The statement you quoted was meant (although not in any way obvious) to be a resigned statement of acceptance that, given a certain size, there will be those in any company that demand special attention, and sometimes it's a battle you can't win. Although it does throw everyone else's schedules out of whack.
I hear ya (and understood your point). I agree that it's OK in moderation or when very specifically asked for (whether it's obviously justified or not).
I was just trying to point out some of the downsides that I've shared with my teams who are sometimes too eager-beaver to work in pecking order rather than priority order. People generally want to do the right thing; sometimes they need help framing what that right thing is.
I agree completely, and I'm happy to see examples of orgs where the execs / directors respect and realise that the teams that they hire (IT, HR, Sales, Pick / Pack, whatever) will do the best job they can given the opportunity. The feeling of trust in employees is tangible, and therefore mutual and reciprocal.
If you're the head of a company, or indeed anyone leading a team, please take note of the above point. Trust your people to do their job (you can still measure their performance) and they will trust you to do your's.
The statement you quoted was meant (although not in any way obvious) to be a resigned statement of acceptance that, given a certain size, there will be those in any company that demand special attention, and sometimes it's a battle you can't win. Although it does throw everyone else's schedules out of whack.