What "negative consequences" would you like to see? You want to see executives fired over something like this? How do you think that would affect future hiring practices?
The higher up on the totem pole you are, the less it seems to matter how well you actually do your job.
- If someone very low on the totem pole (ex. factory worker) is late a few times, they're far more likely to be fired than someone higher up.
- If a low/mid level manager at a company screws up a project so bad that a bunch of people under them get layed off, they're far more likely to lose their job then a VP that does the same.
The point isn't that everyone should get laid off for every mistake. The point is that, the higher up you are, the less likely you are to face _any_ consequences at all for any mistakes. And it's also not a certainly; just a probability.
you> If you fired CEO over any minor mistake
Do you see the disconnect here? At no point did I call for a CEO to be fired over a minor mistake. Rather, I pointed out that, no matter the size of the mistake, the higher up you are the smaller the repercussions. You are responding with what is a perfect example of a straw man argument.
To be clear; no, I don't think a CEO that makes a small mistake should be fired. But I also don't think that a CEO that causes the downfall of a major company should walk away and into the arms of the next company, doing the same job, for just as much (or more) money. And, in between those two, there's a large area where repercussions are currently few and far between.
Sure, let 5-10% of the company go, but it should echo financially up the chain as well.
In the sense that those people can't afford to do that thing that they'd been planning on doing, and might have to budget a bit harder.
Seems minimally fair when others just lost their jobs.
One could also say that dollar-based annual comp dropped 7% in 2022 due to inflation.
And out of the three of those, stock has the best prospects for future appreciation, if one can afford to hold, which I imagine most C-levels can.
If it turns out that the layoff were a mistake, punishment will come.
Is that true? If you make your SF salary of >$200k and manage to down production, are you sent a bill for lost revenue?
I don't think so. In fact, since CEOs are (usually) mostly compensated in stock and their job is to create shareholder value, their income is likely far more related to their performance than for your average engineer.
The C-Level executive suite, however, will see no repercussions, even though, in reality they are ultimately responsible for overseeing the hiring, training and compliance processes. Even when there are shareholders and a board of directors to answer to (which isn't always) consequences are rarely seen.
In fact, I don't see how they could ever truly be held responsible for anything that goes wrong with the company, but they sure do win (with bonuses and related comp) when things go well while employees usually do not.
None. But if taking responsibility for someone else's injury just involves saying that you're taking responsibility, it's nothing but playing with words.
If your grandmother got sick, I don't think you should be punished. But if you take responsibility for your grandmother getting sick, in English people will expect that you're at her house taking care of her until she's well.
"I don't regret what I did, I don't think it was wrong, I would do it again, I haven't been caught BUT I take full responsibility for the death of the victim."
This is what being responsible for something means.
You've got your dictionaries mixed up
1. Causing something.
2. Being held accountable for something, and facing its consequences (e.g. compensating for damage)
It's possible that someone can cause something while avoiding its consequences, deferring the responsibility of making up to someone else. This usually happens due to asymmetry of information or power.
That said, we cannot say definitely in this particular instance that Sundar could have foreseen the financial circumstances or economic crisis of any kind, and it's also possible that Sundar might resign or get fired in the future as a consequence. Still, one can argue that the phrase "I'm taking full responsibility of [...]" is a bit overused in general, and used in a rhetorical manner without actually meaning it.
"Responsibility" is ambiguous as you said, and that's exactly why he chose that word.