good question - IMHO - no simple answer. - both I would say.
let's try to look at it from a different perspective.
If you are contracted to do a certain job (whatever this may be), and you are qualified to do this job, and have a pretty clear understanding of what you need to do this job in order to achieve the set out objectives, and then realize, that you will be unable to achieve this objectives because you are not given the resources needed (money, manpower, infrastructure whatever).
What do you do?
You put up your hand, and say sorry I can't do the job, and leave or you keep taking the money and try to do something (your best I suppose)?
If enough, do the former, then sooner or later "management" may have to realize, that something is amiss, and things may change.
If you take the money, and do it anyway, despite your better expert judgement, then are you not becomming "part of the problem"?
Are you not helping to prolong a process, which will have to fail, sooner or later anyway?
It's one of the "beauties" of racing, at least for me, that it is a lot more complex and multi facetted then it appears on first sight.
You don't just need the "best people" to be successful, you need the "best people" for your team, at the time - and this "definition" (best) keeps changing over time.
To illustrate my point, I think that there is widespread agreement that people like Newey or Brawn are very competent and "know what they are doing", yet, none of them did "their magic" on a shoestring budget. Therefore I doubt, that they would be "the best" choice for a team like Force India or Sauber. Most likely, they would get frustrated very quickly, being unable to produce the results they have come to expect &/or driving the team into insolvency by trying.
On the other hand, someone like James Key, who may is used to such a enviorment, and can "make a buck go that much further", will find the going tough when putting into a leading position at a team like Ferrari or McLaren, with all their bloated up structures, bureaucracy and politics.
It's very often "horses for courses", both parties are competent when able to operate within their enviorment, but both may look "out of place" when forced to operate in a different enviorment.
None is "incompetent" or solely to "blame" for what may happened, sometimes you may don't even realize it, you were giving it "your best", but this proved "not good enough" in the greater scheme of things.