Devils Advocate
Ah,
Holt CJ’s not so humble antagonist, the Devil, emerges once again to put what is virtually the same question as
ADC above. What is different, though, is that you are not nearly as clever as was
ADC for you foolishly inject into the hypothesis a number of points requiring urgent challenge as follows:
1. You say the chum (the “gossiper” now) says to the potential employer chum (the “gossipee” now)
I'm glad I've bumped into you, because a 'little birdy' has told me that you're thinking of employing XYZ.
This demonstrates beyond doubt that the gossiper is given to being a receptive gossipee. He listens to “little birdies”, does he not? And, friend or no friend, this would lead me to doubt the so-called “beyond reproach bonafides” of the gossiper, to say nothing of his professed “excellent judgement”;
2. The gossiper then goes on to say that
When I employed him three years ago, he initially came across very well..... jeez even I was taken in …
Thus the gossiper by his own statement admits that he is a poor judge of applicants, relying on how an applicant “initially came across” as a true measure of suitability;
3. Then the gossiper puts his foot firmly in mouth, saying:
It transpired, in spite of his apparently impressive credentials, that he only just scraped through the type conversion course ….
Clearly, then, the gossiper did not properly check the “apparently impressive credentials” to discover in advance that they were in fact unimpressive, thereby saving his own employer the cost and trouble of putting the applicant through the type conversion course through which he ultimately “just scraped”;
4. The applicant “only just scraped through”, yet the gossiper tells the gossipee that the reason the employment continued was because
We desperately needed bums on seats and so, somewhat between a rock and a hard place - and giving him the benefit of the doubt, we had to pass him....... but when he got on the line he was an operational and interpersonal nightmare..... and, for all manner of reasons, he ultimately cost us a small fortune
So, the gossiper here confesses to the gossipee that he is prepared to put commercial expediency above public safety. Worse, the gossiper demonstrates his personal unwillingness to make the quite obviously required fundamental management decision of dismissing the employee, this despite knowing he is “an operational and interpersonal nightmare”. Even worse, the gossiper allows the situation to continue to a point where it ultimately costs his employer “a small fortune”. Again, so much for the “beyond reproach bonafides” and “excellent judgement” of the gossiper. As a CP or FOD he is surely a hopeless inadequate;
5. The gossiper allowed the situation to continue until the employee “left for pastures new” of his own volition, telling his friend, the gossipee, that the employee was, in any event, “destined for a failure in the sim sooner or later”. The fact that the gossiper admits that this would be “more from his own hand than ours” is a confession that “our hand” will nevertheless play a part. What a gutless wonder this gossiper is, then. He will not fire the employee. Instead he will delegate the employee’s demise, at least in part, to his training organisation; and, finally
6. The gossiper then refers the gossipee to “scores of top notch blokes”, no doubt each and every one also a gossiper, for so-called “independent proof” by gossip.
Wow, I am truly impressed
Devils Advocate. I suggest you take this scenario with you to the bottom of the Marianas Trench you spoke of earlier, for that is where it truly belongs. And so does anyone who thinks this way. If you are really flying 73s out there, I sincerely hope you never occupy any nearby airspace while I am airborne. Good grief!
[ 03 September 2001: Message edited by: tilii ]