I don't get it

[cmdr_zoom]

I’m baffled by the “make him clean up his own mess” position, especially since it acknowledges the man’s less than competence as a given. Why, then, should he be trusted to (1) actually “fix” the problems he made; and (2) not make more, bigger messes in the additional time he’s been given?

If I had an employee that couldn’t do the job, I’d fire him and get someone who could. At least, that’s the way it works in ordinary business; I’m not sure how things are in the kind of business where your Daddy bails you out when you screw up.

“Guess I screwed up, huh Daddeh?”
“That’s right, sonny. But don’t worry, we just gave you that company to run as a toy. No harm done, well, ‘cept maybe to all those folks who lost their jobs.”
“Great, Daddeh. Can I get back to my drinkin’ and whorin’ now?”
“Well, all right sonny... but remember that if you want to follow in your Daddeh’s footsteps, you’ll have to have a Convenient Repentance sometime soon.”
“Awwwww, Daddeh, can’t that wait a few more years? I still got lots of drinkin’ and whorin’ to do!


(Okay, so maybe I have some issues with the guy.)

Comments

[arconius.livejournal.com]

Normally, incompetent people are promoted into management positions, where they can do a lot less damage.

So either there's too many incompetent people that we can't promote them all, or something has really gone haywire with the whole arrangement.

[cmdr-zoom.livejournal.com]

Normally, incompetent people are promoted into management positions, where they can do a lot less damage.

Speaking of policies I Just Don't Get. (Wouldn't it be much more efficient to just get rid of them?)

Besides, Chief Executive is far from a powerless position in ANY organization. And CEOs who screw up big are frequently forced out by shareholders. But not in this case, it seems...