Is understanding possible?, page 3

originally posted by: Bluesma

I don't have a personal stance on that at this time, but according to the particular idea I shared, the concept would be that the best person would be neither someone with battle experience, nor someone with a PhD in history. It would be best if it was someone that had no experience or knowledge in that area at all, surrounded by a group of counselors that have various types of experience in it (the vet, the PhD, etc.).

The idea is that the responsible is sort of the "melting pot" for all the knowledgeable and experienced perceptions.
In him (her) they all mix to find a meeting point.

This would mean the only pre-requisite would be a high aptitude fro reception, empathy, and creativity.

That's the theory, I agree. However, the experts must not be beholden to the executive they are couseling either for their paycheck or standing. They need to be selected by the Interests they represent - say military, diplomatic, intelligence (LOL), economic, humanitarian, etc, and not selected by the executive or dismissible by the executive. In practise, it hasn't worked that way in quite a while in either government or business. The revolving door between government and business and the incestuousness of the relationships and the preference for 'yes-men' has corupted a system that worked half-way decently for some time.

As to the empathy, connection and creativity of the executive in question, the broader the experience the better and a deep seated sence of service to their constituents. And we see how much that isn't the case in governmnet. At least business clearly states their consituency - shareholders - but their is a breakdown in that system as well.

My theory - anyone who wants the job (government or business) is not qualified. I'm for 'drafting' people into executie positions.

edit on 28-7-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)