Go and Do the Right Thing - VOTE

You are on the Board of Directors of a large enterprise in severe financial trouble. Will you vote to stick with the current executive team or hire a new one?

THE CURRENT EXECUTIVE TEAM

The current team admittedly inherited a tough situation four years ago, but all they have done is spend more than they could ever take in on schemes that are not economically viable. They wasted our money rewarding their cronies with “stimulus” schemes that have not panned out.

The leader of the current team is a charming and engaging speaker who had no leadership or economic experience when he took office, and does not seem to have learned anything in those departments in the past four years. He has sold us a bill of goods of “hope and change” and all he can promise is four more years of the same.

His sidekick has no visible qualifications except having fed at the political table for decades (which explains his “gravitas”). He seems to stick his foot in his mouth whenever he opens it (which explains his clean feet and dirty mouth).
 

THE ALTERNATIVE NEW TEAM

The new team under consideration offers an alternative vision based on solid business principles and demonstrated leadership and achievement.

Sadly, when it comes to campaigning, the leader of the new team  is a bit lacking in the charm department. He sometimes gets into trouble for speaking the plain truth directly and in clear language. However, he is an experienced executive with tremendous business and leadership knowledge and a sterling record of success in turning troubled enterprises around.

His sidekick is a bit of a “policy wonk” with a great deal of legislative experience. He may be the only lawmaker who has actually read and understood most of the bills he supported or opposed. He has detailed knowledge of the budget but also the ability to explain it in plain language we ordinary people can understand.

The new team has an economic plan that is admittedly a bit painful, but it is the only hope (short of Divine Intervention) of getting our enterprise out of the ditch and back on the highway to progress towards economic viability.

It is your choice. Now, go and do the right thing! VOTE!

Ira Glickstein

PS: If you liked the above, you may also be interested in:
The Problem with High Intellect Twits (HITwits)
Affordable Food Care Act
Uncle Sam's Illness
Once I was Young and a Democrat
VP Candidate Paul Ryan Talks Medicare at The Villages, FL
 

Uncle Sam's Illness

"Dr. Mitt", Uncle Sam, and "Dr. Barry"
A Responsible Approach vs Hopey Changey Happy Pills

[from billlifka[ I have a deceased uncle (let’s call him Sam) who was a heavy smoker. He was feeling poorly and a doctor diagnosed his condition as an advanced case of lung cancer. Sam didn’t want to hear that so he went to several other doctors who delivered the same verdict, along with the prognosis of an early, painful death.

 

One of these, Doctor Mitt, was quite experienced in the field and had cured many cancer patients before. He promised Sam that he could be cured if he were willing to undergo treatment that would be very uncomfortable for a time but would return him to robust health as he had enjoyed before he became addicted to smoking. The treatment would require that Sam cease smoking immediately and submit to chemotherapy and radiation. His hair would fall out, temporarily, he’d be extremely nauseous most of the time and he’d lose much weight. On the other hand, Dr. Mitt would prescribe modest doses of pain killers and a special diet of food and food supplements that would build up Sam’s total body to offset much of the damage to the localized cancer area.

 

Sam considered this advice but sought an easier solution. 

In all professions, there are practitioners who tell their clients what they want to hear. Usually, they are successful in their practices since most humans want to hear what they want to hear. And so it was that Sam was able to find other doctors who told him just the opposite of what Dr. Mitt and others of his persuasion had told him.

 

Principal among these was Dr. Barry who was a glib, handsome devil who was very popular with his patients, especially the ladies. Dr. Barry said all that discomfiture was unnecessary and, most likely, was bad; even a little bit of suffering caused patients to lose hope and hope was known to be the best medicine for any kind of ailment. Giving up smoking, according to Dr. Barry, was also bad; resultant unhappiness was another cause of the loss of hope. He prescribed stronger pain killers that produced a euphoric feeling in Sam for several months. 

After a few months, the stronger pain killers and the continued smoking didn’t make Sam any better. In fact, his condition steadily worsened and he spent an extremely painful eight months until his early death. To the end he recommended Dr. Barry to friends and associates as a doctor who cared deeply for his patients. 

This is a true story but I’ve changed the names of my uncle and the doctors to protect the guilty and the innocent. You might have noticed the similarity between my real uncle’s story and the on-going story of our Uncle Sam. My uncle’s immediate family members were enablers to him in his choice of a comfortable short term over a successful long term cure. Currently, Americans have the opportunity to enable their Uncle Sam to continue in his rotten habits that feel good in the very short term but will lead to his painful death in the slightly longer term. They have an alternate opportunity to restore him to full health and a long life. Which will it be? 

This analogy may offend some but it’s dead on. Just because one is a lemming doesn’t mean that one must follow one’s leader over a cliff. Many lemmings are credits to their species and have the intelligence to know a cliff is ahead and it’s time to ease themselves to the sides of their pack and not get swept over in the crowd. It will allow their species to survive, which should be high on their list of instincts. Their next step should be to select a leader with more common sense.

 

billlifka                                  

Leadership

[from John] One of my sons is taking a course on leadership and motivation. The instructor assigned a research paper on "Why do bad leaders hire bad managers". The instructor believes, or teaches, there is just as many bad leaders as there are good leaders, he wants to expand on the leadership topic by including bad leaders. The instructor gives three examples of bad leadership. First are the leaders that only hire managers that are yes men so that he/she can promote their own agenda. The next is the leader that will only hire managers that are under skilled so nobody can make them look bad. The last is the leader that is self-absorbed and they only hire managers that will make them shine, but the managers do not have the skills to manage the employees. The class agrees that the number one reason for the lack of motivation is a result of bad management.

I find the theme strange. It seems a negative approach to teaching leadership and motivation. Still, as we have been discussion motivation it may be a subject to pursue.

"Why do bad leaders hire bad managers?" Obviously because they are bad managers themselves.

While I agree somewhat with the instructor’s examples, I suspect that poor leaders hire poor managers, if they do; it is because they are poor managers themselves. I am also not sure I agree with the instructor that there are as many bad leaders as good leaders. I suspect that bad leaders fall by the wayside while bad managers may stay in their job but not advance.

We must separate leadership from management. A good leader inspires people. He motivates them to perform at their best. A good manager is a good organizer. He motivates people because they are comfortable with their boss and with their jobs and know they will be rewarded for their efforts. Two different things. Let’s explore this further.

Does a poor leader hire poor managers or does he make poor managers?
This is an important question, to use the army, as an example, you must work with the people assigned, good or bad. The task is to make do with what you were given by training, supervision and by making sure, he or she understands what is expected of them.

In the military, or at least the army, where I have my experience, progression up the ranks in interesting. Leadership is the key during the early stages, at the squad, platoon and company levels. As one advances he is assigned staff positions where management skills are developed and as he reaches the higher levels he combines the two skills of leadership and management as do successful CEO’s.

In civilian life, you have the opportunity to interview applicants. You can match your needs against his or her resume. You then chose what appears to be the best applicant. Even with the best applicant, a good leader must train the newcomer. Teach him what is expected of him.

A poor leader may chose the applicant for wrong reasons, but more than likely the applicant will become a poor manager because the leader does not do his job of training and integrating him into the job.

It is also possible that a good leader has a bad manager foisted on him. Internal politics does exist and he may have no choice. A good leader will be aware of the internal politics and work to avoid the problem. A poor leader may be fearful for his job and accept a lesser qualified person.

We have been discussing motivation a lot lately. A person is motivated because he or she can see and achieve some goal. It may just be compliments from your boss or it may be more, but motivation will not exist if the individual cannot derive some benefit from his effort. A poor leader who criticizes and badmouths his employees, who also criticizes his bosses and the company will not have motivated people including the managers below him.