> A good leader is supposed to take responsibility for the actions taken by his or her team. Failure of a unit implies failure of the leadership.
I've heard the same "leadership principles seppuku" and sure, this would be consistent with that ethos. (In my experience, that kind of buck-stops-here ownership happens less often than not.) But this isn't the part of your comment I want to argue.
> In my view, the right outcome happened here.
I disagree (if it was a subordinate).
If the responsible party was a more junior member of HR, I'd like to see the blowback land on the actually culpable party. (That could be in addition, or alternative, to the leader's resignation.)
If a junior member of HR was able to fire employee without review by other people and proper plausibly lookimg documentation, then the responsibility is 100% on whoever invented such process. Which is the lead.
Because really, that would put the company not just at risk of what is going on now, but also at risk of very expensive lawsuits.
I've heard the same "leadership principles seppuku" and sure, this would be consistent with that ethos. (In my experience, that kind of buck-stops-here ownership happens less often than not.) But this isn't the part of your comment I want to argue.
> In my view, the right outcome happened here.
I disagree (if it was a subordinate).
If the responsible party was a more junior member of HR, I'd like to see the blowback land on the actually culpable party. (That could be in addition, or alternative, to the leader's resignation.)