4 ms·
You're not wrong, but there's two situations that can call for it. 1. You are indeed sometimes (more often than not) responsible for things that happen under "
by scrollaway 5y ago
You're not wrong, but there's two situations that can call for it.
1. You are indeed sometimes (more often than not) responsible for things that happen under "your watch" even if they're none of your doing, because you're responsible for calculating things that can go wrong. For a recent news comparison, the JWST is a great example of this mindset: If something goes wrong, NASA was responsible for predicting the chances of it happening and ultimately, having a plan for it.
2. As a consultant, you're sometimes hired so bigger clients can externalize blame. It makes no difference to you, doesn't matter, it's not like they're hampering your career opportunities or something. They love that they have someone to blame for shit instead of blaming the actual people responsible. Yes, it's entirely bullshitty in this case. But it gets you re-hired :)
- adwn 5y ago1. I think we're assigning different meanings to "out of one's control": If you can "have a plan for it", as you say, than I wouldn't call that "out of your control", even if it's not your fault. In your example, the unfolding of the sunshield wasn't out of NASA's control, even though a failure might not have been anyone's fault in particular, so NASA would have been the one to blame. In contrast, an untracked meteorite hitting the JWST after launch would have been out of NASA's control. 2. Yes, that's what I meant by "for diplomatic reasons" :-)