I don't think it is a case of nonchalence, but rather a different approach is taken.
Personally, I don't think there is much point in acts of resignation. You can talk about sincerity, accountability - at the end of the day, is that really what resignation is about? Imho, resignations should be reserved for the deeper problems (e.g. widespread corruption within an organization, or serious oversight resulting in loss of life). Like it or not, it is fundamentally nothing more than a public gesture. If I screw up once, but resign and get another job elsewhere, how am I being penalized?
Anyways, my point is only about resignation, because I am quite puzzled whenever I see mention of resignation as a potential response to mistakes. In some cases the head of the organization could have in no way influenced the outcome of things. There has to be a balance in approaching controls and checks - when you add in more and more of these, it becomes increasingly difficult for anything to move (read: red tape). You don't necessarily come up tops by checking and checking and checking.
You and I know that talking about salaries (while admittedly relevant) will more likely than not result in the digging up an old dead horse to whip and there have been ample discussions on this in the past, so let's not waste time and breath on that. Cheers.
