Re: The most powerful woman in the world...
- From: mmeron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 23:01:19 GMT
In article <eee3u0$8qk_001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jmfbahciv@xxxxxxx writes:
In article <9eVNg.3$45.146@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,No, not really. If you've a mental picture of how things are supposed
mmeron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <ee8j0p$8ps_001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,jmfbahciv@xxxxxxx writes:
In article <ebHNg.44$b5.46@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,When you enter a room in your house, do you've to check every item to
mmeron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
In article <1158101637.503114.93370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "EdwardGreen" <spamspamspam3@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
jmfbahciv@xxxxxxx wrote:And, the belief that scientific training translates to "requiring all
In article <1157904416.697779.207410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"tadchem" <tadchem@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Edward Green wrote:
...according to Forbes Magazine, is Angela Merkel, chancellor of
Germany. Chancellor Merkel holds a doctorate in physics from the
University of Leipzig.
Imagine! A world leader who may understand the second law of
thermodynamics.
Technical competence does not necessarily translate to leadership
competence.
James Earl Carter was a BS nuclear engineer from the US Naval Academy.
I always thought that a cause of his adminstrative problems was
due to his science training: he required all the details which
can bog you down w.r.t. decisions if you're the head of anything.
I don't know if that has any correlation with scientific training:
that's "micromanaging", and it's quite possible to do this without any
scientific training at all.
I also wouldn't put a naval "nuclear engineer" on the same page as a
doctorate in physics: his was a very goal directed and pragmatic kind
of technical education.
the details" is quite false.
Point.
On the contrary, it is a matter of
recognizing which details matter and which can be ignored.
Sure. [here comes the but ;-)] Don't you have to look at
all the details before you can ignore them? This takes time.
verify that it is in its right place, or do you just glance around,
noticing when soemthing is out of place?
If nobody else lives there, a glance is necessary. If other humans
are involved, a more careful scan is required.
to be, a quick glance will suffice to notice changes.
Sigh. Politics may be dealing with discrepancies, but it doesn't mean
So, no, not only I don't have to look at all the details, but I've to
avoid looking at all the details. Wouldn't get anywhere otherwise.
I've to make a judgement call, based on general knowledge, prior
experience etc., which details may be relevant and concentrate on
these only. If it works, fine.
Right.
If a serious discrepancy shows up,
the discrepancy itself may point the way to what additional details may
be relevant.
But, Mati, isn't the other word for politics decrepancy? It sure
seems like the job is juggling descrpanies all the time.
that everything is a discrepancy. In fact, nearly everything isn't.
By and large, things are working. It is the same in every area.
Thousands of planes take of and land every day, safely. Some two hundred
million cars go on the road every day, in the US, and 99.9999% of them
returns home, safely. Knowledge that things go wrong is not an
invitation to treating everything as a disaster in making, as such
attitude is safe paralyzing.
In the case of politics, those details are human-based and subject
to change depending on the phase of the moon. And sometimes, a
"no" about one thing is a 180 degree turn of the same thing in a different
department.
For instance, we bought tape drives from STC, put our logo on it
and sold them with our systems. One day, STC had reps in the
north end of our building, signing a deal with us. They also
had reps in the south end <ahem>discussing a lawsuit about the
same thing. Meanwhile, the VP could be making a decision that
countered both.
I can imagine that foreign policy combined with national
politics combined with local politics combined with the lastest
bullet shot by our military would produce a bigger spaghetti
mess. If you're a detail President, you would need to know
the whys and wherefores of each instance. This takes time
even if your staff has prepared a Reader's Digest version of
the novel.
If you're a "detail President" and want to know the whys and
wherefores of each instance, then you're a disaster, period. This
simply cannot be done. You're dealing with reality and you've to make
real-time judgements and decisions. This precludes any possibility of
tracking all details.
A country is not run, it just runs. There is no central
Note that I'm still trying to figure out how a country is run.
administration assigning tasks to everybody in the country and
monitoring performance (and there'll better not be). There are some
operations within each country that are run on a country wide basis
and this is all the government runs.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
- References:
- The most powerful woman in the world...
- From: Edward Green
- Re: The most powerful woman in the world...
- From: tadchem
- Re: The most powerful woman in the world...
- From: Edward Green
- Re: The most powerful woman in the world...
- From: mmeron
- Re: The most powerful woman in the world...
- From: mmeron
- The most powerful woman in the world...
- Prev by Date: Re: Is there an Aether?
- Next by Date: Re: Why Age passes slowly in a space ship which has nearly speedo...
- Previous by thread: Re: The most powerful woman in the world...
- Next by thread: Re: The most powerful woman in the world...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
