3 ms·
True, it still fails the game theory test. You should still assume the need to cover up, because it might work, and in a (common) poor intitutional culture, sav
by guiriduro 3y ago
True, it still fails the game theory test. You should still assume the need to cover up, because it might work, and in a (common) poor intitutional culture, save you from reprimand/job loss. Worst case, you are found out, and fired, but you had the chance to hide or obfuscate the fault. In a common blameful culture, you may have been blamed simply for (being seen as) the one causing the fault, whether volunteered or hidden.
If you cover up in a genuinely blameless root cause analysis but are found out, the blameless culture would see that as a systemic fault (them not communicating the importance of blameless root cause, like the fire chief of the example), and if not found out, it is merely a less effective analysis. It is an unfortunate upfront cost imposed by the proponderance of BF cultures on BL ones.
Like a market for lemons, it means you should assume CYA until a blameless culture is clearly and overtly demonstrated, not merely stated.
- rightbyte 3y agoYe. Being fired for a "cover up" kinda validates the employees assumption that the author's boss at the time was the wrong kinda guy to be honest to. Unless the sysadmin got 1000 mails because the fired guy did "sudo rm *log" trying to guess the admin password I don't even know how you find out if something is a cover up, a mistake or a set up. "shortly thereafter termination of their employment" There was no due process there that is for sure.