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

[Ally]

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

Uh you do realize the contradiction in what you just said...right? Obviously if you are prone to being bullied into not seizing an opportunity or lacking confidence, then you weren't the type who was born to lead. You think leaders never faced bullies? Of course they did, they just never let someone else get in the way of what they want to do.

If you can be bullied into submission, you weren't born to lead.

[glyn]

Isnt there a difference between a "bog cleaner" who follows that occupation as a career,and the "bog cleaner" who cleans bogs to supplement his income while studying for example?
Following on from that ,it would be a rash thing to suggest that a "bog cleaner" would be debarred for all time from attaining "higher office",so to speak.In fact ,possibly our greatest Prime Minister ,Sir Winston Churchill, writes in his auto that he counted himself amongst that number(bog cleaners that is) while at public school.He strived to do his best (he said) in whatever job he was given,however menial ,or however important. Food for thought maybe.

[Phil H]

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.

I think you are confusing things here Fleetwood Mac - who said leaders have to be successful (in the medium or long term), or nice.

Leadership is about getting people to do what you want. You are talking about success - a totally different thing.

Phil

[Bob Hinton]

Really?

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.
.

And if in fact that was what you said I would agree with you – but you didn’t- what you said was:

Toilet cleaners contribute to the wealth or/and efficiency of an organisation as much as managers.

Meaning the contribution made by the toilet cleaner is equal to the contribution made by the managers, which of course is nonsense.

[Bob Hinton]

Absolutely correct!

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

That'll teach me to try and touch type on a laptop! The correct figure is 5%. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Bob Hinton]

So.............

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

So let me get this straight we all have confidence to grasp an opportunity, but not apparently enough to actually do anything!

So the leaders then are greedy sadistic scumbags, and what you want is for everyone to have enough confidence to be a leader and become a greedy sadistic scumbag. Well at least that is clear.

I would suggest by your comments you have probably never been in a leadership position yourself.

[Bob Hinton]

Didn't see this

Uh you do realize the contradiction in what you just said...right? Obviously if you are prone to being bullied into not seizing an opportunity or lacking confidence, then you weren't the type who was born to lead. You think leaders never faced bullies? Of course they did, they just never let someone else get in the way of what they want to do.

If you can be bullied into submission, you weren't born to lead.

If I had read this comment I wouldn't have bothered making mine. Ally explains the dilemma perfectly.

[Bob Hinton]

And again...

Following on from that ,it would be a rash thing to suggest that a "bog cleaner" would be debarred for all time from attaining "higher office",so to speak. Food for thought maybe.

Very rash indeed which is one reason I have never said it. There are certain people, 5%, who are natural leaders. Social position, whether you are rich or poor does not alter this. So it is more than possible that anyone with a menial job could attain great things, it all depends if they have the natural ability to succeed.

Look at Alan Sugar for example.

[glyn]

Hi Bob,
Of course you are correct.Ability is the first requirement,then determination and character,maybe a "rub of the green" also.The tragedy today is that many never get the chance to show their full potential,society being what it is.And no Im not a left wing loony ,Im not arguing for for the mythical "equal shares for all" society ,it hasnt and never will exist,and Im not so sure its a good idea anyway.Its the rat race and the rewards associated with it that spurs civilisation on......As for the percentages ,I think 5% might be a bit of an exaggeration,There are many that reach "high office" in whatever profession,but few who make a real success of it,most are just "fair to middling"

[Phil H]

There are so many factors here:

* one might have no talent but be very ambitious;

* another might be talented but unambitious;

* a third might be shy, or be undecided about which of a number of talents/skills to pursue;

* how many people have talent to be an actor, an artist, a professional musician, a writer, but lack the drive to achieve success or to produce results;

* as I have noted before those who have intellect might lack practicality; those who have common sense might be less book-learned.

I think inheritance can be unfair. I knew of a Permanent Secretary (top civil servant - Sir Humphrey for those who know Yes, Minister) in a UK government department who not only had reached the peak of his profession, but in his hobby (making a particular musical instrument) was widely regarded as the "best" and his instruments were sought after by top musicians. He was the son of a man who was world famous in his time for his own achievements.

I myself was brought up in a way that I am completely uncompetitive and also lack personal ambition. No doubt, given my qualifications, I could have gone further than I have, but I had no desire to. What I have achieved has been almost accidental rather than result of me pursuing promotion etc.

One thing I have noted over the years is that, in the Uk at least, the best schools (ofien the public, i.e.e private ones) inculcate confidence and interpersonal skills, as much as knowledge. This the average public schoolboy can promote himself at interviews etc better than one who lacks those skills but is perhaps better intellectually qualified. So why don't state schools give the same emphasis.

I have also noticed a growing gulf between two sorts of young people - those who's dress, focus, manners and attitude are already set on a career path; take advantage of the education they are given etc; and those who seem to be flippant, dislike education; and who's personal presentation is less than positive (IMHO). I think I know which set will get on.

Getting into some professions now also seems to need evidence of cleara nd prior commitment - a would-be journalist will be asked what student/school magazines he/she has been involved with; an actor for evidence of amateur productions; etc.

Phil

[Derrick]

I would suggest by your comments you have probably never been in a leadership position yourself.

Bob

I was, for 10 years, finance director of an SME food wholesaler that employed over 50 people. Whilst I was there turnover increased by 1000%.

I ran the day to day activities which allowed the owner to swan off to do whatever leisure activity fancied him. It was easy because most of the people that worked there knew what to do and didn't need asking twice. They couldn't do my job and I didn't have time to do thier's.

It ran like clockwork. In fact all of the problems started when the boss came back...he pissed everyone off with constant unwarranted hurry-ups. He thought that everyone should be like him and get the job done super quick.

He wasn't one of your chosen few who could lead effectively but could do everyone else's job except mine. I just left people alone to get on with things and they liked that....and told me so. The job got done just the same in the same time span as well.

Sorry to disappoint you but it is not as black and white as you may think.

Derrick

[Bob Hinton]

Good to hear

Bob

I was, for 10 years, finance director of an SME food wholesaler that employed over 50 people. Whilst I was there turnover increased by 1000%.

I ran the day to day activities which allowed the owner to swan off to do whatever leisure activity fancied him. It was easy because most of the people that worked there knew what to do and didn't need asking twice. They couldn't do my job and I didn't have time to do thier's.

It ran like clockwork. In fact all of the problems started when the boss came back...he pissed everyone off with constant unwarranted hurry-ups. He thought that everyone should be like him and get the job done super quick.

He wasn't one of your chosen few who could lead effectively but could do everyone else's job except mine. I just left people alone to get on with things and they liked that....and told me so. The job got done just the same in the same time span as well.

Sorry to disappoint you but it is not as black and white as you may think.

Derrick

Very impressive, it's obvious you are a natural leader. A good leader doesn't micro manage like the chap you referred to, but recognises the strengths and weaknesses of the people who are working for him/her and lets them get on with it, at the same time letting them know that you are there if needed.

That's called leadership and I congratulate you on your obvious talent.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

I think you are confusing things here Fleetwood Mac - who said leaders have to be successful (in the medium or long term), or nice.

Leadership is about getting people to do what you want. You are talking about success - a totally different thing.

Phil

Nonsense. During WW1, millions of men were killed for a few yards of mud. Yeah, they were told to do it, but at what cost? Britain nearly bankrupted itself, very nearly.

That is not solid leadership, it is the blind leading the blind.

Leadership has to have a end product, otherwise the whole thing is pointless, i.e. leaders don't fumble around the dark. They hold clear direction and possess sound judgement.

Fair enough, there's no definitive statement on what exactly constitutes leadership, so we could argue all day.

My view is that sound judgement, clear direction and realising common goals are all bound up with good leadership; after all, when you get to the top your goal as a leader is to remain at the top.

Now Montgomery was a much better leader than Hitler, Churchill or Napoloen; he came a cropper due to superior American firepower, and Eisenhower took credit for Montgomery's leadership. But he possessed sound judgement and good planning.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

My understanding is that you are well versed in bog cleaning duties, and as such you wouldn't clog the bog with nappies, which, I suppose, makes you an extremely valuable bog cleaner. Have you asked for a pay rise? You should do, Caz.

[Robert]

If we picture Hitler as a bog cleaner, then we'll find that, to begin with, Hitler blames his enemies for the bog's filthy condition. He waits and waits, hoping that the bog will become even filthier so that he can heap yet more blame on his enemies. And then, using psychology mixed with ruthlessness, Hitler manages to get his enemies to clean the bog for him. Brilliant. But finally, Hitler becomes lazy : the bog still isn't cleaned to his own satisfaction, so he decides to use the most powerful cleaning agent he knows - and shoves dynamite down the bog, blowing himself up in the process.