[jakelazaroff]

GP isn't saying that employees can't break the law. They're saying that if an employee breaks the law for the benefit of the company, it's probably because they know the company will reward them for it somehow.

> People are always responsible for their own actions.

Leaders also bear some responsibility for the actions of those within their purview. Why do CEOs get paid so much? Because they get credit (and blame) for the aggregate actions of everyone in the company.

Responsibility isn't zero sum. If the CEO orders a cashier to murder someone, they're an accomplice. If your boss knows you're robbing banks at work and says nothing, they're an accessory.

Let's flip the Nazi analogy around. The foot soldiers should certainly be held accountable for their actions. But — given that all he did was ask others to carry out his wishes — should Hitler?

[dahfizz]

You've not read the comment I responded to.

> No employee is breaking laws in an effort to further the objectives of a company

That's am absolute statement that employees are not to be held accountable.

> Responsibility isn't zero sum.

I totally agree. Doing a bad thing is bad. Ordering someone to do something bad is bad. Absolving someone who did something bad to fulfill your own twisted worldview is also bad.

[jakelazaroff]

Yes I have. The full sentence, emphasis added:

> No employee is breaking laws in an effort to further the objectives of a company in a vacuum.

In other words: "in a vacuum" (i.e. without any influence or incentives from the company), employees will not break the law for the benefit of the company (as opposed to their own benefit). It's describing their behavior, not absolving them of guilt.