Without bearing witness to that communication, how can you assign blame? What was said/written? There are so many unknowns here that it's all entirely inconclusive right now, yet people are happy to assign blame and responsibility with almost no information and evidence.
Is that how you'd want your trial to be conducted if you were the accused?
There are serious allegations here that merit more than a peanut gallery trial by public opinion and speculation.
I'm not saying we shouldn't hold top management accountable, but we should have actual facts and details on what transpired so we know who to hold accountable.
You're being intentionally obtuse. If you are the defacto head of a business unit which has an obvious failure multiple times over, you go. You're at fault. Full stop.
If you don't understand this, you've either never worked for a functional organization if your life, or you're some sort of weird proto-autist that doesn't understand basic leadership principles.
The investigation is ongoing, and the results will be announced by the end of the month. You are already passing judgment that they should not be held accountable, when you don't have any facts either! All I'm saying is that if the investigation concludes that Thuan was informed directly by Fowler and did nothing, then he deserves to be fired. Same with Graves.
You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say they shouldn't be held accountable. I'm saying those responsible should be held accountable.
There's not enough information yet to say who is responsible.
The message to Thuan could have been such that he had to delegate to to HR. With issues like these the buck stops in HR. There are all sorts of issues on how to handle these issues and sensitive terminations. If you mishandle things like this you end up stuck between a sexual harassment lawsuit and a wrongful termination lawsuit.
You always delegate issues like this to HR and your lawyers.
Graves and Thuan would be responsible if they either did not delegate appropriately or if they actively interfered.
Furthermore, all sorts of miscommunication may have transpired. If the executives were contacted by email for example, what's to say that the email didn't have a bad subject line and never got read.
We simply don't have facts and we can't hold the right people accountable until we have those facts. Maybe Graves and Thuan are the right people, but we don't know that yet
Is that how you'd want your trial to be conducted if you were the accused?
There are serious allegations here that merit more than a peanut gallery trial by public opinion and speculation.
I'm not saying we shouldn't hold top management accountable, but we should have actual facts and details on what transpired so we know who to hold accountable.