head-mark-zuckerberg-should--at-least--step-down-as-facebook-chairman/2018/11/19/de00c2d8-ebfa-11e8-96d4-0d23f2aaad09_story.html
======
vinceguidry
This got buried quickly but in case anyone is interested, I have a question.

From the article:

> Leaders — capable leaders — don’t do what Zuckerberg has done in the face of
> disaster that they themselves have presided over.

> They don’t hide and deny.

> They don’t blame-shift.

> And they don’t insist on speaking in the worst kind of fuzzy corporate
> cliches.

Is this just grandstanding or is this actually true? Is Zuck's behavior in
this regard any different from the norm regarding large organizations?

~~~
lkrubner
It depends on how big a scandal you think this is. For very big scandals,
sure, the CEO either resigns or becomes Chairman, but releases day to day
control.

The top guy at Enron went to jail, but typically there is some level of
scandal that is "in the middle" in that nobody goes to jail, but someone has
to lose their job.

When GM almost went bankrupt in 2009, they fired the CEO.

Vikram Pandit was pushed out of Citi.

Les Moonves just got kicked out of CBS for sexual harrassment.

The right level of scandal should lead you through 3 questions:

1.) should they go jail?

2.) if no, should they be fired?

3.) if no, should they face any consequences at all? (perhaps move from CEO to
Chairmanship)

~~~
vinceguidry
Hmm. This implies there is accountability on the CEO's part that is imposed at
a level below state judicial action. This obviously isn't true for founder-
chairman-CEO dictator like Zuck.

In these cases, is there an accepted and agreed-upon standard of behavior for
such a dictator in these cases? Because this looks a lot like uncharted
territory which makes the journalist's claim look like mere grandstanding.

