3 ms·
You're describing the BigCorp meta, which I think is a good portrayal that people need to see. However, in the context of the discussion and parent, it sounds
by caminante 3y ago
You're describing the BigCorp meta, which I think is a good portrayal that people need to see.
However, in the context of the discussion and parent, it sounds like you're trying to defend.
I don't agree.
It's completely rational to play career frogger. The leader is getting compensated (We're talking re-ups of generational wealth for however long they can survive.) However, their leadership is fair for criticism. It sounds like the leader hasn't created a compelling vision, which their staff is craving, let alone delivered team success.
- phillipcarter 3y agoWhat I suppose I'm saying is that there likely isn't a compelling vision that (a) they could get funding for, or (b) moves the needle enough to matter. I imagine their staff prefers getting paid to not getting paid, so this is the best the leader could do. I don't like it either, it was my lived experience for several years. The issue wasn't a lack of ideas or people who knew about them, it was usually an inability to drop existing product lines + customers and no approval for the additional headcount needed to pursue bigger opportunities.