I think we should take the opposite approach for executives. Rather than say they probably didn’t make any decision that specifically led to a given outcome, let’s assume that they are responsible for any given outcome within their organization unless proven otherwise.
Isn’t that the whole point of leadership? You’re in control, and in exchange you’re also responsible.
I don’t think this means being an executive in any business would be gambling with your freedom. Businesses could be set up to have better processes and better control. One of the reasons that many businesses are set up so that huge problems can happen without any explicit decision from an executive is because this means nobody is held responsible. The entire system is set up so that you can get away with absolutely heinous shit as long as the chain of responsibility is unclear. Of course we end up with unclear chains of responsibility being the norm!
I do suspect that a world where executives are held responsible by default would involve much smaller companies than we see today. And that seems just fine. If a company of 38,000 people can make dozens of false police reports resulting in arrest and jail time and get away with it with no real consequences because responsibility is too hard to pin down, then 38,000 is too large for a company to be.
> Isn’t that the whole point of leadership? You’re in control, and in exchange you’re also responsible.
When contemplating giving executives that responsibility, are we going to give the needed flexibility to immediately dismiss employees who represent part of the chain of threat to the company's customers?
You can have almost outcome you want; you can't have every outcome you want. If you want strong employee protections, you can't have ironclad and exhaustive executive responsibility.
How about we make executives only responsible for acts that can’t be traced back to individuals under them? If a bad employee fucks up and makes a false police report, nail him. If the entire organization fucks up and you’ve cleverly designed it so it can’t be pinned on anyone in particular, nail the person in charge.
Being responsible for an organization you lead is distinct from the notion of being innocent until proven guilty. Proving guilt would consist of proving that the organization did the things it was accused of, and proving that you led it.
Person or corporation, a case always begins with presumption of innocence and then trying to prove guilt. It should be the same for executives of that company.
I'm not sure if you're speaking from a point of naivety, but the only point at which the presumption of innocence enters into the justice process is when you step into a courtroom.
Everything prior to that - in all your interactions with police, jails, prosecutors, before your day in court, they will all presume guilt, and will treat you like the criminal scumbag that they think you are.
Oh, and most defendants never even get their day in court.
Sure, you’d start with the presumption that the accused didn’t lead organization or that the organization didn’t commit the crime in question, then try to prove otherwise.
That's more subtle to prove though. Negligence and malice, while both resulting in the same outcome, do deserve different punishments. And my comment was coming from a position of "you have to assume negligence before anything worse".
Isn’t that the whole point of leadership? You’re in control, and in exchange you’re also responsible.
I don’t think this means being an executive in any business would be gambling with your freedom. Businesses could be set up to have better processes and better control. One of the reasons that many businesses are set up so that huge problems can happen without any explicit decision from an executive is because this means nobody is held responsible. The entire system is set up so that you can get away with absolutely heinous shit as long as the chain of responsibility is unclear. Of course we end up with unclear chains of responsibility being the norm!
I do suspect that a world where executives are held responsible by default would involve much smaller companies than we see today. And that seems just fine. If a company of 38,000 people can make dozens of false police reports resulting in arrest and jail time and get away with it with no real consequences because responsibility is too hard to pin down, then 38,000 is too large for a company to be.