People in high positions never get fired. Even Nixon resigned before he was forced to leave office. Do you really think that the board of directors would want to keep someone responsible for causing their stock to drop 99%? I'm sure you can dig up some 10 year old Bloomberg articles to see how leadership changed, but only a few people can make sense of the significance of these changes.
This is all beside my original point anyways. I'm not saying things are perfect right now. My point was that people don't give credit to how common self regulation is because they don't care enough to pay attention to it.
> a lot of leadership has changed in the past decade.
> People in high positions never get fired.
Can you explain how you aren’t contradicting yourself? The first quote is from your original comment.
> I'm sure you can dig up some 10 year old Bloomberg articles to see how leadership changed, but only a few people can make sense of the significance of these changes.
Come on. I gave you an Atlantic article that claims no one suffered any real consequences. In contrast, the sum total of your argument is that “only a few people can make sense of the significance of these changes.” That sounds a lot like mysticism to me— are you operating on faith?
It's not a contradiction. People rarely get fired when they screw up in most white collared jobs. They usually "voluntarily" leave. The Atlantic article focuses on criminal consequences, not leadership changes. My argument is that the board of directors and colleagues would know a lot more than you or me about who to blame and deserved to be asked to leave, and it's in their best interests to make the right decision.
This is all beside my original point anyways. I'm not saying things are perfect right now. My point was that people don't give credit to how common self regulation is because they don't care enough to pay attention to it.