RE: And The Trumptards Shall Shriek "Fake News!"
June 25, 2017 at 4:35 pm
(This post was last modified: June 25, 2017 at 4:37 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(June 25, 2017 at 1:10 pm)wallym Wrote:(June 25, 2017 at 12:16 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Decisions of import should be based on plentiful information from multiple sources.
I think the argument for CEO style governing, is that the decisions should be made by the experts. Experts is not quite the word I'm looking for, but I'm hoping you will get the gist of it.
If there's a programming problem with some software, the CEO doesn't need to know more than that there's a problem, and it's being solved. We had a bug, we've allocated some more resources, it'll be fixed in a week.
Contrast with the details you'd need down at the programmer's level, where you'd have the code specifics. Or the management level, on who will be assigned the task, resource allocation specifics, budget implications, etc...
And this is why business experience is not very relevant to government. You're right that the wise business leader delegates decisions (and hence, the detailed knowledge needed to make most decisions) to subordinates. As a district manager for a Fortune 100 company a few years back, I regularly delegated, because I didn't have the time to meet every customer for their preferences, and suchlike.
A political leader, on the other hand, exposes himself to manipulation in delegating too much. After all, he (ideally) must answer for the decisions taken by his subordinates not only to the polity, but in many instances, to the wider world -- and to history. It stands to reason, then, that the smart political leader delegates decisions which carry fewer ramifications, but retains control of those decisions which may resound far wider than a specialist really understands. Because of that, it behooves the political leader to understand some issues in good detail.
Contragate is a great case study in the dangers of thoughtless delegation.
