A person who knows what they are doing versus someone who has difficulties learning the given tasks have two very subjective views of the workplace situation.
One is at the mercy of their colleagues, constantly and rightfully interrupted to correct their mistakes, while the other is chugging away in the zone.
We need the viewpoints of both levels of expertise to make sure that there is a whistle to blow.
You are directly implying that there is no way to know whether the person writing this blog post is "someone who needs constant correction" or if they're a high performer who's "in the zone". based on that, I do not think you read the parent article. The person in question was just promoted for their excellent performance, and had written performance reviews giving high marks. They spoke up, and then were quickly let go.
The company then went on to fire exclusively minority groups in their layoffs.
If those are the facts of the matter, then we really do NOT need the perspective from someone "in the zone" to make a judgement here.
I don't understand how this logic works. So many high profile whistleblower cases (deutscebank, volskwagen, cia) happened because a high profile employee put their career at risk, but I get an annoyed self-contradictory response using quotes and caps. Disappointing.
One is at the mercy of their colleagues, constantly and rightfully interrupted to correct their mistakes, while the other is chugging away in the zone.
We need the viewpoints of both levels of expertise to make sure that there is a whistle to blow.