Lederer tells Parvis that there was a lot of anger and that, “in situations like that it’s very difficult to get people to take responsibility for the problem. And people have to take responsibility for the problem before they really feel like they need to fix the problem.”
Yet Lederer himself insisted that the membership not talk about responsibility. According to sources, Lederer vehemently refused to even consider discussing looking into who might be responsible for the financial position the company now found themselves in. There is evidence to support that on more than one occasion, and in fact repeatedly, Lederer expressed to members the notion that “now is not the time” as far as finding out what happened to the money and that a time will come for finding out who was responsible, but that that time will come only after there is a good deal in place for the players. That deal is in place now for the players. Lederer still insists that he has spent no energy in investigating what really happened and who was specifically responsible.
I felt like in this section, DF misinterprets HL's statement. It seemed clear to me at the time of the interview that he was talking about taking ownership of the problem as opposed to assigning blame. You see this sort of tension a lot in the business world, where when something goes wrong, there is always a type of person who is so overly focused on assigning blame and meting out punishment that it distracts from the often more productive activites of assessing damages and discovering solutions.
Her final statement may very well be true and I'm not trying to argue anything beyond what I've said above (i.e., I'm not sure that keeping Ray on was a good decision, etc). I do think she's taking an overly literal view of his statements in this spot and finds a contradiction that doesn't necessarily exist.
In any event, it's a small point. I just think it highlights an interesting dynamic in human behavior.