A recent article in Navy Times (http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/11/ap-5-generals-in-trouble-rock-military-111412/) provides an example of an irregularly occurring, but consistent, trend:
the tendency of certain public figures - most often, politicians - to gain additional attention by criticizing the indiscretions or personal moral failings of others. This derivative and public form of schadenfreude appears to be driven by some belief that the public critic will somehow benefit by "representing" a public outrage.
Clearly the activities and actions cited in the aforementioned Navy Times article - as well as in numerous other article and opinion pieces over the past week - raise serious questions about each individual mentioned, most notably General Petraeus and General Allen. In spite of that, I am still struck by the fact that our politicians are hardly paragons of virtue. Therefore, I sincerely hope that these civilian, so-called "public servants" do not attempt to aggrandize their own positions by criticizing the personal failings of others who they previously lionized via the very same fourth estate channels. That would be pure and unadulterated (pun intended) hypocrisy.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Monday, December 12, 2011
First thought
Allowing for paraphrasing, I completely agree with Parkinson's assertion of statistical proof that "too many cooks spoil the broth." While he may have had his tongue firmly pressed against his cheek, his concept of a "Coefficient of Inefficiency" directly correlates with my current reality. I can attest to the validity of his assertion that any organization becomes increasingly unwieldy when more than 7 people have to agree on a single decision.
In fact, the ability to enforce any decision becomes exponentially more difficult as the number of decision makers approaches 19. And, more than 19 "deciders" is nothing more than inefficiency overkill.
On a related note, the phrase "Let's socialize the idea" should be eliminated from everyone's lexicon immediately. Socializing an idea usually results in enabling naysayers and other antibodies an opportunity to undermine innovation rather than gaining supporters.
In fact, the ability to enforce any decision becomes exponentially more difficult as the number of decision makers approaches 19. And, more than 19 "deciders" is nothing more than inefficiency overkill.
On a related note, the phrase "Let's socialize the idea" should be eliminated from everyone's lexicon immediately. Socializing an idea usually results in enabling naysayers and other antibodies an opportunity to undermine innovation rather than gaining supporters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)