| ▲ | cushychicken an hour ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I'm here for the sentiment expressed by the SVP in this article: "I already believe we reached this point through rational choices. Let's talk about how to change the system so it doesn't happen again." I do think his choice of words was a bit suboptimal. But, it got the point across. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | sublinear an hour ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Talking about changing the system "so it doesn't happen again" can only lead to more "rational choices". This is a thinly veiled tantrum spoken in a calm voice. If you want to reduce incidents, you need to lean into the problems instead of dismissing them or delegating even more all over again. Doubling down on trying to keep your hands clean is shit leadership. The basis of this blog post is delusional. The language from the SVP is the desire to fast-forward past the thought process that comes with listening to "the story". This could only lead to more problems. They're basically admitting they weren't going to listen in the first place. "The story" doesn't always lead to blame game, and sometimes the changes needed are the context in which rational and trustworthy people are working in. That is not a change to the system, but to the organization. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||