35 ms·
I think what parent is saying is that you get a lot of outcomes when you have unmonitored VPs with a few million dollars of budget. Regardless of what the corp
by ethbr0 4y ago
I think what parent is saying is that you get a lot of outcomes when you have unmonitored VPs with a few million dollars of budget.
Regardless of what the corporate intent is. Inasmuch as there can be one in such a company.
- FireBeyond 4y agoWhen your corporate intent is not to fire VPs who go "off the reservation", but continue to employ, reward them with bonuses, there's a plausible argument that you're absolutely defining that as your corporate intent.
- ethbr0 4y agoPer parent's description, there was no reservation. It was just everyone doing their own thing. And having worked at a few companies that suddenly fell into orders-of-magnitude more revenue, it rings plausible. When the money hose is spewing, nobody spends much time asking "Why?" anyone is doing anything, as long as it's just shy (or sometime inclusive) of embezzlement.
- krageon 4y agoCorporate intent is the intent of the VPs in aggregate.