Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 6 Feb 2000 00:45:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2538 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:29:56 GMT, "Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com>
wrote:
> Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3899b9ff.91276137@lugnet.com>...
> True. And this will suffice in MOST cases. What happens if the company has
> no (or insufficient) assets because of how it's been managed?
Then it's gone, also quite effectively reducing it to zero. My point
is that it's not a good thing to punish mismanagement as if it's the
same thing as whatever things the mismanaged underlings get up to.
> > What is so hard about understanding that the person who should be
> > responsible should, by golly, be the person responsible? Not his
> > manager, let alone the CEO three levels higher?
>
> So my manager shouldn't be responsible for ANYTHING I do? If I decide to go
> into work tomorrow and start raping all the women, my manager should just
> sit by and do nothing, until one of the women calls the police and they show
> up?
If your manager is a floor or a building away, why no, he shouldn't be
expected to have called the bloody police. What next, you're going to
jail every manager without ESP? We're talking about people who _did
not know_, remember?
> My contention is that if the manager isn't responsible for what his
> underlings do, he isn't responsible for jack.
Whatever happened to him being responsible for his own actions?
>
> them. Does that responsibility mean that they have FULL responsibility for
> EVERYTHING their underlings do? No. It means they have responsibility to put
So you're changing direction all of a sudden? Now they're not fully
responsible? Make up your mind, please.
> systems into place, and MANAGE the company to minimize the amount of
> irresponsible things their underlings do, and to make sure the system
> effectively holds the underlings responsible for their screw ups.
This is quite a different thing from what has been argued here before.
> I call someones manager because I can't find that person, and there is no
> apparent backup. I expect the manager to be RESPONSIBLE for where his
> employees are, and to tell me who I should talk to about the problem.
So if the manager doesn't know where the employee is, or if the
employee is sick, or if he's shooting people up from a belltower, you
hold the manager responsible for that, I take it?
> doesn't diminish my point. My point is that if a low level employee can't be
> held responsible, you try and hold his manager responsible, if his manager
> can't be, you keep going up the management chain.
If a low-level employee is found to be the culprit, he is _always_
responsible. There is no way that he suddenly cannot be held
responsible. Again, unless you can prove the manager gave orders and
was thus directly responsible, of course.
> > > If the CEO denies the problem, or
> >
> > What if he doesn't yet know about the problem at the time?
>
>
> Why doesn't he know about the problem? If he doesn't know about it because
> of some flaw in the organizational structure he's got some responsibility.
How about because his employees were either 1) keeping things from him
maliciously or 2) because his employees were keeping things from him
in good faith? There is _no_ way any manager can know _everything_
that goes on in his company. It is simply impossible. Who determines
what is important and what isn't? The employees lower down the
foodchain. There is no other practical way.
> - did the corporation have reasonable computer security (reasonable being
> close to "average" or better).
So anything less than average is criminally negligent? Do the math.
Sheesh.
> Now somethings foul at the corporation if the police come to the corporation
> and say: "Say, did you know you've been hosting a kiddie porn site for the
> past 3 months, some mother just called us and told us her kid said he's been
> looking at it for at least that long." In that case, you've got to ask, why
> the heck is the corporation not checking it's web site, and why isn't anyone
It could quite conceivably be stashed somewhere in a hidden directory
of an internal, static, wwwserver which was maliciously or
accidentally made available to the public, where noone from inside
would be likely to find it without looking at firewall logs (and the
firewall would have to be uncompromised). Or it could be on, say, an
internal mailserver whose default installation httpd was left running,
through incompetence or accident. Or any number of things.
> reading the complaint mail which must be coming in. Of course the answer
> might be that the whole IT organization is corrupt, but then one has to ask
> what failed in the corporation that a whole organization could be corrupt.
In many medium-large organisations, the "IT department" consist of 1
or 2 people. Not hard for that to go corrupt.
> Tell me the CEO doesn't have some responsibility there?
Some, maybe. Not complete, utter, and final responsibility.
> > And even the CEO stonewalling or denying does not suddenly shift the
> > blame from the person responsible to the CEO.
>
> No, but the CEO has responsibility, especially for any additional damages
> caused by the stonewalling.
I agree. But that's not what we were discussing.
Jasper
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| I wonder if I stopped beating my head against the proverbial brick wall whether my ear problems would go away???? Oh, well, I'll keep beating, maybe I'll break through... Jasper Janssen wrote in message <3899b9ff.91276137@l...et.com>... (...) (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
