Examples

Good

ADMITTING ILLEGAL TRADING (June 2006)

While what he did was wrong, Yoshiaki Murakami's public admission at the Tokyo Stock Exchange of his illegal trading is admirable. While I admitted do not know all the aspects of the story, such a blantant admission of responsibility should be commended - particularly in our society where even those proven guilty still proclaim their innocense.

ENRON JUROR (May 2006)

After the trial, one Enron Juror mentioned how she and all the other jurors were responsible for their companies. After the trial each day, they would go home and get the work done that that couldn't get done during the day (at the trial). She mentioned, in contrast, how irresponsible Lay and Skilling were to their companies. She was right (and responsible).

Bad

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was riding his motorcycle illegally (January 2006)

It is apalling when public officials who should be models of the law disregard them. While not having the proper license is not a large offense against humanity, for an official chosen to uphold the law, it sets a bad example. "If the governor doesn't need one, why do I?" or "Obviously, the governor thinks the laws are not important." This act reflect lack of responsibility to the laws as well as to his responsibility to all those for whom he should be setting the bar. It is also lack of integrity in that he knew he did not have a license yet proceeded to drive around. A person with intrigity adjusts their actions internally without waiting to be 'caught'.

Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake have a 'wardrobe malfunction' at the Superbowl (February 2004)

The worse part of this incident with the 'wardrobe malfunction' was that they never really took responsibility for it. Millions of people, including children, were watching when they willfully did something to reveal a bra, but it went slightly further than anticipated. Yes, they did apologize, but the apology was masked under the premise that is was the mistake of the clothes - i.e. a 'wardrobe malfunction'. What?? As they describe it, it sounds as though the clothes made the decision to come off. No! Justin made the action and Janet consented. Those were willful actions. And, even though more came off than they expected, they still intended to reveal something. Did they ever apologize for that? As such, they were both responsible. They both knew what they were planning to do and could have stopped it at any time.

Ugly

VONAGE CUSTOMER-INVESTORS (June 2006)

Vonage customers were given a ground-breaking opportunity to invest in the company that provided them services. When the stock came out well below the strike price (about $13 at closing compared to a $17 price), many of the customers refused to pay. Keep in mind, there was an extensive process for submitting an offer including MANY warnings suggesting all the dire consequences of the investment and all the money could be lost. Offerors had to check they understood each of the explicit warnings before continuing. As part of the process, they were treated like any other investor in that they could settle the cash several days after the initial transaction; however, they had made a binding agreement. By not paying, they broke that agreement. That agreement did not guarantee the stock price would go up, yet, they balked when it went down. As such, Vonage was put in a difficult situation made worse by lack of promised cash, time and effort dealing with the issue, bad publicity, increasing concern about the company, negative pressure on the stock price, and soar customers. Irresponsible customers. Vonage would be better off without them. Society would better off without them. Irresponsible.

Enron

This is old news now, but ALL the executives (not just Skilling) fall into this category. Whether or not they all knew what was going on or now, they were all responsible and the know it. They were paid large sums of money for their fiduciary responsibilities to the organization. Shareholders and employees relied on them for knowing what was going on. If they did know what was going on, they were not responsible and should accept responsibility for doing what they did. If they did NOT know what was going on, they were just as responsible because they should have known. THAT was their job. That was what they were paid to do. Either way, they were responsible. Whether the courts find them guilty or not does not change the fact.