5 ms·
It sounds like what you're suggesting is that, so long as you know who to blame for the problem, it doesn't really matter how bad the problem is when it hits yo
by Karellen 4y ago
It sounds like what you're suggesting is that, so long as you know who to blame for the problem, it doesn't really matter how bad the problem is when it hits you? Even if the company goes insolvent because of the problem, if you've got someone to point to and say "their fault", it's not a problem for the organisation?
That... doesn't sound like a great approach to me.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoIt does presume there is someone, or some group, keeping track of the tally on at least a weekly basis. If no one is keeping track of who is doing well and who to replace, then fixing that first is more important.
- Karellen 4y agoWell, there's supposed to be a group keeping track of the alerts about anyone who is doing badly, but one of them is ignoring 90% of their alerts, another 95%, and another 100%. It's OK though, because the system is built to handle that kind of problem - by keeping a paper trail of who is to blame. Marvellous. :-)
- MichaelZuo 4y agoIf the organization is so large that it needs even the tracking group to have its own internal hierarchy then I'm afraid my wisdom is lacking.