Responsibility and Fault: Just where does the buck stop?

     "The Buck Stops Here". That is probably President Harry Truman's most famous quote. Obviously, he was not talking about a dollar bill. He was talking about responsibility. He recognized that he, as commander-in-chief and chief executive of the United States, was responsible for the words, actions, lack of actions, morality, and so forth for all of the people to whom he had delegated work.
     But, even though there is recognition that the final responsibility lies at the top of the management structure -- those that are delegated may likely delegate further -- and those people delegate even further down. Is the CEO of a company with 30,000 employees responsible for the actions of every one of these people?
     In the 1800s and earlier (pre-circa 1970) 1900s, it was felt that the head of the company DID have responsibility for all the people that worked for her or him (in those periods of time, usually a "him"). In exchange for taking that responsibility, there was also a lot of control -- dress codes, behaviors out-of-office, fixed and stringent company manuals, and so forth. The responsibility was also connected to employee "loyalty". The company, and head of the company, guaranteed certain things and the employee, in return, agreed to act in certain ways (including productivity within work).
     Starting in the later 1900s, work and non-work time began to decouple. Company pensions became rarer and rarer. Length of time of employment shortened. A lifetime of work for the same company became very unusual rather than very common. Employees decided on what they could, or could not, do outside-of-work hours. Within work hours, there were still various expectations of dress and behavior but, outside of work, it was up to the employee as to what they did and how they behaved. In this situation, certainly, a CEO would not be responsible for what an employee did outside-of-work.
     From the other point, the head of a company would certainly be responsible for the words and actions of all those she, or he, directly delegated. And, as Harry Truman indicated, the head has some responsibility for all. But if they are truly unaware of what the grand-delegates are doing/saying then it is hard to say they are directly responsible. In the post-1960s, the phrase of "plausible deniability" came into use -- basically a way of saying "you can't prove that I knew about what they were doing so don't try to hang the responsibility on me".
     But this blog is about responsibility and fault. Why "fault"? Because when something goes wrong, the break occurs someplace. Similar to a fault line where earthquakes occur, fault occurs at a location and the responsibility lies with a person. But it is not always the person that seems most obvious. If a person fails in their duty because they do not have the knowledge, training, or accessibility to do the job correctly then the fault lies with the one doing the delegating. If the person DOES have (or claims to have) the knowledge, training, and ability then it is that person's fault.
     Fault is not blame. Blame is a movement of responsibility. And it is unproductive. If the fault lies on the manager, then they need to correct the lacks. If the fault lies upon the delegate then there is the option of learning, correcting, and improving to not create the fault again. The action of those responsible may depend on the delegate's history. Does the delegate learn from mistakes? Do they correct past behavior or mistakes?
     During merit review of someone to whom there have been tasks delegated, errors or faults need to be looked at from the point of who/where/what. Not doing something when they could not do such is not their fault. Once again, it is the manager's responsibility AND fault. Not being willing, or able, to learn from (and correct) errors is the delegate's fault -- and should be considered in the review.