Yes, and lest you present that as some kind of “gotcha,” the Gestapo didn’t disappear until the Nazis were removed from power, because they were the ones giving the orders. This isn’t about guilt, it’s about actually achieving something.
1.CEOs are not “just following orders”. They propose a strategy and some goals that the board decides are achievable and acceptable. The CEOs define the strategy. That’s their job. They’re fully responsible for what the company does and doesn’t do.
2.If Gestapo had been dying one after the other at an alarming rate, chances are not much less people would have taken the job.
Because the executives are carrying them out (or instructing others in carrying them out) and thus complicit. By rights, they should be objecting to those decisions and refusing to do (or order) unethical or unconscionable things.
Why do people go after the execs when the board of directors is the ones making the shitty decisions?
Many executives are also board members.
The news never talks about boards, so it’s not really in most people’s minds. The majority of people probably think of the CEO as the king.
Because the majority of share holders making those decisions are executives in their own right.
You mean they are just following orders?
Yes, and lest you present that as some kind of “gotcha,” the Gestapo didn’t disappear until the Nazis were removed from power, because they were the ones giving the orders. This isn’t about guilt, it’s about actually achieving something.
1.CEOs are not “just following orders”. They propose a strategy and some goals that the board decides are achievable and acceptable. The CEOs define the strategy. That’s their job. They’re fully responsible for what the company does and doesn’t do.
2.If Gestapo had been dying one after the other at an alarming rate, chances are not much less people would have taken the job.
many execs are either on, heavily influence, or will become a part of the board.
when killing a snake you can’t just cut off the head, you have to bury it as well.
Cut the head, burn the neck. Just like what Old Man Herc did.
Because the executives are carrying them out (or instructing others in carrying them out) and thus complicit. By rights, they should be objecting to those decisions and refusing to do (or order) unethical or unconscionable things.
Ok, let’s say a ceo objects to the boards instructions. They’ll fire that CEO and hire another one that’ll listen. The problem persists.
Then it would be the new CEO’s duty to likewise object to unethical instructions.
Mind, I’m not saying the board shouldn’t be held responsible. I’m saying the CEO is still complicit, even if he’s “just following orders”.