Boeing admits 787 strategy flawed

You have got to be joking. Why is one trait, like leadership, so
universal and dependent only on chance and environment?. Why not make
the same claim for intellegence, or eye color?

We talked somewhere in this group about awarding an "MX" trophy for
some comments, and I nominate you for the first such award.





On Nov 11, 5:43 am, wrote:
On 8 Nov, 21:12, "John Ewing" none@needed wrote:





"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

news

The reality is that top managers are born, not made, and they are in
limited
supply. No management school can change that. They're are many heavily
educated but talent-free managers in the business world, and that's the
real
problem.

I agree but would take a slightly less absolute view on "the born, not
made".

Certainly some people simply because of certain personality traits will
naturally evolve into excellent managers, even with little formal education
and zero management training - the "born" category.

There are no traits that separate out 'leaders' from the rest. Of
course those in high up positions and some recruitment people like to
think there are in order that they can select who they like best
(usually some who happens to be just like them..!)

It is mostly luck and who gets the breaks right place and time.
There's a large pool of unexceptional mediocrity to draw from. And
the higher upt you go, the more you end up like a symbolic figure-
head: mostly all you have to do is not say the wrong thing. Yet
people like George Bush somehow slip through the net..



John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Tina" wrote in message
oups.com...
You have got to be joking. Why is one trait, like leadership, so
universal and dependent only on chance and environment?. Why not make
the same claim for intellegence, or eye color?

We talked somewhere in this group about awarding an "MX" trophy for
some comments, and I nominate you for the first such award.


You talked in "this group"??
Considering you have posted your message to three separate groups, perhaps
you should get the second "MX" trophy, whatever the **** that is........

--
Kwyj.

Tina wrote in
oups.com:

You have got to be joking. Why is one trait, like leadership, so
universal and dependent only on chance and environment?. Why not make
the same claim for intellegence, or eye color?

We talked somewhere in this group about awarding an "MX" trophy for
some comments, and I nominate you for the first such award.



My k00k! With an award named for him!


I'm so proud!

Bertie

On 11 Nov, 15:02, Tina wrote:
You have got to be joking. Why is one trait, like leadership, so
universal and dependent only on chance and environment?. Why not make
the same claim for intellegence, or eye color?

Leadership is not a 'trait'. 'Leadership traits' are more likely a
mechanism for protecting elites; no-one has identified a separate set
of traits that the most brilliant leaders have that others don't.
There was once a study in which industry leaders were asked to
identify what was required for their job, another set of leaders were
asked what they required from their secrataries... the list of
'traits' was very similar..!

Even the most unlikely looking people can rise to the challenge of
leading given the right circumstances.

There is no doubt an environmental factor in growing leaders, but --
make that BUT -- there has to be a native ability as well. Former US
President Clinton is an example of ability overwhelming environment.

The claim these sorts of traits are largely determined by chance and
circumstantice is being increasingly refuted in the professional
literature, and in fact that information is a source of increasing
ethical concern about genetic profiling.

This is very politically incorrect, but consider this: if plants can
be bred for particular traits, and they are, and chickens can be
selectively bred for better egg laying potential (and they are), don't
you think people who are intellegent might choose to marry other such
people, and their children might be above average? (Regression
analysis was, I think, invented, to examine the fact that tall
parents tended to have taller children but their children's length
actually 'regressed' toward average values.) The offspring of these
parents start with a likely superior gene set, then have envionmental
advantages as well. So, if in the US you choose to look at people in
significant leadership roles in nearly any field, you'll likely found
their parents were atypical acheivers as well. You might find the same
thing in the UK but I have not examined those data.

actually first and cow
wrote:
On 11 Nov, 15:02, Tina wrote:

You have got to be joking. Why is one trait, like leadership, so
universal and dependent only on chance and environment?. Why not make
the same claim for intellegence, or eye color?

Leadership is not a 'trait'. 'Leadership traits' are more likely a
mechanism for protecting elites; no-one has identified a separate set
of traits that the most brilliant leaders have that others don't.
There was once a study in which industry leaders were asked to
identify what was required for their job, another set of leaders were
asked what they required from their secrataries... the list of
'traits' was very similar..!

Even the most unlikely looking people can rise to the challenge of
leading given the right circumstances.

"Tina" wrote in message
oups.com...

We talked somewhere in this group about awarding an "MX" trophy for
some comments, and I nominate you for the first such award.

I think you just awarded an MX trophy to MX.

"Yes - I have a name" wrote in news01_i.4177
$cD.1235@trndny08:

"Tina" wrote in message
oups.com...

We talked somewhere in this group about awarding an "MX" trophy for
some comments, and I nominate you for the first such award.

I think you just awarded an MX trophy to MX.




He's worked hard, he deserves it.


Bertie

On 12 Nov, 16:43, Tina wrote:
There is no doubt an environmental factor in growing leaders, but --
make that BUT -- there has to be a native ability as well. Former US
President Clinton is an example of ability overwhelming environment.

The claim these sorts of traits are largely determined by chance and
circumstantice is being increasingly refuted in the professional
literature, and in fact that information is a source of increasing
ethical concern about genetic profiling.

But these personality traits do not exist, or are not specific to
'leaders'.

Frank F. Matthews writes:

The problem with your comparisons is the generation length. Genetic
selection takes a lot of generations.

When it is random, but not when it is directed.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Frank F. Matthews writes:

The problem with your comparisons is the generation length. Genetic
selection takes a lot of generations.

When it is random, but not when it is directed.


Bwawhawhahwahwhahwhahwhahwhahwh!

Let's see, that either means you want to breed people according to a
program, or you believe in intelligent design.

Either way, you;re an idiot.


Bertie