Wrong, wrong, sick and WRONG
Jun. 18th, 2010 10:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jaunthieWhy isn't this getting more attention from the media? Or for that matter, from shareholders?
The lede from an article yesterday in the New York Times:
Tony Hayward, the chief executive of BP, facing relentless questioning by Congressional Democrats on Thursday, denied any personal responsibility for the decisions that led to the calamitous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
Okay, okay, I know one answer to this question: because Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) promptly followed up Hayward's opening statements by apologizing to Hayward for the "tragedy" and "illegal shakedown" BP was being forced to endure in establishing a $20 billion escrow account for cleaning up the Gulf. Justifiable outrage about this statement immediately drowned out pretty much everything else about the hearing. (Never mind that a goodly chunk of the Republican party apparatus had been publicly muttering much the same the day before.)
But honestly, Rep. Barton's statements aren't really the big news, particularly given that he's collected more than a million dollars in endorsements and contributions from oil companies during his time in office. He's a bought and paid member of the oil lobby. This isn't news. Nor is it likely that his constituents will vote him out of office for being a patsy - a shame, but not a surprise, given the part of the country he represents. You could say, with cause, that his district is largely made up of people who earn their livings from the oil companies, and so he is legitimately representing their interests even when he makes crackerheaded statements like yesterday. (I don't happen to agree, but that's another post.)
No, the big news really is Hayward's complete denial of any personal responsibility for the actions of the company of which he is the chief executive.
Let's think about that for just a moment, shall we?
He's the chief executive. He gets paid an UNGODLY AMOUNT OF MONEY to be the guy in charge. He received $1.5 million dollars in salary in 2009, plus a $3 million dollar bonus, plus $33.6 million dollars in "other compensation" for 2009. In other words, this guy got paid almost 40 MILLION DOLLARS last year. Why?
Apparently to be "not responsible." To be "[not] involved in the decision-making."
Geez, sign me up. I could get paid $40 million a year to be not responsible. It might be a bit of a stretch, being a responsible-minded sort, but for $40 million I could stifle those instincts, I'm sure.
All levity aside, Mr. Hayward has a point that as chief executive, it wasn't his job to know all the day-to-day details of drilling one particular well, no matter how experimental or unusual it was. HOWEVER, it was and is absolutely and entirely his job to be responsible for the company, including its culture. Its culture of violating laws and regulations, its culture of cost-cutting in the face of increased risk in operations, and its failure to adequately plan for safety and disaster prevention. In the end, he's in charge. He's supposed to lead. He even admits that BP's corporate culture needs to change: "We have begun to change the culture. I’m not denying there’s more to do."
But don't look to him to do it, because as he's said, he's "not responsible." Like every other executive recently called to account for the actions or failures of their company (I'm looking at you, Lehman Brothers/Goldman Sachs/GM/Enron/a long etcetera), none of them take any kind of personal responsibility for the companies they run. None of them have any concept of the consequences of being in charge. They claim huge salaries, they pretend to be in charge, but none of them will ever be caught saying that when the crap hits the fan. When things go well, they're top dog, they're "driving the company to success." When something goes wrong, they're "not personally responsible" and "out of the loop."
And there's the real problem that needs to be changed in corporate culture. Because in my book, if you're getting paid (obscenely large salaries) to be in charge, you're in charge when things go WRONG as well as when things go right. The buck stops with you, figuratively and literally. You don't get the luxury of saying that you're not responsible, because by your very job definition, you are. Or you're supposed to be.
And you need to be held accountable for that. Own the company failures, just as you take credit for company successes.
Again, why aren't shareholders up in arms over this? Why aren't stock owners and shareholders shrieking for this guy to be fired ASAP?
It's his job to be responsible, but he won't be. It's the shareholders' job to be responsible for firing his ass. And if necessary, it's our government's job to refuse to allow this company to do business on our shores until and unless they step up and get their crap together, because clearly, they don't have any sense of responsibility right now. And I, for one, don't want them drilling one more inch anywhere in the world until they develop some.
Gah.
The lede from an article yesterday in the New York Times:
Tony Hayward, the chief executive of BP, facing relentless questioning by Congressional Democrats on Thursday, denied any personal responsibility for the decisions that led to the calamitous oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
Okay, okay, I know one answer to this question: because Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) promptly followed up Hayward's opening statements by apologizing to Hayward for the "tragedy" and "illegal shakedown" BP was being forced to endure in establishing a $20 billion escrow account for cleaning up the Gulf. Justifiable outrage about this statement immediately drowned out pretty much everything else about the hearing. (Never mind that a goodly chunk of the Republican party apparatus had been publicly muttering much the same the day before.)
But honestly, Rep. Barton's statements aren't really the big news, particularly given that he's collected more than a million dollars in endorsements and contributions from oil companies during his time in office. He's a bought and paid member of the oil lobby. This isn't news. Nor is it likely that his constituents will vote him out of office for being a patsy - a shame, but not a surprise, given the part of the country he represents. You could say, with cause, that his district is largely made up of people who earn their livings from the oil companies, and so he is legitimately representing their interests even when he makes crackerheaded statements like yesterday. (I don't happen to agree, but that's another post.)
No, the big news really is Hayward's complete denial of any personal responsibility for the actions of the company of which he is the chief executive.
Let's think about that for just a moment, shall we?
He's the chief executive. He gets paid an UNGODLY AMOUNT OF MONEY to be the guy in charge. He received $1.5 million dollars in salary in 2009, plus a $3 million dollar bonus, plus $33.6 million dollars in "other compensation" for 2009. In other words, this guy got paid almost 40 MILLION DOLLARS last year. Why?
Apparently to be "not responsible." To be "[not] involved in the decision-making."
Geez, sign me up. I could get paid $40 million a year to be not responsible. It might be a bit of a stretch, being a responsible-minded sort, but for $40 million I could stifle those instincts, I'm sure.
All levity aside, Mr. Hayward has a point that as chief executive, it wasn't his job to know all the day-to-day details of drilling one particular well, no matter how experimental or unusual it was. HOWEVER, it was and is absolutely and entirely his job to be responsible for the company, including its culture. Its culture of violating laws and regulations, its culture of cost-cutting in the face of increased risk in operations, and its failure to adequately plan for safety and disaster prevention. In the end, he's in charge. He's supposed to lead. He even admits that BP's corporate culture needs to change: "We have begun to change the culture. I’m not denying there’s more to do."
But don't look to him to do it, because as he's said, he's "not responsible." Like every other executive recently called to account for the actions or failures of their company (I'm looking at you, Lehman Brothers/Goldman Sachs/GM/Enron/a long etcetera), none of them take any kind of personal responsibility for the companies they run. None of them have any concept of the consequences of being in charge. They claim huge salaries, they pretend to be in charge, but none of them will ever be caught saying that when the crap hits the fan. When things go well, they're top dog, they're "driving the company to success." When something goes wrong, they're "not personally responsible" and "out of the loop."
And there's the real problem that needs to be changed in corporate culture. Because in my book, if you're getting paid (obscenely large salaries) to be in charge, you're in charge when things go WRONG as well as when things go right. The buck stops with you, figuratively and literally. You don't get the luxury of saying that you're not responsible, because by your very job definition, you are. Or you're supposed to be.
And you need to be held accountable for that. Own the company failures, just as you take credit for company successes.
Again, why aren't shareholders up in arms over this? Why aren't stock owners and shareholders shrieking for this guy to be fired ASAP?
It's his job to be responsible, but he won't be. It's the shareholders' job to be responsible for firing his ass. And if necessary, it's our government's job to refuse to allow this company to do business on our shores until and unless they step up and get their crap together, because clearly, they don't have any sense of responsibility right now. And I, for one, don't want them drilling one more inch anywhere in the world until they develop some.
Gah.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-06-18 09:54 pm (UTC)They're pitching this as something they were always planning to do anyway, but some of the secondary signals have seemed more pointed over the last day or so. I suspect the shareholders are shrieking about this and that Hayward's days are numbered, but my brief experience working for a British firm suggests that The City finds more dignified ways to shriek than The Street (these are the people where a severe chewing-out in the military is described as an "interview without coffee").
Of course, it remains to be seen what sort of firefighter Dudley is, and the notion from the article that we'll see more of CEO "We do care about the small people" Svanberg may or may not bode well for them either.