stewamax wrote:gryffron wrote:Just before Dubya was elected, I heard a US observer comment "He appoints competent people. And then leaves them to get on with it." IMO that proved to be absolutely true. And is a rare and laudable quality in a manager.
Running a country may not be quite the same as running an army, but Wellington was the opposite, He gave precise written orders, and those of his immediate reports who didn’t follow them to the letter were given hell or sent home. And with Marlborough – who was a better politician – he was outstandingly competent.
Only perhaps at Waterloo was he prepared to delegate a little bit more, but this was because he had some handpicked old-stager generals that he knew he could trust.
Whether there is an optimum degree of delegation or decentralization is salient in business organization as well – q.v.
decomplexity for example
I enjoyed your history references.
Wellington as PM apparently complained that after giving his instructions to the Cabinet, they wouldn't leave and get on with it but hang around wanting to query the "orders". As general he complained that controlling the cavalry was impossible once they had set off on a charge.
Both Trump and Johnson have the flaw that they rarely appoint on the basis of anything approaching merit or competence (Bingham being an exception).
Various posters have tried to summarise Johnson. Perhaps a simple way to do this is to think of him as exactly like Trump on the inside. The outside is a mask.
The banal reality I think is that the majority of voters, unlike posters here, do not give much thought to the "Johnson question", but judge in a vague way whether he will deliver what they want. Character hardly counts at all in that calculation. He will eventually come unstuck, he is too chaotic and disregarding of laws.