ISIS

[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?