Ok, let's continue the analogy. The house cleaners weren't the problem. They are the best of the best at cleaning the pool.

You have the pool but now want to get rid of the pool.

You thought you liked the pool but you don't. It was your own mistake for wanting the pool and changing your mind.

Would you fire yourself from the house? You did make a mistake.

▲

jastuk a day ago | parent [-]

The missing bit is where you say "I take full responsibility for this situation", to the cleaners who's lives are impacted by this significantly more than yours.

> Would you fire yourself from the house?

You keep pushing this false framing/binary for some reason. You made a bad call, you lost the money, that's a given (a passive if you will). Where's the active "taking responsibility" part? That's the main critique.

▲

ergocoder 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> The missing bit is where you say "I take full responsibility for this situation" > Where's the active "taking responsibility" part?

But what is the implication of taking full responsibility? What actions would he be taking for "taking full responsibility"?

I don't think you meant you merely wanted the performative sound of "I take full responsibility for this situation" to come out of his mouth.

Without actions, the words mean nothing.

So, what would be the actions you were looking for here? I don't quite get it.

	▲	jastuk 17 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I don't think you meant you merely wanted the performative sound of "I take full responsibility for this situation" to come out of his mouth. Without actions, the words mean nothing. 100% agree, and that's precisely the critique towards Mark as those words presumably came out of his mouth. > So, what would be the actions you were looking for here? Claw back his executive compensation, forfeit bonuses for the fiscal year and use that to fund better severance / transition support? There's smarter people than me who can answer this, I am merely pointing out and ridiculing this fake accountability and moral theater.