Thread: Score one for the little guy

Originally Posted by Thantos

Seriously, what is the likelyhood of that being the case?

Look at this way: What does the company gain from this? IMO they lose a lot. Not only does it show that an admin with sub-par performance had access to change the password but it shows the company doesn't have the means to quickily and easily recover from the situation. And they gain...

Now the guy doesn't seem to gain anything except for revenage which is a powerful motivator in of itself.

Its a government agency, not a company. What the admin gains is deflection of responsibility for the problem and a continued career in governement. If they had to accept responsibility it might terminate their career, so they chose to terminate his instead, i.e. scapegoating. This probably isnt the first instance, its just the first one that came back and bit them in the arse.

I would be interested in actually reading the performance review though, it might give some insight into the problem, as well as the performance reviews of the admins involved and the guys predecessors. Im betting there is a paper trail showing a pattern of scapegoating or at the least poor hiring and management practices.

When things go wrong, blame the people making the decisions, not the guys following orders.

Maybe it's because I'm Marathonning X-files, but Mario's argument makes sense.

Or he is just a scapegoat and quit over a bad review, did nothing to the system, but they screwed somethign up, cant run it and now they are trying to cover their asses by claiming it was sabotage by him.

If you really believe that, you scare me. In most cases the obvious answer is the right one. Obvious answer here based on what the guy did after his review was that his performance before the review was less than exemplary. There are certainly better ways to fight bad reviews than mucking up a million dollar system. To me that shows a character flaw which means he probably did other things to warrant the bad review.

You are probably right, but without all the facts noone can make that determination. We shouldnt assume, based on primae facie evidence, that the most likely answer is the only answer, or that those few cases where it is not the correct answer do not warrant proceeding with caution in every case and not making off the cuff determinations of innocence or guilt just because a man has been accused.

Means Motive and Opportunity are requisite in commiting a crime, but they do not prove guilt in and of themselves.