Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Aecetia
ParticipantThis is worth a listen. Clinton has some pretty good suggestions in this. He also says the Navy could probably stop it. His observations about Obama’s reactions to the disaster are pretty accurate (IMHO).
http://money.cnn.com/video/fortune/2010/06/27/f_gf_clinton_bp_oil.fortune/index.html
disclaimer- I am not a big fan of Clinton, but I think he is intelligent and his views are those of an insider.
ParticipantThis is worth a listen. Clinton has some pretty good suggestions in this. He also says the Navy could probably stop it. His observations about Obama’s reactions to the disaster are pretty accurate (IMHO).
http://money.cnn.com/video/fortune/2010/06/27/f_gf_clinton_bp_oil.fortune/index.html
disclaimer- I am not a big fan of Clinton, but I think he is intelligent and his views are those of an insider.
ParticipantThis is worth a listen. Clinton has some pretty good suggestions in this. He also says the Navy could probably stop it. His observations about Obama’s reactions to the disaster are pretty accurate (IMHO).
http://money.cnn.com/video/fortune/2010/06/27/f_gf_clinton_bp_oil.fortune/index.html
disclaimer- I am not a big fan of Clinton, but I think he is intelligent and his views are those of an insider.
ParticipantThis is worth a listen. Clinton has some pretty good suggestions in this. He also says the Navy could probably stop it. His observations about Obama’s reactions to the disaster are pretty accurate (IMHO).
http://money.cnn.com/video/fortune/2010/06/27/f_gf_clinton_bp_oil.fortune/index.html
disclaimer- I am not a big fan of Clinton, but I think he is intelligent and his views are those of an insider.
ParticipantThis is worth a listen. Clinton has some pretty good suggestions in this. He also says the Navy could probably stop it. His observations about Obama’s reactions to the disaster are pretty accurate (IMHO).
http://money.cnn.com/video/fortune/2010/06/27/f_gf_clinton_bp_oil.fortune/index.html
disclaimer- I am not a big fan of Clinton, but I think he is intelligent and his views are those of an insider.
June 28, 2010 at 12:55 PM in reply to: OT: NYT article on, among other things, the limits of our ability to acknowledge what we don’t know #572792ParticipantI saw a lot of this in county government combined with cronysism. Luckily most of the top people do not do a lot of work.
The Peter Principle is the principle that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the “salutary science of Hierarchiology”, “inadvertently founded” by Peter. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their “level of incompetence”), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity.[1] Peter’s Corollary states that “in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties” and adds that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence”.
June 28, 2010 at 12:55 PM in reply to: OT: NYT article on, among other things, the limits of our ability to acknowledge what we don’t know #572887ParticipantI saw a lot of this in county government combined with cronysism. Luckily most of the top people do not do a lot of work.
The Peter Principle is the principle that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the “salutary science of Hierarchiology”, “inadvertently founded” by Peter. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their “level of incompetence”), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity.[1] Peter’s Corollary states that “in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties” and adds that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence”.
June 28, 2010 at 12:55 PM in reply to: OT: NYT article on, among other things, the limits of our ability to acknowledge what we don’t know #573399ParticipantI saw a lot of this in county government combined with cronysism. Luckily most of the top people do not do a lot of work.
The Peter Principle is the principle that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the “salutary science of Hierarchiology”, “inadvertently founded” by Peter. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their “level of incompetence”), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity.[1] Peter’s Corollary states that “in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties” and adds that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence”.
June 28, 2010 at 12:55 PM in reply to: OT: NYT article on, among other things, the limits of our ability to acknowledge what we don’t know #573504ParticipantI saw a lot of this in county government combined with cronysism. Luckily most of the top people do not do a lot of work.
The Peter Principle is the principle that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the “salutary science of Hierarchiology”, “inadvertently founded” by Peter. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their “level of incompetence”), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity.[1] Peter’s Corollary states that “in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties” and adds that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence”.
June 28, 2010 at 12:55 PM in reply to: OT: NYT article on, among other things, the limits of our ability to acknowledge what we don’t know #573799ParticipantI saw a lot of this in county government combined with cronysism. Luckily most of the top people do not do a lot of work.
The Peter Principle is the principle that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the “salutary science of Hierarchiology”, “inadvertently founded” by Peter. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their “level of incompetence”), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity.[1] Peter’s Corollary states that “in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties” and adds that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence”.
ParticipantI live in RSD and I agree with Porkman. There are definitely some good buys out here and with the larger lots, room for organic gardening. It does get warmer than North Park though.
ParticipantI live in RSD and I agree with Porkman. There are definitely some good buys out here and with the larger lots, room for organic gardening. It does get warmer than North Park though.
ParticipantI live in RSD and I agree with Porkman. There are definitely some good buys out here and with the larger lots, room for organic gardening. It does get warmer than North Park though.
ParticipantI live in RSD and I agree with Porkman. There are definitely some good buys out here and with the larger lots, room for organic gardening. It does get warmer than North Park though.
-
AuthorPosts
