> Assigning resources to growth is usually the most stupid thing to do. By definition the projects that can grow the most are the projects with no customers or

> Assigning resources to growth is usually the most stupid thing to do. By definition the projects that can grow the most are the projects with no customers or revenues, especially new projects that are nowhere, they can only grow. https://xkcd.com/1102/ https://xkcd.com/1102/ . Investing in these is to the detriment of established projects that actually bring revenues and keep the lights on, and companies that neglect to keep the lights on tend to die. Well you can consider growth in terms of total users and not the percentage. > Assign resources to the projects where they have the most impact. And business impact should be measured by return on investment (or loss if not invested), this could be almost anything in practice, growing revenues/customers, maintaining existing customers/revenues, not getting fines and lawsuits, reputation control, assets/inventory/cashflow optimizations to save money, etc... We don't disagree. You are talking about what makes sense for a business while I am referring to what makes sense for an individual in an environment where growth is what determines your performance review. That is a bit simplified obviously since of course revenue does matter. My point is that it's exactly this misalignment of what's good for the company vs what's good for individuals working there that is the problem.