This person did not shut out his colleagues and work in a bubble because of personal shortcomings. This person was forced to work alone because his company nee

This person did not shut out his colleagues and work in a bubble because of personal shortcomings. This person was forced to work alone because his company needed very specialized skills and relied on a single person for them. No budget for hiring another person, no time allocated for training someone else. What, is he supposed to make an executive decision to stop doing his work and pull another engineer off their work so he can train them? He was an IT tech, a leaf in the org chart, and management had made the calculation that they saved $X/month by relying solely on him, at the expense of some short-term disruption when he inevitably left, and $X was big enough to win out. The big ego he blames himself for was part of the solution they engineered. The more important he felt, the harder he worked, the more money he saved them. Also, I think it's in poor taste to make this kind of "confession" or "apology" because sincere apologies can have weight and meaning, and this cheapens them. By arrogating the responsibility and the apology to themselves, this person is protecting the people who created the situation. By blaming his own personal deficiencies, he is obscuring the fact that the business chose (probably intentionally) to benefit financially by relying on a single overworked engineer instead of a team. Yeah, yeah, I know we're all supposed to claim ownership and responsibility for everything at all times, but sometimes it's appropriate to blame somebody else.