Are Accountability and Victimization cousins?
As our nation’s economic speedboat threatens to run aground, the economic crisis is a hot topic everywhere including our blog discussions as well.
What can you say about the acceptance of accountability, or the lack thereof, by our leaders - for this economic disaster?’
Has a sense of victimization spread rampant through our society, alleviating all responsibility?
It seems as if no one is to blame – so are we all to blame?
Discuss these questions in the context of the Four Principles of Purposeful Action, with examples and appropriate links.
This post was written by Chris Miller, who will lead the discussion for the week starting February 24.
Corporate executives have not been held accountable by their companies, shareholders, and the governments, which has been a reason for the downturn of the current economy. The lack of accountability has caused these leaders to pursue ventures through greed without any concern for the consequences. Our leaders including corporate and government hold positions with a great power to change where the economy will turn, usually with minimal oversight.
Who is the blame in this situation? In some part we all are, however the majority of people are followers and will follow leaders toward a vision. What has this vision been? A desire to be financially successful with unbalanced ethical values along the way.
Leaders should be held accountable for their actions and willing to support there actions if questioned.
Reference Link (Article):
http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/employee-development-leadership/417985-1.html
Yes Brad, I am in agreement with your post, absolutely, the lack of accountability of our leaders caused the economy to go down. And it doesn’t apply only to the US, but it has affected, for the most part, the whole world. And who is to blame for this mess? The leaders in every country with unethical values are to blame and also their followers that have been influenced by them. Leaders have a purpose derived from an inner vision. They have belief and conviction in their vision and their vision benefits others who are inspired and enthusiastically follow the leader. Those leaders are not purposeful and definitely are considered to be takers.
Reference: http://purposefulaction.com/index.asp?mid=79&mid2=231
I agree, Brad. In many ways, we are all responsible. We have failed to hold our Leaders accountable. Nor did we question them when the deregulations began but we had big dollars signs in our eyes at possibility of large profits to be made with little effort as the result.
Margaux
Brad
With the natural cycle of the US economy, a downturn will always happen. So, with this natural downtown and the way companies have acted, I believe has made a bad situation worse.
Also, many people think that the negative report of the economy has not helped
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20090101.LATH004&show_article=1
Bradr, I do accept that lack of accountability has caused our leaders and corporate executives to come down in economy. It is due to every individual irresponsibility.lack of responsibilities starts from a normal human. If it was discouraged in starting point itself it won’t effect the every human in today’s world. we cannot blame anyone in this situation. The fairness should start from every individual. The majority of people will be a followers of a leaders towards a vision. we don’t know how many leaders are true enough to follow they own vision.
Hema
You are so right, while the corporate leaders are on the news everynight getting “blamed” for the economic crisis, IT DOES start with each and everyone of us and the decisions we make..
I would bet if the media looked, they could find individuals and families, that HAVE saved and not spent every dime they have, and these people are doing just fine right now
“In families, organizations, and indeed even our society, one of the reasons for failure is the inability by leadership to establish and enforce accountability. Accountability in leadership is a topic that is not frequently discussed and the result is often relating to compliance to procedures, following work rules, treating customers with respect, achieving results, and getting along with co-workers. Accountability is at the heart of empowering people to perform well, demonstrating initiative, and acting responsibly. When a climate of accountability exists, things work smoothly; and when it is absent procedures fail and policies are ignored.”
- source : http://www.cmoe.com/blog/establishing-accountability-through-effective-leadership.htm
I attribute accountability to the sense of responsibility a person exhibits when performing an action. Which is nothing but acting with purpose. Victimization is the adversity resulting from being made a victim. There is often financial loss and physical injury connected with victimization as is the case of current economic crisis which everybody is experiencing.
In society as a whole no one wants to be held accountable for their actions. Everyone acts like they are victims when something goes wrong and are always pointing a finger at others rather than taking blame for their own life. In the economic crisis, none of the CEO’s want to be held accountable for their failing companies. They all want to blame the economy, the decline in the housing market, the government, etc. This lack of accountability is true not only for organizations but also for individuals.
Take this article for example, about a family suing Crocs for their child being injured on an escalator while wearing crocs.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/11/health/healthy_living/main4439455.shtml
While it is sad that a child was hurt, is it really crocs fault that the child got hurt? For one, the parent choose to purchase the shoes for the child, choose to put the shoes on the child, and was with the child while it was getting on the escalator. Sounds to me like the parent is responsible for the injury to the child. Therefore, shouldn’t the parent be held accountable?
Nikki
This is a classic example of how some are not only NOT accountable and like to play the victim, but will SUE to gain monetarity for their own lack of responsibility
Greedy lawyers.
I am very much in agreement with you Margaux. These giant financial institutions seems to have initially claimed a small degree of accountability during the initial phases of the crisis but are now falling inline with everyone else to play the role of victim.
The articles you referenced prompted a bit more reflection on my part. Perhaps it is the general public as a whole, acting as consumer do, that have played the biggest role. Are we the ones trying to play the role of victim? Are we, in fact, denying accountability? It is true, these corporations were greedy and lustful, but weren’t there a large number of Americans that were just as greedy and lustful? For some time now there’s been a drive to “keep up with the Jones’”, which fueled a desire to finance “toys” and things that added absolutely no value to anything.
One need not look any further than our very recent past, prior to the passing of the stimulus package, when the “Big Three” automakers were on Capitol Hill stating their case (i.e. begging) for massive loans to assure their survival despite after a long period rampant irresponsibility and gross mismanagement. Rick Wagoner of GM, Alan Mulally of Ford, and Robert Nardelli all stood before Congress and absolutely denied any accountability on their roles in the current state of their respective companies. All three stood before Congress and passed the buck, citing the current economic crisis as a primary component leading to their financial woes. Each of these executives believed that their companies were victims in the economic crisis and not sources. Whether the belief was sincere or whether they had convinced themselves it was sincere is irrelevant.
In the context of the Four Principles of Purposeful Action it may at least initially seem that the Big Three exhibited purposeful action in their dealings with the UAW to the extent that they provided better wages and excellent benefits to their employees. On the one hand, the automakers seemed to be serving their employees by providing better wages and benefits, both of great value to workers. However, upon further examination it is apparent that the action was not sincere as the unions “forced the hand” by striking until their demands were met. The automakers, in return, knew that giving in to the demands of the UAW would assure their profitability and their status as the top three American automakers. The focus of both involved was self-serving.
Were the automakers operating with any semblance of ethical balance? To answer this I want to focus on GMC. GMC was a major producer of trucks and SUV’s and a large part of their business was financing consumers though their credit business, GMAC, so the consumers could buy more of their vehicles, creating a cycle of lust, perhaps from both GMC and consumers. It would not be hard to find quite the combination of negative core values in their actions as well. GMC was most definitely a taker.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/business/21auto.html?ref=business
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/11/bail_out_the_bi.html
http://blog.mises.org/archives/009076.asp
In light of the current economic crisis, accountability and victimization are definitely related. Citibank has already received $45 billion of TARP bailout money, despite contributing to the credit card and mortgage/foreclosure crisis now impacting the US economy. Citibank and many other financial intuitions have lacked accountability and are now playing the victim role, requiring federal bailouts. By lending subprime loans, the management of Citibank was obviously motivated by greed and disregarded accountability to their stakeholders and customers. To further play the victim, Citibank may become a nationalized bank with 40% of Government ownership.
By no way is the blame solely on the financial intuitions, credit is the life blood of the US economy. Homeowners, together with Banks, have contributed this crisis, but Banks were the first in line to be bailed out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/citigroup-nationalization_n_169050.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/the-credit-card-debt-cris_b_169657.html
A very good example Margaux describing the accountability and victimization. Yes not always the victims are accountable for the bad things.
Right, without the financial institutions businesses would not be able to succeed or individuals would not be able to obtain loans. The banks are victims too in this situation due to poor management, competition, and corporate takeovers. These financial institutions now may require federal bailouts, but if the government would have been active in regulating these banks the bailouts would never be where they are at today.
It seems that eventually a large portion of the banks operating within the United States will be owned or partially owned by the federal government through all of these bailouts. Maybe if the government pumps enough money into these banks they will eventually realize they need to implement more regulation within the financial industry.
Brad
While the banks and the individuals who wanted mortgages share the blame for the housing part of this crisis. I believe GOVT rules also is a chief cause.
The US Govt made rules that basically made lending institutions do loans on people who normally would not have qualified.
Yes, the lending instituions knew they would be able to “sell” these mortgages rather quickly and not be hold the loan if something happened, but the GOVT made the rules.