"...Accordingly, when much of the S&L industry faced insolvency in the early 1980s, the FHLBB’s examination force was understaffed, poorly trained for the new environment, and limited in its responsibilities and resources.7 Qualified examiners had been hard to hire and hard to retain (a governmentwide hiring freeze in 1980–81 had compounded these problems)..." (Page 170)Does this sounds familiar to you? If you never heard of anything like "limited resources" from your management or your boss, you must be happily working in your current company and working on long OT is once in a blue moon.
Many bosses think that their staffs are "supermen" - they introduce new workloads to the existing staffs, decline to provide sufficient resources and still expect for marvelous results. Is it possible? Well, I think most of the time this overoptimism will end up with disappointment - either the work is not done well or more problems are created. Such disappointment can be avoided if they face the music at the first place, namely the staffs are just ordinary humans and NOT "supermen".
I think sometimes many bosses have abused the usage of "challenge". For example, when a first line manager asks for additional headcount, the boss will tell him: "Currently there is no budget for extra headcounts. By the way, you should take this as a 'challenge'." How should the first line manager response? Can he say "NO, I can't take the challenge"? An assignment will be perceived as a "challenge" if it has certain level of difficulties and the staff will have satisfaction upon accomplishment. If a there is only 4 persons to do 8 persons' work, how can the team do good work? Even though they can complete the work, it is luxurious to expect for good work quality - the work is completed merely for the sake of finishing the work. Since the team is unable to produce good work, how can they get any satisfaction? A challenge which never bring satisfaction is not a challenge.
Sufficient resources should be viewed from 2 perspectives - the "quantity" as well as "quality". Yes, a fresh graduate is "cheaper" if we measure his remuneration in term of monetary term. However, we often overlook (or ignore) that this fresh graduate requires "indirect investments" for the lack of experience and knowledge. The first line manager or senior executives need to allocate time and resources to train new staffs. As a result, the remaining time and resources available for other work are lesser. The productivity of 1 senior + 7 fresh graduates team is definitely lower than 4 senior + 4 fresh graduates team. Don't say "I already give him extra headcounts" if you don't give him the types of headcounts he needs.
We have to accept the fact that we are ordinary humans. If we do not have resources, don't start a new project.
