Quote:
Originally Posted by MicroRoller
You and Lederer both seem to have have a misunderstanding of what "taking ownership of the problem" means. You're confusing it with taking ownership of the solution. They are not the same thing and many people confuse the two. Sometimes intentionally.
Meh. I'll admit I've never heard anyone talk about "taking ownership of the solution." I do recognize a distinction between accepting fault and taking ownership.
Quote:
Assigning blame, and people taking responsibility for their mistakes is an important part of the process. Just because you find someone at fault doesn't mean you get rid of the person. Mistakes enrich people's experience although sometimes mistakes can't be corrected.
Sure, and I don't see where I ever implied that every person who wants to find out who was responsible for a particular decision is doing so because they want to fire them. I have suggested that there's a particular type of person who tends to see things this way, and that the same type is often an obstacle to conducting a successful business meeting.
Quote:
You're making assumptions that the purpose of assigning blame would be to enact retribution
Again, no. I'm saying that some people get so caught up on that aspect of things, however, that they stifle one's ability to conduct a business call. Howard describes them as "angry."
Quote:
and you're assuming that the owners knew more than is claimed that they knew.
Not necessarily. I'm saying they knew enough to know that the sale of the company was a top priority. I think you may be saying that they justifiably wanted to know more so they could make an informed decision as to whether they should allow Howard Ray and Chris to continue to run with the ball, and I wouldn't disagree with that. If that was in fact their stance, however, then Howard's response is still reasonable and it falls on the ownership to make the next move (which apparently they eventually attempted, perhaps a day late and a dollar short).