[wolverine876]

That's not really the question:

Punishment culture assumes people naturally do bad, lazy things unless they are deterred by punishment and fear. Therefore we must punish mistakes.

That perspective has long been debunked. You don't see competent, skilled leaders using it. It turns out that generally people want to do well (just like you do), and they don't when they are scared / activated (in fight/flight/freeze mode), poorly trained, poorly supported, or poorly led. They excel when they feel safe and supported.

If you are the manager and the technician makes the same mistake the 2nd or 3rd time, you will find the problem the next morning in your bathroom mirror. :) At best, you have put them in a position to fail without the proper training or support. Leadership might also be an issue.

[s1artibartfast]

I would say that every skilled leader must use punishments and consequences to some degree.

If your tech gets drunk every day and doesnt do their job, you need to cut them loose. This isn't a management problem.

Sometimes people end up in positions where they are not suited and will continue to fail. If you hired a plumber and you need a doctor, that isnt an on the job training, support, or leadership issue.

[reverius42]

> you need to cut them loose. This isn't a management problem.

That is 100% a management problem.

> Sometimes people end up in positions

I wonder how they got in those positions? That sounds like a management problem too.

[s1artibartfast]

It isnt always managements job to make the person workout in the role. Sometime it is managements job to fire that person to find someone better.

Some people are bad fits for positions. They might look good on paper, they might be trying something new, they might lie to get hired, they might change after starting, they might have been a risky hire, or any number of reasons.

[refulgentis]

I think you're envisioning people all being absolutists who follow an exacting rule book and can't consider context. (that's covered by the *flexibility* tentpole)

As N approaches infinity, there's definitely a value of N at which we discover the root cause is the airman and have to move on from him. I don't think it's particularly interesting to try to identify a constant value for N because it's highly situational, and we know we have to do *just* and *reporting* as well, the reporting falls out when the just does.

[s1artibartfast]

You hit the nail on the head. I do perceive a lot of people being "no bad employee" absolutists.

All I am looking for is recognition that the content of N matters.

It is part of what I see as a broader phenomenon where people emphasize systems and ignore agents. In reality, agents shape systems and systems shape agents in continuous feedback.