But unlike in scenarios where this phrase means something, such as when your kid ends up in trouble, this CEO is most likely never going to impact the individuals that they "take full responsibility" for again. So the words are quite hollow. Taking full responsibility would mean provide financially for them until they're back on their feet.
A charitable interpretation would be them wanting to signal to other employers that the people laid off are still good hires. But I don't know if it's an accurate interpretation.
For the person in charge, saying "I take full responsibility" truly is the correct move when something bad happens. Deflecting the blame universally makes it worse.
We all know someone that always comes up with bullshit excuses. It's never their fault. Do you respect that person?
10 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 27.3 ms ] threadRephrasing their explanation:
It’s like a break-up. They are saying “it’s not you, it’s me”.
They employees being fired didn’t do anything wrong and they didn’t underperform.
The CEO says he was the one hiring people the company doesn’t need.
This is the responsible thing to say.
But unlike in scenarios where this phrase means something, such as when your kid ends up in trouble, this CEO is most likely never going to impact the individuals that they "take full responsibility" for again. So the words are quite hollow. Taking full responsibility would mean provide financially for them until they're back on their feet.
We all know someone that always comes up with bullshit excuses. It's never their fault. Do you respect that person?