Welcome
Welcome to <strong>rethink</strong>.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, <a href="/profile.php?mode=register">join our community today</a>!

Do good businessmen make effective politicians?

Current events, issues and trends discussed here.

If someone is a successful businessman, are you more swayed to vote for them?

Yes
1
25%
No
3
75%
 
Total votes : 4

Do good businessmen make effective politicians?

Postby Ashok on Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:18 pm

In The Dilbert Principle, Scott Adams says that while management used to consist of people who did a job well being promoted until the point where they couldn't handle the job (the "Peter Principle"), now management consists of people who can't do any job well and are therefore immediately promoted to a role where they can do the "least" damage.

It looks like we use that latter principle - the "Dilbert Principle" - to select politicians. Is that true, and if so, is it a good idea?
Ashok
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:13 am

Postby Amanda on Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:07 am

Unfortunately true in business, very unfortunately true in politics.

It's strange the way society awards loud obnoxiousness and stupidity. You see it clearly in every area of life. The louder the child the more attention they will inevitably receive, the more attention the less they are required to be self sufficient and gain skill and knowledge.

(This may be where the "Dilbert Principle" comes in, passing those people on and promoting them into positions where they will be surrounded with people who can do the job for them)

And then, the louder the adult the more likely people are to follow.

This is only partly based on my personal bias against a practice that does not favor me... (I'm admitting this). There are so few instances where this is not the case it's impossible not to notice even if you don't want to acknowledge it.
Amanda
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:37 am

Postby Lady Strange on Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:09 am

From my observations, the do-ers as opposed to thinkers get elevated to the middle management positions. In the old days, it was the thinkers who were promoted. This trend unfortunately is indeed replicated in the political world where do-ers as opposed to thinkers are elected into the political realm.

The sad truth as I see it is that the educational system is encouraging the development of do-ers as opposed to thinkers. Think about it - all we are told to do the first moment we step into schools (this is very much the case in Asian countries) is to do well in whatever it is we are studying so that we can get a good job and contribute to society. We are taught since we were 6 that excelling academically, viz., giving the teacher what (s)he wants by regurgitating the things that have been taught without giving our own interpretations of things is the right thing to do if we want to succeed. So it is in business, so long as they succeed, it matters not that their very capable underlings who are the real thinkers are doing things and stage managing the do-ers from behind the scenes, the only thing that matters is that these do-ers are seen doing the things. When they are seen doing whatever it is they are supposed to do, lo and behold, the praises come in.

Yet ironically, the world tacitly acknowledges that the do-ers are just empty vessels. I do not what the trend is like in Western countries. But in Southeast Asia, the trend is to get rid of middle managers when they are in the 40s. These middle managers are typically your uni grads who were academically brilliant, meaning they only memorised and regurgitated their way out of school and into these middle management positions. When it comes to a point that they cannot remain as do-ers because they try to assume the role of thinker and fail, that's when they are kicked out.

The same may be said in the political world. Just transfer all that I have said thus far and substitute 'business' for 'political' and you will see that the reflection is there - do-ers are valued over thinkers, and it is left to the thinkers to hopefully stage manage things for the do-ers.

Just my tuppence's worth.
Lady Strange
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:41 am
Location: here and there, mainly in my own mind

Postby Amanda on Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:53 pm

It's exactly the same way in the US. School is not there to teach students to learn, but rather to perform the tricks that will get them a job.

I always hate having that attitude because it degrades what many people work so hard toward. (I'm a sentimental sap, it makes me sad to have this view.)

While randomly searching for- something, I can't remember what, I came across an article to this effect. Saying basically that (the American) education system had been adopted from the German system, which he argues was created as a means of social control, no wait, I'll just find it...

This is from an essay written by John Taylor Gatto, a former NY schoolteacher who apparantly came to the same conclusion over his years of teaching:

...Now think about Sweden, a beautiful, healthy, prosperous and up-to-date country with a spectacular reputation for quality in everything it produces. It makes sense to think their schools must have something to do with that.

Then what do you make of the fact that you can't go to school in Sweden until you are 7 years old? The reason the unsentimental Swedes have wiped out what would be first and seconds grades here is that they don't want to pay the large social bill that quickly comes due when boys and girls are ripped away from their best teachers at home too early.

It just isn't worth the price, say the Swedes, to provide jobs for teachers and therapists if the result is sick, incomplete kids who can't be put back together again very easily. The entire Swedish school sequence isn't 12 years, either--it's nine. Less schooling, not more. The direct savings of such a step in the US would be $75-100 billion, a lot of unforeclosed home mortgages, a lot of time freed up with which to seek an education.

Who was it that decided to force your attention onto Japan instead of Sweden? Japan with its long school year and state compulsion, instead of Sweden with its short school year, short school sequence, and free choice where your kid is schooled? Who decided you should know about Japan and not Hong Kong, an Asian neighbour with a short school year that outperforms Japan across the board in math and science? Whose interests are served by hiding that from you?

One of the principal reasons we got into the mess we're in is that we allowed schooling to become a very profitable monopoly, guaranteed its customers by the police power of the state...

...

The structure of American schooling, 20th century style, began in 1806 when Napoleon's amateur soldiers beat the professional soldiers of Prussia at the battle of Jena....

...So the world got compulsion schooling at the end of a state bayonet for the first time in human history; modern forced schooling started in Prussia in 1819 with a clear vision of what centralized schools could deliver:

1. Obedient soldiers to the army;
2. Obedient workers to the mines;
3. Well subordinated civil servants to government;
4. Well subordinated clerks to industry
5. Citizens who thought alike about major issues.

...
Twenty-six years after this form of schooling began, the King of Prussia was invited to North America to determine the boundary between the United States and Canada. Thirty-three years after that fateful invention of the central school institution, as the behest of Horace Mann and many other leading citizens, we borrowed the style of Prussian schooling as our own.

You need to know this because over the first 50 years of our school institution Prussian purpose--which was to create a form of state socialism--gradually forced out traditional American purpose, which in most minds was to prepare the individual to be self-reliant...

...Prussia concocted a method based on complex fragmentations to ensure that its school products would fit the grand social design. Some of this method involved dividing whole ideas into school subjects, each further divisible, some of it involved short periods punctuated by a horn so that self-motivation in study would be muted by ceaseless interruptions.

(with reference to the compulsory school system causing WWI and WWII)....Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the Second World War was the inevitable product of good schooling.

It's important to underline that Bonhoeffer meant that literally, not metaphorically--schooling after the Prussian fashion removes the ability of the mind to think for itself. It teaches people to wait for a teacher to tell them what to do and if what they have done is good or bad. Prussian teaching paralyses the moral will as well as the intellect. It's true that sometimes well-schooled students sound smart, because they memorize many opinions of great thinkers, but they actually are badly damaged because their own ability to think is left rudimentary and undeveloped.

We got from the United States to Prussia and back because a small number of very passionate ideological leaders visited Prussia in the first half of the 19th century, and fell in love with the order, obedience and efficiency of its system and relentlessly proselytized for a translation of Prussian vision onto these shores. If Prussia's ultimate goal was the unification of Germany, our major goal, so these men thought, was the unification of hordes of immigrant Catholics into a national consensus based on a northern European cultural model. To do that children would have to be removed from their parents and from inappropriate cultural influence.

....
How did a Prussian system of dumbing children down take hold in American schools? Thousands and thousands of young men from prominent American families journeyed to Prussia and other parts of Germany during the 19th century and brought home the Ph. D. degree to a nation in which such a credential was unknown. These men pre-empted the top positions in the academic world, in corporate research, and in government, to the point where opportunity was almost closed to those who had not studied in Germany, or who were not the direct disciples of a German PhD, as John Dewey was the disciple of G. Stanley Hall at Johns Hopkins.

Virtually every single one of the founders of American schooling had made the pilgrimage to Germany, and many of these men wrote widely circulated reports praising the Teutonic methods. Horace Mann's famous "7th Report" of 1844, still available in large libraries, was perhaps the most important of these.

By 1889, a little more than 100 years ago, the crop was ready for harvest. It that year the US Commissioner of Education, William Torrey Harris, assured a railroad magnate, Collis Huntington, that American schools were "scientifically designed" to prevent "over-education" from happening. The average American would be content with his humble role in life, said the commissioner, because he would not be tempted to think about any other role. My guess is that Harris meant he would not be able to think about any other role...



Etc, I found the article on the website for a private school in California, http://www.dvschool.org/psngatto.htm

It can probably be found somewhere on Gatto's site
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/

I have no idea how historically accurate this is, I haven't researched it. That's not to say I doubt what he says.

Sorry for the length, I tried editing the article to only post the main idea, but I probably both failed to present the point and left way too much in.
Amanda
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:37 am

Postby Eamonn on Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:27 am

An example from the wrong region I now but Mauricio Macri, who styles himself as a successful businessman, got elected Mayor of Buenos Aires in July on an anti-politics and "I can manage big companies therefore I can run the city better" . The voters loved it and he creamed Kirchner's candidate in the process.

The idea that there are non-political "management" solutions to political problems has often had real appeal
Eamonn
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Buenos Aires

Postby Eamonn on Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:37 am

errata "I know" and "...city better" platform .
Eamonn
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Buenos Aires

Postby Amanda on Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:31 pm

:cry: And, I've never seen an effective manager... I don't think the success of a company has anything at all to do with the competence of its leaders- most likely just how good somebody else is at damage control
Amanda
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:37 am

Businessman VS Lawyer

Postby MOM2GIQM on Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:18 pm

I'm the poll spoiler. I voted for the Businessman. Why? Well, because I look out at all the current politicians and presidential-wannabes and what I see is a country run amok with too many freaking lawyers. Bill Clinton cinched lawyerdom with what "is is". Our gov't is being run by a bunch of attention-seeking, egotistical, fat heads who are so smart they are completely ignorant.

When I think businessman...I think of those who have put their heart and soul...blood, sweat, tears, and money....into building something and/or maintaining it. I think of the founding fathers of the USA.
MOM2GIQM
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:06 pm


Return to US Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron