4 ms·
There's a second possibility, though: that after having screwed up this badly they are now doing their best to protect future sources. Or as Thomas J. Watson p
by probably_wrong 4y ago
There's a second possibility, though: that after having screwed up this badly they are now doing their best to protect future sources.
Or as Thomas J. Watson put it: "Recently, I was asked if I was going to fire an employee who made a mistake that cost the company $600,000. No, I replied, I just spent $600,000 training him. Why would I want somebody to hire his experience?"
- bell-cot 4y ago...and the 1970's (first I heard it, IIR) comeback: Don't fire him, and you've paid $600,000 to train just him. Fire him, and you've paid $600,000 to train everybody else at the company. Which one is the better value?
- egberts1 4y agoOriginal employee, especially the higher up they are in skillset.
- karaterobot 4y agoI would not pay $600k to teach everyone at the company that if they make a mistake I will fire them to set an example. If that was my position, it's a lot cheaper just to walk around threatening people and making them feel paranoid every day at work. But I think it's a bad position to take. So I'd probably keep the one guy who is never going to make that mistake again around, and fix whatever system allowed the mistake to happen in the first place.
- yunwal 4y agoThat's a great way to teach people to cover up their mistakes