In cases like this I would fall back on the saying, «Never attribute to malice what can be
explained by incompetence.»
«Never attribute to guile that which can be
explained by incompetence.»
b) «Never ascribe to malice, that which can be
explained by incompetence.»
Napoleon said «Never ascribe to malice that which can be
explained by incompetence,» but in this case there seems plenty of both.
But it also seems to confirm that one should seldom attribute to malice what can be
explained by incompetence.
Not exact matches
I've found it statistically valid to prefer to ascribe to
incompetence what could be
explained by actual malice.
Without this, your project will be fueled
by the Peter Principle, which
explains, «in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of
incompetence.»
Saposnek, Don:
Incompetence Troubling - Video (05/22/09) Don Saposnek explains he's troubled by the incompetence he has seen practiced by mediators and therapists in settli
Incompetence Troubling - Video (05/22/09) Don Saposnek
explains he's troubled
by the
incompetence he has seen practiced by mediators and therapists in settli
incompetence he has seen practiced
by mediators and therapists in settling disputes.