It means you can't hide behind excuses. If for example theres a problem with a vendor shipping components for a product line you're a VP for, it means you're responsible. It means the only acceptible answer is that you found a new supplier and we got the product out on time. Not 'we're late because our manufacturer couldn't hold up their end of the deal'. It's a great philosophy, to my mind it's what defines a true manager in any org. If only AT&T implemented it too.
Yeah, I get the idea of more responsibility, but don't really agree with how it was put... There are always things which simply cannot be resolved in a given timeframe and the reasonable decision might be to plan for a delay / propose an alternative plan instead - it looks like the VP gets the blame in that case instead of reconsidering the strategy, since reasons don't exist any more.
More to the point - that sentence paints the world black/white, even though the world never works like that. However, I think it also explains some actions of that company...
Honestly, while I understand what you're saying, I disagree. Changing plans and/or pushing back schedules is independent on who's responsible or to blame. If something happened that can't be worked around and my VP neither made contingencies or raised that risk to me from the start. It's their fault. Period. Might sound harsh, but I can't see how you do it any other way.
Sure, and if that's so, a good VP is ahead of the problem with that new proposal, well in advance, instead of rationalizing the failure after the train goes off the rails.
I think the idea is that the VP is involved in setting the goal, so if they fail to achieve it they take the responsibility for not having planned correctly. If they agree to an impossible goal, it is on them. If conditions change and they see the goal will not be met, they need to manage the expectations and not allow the situation to surprise anyone, especially Steve Jobs, like the example in the article.
