ISIS

[GMDino]

(01-23-2017, 05:54 PM)McC Wrote: I run a construction crew.  If i want something done in four hours, I tell them i want it done in two.   Simple psychology that works every time.  This is what leadership does.  I don't think he guaranteed the public he would have them gone in a month, did he?

It's like the inauguration crowd size nonsense.   It's focusing on the wrong thing and being led to forget the right thing.

Not sure.

As usual he's been all over the map.

First he said he would demand a plan in the 1st 30 days.  

Then he said he had a "secret plan" that he wouldn't tell anyone because he didn't want ISIS to find out.

Now it's he'll complete decimate ISIS in 30 days....apparently by doing what Obama was doing anyway.



However I have a question:  If your crew doesn't get the job done in two hours...what do you tell them?  And if they don't get it done in four?

Are there repercussions for not reaching your stated goal?

[McC]

(01-23-2017, 06:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, that is not what leadership does. That's crappy leadership. Setting clear, measurable objectives that are actually attainable is a much better method. Setting a goal that is one for growth and improvement is good, but just saying 2 when you want it in 4 consistently means your workers know you really want it in 4 and so they will work that speed. If you want to increase their productivity and you currently see the job done in 4, which is by end of day at 5 and you tell them you want the job done and cleaned up by 4:45 and they can then call it a day, it's a much more effective method, and will allow you to move the goalposts down the road. Anyway, leadership fundamentals and theory aren't the topic of the thread.

Anyway, if holding our officials accountable for what they say is focusing on the wrong thing, then you don't get the anti-establishment thinking. I'm not saying that if he gets the job done in a year we don't celebrate it, I'm saying that if he gives a timeline we should be saying, if it hasn't happened and that timeline has passed, why?

If it gets done what I want done, how is that bad leadership?  It takes slacking right out of the equation.  Not sure you understand how to get things done in the real world.  If it gets done, how is that unattainable?

And again, did he make a 30 day promise to the public?

[GMDino]

(01-23-2017, 06:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, that is not what leadership does. That's crappy leadership. Setting clear, measurable objectives that are actually attainable is a much better method. Setting a goal that is one for growth and improvement is good, but just saying 2 when you want it in 4 consistently means your workers know you really want it in 4 and so they will work that speed. If you want to increase their productivity and you currently see the job done in 4, which is by end of day at 5 and you tell them you want the job done and cleaned up by 4:45 and they can then call it a day, it's a much more effective method, and will allow you to move the goalposts down the road. Anyway, leadership fundamentals and theory aren't the topic of the thread.

Anyway, if holding our officials accountable for what they say is focusing on the wrong thing, then you don't get the anti-establishment thinking. I'm not saying that if he gets the job done in a year we don't celebrate it, I'm saying that if he gives a timeline we should be saying, if it hasn't happened and that timeline has passed, why?

Ugh.

If I tell our crew we have to get "X" amount of product out in a week...that's what I get.  Period.  Not one more! LOL!  If I want four and tell them two I'll get two.

[McC]

(01-23-2017, 06:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not sure.

As usual he's been all over the map.

First he said he would demand a plan in the 1st 30 days.  

Then he said he had a "secret plan" that he wouldn't tell anyone because he didn't want ISIS to find out.

Now it's he'll complete decimate ISIS in 30 days....apparently by doing what Obama was doing anyway.



However I have a question:  If your crew doesn't get the job done in two hours...what do you tell them?  And if they don't get it done in four?

Are there repercussions for not reaching your stated goal?

There are always repercussions but they seldom come into play.  I never ask them to do anything they aren't capable of doing.  They will always get it done in less than four, usually in two.  If they get it done in two, they go home and get paid for four.  

[GMDino]

(01-23-2017, 06:13 PM)McC Wrote: If it gets done what I want done, how is that bad leadership?  It takes slacking right out of the equation.  Not sure you understand how to get things done in the real world.  If it gets done, how is that unattainable?

And again, did he make a 30 day promise to the public?

Again....kind of.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-promise-tracker-pledges-stand/story?id=44902688

Quote:April 27, 2016: FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH One of Trump's formal policy speeches was focused on ISIS, and he said, "Their days are numbered. I won't tell them where, and I won't tell them how. We, as a nation, must be more unpredictable."


Sept. 6, 2016: CALLING ON HIS ADVISERS During a speech in North Carolina, Trump said his top generals "will have 30 days to submit to the Oval Office a plan for soundly and quickly defeating ISIS. We have no choice."



Sept. 7, 2016: SAYS HE HAS A PLAN Trump reiterated his emphasis on secrecy around his plan to defeat ISIS, during NBC's Commander in Chief forum. "I have a plan, but I don't want to ... If I win, I don't want to broadcast to the enemy exactly what my plan is," he said, adding that if he likes the plans submitted by his generals, it may lead to "a combination of my plan and the generals' plan."

And as of now he's just following Obama's plan.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Thirty days is such an unrealistic timeline it indicates the degree to which Trump is out of touch with reality. It's a joke.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-23-2017, 04:56 PM)Benton Wrote: If it gets done in the next 30 days — after they've spent years with the same strategy not getting the job done — then that speaks volumes to the allegations that CentComm has been operating for years under political motivations, manipulating reports to paint a rosier picture of efforts there. instead of doing the job ordered by the commander in chief.

We'll see, but they have already admitted to changing tactics with ISIS about where they bomb.

Also, your first post in here that "Obama ordered those airstrikes was from 3-4 days before Trump was in office, and it was in Libya not Syria/Iraq. Unless you were trying to prove something that we already know?

[*Nately120*]

(01-23-2017, 05:34 PM)McC Wrote: No, it doesn't matter to me.  But I'm not hanging on every word and syllable, trying to catch him on a technicality.  If it takes a year, you'll be focused on he missed the deadline and I'll be focused on hooray, the bastards are gone.

Wasn't Trump the one who offered the 30-day timefame?  I don't see why holding Trump to his word (that he continually offers) counts as "trying to catch him on a technicality." 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-23-2017, 06:31 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: We'll see, but they have already admitted to changing tactics with ISIS about where they bomb.

Also, your first post in here that "Obama ordered those airstrikes was from 3-4 days before Trump was in office, and it was in Libya not Syria/Iraq. Unless you were trying to prove something that we already know?

How have the tactics changed?

[Millhouse]

Nothing wrong with setting the bar high, even if it seems unrealistic.

p.s. when it comes to Trump, I will try to objectively look at each of the things he does without my feelings towards the man himself, cause I am not a fan of him overall.

[McC]

(01-23-2017, 06:39 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Nothing wrong with setting the bar high, even if it seems unrealistic.

p.s. when it comes to Trump, I will try to objectively look at each of the things he does without my feelings towards the man himself, cause I am not a fan of him overall.

Being reasonable is a beautiful thing.

[*bfine32*]

(01-23-2017, 06:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, that is not what leadership does. That's crappy leadership. Setting clear, measurable objectives that are actually attainable is a much better method. Setting a goal that is one for growth and improvement is good, but just saying 2 when you want it in 4 consistently means your workers know you really want it in 4 and so they will work that speed. If you want to increase their productivity and you currently see the job done in 4, which is by end of day at 5 and you tell them you want the job done and cleaned up by 4:45 and they can then call it a day, it's a much more effective method, and will allow you to move the goalposts down the road. Anyway, leadership fundamentals and theory aren't the topic of the thread.

Many call the leadership tool Stretch Goals and whether it is "crappy leadership" or not is open to debate. They do serve a function and you can only state it is "crappy" if you know the motivations of the persons that are given the goal(s).

[Millhouse]

(01-23-2017, 06:43 PM)McC Wrote: Being reasonable is a beautiful thing.

Which seems void from either party and their loyal followers.

[*Nately120*]

(01-23-2017, 06:39 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Nothing wrong with setting the bar high, even if it seems unrealistic.

p.s. when it comes to Trump, I will try to objectively look at each of the things he does without my feelings towards the man himself, cause I am not a fan of him overall.

Let me just sum up my feelings on Trump by saying that I want him to succeed but the guy has a history of over-promising and under-performing.  His private and, now political, practices involve a lot of "selling the sizzle, not necessarily the steak" and a goodly bit of outright fraud.  The guy sells grandiose ideas and plans that don't always yield the astoundingly high results promised.

What I find interesting is that he either can't, or won't change his tactics as in this case where just saying he'd defeat ISIS would be logical and supportable enough.  But nope, he's got to promise some absurd time frame because that seems to be the way he does things.  The issue is that he CHOSE to say "30 days" and people are asking him to name that tune and follow-up and do what he said he'd do in the time frame he decided to give himself.

If someone said "Ok Trump, you're president now so you have a month to destroy ISIS!" that would be vindictive, nit-picky and unrealistic.  But Trump (being Trump) decided he'd promise something unrealistic on his own accord and god forbid anyone attempt to hold him accountable for his latest promise.  It just seems like he simply can't stop himself from making the grandest of promises. 

He reminds me of that one kid we all knew growing up.  Whatever your bike was worth his was worth more.  His big brother was the biggest and baddest guy in town.  He could run faster, jump higher, and throw further than you could...whether he showed you or not.  Also, he had like 10 Nolan Ryan rookie cards in his attic but he wasn't going to show you.

[McC]

(01-23-2017, 06:53 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Let me just sum up my feelings on Trump by saying that I want him to succeed but the guy has a history of over-promising and under-performing.  His private and, now political, practices involve a lot of "selling the sizzle, not necessarily the steak" and a goodly bit of outright fraud.  The guy sells grandiose ideas and plans that don't always yield the astoundingly high results promised.

What I find interesting is that he either can't, or won't change his tactics as in this case where just saying he'd defeat ISIS would be logical and supportable enough.  But nope, he's got to promise some absurd time frame because that seems to be the way he does things.  The issue is that he CHOSE to say "30 days" and people are asking him to name that tune and follow-up and do what he said he'd do in the time frame he decided to give himself.

If someone said "Ok Trump, you're president now so you have a month to destroy ISIS!" that would be vindictive, nit-picky and unrealistic.  But Trump (being Trump) decided he'd promise something unrealistic on his own accord and god forbid anyone attempt to hold him accountable for his latest promise.  It just seems like he simply can't stop himself from making the grandest of promises. 

He reminds me of that one kid we all knew growing up.  Whatever your bike was worth his was worth more.  His big brother was the biggest and baddest guy in town.  He could run faster, jump higher, and throw further than you could...whether he showed you or not.  Also, he had like 10 Nolan Ryan rookie cards in his attic but he wasn't going to show you.

Time will tell.  He's been if office three days.  Open mindedness be damned.

[Millhouse]

(01-23-2017, 06:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, that is not what leadership does. That's crappy leadership. Setting clear, measurable objectives that are actually attainable is a much better method. Setting a goal that is one for growth and improvement is good, but just saying 2 when you want it in 4 consistently means your workers know you really want it in 4 and so they will work that speed. If you want to increase their productivity and you currently see the job done in 4, which is by end of day at 5 and you tell them you want the job done and cleaned up by 4:45 and they can then call it a day, it's a much more effective method, and will allow you to move the goalposts down the road. Anyway, leadership fundamentals and theory aren't the topic of the thread.

Anyway, if holding our officials accountable for what they say is focusing on the wrong thing, then you don't get the anti-establishment thinking. I'm not saying that if he gets the job done in a year we don't celebrate it, I'm saying that if he gives a timeline we should be saying, if it hasn't happened and that timeline has passed, why?

JFK set a goal of going to moon by the end of the 1960's. It was far from an attainable objective when he said it, but they went ahead and put all focus in doing so. And in 1969 they landed on the moon in a Hollywood studio.

[McC]

(01-23-2017, 06:53 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Which seems void from either party and their loyal followers.

Yep.  The truth usually lives somewhere in the middle.

[McC]

(01-23-2017, 06:58 PM)Millhouse Wrote: JFK set a goal of going to moon by the end of the 1960's. It was far from an attainable objective when he said it, but they went ahead and put all focus in doing so. And in 1969 they landed on the moon in a Hollywood studio.

You know, I think we need something like a space race now.  It unified the country in a big way, at a time when there were tremendous divisions.  We need something we can all get behind.

[*Nately120*]

(01-23-2017, 06:57 PM)McC Wrote: Time will tell.  He's been if office three days.  Open mindedness be damned.

My mind was open on Trump's timeline of defeating ISIS...until he said he'd do it in 30 days.  God help me, I'm holding a man to his promises!  Egads!  I'm not saying I'll flip my lid and declare the whole thing a failure if it takes 31-1,300 days but I can't stress this enough:

Trump is the one who said 30 days...not me.  Not the lying media, not the Clintons, not a bunch of butt-hurt liberals.  Trump said this.

What really blows is that the president can say "I'll defeat ISIS in 30 days" and part of me thinks "Wow, that's great...we must really be on to something and/or have a great plan, or we are way closer than I thought!" and then I remember that Trump is the one making the promise of 30 days and realize that means we have no idea when this will happen and I'm a big dumbass for thinking he actually meant what he said.

Remember that TV show Name that Tune? Contestants would bid back and forth to challenge each other to name said tune is less notes than the other.
Contestant 1: I can name that tune in 7 notes!
Contestant 2: I can name it in 5 notes!
Contestant 1: I can name it 2 notes!
Contestant 2: I can name it in 1 note!
Contestant 1: Name that tune....

If you named the tune in the number of notes you said you could, you won. If you failed to name it, the other guy won.

Trump is constantly setting himself up to be that contestant who smugly states that he can name that tune in 1 note and then when he's asked to "Name that tune" he says "Well...I'm going to name it in 7 notes actually. What do you care? The tune got named, right? Actually, I named it in 1 note but the show was edited to make it look like I failed...yeah, that's it."

Trump said 30 days, so I'm asking him to name that damn tune. Is that insane? Yes, I fear.

[*bfine32*]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I thought the 30 days was to come up with a plan to destroy them. Not actually have them destroyed in 30 days.