Who runs a company without knowing what goes on in the company

[Hutzpa]

Take a wild guess.

[Johonny]

1. Ronald Reagan

I don't recall

[gratuitous]

2. Apparently it happens all the time: Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and so on

From the sound of these guys, money just falls out of the sky into their pockets; nobody knows why, and when a good thing is happening, it's wisest not to look too closely. Look, is this little session going to be over soon? I've got a 1 p.m. tee time, and I hate to keep the other robber barons waiting. It means the first round's on me, see.

[Hutzpa]

5. So far so good

what do they have in common what our recent events of phone hacking?

[KittyWampus]

3. Pretty much every overpaid CEO in existence. Apparently, that's what they get paid for-

not knowing what is going on.

[KansDem]

8. Why can't I get a job like that?

I don't know what's going on most of the time and I'm doing it gratis...

[dkf]

4. Does your CEO know what you are up to?

[Hutzpa]

9. He called in to say he was playing golf today

So we are all having la-la-la day, a mini vac.

:P

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. This is in reference to million dollar under the table payouts.

Murdoch is claiming that this isn't the kind of information he requires his editors to share with him (or anyone)

[HopeHoops]

6. A wingnut.

[Incitatus]

7. W

[meegbear]

10. My boss

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. He's playing dumb. I don't buy the bullshit.

James is obnoxious too.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. The better question is why give the rogues who got you in trouble a huge severance?

Murdoch did that so she wouldn't implicate him.

[cyberpj]

14. I'm campaigning for the headline: Too Big To Know

wha'd'ya think?

[Lex]

15. Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush.

nt

[rocktivity]

16. Not Rupert -- I'm not buying his "befuddled old man" man act for an instant

He's not the hands-off, laissez faire type -- he knows damn well where every cent he's ever earned has ended up. Nor is he the helpless type -- note how he doesn't hesitate to interrupt even his own son!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Incitatus]

19. I agree, especially considering the nature of his business

and its effects on business and politics.

[eShirl]

17. Mr. Carlson?

[dmallind]

18. Anybody who runs a company of more than one person frankly

I am no fan of the obvious reference here, but such standards are asinine. No boss knows everything his employees do, just like no parent knows everything his kids do. The bigger the boss, the bigger the areas of which he can be ignorant. The owner of a huge conglomerate not only can but almost undoubtedly will be entirely ignorant of the policies, actions and even existence of whole departments in a specific subsidiary. I once worked for a company much smaller than NewsCorp, about 1/16th the size but still large at $2B. I'm a middle management hack, but I was dealing with fairly significant dollars. Met the CEO once and presented my latest 8 month long project - which saved the company about $800k annually by reformulating a plastic used in one of our products. That's savings - we spent about $3M on the commodity. His response? "That's great - to be honest I saw the way plastics were going up in price over the last year or two but I never really looked into it for us because I didn't think we bought any"

That's the employed (not the owner who answers to no-one) head of a company a small fraction the size of Murdoch's talking about a seven-figure expenditure in global commodities, not a by-definition covert activity. And he was successful, and quite competent. He trusted his subordinates to handle the details of a fairly minor activity and concentrated on the big numbers (our #1 spend commodity was about $75 million - I am fairly confident he knew about that one), and they did so. Is Murdoch being honest? Probably not IMO. Did he know that underhanded even illegal data-gathering activities were sanctioned at his papers? Almost certainly. He most definitely created the corporate culture that encouraged it (and that's the only role the owner of so large a company normally has on day to day operations). But is it not just possible but inevitable that all large companies or organizations do things that the CEO/Owner does not know about? Absoluitely - from Greenpeace to Blackwater (as was) and everywhere in between.

[tjdee]

22. This is why company culture and who is hired makes a difference.

It's impossible for a CEO to know everything, yes.

However, the CEO sets the company culture and hires people he/she is comfortable with overseeing various departments. I think it's exceedingly clear what kinds of attitudes and behaviors Murdoch found acceptable in his company.

[Brickbat]

20. All of them -- that's why they send stupid memos that have no connection to reality, are able to cut

people without giving a shit, and make the big bucks.

[LibDemAlways]

21. The majority of CEOs. While there are, no doubt, some

who take an active interest in the details, most are too busy counting their money and enjoying their perks to give a shit.

[Hosnon]

23. Beyond a certain size, probably every CEO.

Micro-managing is not a good business practice.

[still_one]

24. A lot, thanks to allowing all the mass merges that have been allowed. /nt