CDZ The difference between dictating and governing

[usmbguest5318]

Donald Trump has spent ~65 years in the word of fiats, dictates and orders followed without question based on the issuer's formal authority. It's called autocratic leadership (some call it dictative). In his early years he had to follow the orders. Then he got older and was the one giving the orders. Now he's POTUS and realizing that form of leading just doesn't work when the thing being led is a government and a country.

Where does authoritarian leadership style thing work?

• Households that have a strong person laying down the law.
• Ecclesiastical organizations
• Military academies and armies
• Public corporations, to a small extent
• Privately held companies

Where doesn't it work? The U.S. government with Donald Trump at it's head in 2017. It doesn't for a number of reasons:

• Congress isn't really that beholden to him. Many of them ran ahead of him in the polls, held office before him, were going to retain their seats in spite of him.
• Voters -- Trump did win electorally, but he didn't come close to winning popularly, which for a so-called populist president is nothing near a resounding endorsement.
• Civil Service -- Trump has ragged on members of the workforce on which he must depend to implement his policies. They're going to be there when he's long gone. He has no idea of how difficult they can make his life. They can make him look like a complete fool if they decide they want to do that. That's their "nuclear option." Be that as it may, they beholden to Trump either.
• Trump himself -- The man has shown his word cannot be trusted. Hell, the man pretended to be a publicist and promoted himself. (He was rich as sh*t. Why didn't he just hire a publicist?) Who wants to follow the lead of a self-promoting charlatan? People will do their jobs, but such a leader won't elicit the best those people have to give. Moreover, his having ragged on them does not help in that regard.

The reality is that the most effective form of government and leadership is benevolent dictatorship. Trump's got the authoritarian style and demeanor well mastered. It's the benevolent part that he doesn't get. The man's just to antagonistic and self-centered to pull that off. I've heard he can do it on a one-on-one level, but on the grander stage, he can't; he's always got to be in the spotlight, and the benevolence he needs is that which allows others to shine.

If he were to do that, people would fall all over themselves to sing his praises, and when they do, it wouldn't be contrived. But a leader has to earn that; you can't browbeat people into doing it and browbeating them into silence doesn't work either. Trump so far, however, appears to be only able to lead by swinging the big bat and throwing balls and tantrums, but never by sitting in the dugout and letting his players shine on their own.

 

[RodISHI]

Did you know The United States of America is listed as a corporation?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Did you know The United States of America is listed as a corporation?

Yes, but I don't know why you asked. How is that relevant to the thread topic?

EDIT:
Oh, I see now....you're going with the notion of authoritarian leadership in corporations.

There is a certain amount of authoritarianism that can work in large public corporations, but if you've ever sought to implement an initiative across a silo'd company like Xerox, IBM, Merrill, etc. you surely will have found out that a CEO cannot and will not "shove things down their division presidents' throats. Also, those division heads can greatly influence the effectiveness of an initiative so that at a milestone measurement point, it comes up missing targets and making the CEO look bad.

Even when an initiative isn't CEO sponsored, the same thing can happen within a division. You'd be amazed at how people with fiefdoms can be cooperative and yet not. That very same thing can and does happen in the Federal Gov't, only it happens with greater degrees of subterfuge. Getting "buy in" is essential and Trump doesn't comport himself so as to do that.

EDIT 2:
Take a look at this to get a sense of the types of internal improvements Obama was able to achieve. It's not the "sexy" stuff that makes big headlines, but it's the kind of stuff that makes government work better at whatever work it's trying to do. People may want to complain about how bad government operates; however, prior to the improvements, which admittedly didn't completely fix everything, it was worse.

 

[jwoodie]

Donald Trump has spent ~65 years in the word of fiats, dictates and orders followed without question based on the issuer's formal authority. It's called autocratic leadership (some call it dictative). In his early years he had to follow the orders. Then he got older and was the one giving the orders. Now he's POTUS and realizing that form of leading just doesn't work when the thing being led is a government and a country.

From one who applauded Obama's illegal Executive Orders...

 

[RodISHI]

Did you know The United States of America is listed as a corporation?

Yes, but I don't know why you asked. How is that relevant to the thread topic?

EDIT:
Oh, I see now....you're going with the notion of authoritarian leadership in corporations.

There is a certain amount of authoritarianism that can work in large public corporations, but if you've ever sought to implement an initiative across a silo'd company like Xerox, IBM, Merrill, etc. you surely will have found out that a CEO cannot and will not "shove things down their division presidents' throats. Also, those division heads can greatly influence the effectiveness of an initiative so that at a milestone measurement point, it comes up missing targets and making the CEO look bad.

Even when an initiative isn't CEO sponsored, the same thing can happen within a division. You'd be amazed at how people with fiefdoms can be cooperative and yet not. That very same thing can and does happen in the Federal Gov't, only it happens with greater degrees of subterfuge. Getting "buy in" is essential and Trump doesn't comport himself so as to do that.

EDIT 2:
Take a look at this to get a sense of the types of internal improvements Obama was able to achieve. It's not the "sexy" stuff that makes big headlines, but it's the kind of stuff that makes government work better at whatever work it's trying to do. People may want to complain about how bad government operates; however, prior to the improvements, which admittedly didn't completely fix everything, it was worse.

I am not buying.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Did you know The United States of America is listed as a corporation?

Yes, but I don't know why you asked. How is that relevant to the thread topic?

EDIT:
Oh, I see now....you're going with the notion of authoritarian leadership in corporations.

There is a certain amount of authoritarianism that can work in large public corporations, but if you've ever sought to implement an initiative across a silo'd company like Xerox, IBM, Merrill, etc. you surely will have found out that a CEO cannot and will not "shove things down their division presidents' throats. Also, those division heads can greatly influence the effectiveness of an initiative so that at a milestone measurement point, it comes up missing targets and making the CEO look bad.

Even when an initiative isn't CEO sponsored, the same thing can happen within a division. You'd be amazed at how people with fiefdoms can be cooperative and yet not. That very same thing can and does happen in the Federal Gov't, only it happens with greater degrees of subterfuge. Getting "buy in" is essential and Trump doesn't comport himself so as to do that.

EDIT 2:
Take a look at this to get a sense of the types of internal improvements Obama was able to achieve. It's not the "sexy" stuff that makes big headlines, but it's the kind of stuff that makes government work better at whatever work it's trying to do. People may want to complain about how bad government operates; however, prior to the improvements, which admittedly didn't completely fix everything, it was worse.

I am not buying.

That is what it is.

 

[RodISHI]

Did you know The United States of America is listed as a corporation?

Yes, but I don't know why you asked. How is that relevant to the thread topic?

EDIT:
Oh, I see now....you're going with the notion of authoritarian leadership in corporations.

There is a certain amount of authoritarianism that can work in large public corporations, but if you've ever sought to implement an initiative across a silo'd company like Xerox, IBM, Merrill, etc. you surely will have found out that a CEO cannot and will not "shove things down their division presidents' throats. Also, those division heads can greatly influence the effectiveness of an initiative so that at a milestone measurement point, it comes up missing targets and making the CEO look bad.

Even when an initiative isn't CEO sponsored, the same thing can happen within a division. You'd be amazed at how people with fiefdoms can be cooperative and yet not. That very same thing can and does happen in the Federal Gov't, only it happens with greater degrees of subterfuge. Getting "buy in" is essential and Trump doesn't comport himself so as to do that.

EDIT 2:
Take a look at this to get a sense of the types of internal improvements Obama was able to achieve. It's not the "sexy" stuff that makes big headlines, but it's the kind of stuff that makes government work better at whatever work it's trying to do. People may want to complain about how bad government operates; however, prior to the improvements, which admittedly didn't completely fix everything, it was worse.

I am not buying.

That is what it is.

We do not see it in the same light.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Did you know The United States of America is listed as a corporation?

Yes, but I don't know why you asked. How is that relevant to the thread topic?

EDIT:
Oh, I see now....you're going with the notion of authoritarian leadership in corporations.

There is a certain amount of authoritarianism that can work in large public corporations, but if you've ever sought to implement an initiative across a silo'd company like Xerox, IBM, Merrill, etc. you surely will have found out that a CEO cannot and will not "shove things down their division presidents' throats. Also, those division heads can greatly influence the effectiveness of an initiative so that at a milestone measurement point, it comes up missing targets and making the CEO look bad.

Even when an initiative isn't CEO sponsored, the same thing can happen within a division. You'd be amazed at how people with fiefdoms can be cooperative and yet not. That very same thing can and does happen in the Federal Gov't, only it happens with greater degrees of subterfuge. Getting "buy in" is essential and Trump doesn't comport himself so as to do that.

EDIT 2:
Take a look at this to get a sense of the types of internal improvements Obama was able to achieve. It's not the "sexy" stuff that makes big headlines, but it's the kind of stuff that makes government work better at whatever work it's trying to do. People may want to complain about how bad government operates; however, prior to the improvements, which admittedly didn't completely fix everything, it was worse.

I am not buying.

That is what it is.

We do not see it in the same light.

That too is what it is.

 

[there4eyeM]

In what state is the U.S. incorporated?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Donald Trump has spent ~65 years in the word of fiats, dictates and orders followed without question based on the issuer's formal authority. It's called autocratic leadership (some call it dictative). In his early years he had to follow the orders. Then he got older and was the one giving the orders. Now he's POTUS and realizing that form of leading just doesn't work when the thing being led is a government and a country.

Where does authoritarian leadership style thing work?

• Households that have a strong person laying down the law.
• Ecclesiastical organizations
• Military academies and armies
• Public corporations, to a small extent
• Privately held companies

Where doesn't it work? The U.S. government with Donald Trump at it's head in 2017. It doesn't for a number of reasons:

• Congress isn't really that beholden to him. Many of them ran ahead of him in the polls, held office before him, were going to retain their seats in spite of him.
• Voters -- Trump did win electorally, but he didn't come close to winning popularly, which for a so-called populist president is nothing near a resounding endorsement.
• Civil Service -- Trump has ragged on members of the workforce on which he must depend to implement his policies. They're going to be there when he's long gone. He has no idea of how difficult they can make his life. They can make him look like a complete fool if they decide they want to do that. That's their "nuclear option." Be that as it may, they beholden to Trump either.
• Trump himself -- The man has shown his word cannot be trusted. Hell, the man pretended to be a publicist and promoted himself. (He was rich as sh*t. Why didn't he just hire a publicist?) Who wants to follow the lead of a self-promoting charlatan? People will do their jobs, but such a leader won't elicit the best those people have to give. Moreover, his having ragged on them does not help in that regard.

The reality is that the most effective form of government and leadership is benevolent dictatorship. Trump's got the authoritarian style and demeanor well mastered. It's the benevolent part that he doesn't get. The man's just to antagonistic and self-centered to pull that off. I've heard he can do it on a one-on-one level, but on the grander stage, he can't; he's always got to be in the spotlight, and the benevolence he needs is that which allows others to shine.

If he were to do that, people would fall all over themselves to sing his praises, and when they do, it wouldn't be contrived. But a leader has to earn that; you can't browbeat people into doing it and browbeating them into silence doesn't work either. Trump so far, however, appears to be only able to lead by swinging the big bat and throwing balls and tantrums, but never by sitting in the dugout and letting his players shine on their own.

Common sense dictates that real, lasting change will have to go through Congress, i.e. "The proper channels".

Any Executive Orders can be undone at the next president's whim.

While Obama did try to "Change" a lot, a large percentage of what he did can be undone with the stroke of a pen and a phone. He did not like to play by the rules. Trump is one to play by whatever rules and win the game.

 

[2aguy]

Donald Trump has spent ~65 years in the word of fiats, dictates and orders followed without question based on the issuer's formal authority. It's called autocratic leadership (some call it dictative). In his early years he had to follow the orders. Then he got older and was the one giving the orders. Now he's POTUS and realizing that form of leading just doesn't work when the thing being led is a government and a country.

Where does authoritarian leadership style thing work?

• Households that have a strong person laying down the law.
• Ecclesiastical organizations
• Military academies and armies
• Public corporations, to a small extent
• Privately held companies

Where doesn't it work? The U.S. government with Donald Trump at it's head in 2017. It doesn't for a number of reasons:

• Congress isn't really that beholden to him. Many of them ran ahead of him in the polls, held office before him, were going to retain their seats in spite of him.
• Voters -- Trump did win electorally, but he didn't come close to winning popularly, which for a so-called populist president is nothing near a resounding endorsement.
• Civil Service -- Trump has ragged on members of the workforce on which he must depend to implement his policies. They're going to be there when he's long gone. He has no idea of how difficult they can make his life. They can make him look like a complete fool if they decide they want to do that. That's their "nuclear option." Be that as it may, they beholden to Trump either.
• Trump himself -- The man has shown his word cannot be trusted. Hell, the man pretended to be a publicist and promoted himself. (He was rich as sh*t. Why didn't he just hire a publicist?) Who wants to follow the lead of a self-promoting charlatan? People will do their jobs, but such a leader won't elicit the best those people have to give. Moreover, his having ragged on them does not help in that regard.

The reality is that the most effective form of government and leadership is benevolent dictatorship. Trump's got the authoritarian style and demeanor well mastered. It's the benevolent part that he doesn't get. The man's just to antagonistic and self-centered to pull that off. I've heard he can do it on a one-on-one level, but on the grander stage, he can't; he's always got to be in the spotlight, and the benevolence he needs is that which allows others to shine.

If he were to do that, people would fall all over themselves to sing his praises, and when they do, it wouldn't be contrived. But a leader has to earn that; you can't browbeat people into doing it and browbeating them into silence doesn't work either. Trump so far, however, appears to be only able to lead by swinging the big bat and throwing balls and tantrums, but never by sitting in the dugout and letting his players shine on their own.

You mean like obama...ignoring court orders? You mean like that? Using the IRS to attack his political enemies the way obama did? You mean like that? You mean like obama telling the Republicans after his election...."I won...." and ignoring them...you mean like that?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Executive Orders

Left to my devices, all EOs would expire upon the end of their signer's term in office. I think EOs should be used as "trial balloons" for non-emergent matters and as short term fixes in emergencies. Used as "trial balloons," EOs allow us to see what works and what doesn't, safe in the knowledge that if we just don't like an EO for political reasons, it'll be "gone with the president." (isn't that a movie title? LOL) Instead of all the sweating the small stuff, our leaders could just get on with leading and governing and spend less time battling.

 

[jwoodie]

Executive Orders

Left to my devices, all EOs would expire upon the end of their signer's term in office. I think EOs should be used as "trial balloons" for non-emergent matters and as short term fixes in emergencies. Used as "trial balloons," EOs allow us to see what works and what doesn't, safe in the knowledge that if we just don't like an EO for political reasons, it'll be "gone with the president." (isn't that a movie title? LOL) Instead of all the sweating the small stuff, our leaders could just get on with leading and governing and spend less time battling.

Thanks for the clarification- For a moment I thought this thread was about Trump.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Executive Orders

Left to my devices, all EOs would expire upon the end of their signer's term in office. I think EOs should be used as "trial balloons" for non-emergent matters and as short term fixes in emergencies. Used as "trial balloons," EOs allow us to see what works and what doesn't, safe in the knowledge that if we just don't like an EO for political reasons, it'll be "gone with the president." (isn't that a movie title? LOL) Instead of all the sweating the small stuff, our leaders could just get on with leading and governing and spend less time battling.

Obama's "trial balloons" are going over as if they were filled with lead.



Trump wants to fix Congress to actually represent the people again. That's going to be a hard row to hoe.

2018 will be a very important year. In my opinion it will be the crux of: "Do we allow corrupt government or not?"

Those taking money from lobbyists need to be voted out.

 

[miketx]

I call it "The Nobama Effect". I think Obama was a hypnotist.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump wants to fix Congress

Let's hope he has better sense than to think he can as that's not within a President's enumerated powers or job description.

 

[miketx]

Trump wants to fix Congress

Let's hope he has better sense than to think he can as that's not within a President's enumerated powers or job description.

He can fix it, the fact that you cannot understand how is not important.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Did you know The United States of America is listed as a corporation?

Yes, but I don't know why you asked. How is that relevant to the thread topic?

EDIT:
Oh, I see now....you're going with the notion of authoritarian leadership in corporations.

There is a certain amount of authoritarianism that can work in large public corporations, but if you've ever sought to implement an initiative across a silo'd company like Xerox, IBM, Merrill, etc. you surely will have found out that a CEO cannot and will not "shove things down their division presidents' throats. Also, those division heads can greatly influence the effectiveness of an initiative so that at a milestone measurement point, it comes up missing targets and making the CEO look bad.

Even when an initiative isn't CEO sponsored, the same thing can happen within a division. You'd be amazed at how people with fiefdoms can be cooperative and yet not. That very same thing can and does happen in the Federal Gov't, only it happens with greater degrees of subterfuge. Getting "buy in" is essential and Trump doesn't comport himself so as to do that.

EDIT 2:
Take a look at this to get a sense of the types of internal improvements Obama was able to achieve. It's not the "sexy" stuff that makes big headlines, but it's the kind of stuff that makes government work better at whatever work it's trying to do. People may want to complain about how bad government operates; however, prior to the improvements, which admittedly didn't completely fix everything, it was worse.

And drumpf has failed at almost every business he has tried.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com