When I assume responsibility, I am usually on the hook for something. The doctor’s office always asks me to sign a form indicating that I am responsible for whatever the insurance company doesn’t pay. I am responsible for having automobile insurance. If I don’t, I can be penalized. I am responsible for renewing my driver’s license, for taking out the garbage. The list goes on.
Virtually every time I purchase a ticket to watch a game or concert or attend an event, the organizer of the game, concert, or event includes a disclaimer indicating that they are not responsible for anything that happens to me related to the game, concert, or event. So if a ball, drumstick, or horse, hits or kicks me, the organizer isn’t responsible for the harm, I am. I’m ok with that; if I assume a risk, I should be responsible.
It’s different for bigwigs. John Stumpf is the CEO of Wells Fargo, a bank that apparently opened somewhere around 2 million accounts that were bogus. That’s a lot of accounts. You’d think someone would have noticed, and eventually, the LA Times did. Stumpf has accepted “full responsibility” for the scandal, which interestingly enough did not enhance the bank’s earnings, only its costs. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wells-fargo-accounts-ceo-idUSKCN11Q08U
In this instance, however, accepting full responsibility doesn’t appear to mean much. Stumpf still has his job. He hasn’t been fined or penalized. As far as I can tell, nothing has happened to Stumpf except that he has been yelled at by a few senators. (Wells Fargo paid $185 million to settle the case with federal regulators without, of course, admiting wrongdoing. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wells-lawsuits-20160909-snap-story.html)
I heard Stumpf being interviewed by Jim Cramer, who asked whether there would be a clawback, a procedure whereby a company seeks to recover ill-gotten gains from an employee. In this case, stock options increased in value at least in part because of the existence of all those putative new accounts, which were viewed as evidence of the bank’s excellence in cross-selling. Stumpf told Cramer that clawbacks would be sought to the extent possible. That seemingly responsive answer means that Wells Fargo might seek to claw back anywhere between 0% and 100% of the stock options’ increase in value.
Over 5,000 employees, who were part of the bogus account-opening scandal, have been fired, some as long ago as 2011. http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/14/investing/warren-buffett-berkshire-hathaway-wells-fargo-fake-account-scandal/ They have rightly paid a price for their role in establishing the bogus accounts. But the manager who oversaw the fired employees was not fired, she is being allowed to retire. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/20/its-would-not-be-easy-for-wells-fargo-to-claw-back-banker-pay.html And she has not accepted responsibility, only Stumpf has. Not that it matters.
This situation reminds me of when Donald Rumsfeld assumed full responsibility for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers. http://www.voanews.com/a/a-13-a-2004-05-07-24-1-67497562/282715.html Like Stumpf, Rumsfeld did not lose his job, he did not pay a fine, and he did not, as far as can be determined, suffer any personal consequences.
Stumpf and Rumsfeld both apologized. More importantly, neither of them was directly involved in the scandal or abuse. Although each was in charge of the organization that committed the scandal or abuse, each was far removed from the events. Still, they accepted responsibility without suffering consequences. I wish I could do that. So does every five-year old who hits a sibling.
Most of us live in the real world, where responsibility does not come without costs. But just as some banks are too big to fail, some people (Rumsfeld and Stumpf [so far] among them) are too big to suffer direct consequences. The unquantifiable damage to their reputations is something else entirely.