Just a reminder of a one year old poster posted on 2012-12-16 by whoever had an audacity to promise the rest of the pack that if they follow one leader (and his side projects – count me not!), they will build a happy and a prosperous team. A true “master of negotiations” could not put it more subtly (see below):
I’m out… and I was. I knew the promise was fake even if you ever believed for a second that a politician can run the show and lead the team to anything “great”. So the propaganda continued for months, beginning week one: “One and half year ago we founded team of two, one brand. Since Jan we’ll be 11 representing group of eight brands! Thanks to great team!”… Soon the history will show it was a lie.
As it turns with all political games – the “great team” did put extra time in playing politics (and running various side projects) only to get fired months after by whoever holds the money. Whoever said it was an external decision just lied, because that’s what politicians do (hello!). As it happens with politicians the change is never for “great” but it’s always for “big”: team, govt, greed, or ego – as in this case.
So the “great” team got replaced with “cheaper” (and more numerous) alternatives and pitched to the outside world as: “with a budget similar to hiring in the Philippines or India, you are able to get a big team to process your data.” (no one to contribute the picture here but quote is real!). Of course, just one year later, there’s no effect of “great” or “big” – only lay offs of the least loyal and most senior (in that order).
Yeah, as I said before: politicians always mention “great” but what they strive for “crowdy” to pump up their ego. As with every system led by politicians it took only six months for the team to get terribly inefficient. As it happens with all politics, the team spends more time on internal alignment (on themselves) and not the customers, nor the products. Whether its an investor or a market, it can be fooled.
… As it turns I was right from the beggining: the opposite was true – it was most dangerous to go with wookie, than to go solo ;-) As in every inneficient political system, the boat sinks and when it does, the opponents are disposed first because they’re too heavy (expensive). That doesn’t fix the system however, so the boat continues to sink and soon you have to start getting rid of supporters too.
Knowing that, ever wondered if that’s true then why the most heavy (expensive) political leaders always go down last?