It feels like a better compromise could have been made.
It feels like a better compromise could have been made.
The employees, in all reality, don't have the power to drive the direction and focus of a large company; that's a benefit limited to startups and small businesses.
With that in mind I think the parent comment is right. Leadership can say what they will but it's ultimately up to the people doing the work that drives the actual strategy.
It's quite literally leadership's primary job to set the strategy and focus of the company. It's what they're being paid to do. If they aren't doing that, they need to be let go.
No, leadership isn't exactly a glorified supervision layer.
I've known of a case where a director refused to promote an employee, the employee escalated the case to HR. The case got investigated and director in his defence said the employee couldn't be promoted as he was doing the same task for months.
To the director's horror he was let go for not seeing why the employee had not automated his work. And why he hadn't proactively worked with stake holders to improve productivity. So as far as the employee was concerned he had done what he was asked to, and despite bringing up his promotion issue in 1-1's the managers hadn't told him anything about his work at all. And instead lauded for the good work and asked him to continue.
The decision was right because the next director who came in got this done.
The job of any who sits at the top is to take a high level view, and move things in the positive direction. Approving leaves, budgets and memos just happens to be a side gig at those levels. The real job is to make progress happen.