The country needs a president. Part two. Selection
First about the comments to the first part, and not only. It is bad when both the culture of the dispute and the arguments of the opposite side are absent and it begins! ..
A person is scornfully denounced not because of his cases, but, for example, mangling the surname of a presidential candidate: Syskin. Well, who else, except for a real liberal, is capable of such rudeness?
As an argument, it is stated (without arguments) that the author is lying, that he is not the one for whom he claims to be. In my case, someone declares that he sees that I am not an engineer, and that's it! And mom and dad were not taught to doubt a person only after a valid reason to doubt?
And the crown argument, the apotheosis of liberalism: to say that someone did not work for that reason and therefore has no right to talk about his work. In my case: if I was not the president, then I can not talk about it. Even gosdepovskaya Jane Psaki before this is not thought out.
Many commentators of “VO” have repeatedly called for ceasing to be marked by high-speed and empty comments like “It's been a long time!” It seems that the time has come to appeal to the intellect and decency of the participants.
You know, I remember with nostalgia Alexander Romanov, who had been absent from the VO for a long time, my opponent in relation to the authorities. In most of his comments, both intellect and compliance with the topic of the dispute were felt. Many supporters of the government need to learn from Romanov. I advise many of you to do the following: write a draft comment, read it and relate it with the topic of the comment and with the norms of behavior.
And now about the choice of president
I was taught a lot, including the basics of managing complex processes. They were taught on-the-job and on-the-job courses, taught by older comrades, taught by subordinates (I tried not to act according to the modern method “I am the boss, you are a fool”, and the workers were not afraid to talk about my mistakes and advise me) and self-criticism. (A little to the side: in the USSR, the science of management was very developed, another thing is that it was not very interested in the authorities, moreover, because of it many celestials had to be driven from heaven).
So, first of all, to choose a manager of a large team, up to the largest, should be based on its formation. The law firm must be managed by a lawyer, a manager is suitable for the trade department, and the state needs an engineer or an economist, or an agrarian, or a graduate of a military military educational institution. Those. the one who was taught to WORK WITH PEOPLE and material means. Yes, America can afford to put in the White House at least an actor, even a monkey, in America not always public people rule. But if we put humanists in a high chair, then it is quite possible that they will slip in as assistants for someone who needs them, but not for the cause. Yes, and he himself can choose to subordinate those with whom it is easier, from whom you will not hear critics. Go over our ministers, with rare exception it becomes scary from their education, experience, habits of irresponsibility.
Secondly, a positive experience with people is needed at the level of the production team / platoon and at the site / company level. Here comes the skill to understand people and passes a children's disease to use at least something, but its own, even if it is unnecessary, or to harm. Here they directly come into contact with the performers and see how the result is given. Next you need effective leadership / command of the production unit / military unit. In this case, the leader / commander is able to work with subcontractors, as well as in various fields of activity.
And the third is the material and moral satisfaction of subordinates, starting from direct workers / soldiers.
Two responded to these criteria: Pavel Nikolaevich Grudinin and Vladimir Viktorovich Mikhailov. True, Mikhailov did not have time to type signatures. But Grudinina will be watered with all the buckets. What do you think? Our media is no weaker than the Western in the ability to spit. For example, in the West, people are confident that Russia hit a Boeing in the 2014 year in Ukraine. There is no evidence, but there is confidence: the media have tried!
There are other criteria, including readiness to respond to unfulfilled promises and the inexpediency of a long stay in one management position, but the above are basic ones to choose from. But eloquence and eloquence are optional.
Stalin had an interesting situation. He did not fit into the leaders of the country neither by education nor by experience. And still the royal technical experts and officials, to put it mildly, in the majority disapproved of the Soviet power (see my note “Liberalism as a refuge of the present intellectual»From 28 in October 2017 under the heading« Opinion »). Stalin even had mediocre leaders, the cat wept, and he had no one to choose from. But he did not slip into the role of a temporary dictator, did not begin to acquire palaces and nominate appointees according to the criterion of personal loyalty. He was able to grow a real elite who plowed with him, and whose children, after school, sat not in the chairs of the directors of concerns, but in the cockpits of fighters. He asked from the elite, and she tried to please him and the country in the only possible way - excellent work. From any point of view, Stalin committed heroic deeds for thirty years.
In general, as a pensioner with experience, as a former worker, as a former manager, as an engineer, I am for Grudinina.
A person is scornfully denounced not because of his cases, but, for example, mangling the surname of a presidential candidate: Syskin. Well, who else, except for a real liberal, is capable of such rudeness?
As an argument, it is stated (without arguments) that the author is lying, that he is not the one for whom he claims to be. In my case, someone declares that he sees that I am not an engineer, and that's it! And mom and dad were not taught to doubt a person only after a valid reason to doubt?
And the crown argument, the apotheosis of liberalism: to say that someone did not work for that reason and therefore has no right to talk about his work. In my case: if I was not the president, then I can not talk about it. Even gosdepovskaya Jane Psaki before this is not thought out.
Many commentators of “VO” have repeatedly called for ceasing to be marked by high-speed and empty comments like “It's been a long time!” It seems that the time has come to appeal to the intellect and decency of the participants.
You know, I remember with nostalgia Alexander Romanov, who had been absent from the VO for a long time, my opponent in relation to the authorities. In most of his comments, both intellect and compliance with the topic of the dispute were felt. Many supporters of the government need to learn from Romanov. I advise many of you to do the following: write a draft comment, read it and relate it with the topic of the comment and with the norms of behavior.
And now about the choice of president
I was taught a lot, including the basics of managing complex processes. They were taught on-the-job and on-the-job courses, taught by older comrades, taught by subordinates (I tried not to act according to the modern method “I am the boss, you are a fool”, and the workers were not afraid to talk about my mistakes and advise me) and self-criticism. (A little to the side: in the USSR, the science of management was very developed, another thing is that it was not very interested in the authorities, moreover, because of it many celestials had to be driven from heaven).
So, first of all, to choose a manager of a large team, up to the largest, should be based on its formation. The law firm must be managed by a lawyer, a manager is suitable for the trade department, and the state needs an engineer or an economist, or an agrarian, or a graduate of a military military educational institution. Those. the one who was taught to WORK WITH PEOPLE and material means. Yes, America can afford to put in the White House at least an actor, even a monkey, in America not always public people rule. But if we put humanists in a high chair, then it is quite possible that they will slip in as assistants for someone who needs them, but not for the cause. Yes, and he himself can choose to subordinate those with whom it is easier, from whom you will not hear critics. Go over our ministers, with rare exception it becomes scary from their education, experience, habits of irresponsibility.
Secondly, a positive experience with people is needed at the level of the production team / platoon and at the site / company level. Here comes the skill to understand people and passes a children's disease to use at least something, but its own, even if it is unnecessary, or to harm. Here they directly come into contact with the performers and see how the result is given. Next you need effective leadership / command of the production unit / military unit. In this case, the leader / commander is able to work with subcontractors, as well as in various fields of activity.
And the third is the material and moral satisfaction of subordinates, starting from direct workers / soldiers.
Two responded to these criteria: Pavel Nikolaevich Grudinin and Vladimir Viktorovich Mikhailov. True, Mikhailov did not have time to type signatures. But Grudinina will be watered with all the buckets. What do you think? Our media is no weaker than the Western in the ability to spit. For example, in the West, people are confident that Russia hit a Boeing in the 2014 year in Ukraine. There is no evidence, but there is confidence: the media have tried!
There are other criteria, including readiness to respond to unfulfilled promises and the inexpediency of a long stay in one management position, but the above are basic ones to choose from. But eloquence and eloquence are optional.
Stalin had an interesting situation. He did not fit into the leaders of the country neither by education nor by experience. And still the royal technical experts and officials, to put it mildly, in the majority disapproved of the Soviet power (see my note “Liberalism as a refuge of the present intellectual»From 28 in October 2017 under the heading« Opinion »). Stalin even had mediocre leaders, the cat wept, and he had no one to choose from. But he did not slip into the role of a temporary dictator, did not begin to acquire palaces and nominate appointees according to the criterion of personal loyalty. He was able to grow a real elite who plowed with him, and whose children, after school, sat not in the chairs of the directors of concerns, but in the cockpits of fighters. He asked from the elite, and she tried to please him and the country in the only possible way - excellent work. From any point of view, Stalin committed heroic deeds for thirty years.
In general, as a pensioner with experience, as a former worker, as a former manager, as an engineer, I am for Grudinina.
Information