When my company has an issue it truly doesn't cross my mind whose fault it is. My brain goes directly into how can I stop/fix this and what needs to be changed to keep it from happening again. ---------------------------------------- At one time I was hired precisely because of the problems caused by the previous "people". At no time did I ever refer to what I inherited, other people did including my boss. Frankly, when someone referred to the way the other guy did things I'd blow them off and say that was BC (before christ).
Obama will ride that horse for as long as he can. I notice he doesn't blame Bush for starting socialism in the US by bailing out the banks, since he keeps that ball rolling. Focusing on fixing a problem is what middle management does because the scope of their responsibilities are closer to the operational level. Figuring out who the idiot is who's responsible is upper management's job - because you can't have a strong organization unless you keep the screw-up from doing it again. So both has to happen.
Thats interesting. I do things the exact reverse. If there is a problem big enough that I get involved, I only focus on fixing the problem. I leave it to the managers to figure out if an individual is the cause, and how to deal with them. If the same problem shows up, i'd like to say more than once but more than twice is closer to the truth, then the manager knows its his fault. If I was to allow the same manager to allow the same mistakes to continue then that would be my fault.
Of course it depends on how big the operation is. If your approach works in your setting, nobody can argue with you. But in a big operation (like a government) there may be crap that isn't found out until quite a while has passed. In that case, I wouldn't take the blame for it either. I may have to address fixing it, but I ain't taking the blame for it. If you are at the top of the pyramid, you don't get the luxury of dabbling in the minutiae. That is what the mid-managers are for. It's your fault if you hire a mid-manager screw-up though, or let him stay long after he's proved he's a screw-up. That is why the "loyalty over ability" approach automatically makes someone a f-k-up top-level manager. It means that person is not fit to be at that level, since he is making other people's "clannishness" the most important trait rather than his own leadership ability.