Quote:
Originally Posted by DucksNuts
Why is it Howard's fault that these so called professionals, didnt do the job they were employed to do?
I agree with some of your stuff, and if I read it with my Australian accent, I read a fair amount of sarcasm....but, I dont get why its Howard's fault.
|
There was no sarcasm intended. For example I was damn serious; it clearly was a fictitious security zone. If the real bin Laden (or his agents) had killed leaders, then we should blame bin Laden and not Howard's administration? No sarcasm.
People fail to perform their jobs due to a well understood management concept called 'attitude and knowledge'. A concept that is often disparaged in some business schools where "there was plenty of blame to go around". The boss must empower his people to operate independently as defined by that ‘attitude and knowledge’. The boss is responsible for what happens even though the boss is not directly involved in the planning or execution of those plans. “The buck stops…” where? Anything less is wacko liberal excuses about "its not fair".
For example, do you think Patton did planning for his European military victories? Of course not. Other Generals commanded all those divisions. Other Generals made all plans that won battles. But Patton was fully responsible when those Generals failed. After all, it was Patton's 'bigger picture' that determined whether those divisions won or lost. Patton spent significant time traveling from unit to battlefield to front line confirming that his people had that 'attitude and knowledge'. That is what top management does because top management is responsible for all failures.
The US soldier was winning most battles in Nam. Why was the war lost? Liars - top management – especially Westmoreland – lost that war. He was fully responsible for massive actions conducted in wrong directions - in direct contradiction to well proven military science 101 concepts. Top management was responsible for those resulting defeats. An invincible army was defeated because their top manager was (in this case) one of this nation’s least competent four stars.
Howard was not involved in the planning? Howard was to host leaders for about 1/2 the world's GDP. He was not involved in the planning? Of course he was. The entire ‘attitude and knowledge’ is directly traceable to Howard. And if those people did not perform their job, well, what did Howard do about it? But again, that is 100% on Howard.
The only reason Pranksters succeeded - Howard's planning was that incompetent. Meanwhile, Patton's plans (which he did almost nothing to detail) were highly regarded. Patton got the praise. Howard deserves worldwide condemnation. To be so callous over his (his people's) incompetence also should be widely noted. No sarcasm. The people of Australia are owed an apology by those security people for being so incompetent. Instead Howard would cure a symptom of his incompetence? Instead the government would prosecute the Pranksters? Exactly what bad management does. Cure the symptoms. Cast blame elsewhere. The buck does not stop with Howard, does it.
The whole world was watching as Prankster demonstrated incompetent security planning at the highest levels at Howard's party. A responsible Howard would apologize for that security disaster, investigate like it was the Challenger, and massively correct discovered competence problems. My bet. Howard will ignore it because ‘being honest about a problem’ is secondary to dishonest politicians.
Quote:
|
I don't think it's Howards fault either and I doubt anyone else with any reasonable powers of logic would think so either.
|
Which is why the people who murdered seven Challenger astronauts got away with murder. They could not find a single engeineer who said it was safe to launch Challenger. Those who 'feel' they had reasonable powers of logic forgot to blame those who knew and murdered those seven astronauts anyway. The failure was that well understood to anyone with reasonable powers of logic. But too many would rather 'feel' than grasp the hard reality of facts. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Why does Toyota make reliale cars and GM make crap? Comes from the exact same management concepts. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management.