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.

▲

cushychicken an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think the two of us read the same post.

You're inferring a lot of emotion into this writing that I simply did not read.

	▲	sublinear an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Right, maybe saying "tantrum" was suboptimal.

▲

whattheheckheck an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

How do you say that so they actually change?

They also have rational choice to not have to get their hands dirty. What incentive is there?

	▲	sublinear an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The incentive is not causing an even bigger mess and keeping their role. Contrary to popular belief, executives really are held accountable for outcomes. It's a question of how much failure is visible and whether anyone else cares, including themselves. If they were only ever motivated by money, they might already have enough since so long ago that now they really only care about harsher legal action that money can't fix. Getting fired isn't a motivator anymore. That's a bad fit for any organization. Someone else is also dropping the ball there.