The future being different from the past is just one point.
And maybe I failed to explain clearly... but it's about context. I don't think we can hire anyone with a poor record. I think we hired a guy with a good record... who performed poorly since he's been here.
But it depends on the context of 'why' he performed poorly. I feel there were many things that were not his fault amongst some things that were his fault.
Many people on here disagree with me and feel it all boils down to he's the common denominator. I respect your opinion and everyone else who shares it with you.
I just feel differently than you about it for the reasons I've stated.
The point is that you made before, or how it was presented to the public (Which even though you may present something as one thing with how you intended it, it doesn't always get perceived as how you intended), was that the future is not made up yet. My point in hiring someone with a crappy record by your admission is totally OK because we have no idea why they had a crap record. Maybe the guy had a bunch of raw deals, right? So why not hire him huh?
Half of the stuff I'm saying is also not McDermott specific, it's abstract. So let me ask you again and please answer so I can get your train of thought. This has nothing to do specifically with McDermott, but a general principle:
You have been overseeing 15 employees for five years, and one has been underachieving severely for those five years. Sure, he was put on a project once with a bad budget so he didn't do well, but for 2.5 years he's been on a project with a great budget with a surplus and all the help he needs and wants. He still can't get the job done. He's directly affected your company's revenue over the last year, and you fear he will continue to do so.
So, I'm not talking about McDermott but the general principle of it all. Do you fire the guy or keep him in your company?