Readit News..and your job is to allocate the resources you have been given.
I can repeat things too! This means your success is not yours, that your job is to implement someone else's plan, so you're not really a leader.
“Don’t come whining that you don’t have the resources you need. We’ve done our homework. We’ve evaluated the portfolio, considered the opportunities and allocated our available resources to those opportunities. That is what you have to work with.”
Right out of the gate they’re telling you that your judgment is irrelevant to the scope of the problem. Immediately the chances of success are reduced quite a bit because the SME is not trusted to help craft the terms of engagement. If you aren’t at the table to help draft the terms of engagement, to help define the scope and to help define the resources needed, you’re always going to be working from someone else’s plan. Success is defined by not by your ability to execute, but someone else’s ability to plan. They’re telling you that you may be the SME, but they’re the ones who will be making the judgement calls. Politics has risen above engineering and above business strategy.
“You only have 2 controls: 1) The clarity, culture, and energy you give your teams ; and 2) Resource allocation .”
Except we’ve determined you don’t get much of a say in resource allocation, they’ve allocated the resources you get. If you determine the way to win with the plan you were given is to change that, you have to convince other people why their planning was wrong, and that’s rarely easy.
And you, as a leader, have far more than “clarity, culture, and energy”, too.
This shows that some of the major flaws that drove me out of a cushy role in MS in 2004 are still there today. I think Nadella is a better leader than Ballmer in knowing how to respond to markets, but this speech explains to me with crystal clarity why the AI push has gone so poorly. They think they can still dictate the terms of engagement with the market.
Not my preference but also not out of bounds as a democratic outcome.
If we want our respect for democracy to be taken seriously we need to respect democratic outcomes ... even when they are not the ones we prefer.
The flaw in this argument here is that the opposition is trying to prevent these folks from even having a voice, which is fundamentally undemocratic. So this isn't a relevant statement here because this isn't a complaint about a democratic outcome. It's a complaint about people trying to eliminate voices who want to solve a problem. It's an attempt to silence discussion, which has the effect of preventing action.
https://archive.org/details/Cheap_Video_Cookbook_Don_Lancast...
I wonder how benchmarks would compare between the RP2040 and, say, a Z80.
Anyone could solve every problem in the world, if only they had the resources. However, it's also an extremely convenient and versatile excuse. I think removing this excuse is more important than any downside you mention.
At my company I see people hiding behind the "I don't have the resources" excuse literally several times a day.
My point isn't that the resources are fixed, I can do more with less than the vast majority of people, it's that the job holder had no say in what resources were allocated. When you're not part of the planning, you're not part of leadership, and that entire meeting was a fraud because no one there actually had the proper agency to succeed.