[cm11]

The problem is that the PM—the role (and sometimes the person)—at this party enables this.

1. We can think this sort of agility is good (and the outcomes better because of it). If so, we are at the least saying the PM doesn't know or arbitrate what's good. The half of the PM job that is planning and visioning is being done by the owner and the PM receives it. The PM work here is reshuffling the new, late, non-ideal constraints into something where the team actually can and does implement it. That work is real, but it's best case scenario. PMs can also pass on the "entropy"—taking the problems they've received from the owner and simply relaying them to the team. That's not so additive.

2. We can think of this sort of agility as bad. If the asks are ridiculous—and the PM doesn't push back—then the team has the problems and a buffer between them and anyone who could do anything about it. The changes you mention are ones that could have been known earlier. These aren't sudden environmental changes, these are ones that should have been planned for. That is in some way or form the PM's responsibility to stabilize. Are there bad executives who do whimsical things like this? Yes, they hire PMs (intentionally or not) to make it easier for them to do it.

When PMs are good, they frequently and actively go against the company/leadership. PM as a job description is a leader with no power. PMs as people either find a way to make those untenable things work (which means the current problem is fixed, but the company has a leadership problem) or they don't (which means the current problem becomes the ICs' problems and there is no feedback mechanism to leadership).