4 ms·
But these are both true. The problem is only if you assign a derogatory meaning to the word liability. If the company could provide the solution it does without
by sudhirj 6y ago
But these are both true. The problem is only if you assign a derogatory meaning to the word liability. If the company could provide the solution it does without a team, or with a smaller team, it would - the purpose of the company is to provide the solution, not feed team members. If we could get eggs without taking care of hens, we would - they're a pain to take care of and feed.
The moment you want to minimize something while still achieving your goals you know it's a liability. Do you want the same profits or solutions with a smaller team? Then the team is a liability. If team were an asset you'd be trying to hire a bigger team without any work for them to do. If you had the chance to double egg production with constant demand, you'd eat or kill half your hens. They're a liability.
- robertlagrant 6y ago> The problem is only if you assign a derogatory meaning to the word liability That's only true if you assign an appropriate meaning to the word derogatory.