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.

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.

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.