CDZ About Accomplishment

[320 Years of History]

I found myself speaking today to some of the firm's newly hired MBAs and other grad school recruits. Among the remarks I shared with them was this:

I know you are all very high performers from the top schools and programs in the U.S. You are used to standing out and being seen. Well, I gotta tell you this: be prepared to be a "nobody" for a while. If you are doing your jobs right and well, your project leader will recognize you and highly regard you, but the client and firm CFO or CEO or COO who receives the reports your project leaders deliver will not know you exist. Your project leaders get the "glory" for delivering a first rate report.

It's the same way for me too. When I submit a report to the firm's C-Level, they know who I am, but when they make presentations to the outside world, nobody mentions my name. On my projects, the manager of one of the sub-threads is someone I know exists, but usually I have no idea who the actual person is managing that sub-thread, but I get to take credit for the good work they do.
​

It occurred to me that the same thing is so in government and politics. People who do the best job of doing their job don't generally get their accomplishments made public in gory detail. Why? Because part of one's job when one is subordinate to someone else is to make that person shine, to defend that person and support them. One is not doing a good job at all if one makes that person have to defend you. So when folks ask "what did Hillary do as SecState?", the answer is, "If we knew, she was either doing that aspect of it wrong or overshadowing her boss. If we don't know, she was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing."

 

[yiostheoy]

When you start quoting yourself that is a clue that you are loving yourself way too much.

 

[JoeMoma]

I found myself speaking today to some of the firm's newly hired MBAs and other grad school recruits. Among the remarks I shared with them was this:

I know you are all very high performers from the top schools and programs in the U.S. You are used to standing out and being seen. Well, I gotta tell you this: be prepared to be a "nobody" for a while. If you are doing your jobs right and well, your project leader will recognize you and highly regard you, but the client and firm CFO or CEO or COO who receives the reports your project leaders deliver will not know you exist. Your project leaders get the "glory" for delivering a first rate report.

It's the same way for me too. When I submit a report to the firm's C-Level, they know who I am, but when they make presentations to the outside world, nobody mentions my name. On my projects, the manager of one of the sub-threads is someone I know exists, but usually I have no idea who the actual person is managing that sub-thread, but I get to take credit for the good work they do.
​

It occurred to me that the same thing is so in government and politics. People who do the best job of doing their job don't generally get their accomplishments made public in gory detail. Why? Because part of one's job when one is subordinate to someone else is to make that person shine, to defend that person and support them. One is not doing a good job at all if one makes that person have to defend you. So when folks ask "what did Hillary do as SecState?", the answer is, "If we knew, she was either doing that aspect of it wrong or overshadowing her boss. If we don't know, she was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing."

She certainly didn't make her boss shine. Considering the investigations, she did the opposite.

 

[320 Years of History]

I found myself speaking today to some of the firm's newly hired MBAs and other grad school recruits. Among the remarks I shared with them was this:

I know you are all very high performers from the top schools and programs in the U.S. You are used to standing out and being seen. Well, I gotta tell you this: be prepared to be a "nobody" for a while. If you are doing your jobs right and well, your project leader will recognize you and highly regard you, but the client and firm CFO or CEO or COO who receives the reports your project leaders deliver will not know you exist. Your project leaders get the "glory" for delivering a first rate report.

It's the same way for me too. When I submit a report to the firm's C-Level, they know who I am, but when they make presentations to the outside world, nobody mentions my name. On my projects, the manager of one of the sub-threads is someone I know exists, but usually I have no idea who the actual person is managing that sub-thread, but I get to take credit for the good work they do.
​

It occurred to me that the same thing is so in government and politics. People who do the best job of doing their job don't generally get their accomplishments made public in gory detail. Why? Because part of one's job when one is subordinate to someone else is to make that person shine, to defend that person and support them. One is not doing a good job at all if one makes that person have to defend you. So when folks ask "what did Hillary do as SecState?", the answer is, "If we knew, she was either doing that aspect of it wrong or overshadowing her boss. If we don't know, she was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing."

She certainly didn't make her boss shine. Considering the investigations, she did the opposite.

I don't know that to be so. His approval rating is at 50%, which has not been the case for any but one other recent-history outgoing President. Additionally, looking at how the U.S. is perceived in now as well as was perceived when Mrs. Clinton left State, I'd say she did something right. (click the images to access the related narrative)

As a businessperson who is in China, the UK, Japan, Switzerland and France every month, I can tell you that anecdotally I can tell folks are far more content with the U.S. than they were in the years after the dawn of the 21st century. Back then, I'd routinely hear chiding remarks about our government, our President, and so on. On a few occasions, I was asked, "How did America manage to put 'that nutter' into the Presidency?" I haven't heard any such remarks since 2009.

​

 

[Compost]

I agree that many people who work without fanfare are getting things done, that is not the case with Hillary Clinton. Does she have people behind the scenes getting things done? Sure. Was she behind the scenes for the Obama administration? Making Obama look good without concern for credit or attention to herself? That is a tough sell.

The OP says that " Because part of one's job when one is subordinate to someone else is to make that person shine, to defend that person and support them. One is not doing a good job at all if one makes that person have to defend you. So when folks ask "what did Hillary do as SecState?", the answer is, "If we knew, she was either doing that aspect of it wrong or overshadowing her boss. If we don't know, she was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing."

There is no reason to believe that of Hillary Clinton. OP only offered snippets form a speech he claims he gave and attempted to tie his sage words to newbies to Clinton's resume'. He did make his case.

 

[320 Years of History]

When you start quoting yourself that is a clue that you are loving yourself way too much.

Off Topic:
Well, you can think that of my having done so if you want to....Your thinking that does nothing to address the specific theme of my comments, much less alter their verity. Perhaps you care to directly address the remarks themselves as another member did. That, rather than making some disparaging ad hominem remark, would be the wiser thing to do.

I agree that many people who work without fanfare are getting things done, that is not the case with Hillary Clinton. Does she have people behind the scenes getting things done? Sure. Was she behind the scenes for the Obama administration? Making Obama look good without concern for credit or attention to herself? That is a tough sell.

The OP says that " Because part of one's job when one is subordinate to someone else is to make that person shine, to defend that person and support them. One is not doing a good job at all if one makes that person have to defend you. So when folks ask "what did Hillary do as SecState?", the answer is, "If we knew, she was either doing that aspect of it wrong or overshadowing her boss. If we don't know, she was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing."

There is no reason to believe that of Hillary Clinton. OP only offered snippets form a speech he claims he gave and attempted to tie his sage words to newbies to Clinton's resume'. He did [not] make his case.

Note: I think you omitted a critical word. See my edit of your quote and let me know if I'm correct.

Well, you see, therein lies the "public forum dilemma." One can strongly make a case, but it takes a whole lot of writing to do so for complex matters such as the one the OP raises. One can also present an ineffectively developed case and do so briefly. The former approach results in few folks carefully and fully reading one's post. The latter results in folks claiming one's case isn't well developed.

Usually, I aim to make strong cases, but for matters that I don't care as strongly about, I attempt to just toss out high level remarks and hope for the best in terms of responses. The latter is what I did with this thread's OP. The truth is I don't care that much about what folks think of Mrs Clinton's accomplishments.

When I think about recent Secretaries of State and what they accomplished, I can't say that any of them, except Colin Powell, did anything I can readily recall. The one thing I can remember Secy. Powell doing is telling the world/U.N. that Iraq/Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and that we should go to war to stop him/Iraq from using and having them. Thinking back farther in time, I can recall the names of some of them: Vance, Christopher, Kissinger, Dulles, and Schultz. I recall Haig too, but there again, what I remember about him is that he claimed he was in control of and leading the government.

The central point of this thread's OP then is that unless one goes digging, one's not likely to be all that aware of what a Secretary of State accomplished (in a positive sense) in that office. Perhaps the most visible public indicator of their "worth" is how the rest of the world perceives the U.S. On that measure, Mrs. Clinton did what she was supposed to do; she boosted the regard in which our allies and others outside the U.S. hold the U.S. (see post #4)

 

[Compost]

When you start quoting yourself that is a clue that you are loving yourself way too much.

Off Topic:
Well, you can think that of my having done so if you want to....Your thinking that does nothing to address the specific theme of my comments, much less alter their verity. Perhaps you care to directly address the remarks themselves as another member did. That, rather than making some disparaging ad hominem remark, would be the wiser thing to do.

I agree that many people who work without fanfare are getting things done, that is not the case with Hillary Clinton. Does she have people behind the scenes getting things done? Sure. Was she behind the scenes for the Obama administration? Making Obama look good without concern for credit or attention to herself? That is a tough sell.

The OP says that " Because part of one's job when one is subordinate to someone else is to make that person shine, to defend that person and support them. One is not doing a good job at all if one makes that person have to defend you. So when folks ask "what did Hillary do as SecState?", the answer is, "If we knew, she was either doing that aspect of it wrong or overshadowing her boss. If we don't know, she was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing."

There is no reason to believe that of Hillary Clinton. OP only offered snippets form a speech he claims he gave and attempted to tie his sage words to newbies to Clinton's resume'. He did [not] make his case.

Note: I think you omitted a critical word. See my edit of your quote and let me know if I'm correct.

Well, you see, therein lies the "public forum dilemma." One can strongly make a case, but it takes a whole lot of writing to do so for complex matters such as the one the OP raises. One can also present an ineffectively developed case and do so briefly. The former approach results in few folks carefully and fully reading one's post. The latter results in folks claiming one's case isn't well developed.

Usually, I aim to make strong cases, but for matters that I don't care as strongly about, I attempt to just toss out high level remarks and hope for the best in terms of responses. The latter is what I did with this thread's OP. The truth is I don't care that much about what folks think of Mrs Clinton's accomplishments.

When I think about recent Secretaries of State and what they accomplished, I can't say that any of them, except Colin Powell, did anything I can readily recall. The one thing I can remember Secy. Powell doing is telling the world/U.N. that Iraq/Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and that we should go to war to stop him/Iraq from using and having them. Thinking back farther in time, I can recall the names of some of them: Vance, Christopher, Kissinger, Dulles, and Schultz. I recall Haig too, but there again, what I remember about him is that he claimed he was in control of and leading the government.

The central point of this thread's OP then is that unless one goes digging, one's not likely to be all that aware of what a Secretary of State accomplished (in a positive sense) in that office. Perhaps the most visible public indicator of their "worth" is how the rest of the world perceives the U.S. On that measure, Mrs. Clinton did what she was supposed to do; she boosted the regard in which our allies and others outside the U.S. hold the U.S. (see post #4)

Ah nit picking. I omitted a word... I didn't read what you said carefully.

Here's the thing. You are asserting that HC is did a bang up job as SOC because some polls say that barackobama has a 50% approval rating. And you say some people you claim to know through your businessman job are liking things- that just goes to show HC did good, or something. Here's what I can't get past. SOS is not just a background worker bee job. It is interesting that you don't name anything HC has done as SOS. Perhaps you ought to do a bit more digging because you still haven't made your case.

How the rest of the world sees the US- looks like you are counting on your business associates and certain polls. That's fine, if that's all you are willing to consider. Just saying you are making a complex case doesn't make it so.

I see now why the regulars here at CDZ have stopped bothering with your high level remarks.

 

[BlackSand]

I found myself speaking today to some of the firm's newly hired MBAs and other grad school recruits. Among the remarks I shared with them was this:

I know you are all very high performers from the top schools and programs in the U.S. You are used to standing out and being seen. Well, I gotta tell you this: be prepared to be a "nobody" for a while. If you are doing your jobs right and well, your project leader will recognize you and highly regard you, but the client and firm CFO or CEO or COO who receives the reports your project leaders deliver will not know you exist. Your project leaders get the "glory" for delivering a first rate report.

It's the same way for me too. When I submit a report to the firm's C-Level, they know who I am, but when they make presentations to the outside world, nobody mentions my name. On my projects, the manager of one of the sub-threads is someone I know exists, but usually I have no idea who the actual person is managing that sub-thread, but I get to take credit for the good work they do.
​

It occurred to me that the same thing is so in government and politics. People who do the best job of doing their job don't generally get their accomplishments made public in gory detail. Why? Because part of one's job when one is subordinate to someone else is to make that person shine, to defend that person and support them. One is not doing a good job at all if one makes that person have to defend you. So when folks ask "what did Hillary do as SecState?", the answer is, "If we knew, she was either doing that aspect of it wrong or overshadowing her boss. If we don't know, she was doing exactly what she was supposed to be doing."

If we are going to try and make that comparison ... It's about time the SEC investigates the government.

.

 

[320 Years of History]

You are asserting that HC is did a bang up job as SOC because some polls say that barackobama has a 50% approval rating.

I asserted that the job of a subordinate is to make their boss "look good," and I stated that one way to do that is by the subordinate doing their job effectively. I asserted that she made the President shine and part of the evidence of that is his approval rating. What other generally available and fact can one use to attest to whether the President "looks good?"

I asserted that she did her job effectively as SecState and the evidence I provided of that are the charts that show the temporally comparative views other nations have of the U.S.

It is interesting that you don't name anything HC has done as SOS.

I can't name much that most Secstate have done, and the few things I can name were ill advised. I can go out and look up what they did.

• Colin Powell and Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Condoleezza Rice
• Hillary Clinton

I don't see that any of them did anything that I can call "momentous." They each did what a SecState is supposed to attempt to do. One of the things a SecState is supposed to do is create, maintain and enhance the view of the U.S. as held by other nations and peoples. Mrs. Clinton did that.

 

[Compost]

You are asserting that HC is did a bang up job as SOC because some polls say that barackobama has a 50% approval rating.

I asserted that the job of a subordinate is to make their boss "look good," and I stated that one way to do that is by the subordinate doing their job effectively. I asserted that she made the President shine and part of the evidence of that is his approval rating. What other generally available and fact can one use to attest to whether the President "looks good?"

I asserted that she did her job effectively as SecState and the evidence I provided of that are the charts that show the temporally comparative views other nations have of the U.S.

It is interesting that you don't name anything HC has done as SOS.

I can't name much that most Secstate have done, and the few things I can name were ill advised. I can go out and look up what they did.

• Colin Powell and Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Condoleezza Rice
• Hillary Clinton

I don't see that any of them did anything that I can call "momentous." They each did what a SecState is supposed to attempt to do. One of the things a SecState is supposed to do is create, maintain and enhance the view of the U.S. as held by other nations and peoples. Mrs. Clinton did that.

Thank you for your response. I dislike repeating myself, so let me just say that I hope there's another batch of new recruits for you to speak at.

 

[Kristian]

Japan liked U.S.