Osama Bin Laden DEAD- Killed By U.S. Forces

[Bob Hinton]

Precisely

As I was once told (on my last day at school) "Life is about the three 'Gs' - Greek, Grace and Gumption (common sense); You can learn Greek and attain Grace, but if you haven't got Gumption, heaven help you!"

Phil

and that is what the 20% have got! Limehouse keeps getting confused. She keeps on saying there are ineffective or bad managers. Yes we know that, as I posted some time ago just because daddy owns the company it doesn't make you a good manager, but the converse is true just because you clean the toilets that doesn't make you a good manager either! She then gets rather stuck in this groove and starts going on about janitors writing books and talking to school children which may be true but the doesn't make you a suitable candidate for taking over IBM.

[Phil H]

But the janitor could make a great deal of difference in certain circumstances:

a) if he was a natural man-manager, effective at communications and persuasive;

b) if he has taken the job because he is fed up of higher responsibilities;

c) an iconoclastic, out-of-the box approach would be effective (worked for hitler viz a viz his staff college trained, hide-bound generals.

My point is that the abilities have NOTHING to do with education, training, job title or previous experience. Some janitors are janitors because they could not do anything else, but others may have that job because they had no choice at the time. Put into a different role they might sink or swin based on a multitud of factors.

But intelligence, ability etc is NOT related to qualifications, social class, will-power, fasmily background etc.

Nevertheless, there is a problem in making use of latent, in-born ability. How do you detect and direct it.

The Soviets used to pick out kids with talent as artists, gymnasts, etc and then forcefully and ruthlessly train them up, almost to the exclusion of all else. Not a pleasant or seemingly very productive approach.

On the other hand, if a man or woman creates a successful business, it is surely natural that they would want a son or daughter to succeed them. How does one interfere with that natural process? In practice, it seems tome ineffective managers of such a sort fall naturally by the wayside, or are used as figureheads by those more able - I always assumed that Cheney and Rumsfeld used George W in that way - as a sort of Chairman of the "Bush board" with them as the real managers.

If a company goes public shareholders can have a say in the selection of top managers.

But things are not absolute - the top manager of today may "burn-out" tomorrow; he might not be up to navigating rough seas, though good in more stable conditions; he might get distracted; compensate by alcohol or drug use for stress; he might prove corrupt or over ambitious.

The clever janitor on the other hand, might never perceive the opportunities, be unaware of his "talents"...

A deeper question that has long intrigued me. What happens to a genius in a culture that does not have an outlet for his talent?

If Mozart had been born say into an African tribal society that had no music, would he have flourished anyway, or gone mad? Rembrandt in the Dark Ages (so-called)? Or an architect or a writer (would they just have been a story-teller? Or is genius a product of genetics and culture that only produces individuals of greatness when appropriate.

I don't think that is true, and we sometimes only recognise genius retrospectively - but what do others think?

Phil

[Limehouse]

But the janitor could make a great deal of difference in certain circumstances:

a) if he was a natural man-manager, effective at communications and persuasive;

b) if he has taken the job because he is fed up of higher responsibilities;

c) an iconoclastic, out-of-the box approach would be effective (worked for hitler viz a viz his staff college trained, hide-bound generals.

My point is that the abilities have NOTHING to do with education, training, job title or previous experience. Some janitors are janitors because they could not do anything else, but others may have that job because they had no choice at the time. Put into a different role they might sink or swin based on a multitud of factors.

But intelligence, ability etc is NOT related to qualifications, social class, will-power, fasmily background etc.

Nevertheless, there is a problem in making use of latent, in-born ability. How do you detect and direct it.

The Soviets used to pick out kids with talent as artists, gymnasts, etc and then forcefully and ruthlessly train them up, almost to the exclusion of all else. Not a pleasant or seemingly very productive approach.

On the other hand, if a man or woman creates a successful business, it is surely natural that they would want a son or daughter to succeed them. How does one interfere with that natural process? In practice, it seems tome ineffective managers of such a sort fall naturally by the wayside, or are used as figureheads by those more able - I always assumed that Cheney and Rumsfeld used George W in that way - as a sort of Chairman of the "Bush board" with them as the real managers.

If a company goes public shareholders can have a say in the selection of top managers.

But things are not absolute - the top manager of today may "burn-out" tomorrow; he might not be up to navigating rough seas, though good in more stable conditions; he might get distracted; compensate by alcohol or drug use for stress; he might prove corrupt or over ambitious.

The clever janitor on the other hand, might never perceive the opportunities, be unaware of his "talents"...

A deeper question that has long intrigued me. What happens to a genius in a culture that does not have an outlet for his talent?

If Mozart had been born say into an African tribal society that had no music, would he have flourished anyway, or gone mad? Rembrandt in the Dark Ages (so-called)? Or an architect or a writer (would they just have been a story-teller? Or is genius a product of genetics and culture that only produces individuals of greatness when appropriate.

I don't think that is true, and we sometimes only recognise genius retrospectively - but what do others think?

Phil

Some really good points there Phil. a joy to read.

[Limehouse]

and that is what the 20% have got! Limehouse keeps getting confused. She keeps on saying there are ineffective or bad managers. Yes we know that, as I posted some time ago just because daddy owns the company it doesn't make you a good manager, but the converse is true just because you clean the toilets that doesn't make you a good manager either! She then gets rather stuck in this groove and starts going on about janitors writing books and talking to school children which may be true but the doesn't make you a suitable candidate for taking over IBM.

I never even came close to saying a toilet cleaner could take over IBM. What I said was that all workers make a contribution to the wealth and success of a company.

Then, in reply to Fleetwood Mac's assertion that 'bog cleaners do not contribute much in the way of knowledge' I gave an example of how a cleaner HAS done so. I never said he was capable or willing to take over the organisation.

[caz]

And there was I thinking we were all bog cleaners.

I forgot about all the married men - and the bog brush-challenged single ones.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

Are we not, in fact, all bog cleaners, but some look up to the cistern while others look down to the....

Phil

[Derrick]

“Bernard Shaw once asked the explorer H M Stanley (who was a Welshman by the way) how many other men could take over the leadership of the expedition if Stanley himself fell ill; Stanley replied promptly: ‘One in twenty.’ ‘Is that exact or approximate?’ asked Shaw. ‘Exact’. And biological studies have confirmed this as a fact.”

The fact is that if you are not one of the magic 20% you just will not cut it as a leader.

Hi Bob

Perhaps you could clarify the above mathematical error that has crept into your arguments? You quote H M Stanley and accept that only 5% (1 in 20) are cut out to lead. This then almost instantly becomes 20% (1 in 5).

I would just like to be Shaw that you are using the right statistic here.

Derrick

[Limehouse]

And there was I thinking we were all bog cleaners.

I forgot about all the married men - and the bog brush-challenged single ones.

Love,

Caz
X

Yeah - it did cross my mind that I am more than skilled with a bog brush but I didn't want to give Bob any more reason to insult me!

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don't agree with this on two counts. Not all knowledge is valuable. Some knowledge is false and some is not worth knowing. Additionally - not all managers are knowledgeable and some think they know far more than they actually do.

Secondly - we have a cleaner at work who has written a book about the history of the local area. In his spare time he goes round schools telling children stories about what life was like on the Fens in years gone by. This is of enormous value.

Finally - cleaners are of great value to an organisation. Any organisation that does not recognise the contribution of all of its staff deserves to fail. ALL workers contribute to the overall wealth and success of an organisation.

a) Bog cleaners make decisions about how many bog rolls are needed at the side of the bog. Come to think of it, they probably have that dictated to them. Whereas businessmen make decisions that will decide the direction of the business. In terms of value: chalk and cheese. The business won't go under in the event a used nappy is left lying in the bogs; on the other hand, the business may go under in the event the business invests in a product or market that underperforms.

b) Each according to his needs? No thanks. I'm not subsidising someone who was happy to sit down the pub after a day bog cleaning while I was studying myself into the ground after a day at work. It's bollocks, mate, all this left-wing idealism. No such thing in this life as something for nothing: you want it? do what other people do and put some hard graft in to better yourself.

c) Of course, bog cleaners are recognised. They're not being asked to do it for free; they're being paid according to the value of a bog cleaner.

[caz]

Hi Bob

Perhaps you could clarify the above mathematical error that has crept into your arguments? You quote H M Stanley and accept that only 5% (1 in 20) are cut out to lead. This then almost instantly becomes 20% (1 in 5).

I would just like to be Shaw that you are using the right statistic here.

Derrick

Hi Derrick,

I think it's called the Daily Mail shuffle.

Similarly, their average reader may come away with the impression that 10 out of 10 immigrants are greedy, thieving scroungers when the truth might be nearer 1 in 10.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

a) Bog cleaners make decisions about how many bog rolls are needed at the side of the bog. Come to think of it, they probably have that dictated to them. Whereas businessmen make decisions that will decide the direction of the business. In terms of value: chalk and cheese. The business won't go under in the event a used nappy is left lying in the bogs; on the other hand, the business may go under in the event the business invests in a product or market that underperforms.

b) Each according to his needs? No thanks. I'm not subsidising someone who was happy to sit down the pub after a day bog cleaning while I was studying myself into the ground after a day at work. It's bollocks, mate, all this left-wing idealism. No such thing in this life as something for nothing: you want it? do what other people do and put some hard graft in to better yourself.

c) Of course, bog cleaners are recognised. They're not being asked to do it for free; they're being paid according to the value of a bog cleaner.

I don't get paid for cleaning the bog, FM. And if my 'boss' tried to dictate to me when and how many bog rolls to leave by the bog I'd have 'resigned' many years ago.

The business might well go under if a used nappy, or anything other than bog roll, is flushed down the bog, because it sods up the drains and can have some very expensive not to mention extremely unpleasant and longlasting consequences.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fleetwood Mac]

Surely good leadership is about getting people to do what you want them to do - about inspiration, illumination, decision-making and goal-setting, about guiding (leading the way). It's setting examples, leading by example.

I agree.

And in terms of Hitler, there's disconnect here.

Hitler didn't set a good example at all. Are you aware that the German economy would have come crashing to a halt around 1950, war or no war? Are you aware that the German government at that time was an absolute shambles? They were a pack of thugs, odd balls, criminals and out-and-out lunatics, and it showed in their stewardship. Not a brain between them, with the exception of Speer and Goebbels.

They built up their party through violence and intimidation, and when Germany was beginning to show signs of economic recovery, they knew it was now or never, and so they played the system (or grabbed power, depending upon point of view).

What sort of leader would declare war on the United States while engaged in a bitter struggle with the Russians? You'd have to be stark raving mad, but then I suppose he was. It's not exactly out of the Sun Tzu book of 'a protracted war is costly for both victor and loser; only engage in war as a last resort or when victory is guaranteed; otherwise, use diplomacy and cunning to achieve your objectives'. Now those are wise words, and a clever man would have been aware of them and heeded them. His generals, the high ranking generals, thought he was mad; they could see that which Hitler did not possess the wherewithal to understand.

[Limehouse]

a) Bog cleaners make decisions about how many bog rolls are needed at the side of the bog. Come to think of it, they probably have that dictated to them. Whereas businessmen make decisions that will decide the direction of the business. In terms of value: chalk and cheese. The business won't go under in the event a used nappy is left lying in the bogs; on the other hand, the business may go under in the event the business invests in a product or market that underperforms.

b) Each according to his needs? No thanks. I'm not subsidising someone who was happy to sit down the pub after a day bog cleaning while I was studying myself into the ground after a day at work. It's bollocks, mate, all this left-wing idealism. No such thing in this life as something for nothing: you want it? do what other people do and put some hard graft in to better yourself.

c) Of course, bog cleaners are recognised. They're not being asked to do it for free; they're being paid according to the value of a bog cleaner.

I think you are making quite a few assumptions about the type of people who clean toilets and the type of people who run businesses.

I know all about hard work thank you. I grafted to get a good education and I have a challenging job. However, I still have respect for all people in my organisation and consider them valuable.

[Derrick]

I think you are making quite a few assumptions about the type of people who clean toilets and the type of people who run businesses.

I know all about hard work thank you. I grafted to get a good education and I have a challenging job. However, I still have respect for all people in my organisation and consider them valuable.

Well said Julie, you bring some common sense to the argument.

I have a first class degree but didn't have to work my arse off because to me it was so easy. Maybe I'm just lucky that way.

As for work I am a full time carer for my disabled wife. I get 55 quid a week for that. I do everything around the house from cleaning the bog to cooking every meal. (my xmas dinner is a real winner, so she tells me!).

All this crap about the 5% born to lead is a joke. All anyone needs is just the confidence to grasp an opportunity. We all have that ability but most, it seems, are bullied into not realising it by greedy, sadistic scumbags.

take care
Derrick

[Derrick]

Hi Derrick,

I think it's called the Daily Mail shuffle.

Similarly, their average reader may come away with the impression that 10 out of 10 immigrants are greedy, thieving scroungers when the truth might be nearer 1 in 10.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz

Are those 10% trainee bankers by any chance eh?

Derrick