Friday, November 23, 2012

BloggeRhythms 11/23/2012

Every day's financial news headlines include story's regarding the impending “fiscal cliff,” and what can be done to avoid or soften it’s potential drastic harm to the economy whereas no matter the consequences, the incumbent insists he’s going to raise taxes on the “rich.”
 
In that regard, while surfing business channels this morning, I was reminded of being interviewed for a job many years ago where my potential employer inquired about how much experience I'd gathered. When I answered, “five years,” he requested a clarification, asking if that meant I’d amassed five years of growth, development and skills improvement or was it just one year of basic work repeated five times. Because, he said, there’s a very big difference.
 
And the incumbent got me thinking of that interview because I realized that he came into office without a shred of presidential level capability and not only hasn’t learned a thing while there, but is presently going backwards. What’s more, it really doesn’t matter what area of governance is analyzed, from the economy to health care, to foreign relations, to military planning, to fossil fuel, climatic policies, education, union strongholds, political patronage, world standing, or just about anything else you can think of, things have seriously deteriorated or gotten horribly worse during his tenure.
 
Consequently, I thought a bit further and remembered one of the oldest management theories there is, and that’s called the Peter Principle which, according to Wikipedia, presents the premise that in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success and merit, that organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence."
 
Now, even though the principle’s basis refers to organizational environments I think it still applies in the incumbent’s case. Because it seems pretty obvious that even a senatorial seat was a stretch for him experience-wise whereas he’d never held a responsible position in his former life. And then the presidential elections were predicated on talk and jive, hype, smoke, mirrors and promises, however, documented credentials and proven performance never entered the question.
 
So, in that sense, it seems pretty simple to understand why the nation’s in the condition it’s in. We have someone at the top who’s clearly unqualified experience and skill-wise, but nevertheless elected. And that’s because the folks who voted for him know even less than he does, which is pretty hard to imagine but certainly true.
 
That’s it for today folks.
 
Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment