Robert Bacal <
rbacal@escape.ca> wrote:
>>... the part that perplexes me is the
extent to which there is an issue of
assigning fault, which hardly seems to
be a means of improving hiring...<<
"Blame" means "to assign responsibility". When discussing problems
we need to know what the cause of the problems are and "to assign
responsibility", i.e., blame. Since we are not using names it
is faster and easier to type "blame" than to type
"assign responsibility."
I agree that when we are talking with an individual we ought not
to use the word "blame" since it may dredge up childhood feelings.
However, when we are discussing problems in general it helps to use
words that are precise and "blame" is one of those words.
>>... before we go round blaming anyone....<<
I wasn't aware that we blamed anyone.
Did anyone use a person's name?
Do not confuse blame, i.e., to assign responsibility, with pointing
an angry finger in an accusatory manner.
>>... AT BEST we are trying to increase
the probability of a successful hire...<<
That is obvious, since employees do not come with guarantees.
>>... it will remain a probabilistic
issue until such point that we can
determine with 100% sureness that
any given hire will succeed...<<
What is the point? You stated a truism but is it relevant to
the issue of hiring, I think not.
>>... I do not believe that the
employer can, WITH certainty..<<
Death is the only certainty so why even mention it? Employers can't
do anything with certainty of results.
>>... only a fuzzy probabilistic
conclusion is possible...<<
If your standard is "100% certainty", then you are correct,
but as far as I know that standard is not used in business
except maybe in the funeral business.
>>... I find it questionable that anyone
in the selection business would write
"as if" we can provide certainty...<<
I find it interesting that any