4 ms·
> What she is really saying is that she has permission to fail the customers who trusted her. No she really isn't. > She is unilaterally demanding the right t
by maldeh 11y ago
> What she is really saying is that she has permission to fail the customers who trusted her.
No she really isn't.
> She is unilaterally demanding the right to betray that trust in order to have both the benefits of success, and also the easy lifestyle of someone who is just a worker bee.
This is baseless. She is giving herself permission to not be wracked with guilt, beat herself up about it endlessly, and put herself through self-imposed torture if she fails. It makes sense not to snowball over and compound your failures by piling on. Nobody is advocating screwing customers over by default.
> This idea that everyone deserves an easy lifestyle, regardless of their position, is one that needs to die.
Kind of extreme?
> Marissa Mayer and her ultra short maternity leaves gets it. This lady does not.
...
- mystikal 11y agoBesides, our system of corporate loans and bankruptcy works so well to encourage innovation precisely because it minimizes the personal cost of failure. If you weren't allowed to fail, nobody would take risks.
- yummyfajitas 11y agoNo one is saying she should compound her failures. I'm saying she should either be willing to do what it takes to fix them or she should step aside for someone who is willing. The idea of screwing customers "by default" is exactly what she advocates doing. By default services will break and she is giving herself permission to leave them broken.
- cjcenizal 11y agoI think I understand what you're saying, but I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion here. You just stated that services break by default. I think that's what the author is stating, too. Services break. People make mistakes. Failures happen. By accepting screw-ups we arm ourselves with a mindset that's focused on moving forward, instead of beating ourselves up over what's already occurred.