HAPPY ST.GEORGES DAY.....

[petitpal]

Westminster, the way I see it, they are our enemy, because they are not us and we are not them. Long has it been if ever Westminister has represented us.

Anyone who wants to be in power should never be allowed to be; absolute power corrupts absolutely and so on...

 

[highlandsflyer]

It's just that we happened to invade everywhere else

Time to go back to the history books.

 

[petitpal]

It's just that we happened to invade everywhere else

Time to go back to the history books.

Well, technically we invaded Wales... attempted to invade Ireland and had a jolly good go at Scotland... but it was a flippant comment anyway.

 

[highlandsflyer]

It's just that we happened to invade everywhere else

Time to go back to the history books.

Well, technically we invaded Wales... attempted to invade Ireland and had a jolly good go at Scotland... but it was a flippant comment anyway.

Touchy point up here.

Heaven knows, it is a long time ago!

It was very much to and fro, which is much to our credit.

I love England anyway.

 

[silverclaws]

Westminster, the way I see it, they are our enemy, because they are not us and we are not them. Long has it been if ever Westminister has represented us.

Anyone who wants to be in power should never be allowed to be; absolute power corrupts absolutely and so on...

My sentiments exactly, anyone that actually wants to be a leader in my mind has some issues, with narcissism or even megalomania and with that I do wonder at what we have in power the disconnection they display, almost an idealism, perhaps a step forward should be a psychological assessment made on all those that want to hold office first as it occurs there must be some real nut jobs up there.

No what I tend to believe in is the reluctant leader, someone who does not seek leadership, but is put there by others as being the best person for the job by view of how they are with others. Anyone that says they will lead, to me, I suspect and say watch them, potential nut jobs who will get out of hand when they realise their power.

But in the past I remember back at school when we were asked what job we wanted to do, I was very surprised at the amount of people that said they wanted to be a manager, when asked why, the answer always was so they can be above people by title and so from experience anyone with title or badge of office I suspect until I know otherwise.

I can quite honestly say I have never held an elevated position in any of the jobs I have done, I never managed to get promotion and that not because I was crap at my job, very much the reverse, but my problem was people, I severely lacked people skills and now, I know why- asperger's, I am either too gullible or too suspicious and nothing in between.

 

[highlandsflyer]

It is perfectly possible an individual knows best how to run things; and seeks the opportunity to lead for the benefit of all.

Leaders are merely people who have the opportunity to enact the best decisions; the best leaders base those decisions on as much relevant input as they can gather.

The world would be a much poorer place without those who take on the responsibility to lead.

The idea that those who wish to lead should submit to specific psychiatric evaluation is fairly Orwellian.

 

[Neil]

It is perfectly possible an individual knows best how to run things; and seeks the opportunity to lead for the benefit of all.

I'll accept it's perfectly possible.

What I don't accept, though - not necessarily saying it's your assertion, but a natural counter, nonetheless - is that most people drawn to leadership, are necessarily the best candidates, though - either in their motives or their abilities.

In short - I feel there are many who want to lead / have power, who don't know best how to run things, or are thinking of the benefit for all - I feel there are many who do so purely for their own wants / needs, who have little (other than lip service) concern about what's best for all.

Truth be told, I think those that do believe they know what's best for all tend to be rather disturbing - I think it's the exception in that demographic that convince me of altruism.

Leaders are merely people who have the opportunity to enact the best decisions; the best leaders base those decisions on as much relevant input as they can gather.

The world would be a much poorer place without those who take on the responsibility to lead.

Perhaps without some, maybe - not convinced about the world being a poorer place without those who would try and lead. I actually think the world would be a better place without most who would want / try to lead having such wants / needs, and just the select few who would actually be good at it, and perhaps have motives beyond their own ego / need for power.

The idea that those who wish to lead should submit to specific psychiatric evaluation is fairly Orwellian.

Yet I can't but think the world would be a better place...

Truly, if those that strive to lead / gain power, were evaluated, then maybe there would be less of those for whom power is inappropriate - and maybe it would encourage such desire for those that are best suited, both from a perspective of their individual qualities, and their impact on society.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I was merely attempting to open a skylight on the previous view, my post is very much in that context.

The majority of leaders the average Joe encounters first hand are not the likes of Hitler or Rupert Murdoch. They are line managers, heads of departments, etc.

Those who wangle their way into roles they are unsuited for generally do so as others sit on their hands. That does not alter the fact that most of the people in day to day work environments do their job well and a good number of them are leaders of some description.

Thank god for the skipper of the life boat crew, the search and rescue co-ordinator and the shift leader at the A&E. They are out there saving lives; not having an emotional crisis over taking responsibility, making decisions, giving orders and applying their skills.

 

[petitpal]

No what I tend to believe in is the reluctant leader

So Ian Duncan Smith, then?

 

[Neil]

I was merely attempting to open a skylight on the previous view, my post is very much in that context.

The majority of leaders the average Joe encounters first hand are not the likes of Hitler or Rupert Murdoch. They are line managers, heads of departments, etc.

Those who wangle their way into roles they are unsuited for generally do so as others sit on their hands. That does not alter the fact that most of the people in day to day work environments do their job well and a good number of them are leaders of some description.

Thank god for the skipper of the life boat crew, the search and rescue co-ordinator and the shift leader at the A&E. They are out there saving lives; not having an emotional crisis over taking responsibility, making decisions, giving orders and applying their skills.

Uh-oh - you said "Hitler" - cue QI's claxons and the Godwin's incantation.

Seriously, though, I wasn't necessarily intending to go the whole arguments of extremes - was actually intending to hint at the people that you meet in everyday life - or even go so far as to include politicians in that.

But as you raise more mundane examples, I'm sure most peoples' work history and experience has included countless leaders / managers / figures of authority. Thing is - how many times / proportions do you hear people talk about the really good ones?

Plenty of people have become leaders / managers etc, either by pure damn luck, overactive ambition / power-hungry, good at what they did so promoted, bad at what they did so promoted. None of those reasons are particularly compelling arguments for good candidacy for promotion or leadership. I accept it might just work out, it might be the only choice / volunteer, might be "good enough" I suppose.

Now the thrust of your argument given the mundane examples, seems to be thank <deity> somebody has stepped foreward - or perhaps everbody else stepped back - but what I would say is, going full circle a little here - this particular thread of discussion was regarding Westminster, and politicians - and I have to say, much of my same take applies there, too. It's more the exception, than the rule, that I think - now there's a ideal choice of somebody to be in a position of power (much the same, then, as examples in normal life).

Put short, I, whether in a small minority, or otherwise, feel silverclaws had a good point - whether idealistic, or otherwise - perhaps the desire and intent to grasp power should involve some degree of evaluation. To be glib, the bigger the risk the greater the scrutiny.