Harry Truman was right. Whether you're a CEO or the temporary head of a project team, the buck stops here. You can encourage participative management and bottom-up employee involvement, but ultimately the essence of leadership is the willingness to make the tough, unambiguous choices that will have an impact on the fate of the organization. I've seen too many non-leaders flinch from this responsibility. Even as you create an informal, open, collaborative corporate culture, prepare to be lonely.
12 comments:
I was impressed with the address by Gov Chris Christi last night compared to Obama's rants and lies. I hope people could see the difference in a real leader and what we have now. Obama's speech before the CBC the other night was truly frightening.
As my mom says, if you can't something good about someone, don't say anything at all. You never have any basis in fact, just another rant.
Many of us would appreciate it if you take your vitriol and name calling somewhere else.
Lorlee,
My mom says "Speak the truth"!
Many of us appreciate ANON 636 and don't appreciate your "sucky" demeanor
Lorlee,
There is too much at stake to keep quiet. The future of our country, our children and grandchildren are all up for grabs. So you want to keep quiet and let Obama ruin our country past the point of no return? To turn it into a socialist country?
Anons-all:
yeah, sure ... socialist ... ruin the country ... hates America ... Obama is Satan ... how about the rest of us simply assume you're going to say these things and you don't have to bother actually saying them .. Since you rarely, if ever, address the topic Larry actually posts about, but turn everything into an anti-Obama rant, I could write your comments by now in my sleep. There's really no need to keep repeating them.
I am in my 50s. I do not claim to be any kind of expert, but I do see what is going on around me, and my take on things is that people are truly afraid. When I hear President Obama speak I never get the feeling that the buck ever stops with him. He calls for civil discourse, but then turns around and blames everything on the Republicans. I am personally extremely concerned about the future of my children and especially my grandchildren. I frankly think that our country is broken. I remember teaching a high school class in the 90s made up of all seniors. I often reminded them that they had never experienced a recession that they could remember. Times have changed far beyond what I ever expected. When I voice concern about our President it is not against him as a person, but rather against his policies that seem only to lead to further debt and more regulations. Lorlee, you might want to reread your post. It seems to me that you did the very thing that you accused Anon 6:36 of doing. I, for one, am glad that there is freedom on this blog to say pretty much what you want to say. I think we are all big enough to filter out what we don't believe.
RCorum:
Thanks for your civil tone (as usual) and honest expression of opinion (without unnecessary rancor).
I agree we are in trouble. But it started with investment bankers creating fraudulent financial instruments no one understood and an economic collapse that started under the previous president, not Obama. It continues under Republican leadership of the House which actually threatened to default on the national debt, and is intent on playing chicken with the White House at every turn.
I am not suggesting the D's have no fault in the current problems. (I'm no fan of Pelosi as House Speaker, for one.) But I just honestly do not think it is fair to lay so much of the blame for our current woes at Obama's feet. He didn't start the problem and has not exactly had a free hand in dealing with it.
Isn't this just a case of whoever happens to be in the oval office gets the blame or credit for the economy, whether deserved or not?
Ken
Dallas
Ken, I do my best to be civil. I wish that would be the general practice around here.
I am not sure that I see the housing crisis and the financial crisis that went with it in the same light as you. After my reading on the subject I came to the conclusion that the democrats were at fault for creating a climate where almost anyone could get a loan for a house. I would especially point to Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. I am in the process of refinancing my home to a 15 year mortgage. I was amazed at the extra documentation now required to prove salary and actual money in the bank. There was a time when money was easy to come by. In 1999 my wife and I sold a house and the new owners lived in the house for 18 months and never made the first payment before it was finally repossessed.
There is plenty of blame to go around, but it seems to me that our country has a severe spending problem. We all know that we as individuals could never get away with what the federal government does on a daily basis. I am in favor of a much larger role for the states and a more limited role for Washington.
After giving the solar panel company half a billion dollars,and then it went broke, I heard today that the administration is going to give a couple of more green companies a BILLION dollars. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing expecting a different result?
RCorum:
I completely agree we have a serious spending problem. Anytime you have deficits like ours, you have to look closely at spending. However, you also have to look closely at income, which, for the feds, is tax revenue. We need to cut spending, but we also need to increase revenue, to work ourselves out of the hole we're in. Playing with only one side of the ledger simply won't work. The R's total refusal to consider increasing taxes is inexcusable as 'leadership' (where this post actually started). As more experienced hands like McCain have told their own young Turks, there's a time to campaign and a time to govern, and they ned to grow up and help govern.
Ken
Dallas
If the Feds would stop throwing money away on useless projects there would be no need to increase revenue. A big percent is going in a slush fund for Obama's reelection campaign anyway.
Obama has no intention of his jobs bill passing, it is merely a election ploy to use against the Republicans There is no intention of even bringing it up for a vote.
"A big percent is going in a slush fund for Obama's reelection campaign anyway."
Any facts to back that up.
Our biggest problem is that we continue to spend huge amounts of money on several wars in which we are mired.
And the SS trust fund money has been spent -- check out Scott Burns for in depth explanations. SS wouldn't be in trouble if the Congress -- both sides -- hadn't decided in the 80's that was okay to spend it on other things.
Post a Comment