First, I think the author is (as someone else said and as you seem to agree) raising a strawman.
Second, I don't think there are people on the other side of the argument, but there are people on the other side in situ: I mean that even if rationally they would never admit it, they hijack the immediate "fire extinguishing" or "pulling of the plug" or "pumping of water" to discuss where the problem is coming from.
I've seen those people lacking discernment, not only do they get in the way of the short-term action, they also are pretty bad at cause analysis and confound it with blaming people or "I told you so".
This is a generalization of course, but the TLDR is that even if those people wouldn't argue against it, they act against it.
This. Its highly problematic when these people are in positions where they are able to derail efforts to stabilize by insisting upon RCA first-and-only.
Seen this everywhere. Been on both sides of this. Learned to be humble from the experience.
First, I think the author is (as someone else said and as you seem to agree) raising a strawman.
Second, I don't think there are people on the other side of the argument, but there are people on the other side in situ: I mean that even if rationally they would never admit it, they hijack the immediate "fire extinguishing" or "pulling of the plug" or "pumping of water" to discuss where the problem is coming from.
I've seen those people lacking discernment, not only do they get in the way of the short-term action, they also are pretty bad at cause analysis and confound it with blaming people or "I told you so".
This is a generalization of course, but the TLDR is that even if those people wouldn't argue against it, they act against it.