I too have worked my career as an officer in the Navy (7 years) and in several large organizations. In my opinion, firing someone over 'one' single incident doesn't typically happen, unless the incident is incredibly serious. The vast majority of the time there are numerous problems that have occurred, or the offending behavior is repeated (some people don't seem to learn from their mistakes). I don't know of any organization that takes the firing decision lightly.
Incidents must be documented, discussions of performance held, instructions of how to improve behavior must be offered and consequences of repeat offense be identified. My suspicions are that these single reasons 'heard through the grapevine' are simply handy excuses for people to identify and make judgments about. These issues are never really that simple. My guess is we are seeing and hearing only the top 10% of the iceberg in these cases.
.
Q. Do the Mariners have a track record of scapegoating?
A. All big organizations "assign responsibility" for train wrecks. I'd say the Mariners are classier about it, more restrained about it, than most of the org's I ever worked for.
Like we say, multinational corporations look a lot different from the outside than the inside. It's a bit, um, naive to notice a little set of firings by these execs and have an "Aha!," moment, announce that we are seeing something sinister.
That said, this USSM article raises interesting exhibits. If anybody cares, I'll give my cornball boots-on-the-ground interpretation of what was probably happening in each situation.
.
Q. Should Carmine Fusco have been fired over Josh Leuke, or who is to blame?
A. Who is to blame, is the media lynch mob in America.
When you have white-male-on-any-female potential crime (Leuke) or white-male-on-minority free speech transgression (John Rocker) you are going to get a lynching. All sense of proportion, and therefore any chance of justice, is out the window. The media wants the man made an example of.
Any F-500 company is going to have to comply with the media's demands, and that's what any F-500 company does. The sinister element here is present, but it's not with the company.
............
I've seen these firings, and 97 times out of 100, the Carmine Fusco fall guy has in fact been responsible for part of the problem. A 3rd-level director doesn't just snap, "Fire somebody." He asks, "Who filed the report here?"
IF TYPICAL, what happened was that Fusco was the guy assigned to do his due diligence on Leuke, or made a hallway remark "he can be a loose cannon, but he's basically a good kid," or something of that nature.
IF TYPICAL, Fusco could very easily complain that he did brief Zduriencik, and that there was missed communication. IF TYPICAL, Zduriencik was sincerely unhappy (in retrospect) with the information he got from Fusco.
Yes, 3 times out of 100, the exec will simply do something dastardly -- or at least heartlessly. But that's not the default assumption. The default assumption is that Fusco screwed up a little bit, and Zduriencik would have liked to have gone past it, but our sweet friends in the media wanted to see blood. You had a rich white male preying on somebody who wasn't a rich white male, and a chance for a lynching.
.
Q. Maybe Zduriencik should have fired himself over the Lueke situation, to placate the howling media?
A. Perhaps Ghandi or the Dalai Lama would have; perhaps that is what morality offers as the ideal solution. Don't dare try to tell me it is what you would have done.
The President of the U.S. is responsible for a whale of a lot. He gets people killed. He saves lives. He'll stand before the Judgment Bar with the scales tilting back and forth.
He still figures he's the best guy to minimize casualties in the future, so he doesn't fire himself. Collateral damage is part of the culture for power execs; if they fired themselves over every major problem, who would mind the store?
.
Q. Are you saying you approve of the Fusco dismissal? What would you, as a Christian, have done?
A. For sure, the Fusco situation was an ugly, ugly chapter in the career of a fine exec. And because he did what? He traded for a pro athlete whose morals are very questionable? ::swoon::
Any of you guys fans of Pete Carroll?! Any of these media guys trying to lynch Carroll for all the guys he coaches and all the things they're currently doing? The lynchings are acts of opportunity and hypocrisy. Jack Zduriencik is well aware of this. If he avoids trading for an offender, it is based on his fear of a future media reaction, not based on the idea that immoral people should be out of sports.
What I'd have done?, after the Lueke thing blew up in my face ... as all execs have things blow up in their faces...
... would have been to bare my chest, take the media flak, and lived with it. Then my higher-ups would have told me to fire somebody, or resign myself. I'd have very apologetically identified the man most responsible, and told him it was out of my hands, but I'd help him in the future the best I could. And I'd have cursed the media under my breath.
You don't suppose that's what Jack Zduriencik actually did, do you ...
.
NEXT