What is your biggest hurdle in your own business?

Standard

My answer to What is your biggest hurdle in your own business?

Answer by Ken Larson:

Finding a way to tell my clients what they need to know in lieu of what they wish to hear.

Most of my clients are very talented technically and many have an associated ego which has been well earned and serves them in motivation, generating ideas, leading detailed work and similar efforts.

However, a vast majority have little experience in strategic planning, industry teaming, intellectual property protection, pricing and finance; and many do not know what they do not know.

Working with them to blend their talent with the realization they must learn business management from the ground up is a challenge in managing delicate egos and always an interesting endeavor.

What is your biggest hurdle in your own business?

What is the job of a president?

Standard

My answer to What is the job of a president?

Answer by Ken Larson:

The President is but one player in our constitutional government. The position was designed by the framers of the constitution to be a consensus builder, not a king. They did not want another King George after they won the Revolutionary War. They also built in considerable checks and balances and as our government has matured these checks and balances have prevailed.

“STRATFOR GEOPOLITICAL WEEKLY
 
 "The American presidency is designed to disappoint.

What the winner actually can deliver depends upon what other institutions, nations and reality will allow him or her.

Each candidate must promise things that are beyond their power to deliver. No candidate could expect to be elected by emphasizing how little power the office actually has and how voters should therefore expect little from him.

So candidates promise great, transformative programs. Though the gap between promises and realities destroys immodest candidates, from the founding fathers' point of view, it protects the republic. They distrusted government in general and the office of the president in particular.

Congress, the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve Board all circumscribe the president's power over domestic life. This and the authority of the states greatly limit the president's power, just as the country's founders intended. To achieve anything substantial, the president must create a coalition of political interests to shape decision-making in other branches of the government. Yet at the same time — and this is the main paradox of American political culture — the presidency is seen as a decisive institution and the person holding that office is seen as being of overriding importance.

The Real Versus Perceived Power Of The U.S. Presidency

The president has somewhat more authority in foreign policy, but only marginally so. He is trapped by public opinion, congressional intrusion, and above all, by the realities of geopolitics. Thus, while during his 2000 presidential campaign George W. Bush argued vehemently against nation-building, once in office, he did just that (with precisely the consequences he had warned of on the campaign trail). And regardless of how he modeled his foreign policy during his first campaign, the 9/11 attacks defined his presidency.

Similarly, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to redefine America's relationship with both Europe and the Islamic world. Neither happened. It has been widely and properly noted how little Obama's foreign policy in action has differed from George W. Bush's. It was not that Obama didn't intend to have a different foreign policy, but simply that what the president wants and what actually happens are very different things.

The power often ascribed to the U.S. presidency is overblown. But even so, people — including leaders — all over the world still take that power very seriously. They want to believe that someone is in control of what is happening. The thought that no one can control something as vast and complex as a country or the world is a frightening thought. Conspiracy theories offer this comfort, too, since they assume that while evil may govern the world, at least the world is governed. There is, of course, an alternative viewpoint, namely that while no one actually is in charge, the world is still predictable as long as you understand the impersonal forces guiding it. This is an uncomfortable and unacceptable notion to those who would make a difference in the world. For such people, the presidential race — like political disputes the world over — is of great significance.

Ultimately, the president does not have the power to transform U.S. foreign policy. Instead, American interests, the structure of the world and the limits of power determine foreign policy.

In the broadest sense, current U.S. foreign policy has been in place for about a century. During that period, the United States has sought to balance and rebalance the international system to contain potential threats in the Eastern Hemisphere, which has been torn by wars. The Western Hemisphere in general, and North America in particular, has not. No president could afford to risk allowing conflict to come to North America.

At one level, presidents do count: The strategy they pursue keeping the Western Hemisphere conflict-free matters. During World War I, the United States intervened after the Germans began to threaten Atlantic sea-lanes and just weeks after the fall of the czar. At this point in the war, the European system seemed about to become unbalanced, with the Germans coming to dominate it. In World War II, the United States followed a similar strategy, allowing the system in both Europe and Asia to become unbalanced before intervening. This was called isolationism, but that is a simplistic description of the strategy of relying on the balance of power to correct itself and only intervening as a last resort.

During the Cold War, the United States adopted the reverse strategy of actively maintaining the balance of power in the Eastern Hemisphere via a process of continual intervention. It should be remembered that American deaths in the Cold War were just under 100,000 (including Vietnam, Korea and lesser conflicts) versus about 116,000 U.S. deaths in World War I, showing that far from being cold, the Cold War was a violent struggle.

The decision to maintain active balancing was a response to a perceived policy failure in World War II. The argument was that prior intervention would have prevented the collapse of the European balance, perhaps blocked Japanese adventurism, and ultimately resulted in fewer deaths than the 400,000 the United States suffered in that conflict. A consensus emerged from World War II that an "internationalist" stance of active balancing was superior to allowing nature to take its course in the hope that the system would balance itself. The Cold War was fought on this strategy.

Between 1948 and the Vietnam War, the consensus held. During the Vietnam era, however, a viewpoint emerged in the Democratic Party that the strategy of active balancing actually destabilized the Eastern Hemisphere, causing unnecessary conflict and thereby alienating other countries. This viewpoint maintained that active balancing increased the likelihood of conflict, caused anti-American coalitions to form, and most important, overstated the risk of an unbalanced system and the consequences of imbalance. Vietnam was held up as an example of excessive balancing.

The counterargument was that while active balancing might generate some conflicts, World War I and World War II showed the consequences of allowing the balance of power to take its course. This viewpoint maintained that failing to engage in active and even violent balancing with the Soviet Union would increase the possibility of conflict on the worst terms possible for the United States. Thus, even in the case of Vietnam, active balancing prevented worse outcomes. The argument between those who want the international system to balance itself and the argument of those who want the United States to actively manage the balance has raged ever since George McGovern ran against Richard Nixon in 1972.

If we carefully examine Obama's statements during the 2008 campaign and his efforts once in office, we see that he has tried to move U.S. foreign policy away from active balancing in favor of allowing regional balances of power to maintain themselves. He did not move suddenly into this policy, as many of his supporters expected he would. Instead, he eased into it, simultaneously increasing U.S. efforts in Afghanistan while disengaging in other areas to the extent that the U.S. political system and global processes would allow.

Obama's efforts to transition away from active balancing of the system have been seen in Europe, where he has made little attempt to stabilize the economic situation, and in the Far East, where apart from limited military repositioning there have been few changes. Syria also highlights his movement toward the strategy of relying on regional balances. The survival of Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime would unbalance the region, creating a significant Iranian sphere of influence. Obama's strategy has been not to intervene beyond providing limited covert support to the opposition, but rather to allow the regional balance to deal with the problem. Obama has expected the Saudis and Turks to block the Iranians by undermining al Assad, not because the United States asks them to do so but because it is in their interest to do so.

Obama's perspective draws on that of the critics of the Cold War strategy of active balancing, who maintained that without a major Eurasian power threatening hemispheric hegemony, U.S. intervention is more likely to generate anti-American coalitions and precisely the kind of threat the United States feared when it decided to actively balance. In other words, Obama does not believe that the lessons learned from World War I and World War II apply to the current global system, and that as in Syria, the global power should leave managing the regional balance to local powers.

As I have argued from the outset, the American presidency is institutionally weak despite its enormous prestige. It is limited constitutionally, politically and ultimately by the actions of others. Had Japan not attacked the United States, it is unclear that Franklin Roosevelt would have had the freedom to do what he did. Had al Qaeda not attacked on 9/11, I suspect that George W. Bush's presidency would have been dramatically different.

The world shapes U.S. foreign policy. The more active the world, the fewer choices presidents have and the smaller those choices are. Obama has sought to create a space where the United States can disengage from active balancing. Doing so falls within his constitutional powers, and thus far has been politically possible, too. But whether the international system would allow him to continue along this path should he be re-elected is open to question. Jimmy Carter had a similar vision, but the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan wrecked it. George W. Bush saw his opposition to nation-building wrecked by 9/11 and had his presidency crushed under the weight of the main thing he wanted to avoid.

Presidents make history, but not on their own terms. They are constrained and harried on all sides by reality. In selecting a president, it is important to remember that candidates will say what they need to say to be elected, but even when they say what they mean, they will not necessarily be able to pursue their goals. The choice to do so simply isn't up to them. There are two fairly clear foreign policy outlooks in this election. The degree to which the winner matters, however, is unclear, though knowing the inclinations of presidential candidates regardless of their ability to pursue them has some value.

In the end, though, the U.S. presidency was designed to limit the president's ability to rule. He can at most guide, and frequently he cannot even do that. Putting the presidency in perspective allows us to keep our debates in perspective as well."

STRATFOR Geopolitical Weekly-July 31, 2012 By George Friedman

George Friedman is a geopolitical forecaster and strategist on international affairs. He is the founder and chairman of Geopolitical Futures, an online publication that analyzes and forecasts the course of global events. Prior to founding Geopolitical Futures, Friedman was chairman of Stratfor, the private intelligence publishing and consulting firm he founded in 1996.

What is the job of a president?

Why does humanity perpetuate war, suffering, and division, when it is so clearly pointless?

Standard

My answer to Why does humanity perpetuate war, suffering, and division, when it is so clearly pointless?

Answer by Ken Larson:

The average citizen feels much closer to his or her local community and the issues there than to the federal level where major decisions are made. The silent majority is more interested in the school board, roads, schools and state, city and county level politics.

Since Vietnam, the last undeclared “Conflict”that caused a major upheaval of the citizenry and the resignation of a President, we have been involved in a different type of warfare that not only younger people but their parents and most of our citizenry are not close to at all.

THOSE WHO HAVE FOUGHT ASK GOOD QUESTIONS

‘NEW YORK TIMES”

“There are 26 veterans from the United States’ two most recent wars serving in the House and Senate. Many say their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan taught them that the American military cannot fix what is fundamentally a cultural and political issue: the inability of governments to thwart extremism within their own borders. Ted Lieu of California, said he would not support giving Mr. Obama the formal authority he had requested because, like many veterans, he finds it difficult to see how the conflict will ever end.

“The American military is an amazing force. We are very good at defeating the enemy, taking over territory, blowing things up,” said Mr. Lieu, who served in the Air Force and remains in the Air Force Reserve as a lieutenant colonel. “But America has traditionally been very bad at answering the next question, which is what do you do after that.”

Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now serving in Congress have emerged as some of the most important voices in the debate over whether to give President Obama a broad authorization for a military campaign against the Islamic State or something much more limiting.” Veterans in Congress Bring Rare Perspective

NO SKIN IN THE GAME

“THE ATLANTIC”

“A people untouched (or seemingly untouched) by war are far less likely to care about it,” Andrew Bacevich wrote in 2012. Bacevich himself fought in Vietnam; his son was killed in Iraq. “Persuaded that they have no skin in the game, they will permit the state to do whatever it wishes to do.” The Tragedy of the American Military

BUYING OUR WAY OUT?

Foreign aid in the billions continues to the Middle East. US weapons export sales have reached a crescendo, increasing by 31% to 94 countries. with the Middle East receiving the line share. US Arms Exports Increase 31% A single Weapon, the 1.4 Trillion dollar F-35 will soon account for 12% of our total national debt. The 1.4 $Trillion F-35 Aircraft

QUOTE BY ERIC PRINCE, EX- CEO BLACKWATER:

“NATIONAL DEFENSE MAGAZINE”

“The world is a much more dangerous place, there is more radicalism, more countries that are melting down or approaching that state.” At the same time, the Pentagon is under growing pressure to cut spending and the cost of the all-volunteer force keeps rising, Prince said.

“The U.S. military has mastered the most expensive way to wage war, with a heavy expensive footprint.” Over the long run, the military might have to rely more on contractors, as it will become tougher to recruit service members. Prince cited recent statistics that 70 percent of the eligible population of prospective troops is unsuitable to serve in the military for various reasons such as obesity, lack of a high school education, drug use, criminal records or even excessive tattoos. In some cases, Prince said, it might make more sense to hire contractors.” What’s Eric Prince Been Up To?

Why does humanity perpetuate war, suffering, and division, when it is so clearly pointless?

What are the pros and cons of military service?

Standard

My answer to What are the pros and cons of military service?

Answer by Ken Larson:

I finished 2 years of college and could not decide on a major course of study. In short, I did not know what I wished to do professionally.

I joined the military to pursue some options in that regard and because I would be drafted if I left school to do the same thing by going to work in civilian life.

I had the good fortune to have assignments in military intelligence, base development planning and weapons systems that allowed me to find out what I was good at and how to apply it.

I used those skills later after I left the military, but paid a price for the experience in PTSD and related depression.

Odyssey of Armaments

I also had challenges assimilating back into civilian life and the work force.

Ken Larson's answer to What civilian careers are a good fit for veterans?

“WAR WEARY – DISINTERESTED AMERICA & ITS SOLDIERS”

Image: “OOcities”

“ROSECOVERED GLASSES”

“As the U.S. continues into a second decade of the war on terror, our citizens and our volunteer military are growing disinterested and weary respectively.

The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) continues to make grand strides in technology, spending billions on new air craft and naval vessels, cyber warfare tools and sensors, while we downsize the combat soldiers to stand in the job line or wait for admission to veterans’ hospitals.

CRITERIA FOR WINNING

“THE ATLANTIC”

“Although no one can agree on an exact figure, our dozen years of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and neighboring countries have cost at least $1.5 trillion.
 
 Yet from a strategic perspective, to say nothing of the human cost, most of these dollars might as well have been burned. “At this point, it is incontrovertibly evident that the U.S. military failed to achieve any of its strategic goals in Iraq,” a former military intelligence officer named Jim Gourley wrote recently for Thomas E. Ricks’s blog, Best Defense. “Evaluated according to the goals set forth by our military leadership, the war ended in utter defeat for our forces.”
 
 In 13 years of continuous combat under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the longest stretch of warfare in American history, U.S. forces have achieved one clear strategic success: the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Their many other tactical victories, from overthrowing Saddam Hussein to allying with Sunni tribal leaders to mounting a “surge” in Iraq, demonstrated great bravery and skill. But they brought no lasting stability to, nor advance of U.S. interests in, that part of the world.
 
 When ISIS troops overran much of Iraq last year, the forces that laid down their weapons and fled before them were members of the same Iraqi national army that U.S. advisers had so expensively yet ineffectively trained for more than five years.”
 
 The Tragedy of the American Military
 RISK ASSESSMENT
 
Our government has not considered the risks, the indigenous cultural impact, the expense and the sacrifices required to sustain the nation building that must occur after we invade countries in pursuit of perceived enemies and place the burden of governance on military personnel who are not equipped to deal with it or manage USAID contractors who have profit motives in mind and corruption as a regular practice.
 
“POGO”
 
 "Cost-plus contracts have long been criticized by government watchdogs like the Project On Government Oversight and waste-conscious lawmakers. Most recently, incoming Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) bluntly stated that these contracts are “disgraceful” and should be banned."
 
 Your Tax Dollars Defrauded
 
 THOSE WHO HAVE FOUGHT ASK GOOD QUESTIONS
 
‘NEW YORK TIMES”
 
 “There are 26 veterans from the United States’ two most recent wars serving in the House and Senate.
 
 Many say their experience in Iraq and Afghanistan taught them that the American military cannot fix what is fundamentally a cultural and political issue: the inability of governments to thwart extremism within their own borders.
 
 Ted Lieu of California, said he would not support giving Mr. Obama the formal authority he had requested because, like many veterans, he finds it difficult to see how the conflict will ever end.
 
 “The American military is an amazing force. We are very good at defeating the enemy, taking over territory, blowing things up,” said Mr. Lieu, who served in the Air Force and remains in the Air Force Reserve as a lieutenant colonel. “But America has traditionally been very bad at answering the next question, which is what do you do after that.”

Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now serving in Congress have emerged as some of the most important voices in the debate over whether to give President Obama a broad authorization for a military campaign against the Islamic State or something much more limiting.”

Veterans in Congress Bring Rare Perspective

NO SKIN IN THE GAME

"THE ATLANTIC"

“A people untouched (or seemingly untouched) by war are far less likely to care about it,” Andrew Bacevich wrote in 2012. Bacevich himself fought in Vietnam; his son was killed in Iraq. “Persuaded that they have no skin in the game, they will permit the state to do whatever it wishes to do.”
 The Tragedy of the American Military

BUYING OUR WAY OUT?

Foreign aid in the billions continues to the Middle East. U.S. weapons export sales have reached a crescendo, increasing by 31% to 94 countries. with the Middle East receiving the line share.

US Arms Exports Increase 31%

A single Weapon, the 1.4 Trillion dollar F-35 will soon account for 12% of our total national debt.

The 1.4 $Trillion F-35 Aircraft

QUOTE BY ERIC PRINCE, EX- CEO BLACKWATER:

“NATIONAL DEFENSE MAGAZINE”

"The world is a much more dangerous place, there is more radicalism, more countries that are melting down or approaching that state."

At the same time, the Pentagon is under growing pressure to cut spending and the cost of the all-volunteer force keeps rising, Prince said.

"The U.S. military has mastered the most expensive way to wage war, with a heavy expensive footprint." Over the long run, the military might have to rely more on contractors, as it will become tougher to recruit service members.

Prince cited recent statistics that 70 percent of the eligible population of prospective troops is unsuitable to serve in the military for various reasons such as obesity, lack of a high school education, drug use, criminal records or even excessive tattoos. In some cases, Prince said, it might make more sense to hire contractors.”

What's Eric Prince Been Up To?

QUESTIONS FOR THE READER:
 
 Did not the Roman Empire run into these issues when they outsourced their wars and went to the baths?”

Image: Photolibra

What makes us believe this worldwide war of attrition can continue indefinitely and that our younger generations are going to be willing to enlist and/or pay the bills?

Can we insist our government representatives consider these factors and plan ahead?

Future generations, their wealth, health and treasure will depend on our answers.

WAR WEARY – DISINTERESTED AMERICA & ITS SOLDIERS

What are the pros and cons of military service?

Why is Trump saying the US military needs to be rebuilt?

Standard

My answer to Why is Trump saying the US military needs to be rebuilt?

Answer by Ken Larson:

The corporate arm of Military Industrial Complex (MIC) in the U.S is very powerful. It pays more in lobbying costs than it pays in taxes. It makes monumental political contributions. The military arm of the MIC consists of military officers and civil servants that make a career out of war and promoting threat scenarios.

The Military Industrial Complex of the Unites States passes on operating cost in the billions and they lobby the government to undertake incursions in order to sell supplies and services for just that reason.

Playboy: Lockheed Martin's War Profiteering

March 2007: Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele on the disturbing record of one of the U.S. government's largest contractors

Every major aerospace company from IBM to Lockheed Martin and Boeing has totally stand alone divisions that serve as cost centers and pursue monumental interests in the politics of government and the billions in service contracts that are outsourced there. This has gone on for years.

These companies routinely spend more in lobbying expenses than they pay in income taxes each year.

Defense Contractors: Driving the Pentagon Budget Debate

The interests of these firms is now changing slightly with Sequestration and many are making acquisitions and marketing services in the Health Care sectors or escalating their interests in civil aviation, education and other fields.

I watched this from the inside of many of these companies for 36 years. Here is my dissertation on that subject. You can read it on line at: Odyssey of Armaments | Ken Larson – Academia.edu (a free read on line and free download in Adobe)

See below for contract awards in 2010 to large enterprises

Top 10 Contractors FY 2010
1. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION – $34,288,619,722
2. THE BOEING COMPANY 19,358,512,809
3. NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION 15,472,742,729
4. GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION 14,903,216,900
5. RAYTHEON COMPANY 14,880,453,061
6. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC. 7,629,644,919
7. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION 7,330,023,190
8. OSHKOSH CORPORATION 7,197,520,183
9. SAIC, INC. 6,595,330,339
10. BAE SYSTEMS PLC 6,587,705,335

Eisenhower warned about the above in his last address to the American people. His words have become eerily prophetic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?fe…

Video You Tube RobUniv

The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) consists of both the Pentagon and the contractors that serve it, their lobbying firms and the politicians who promote weapons systems, incursions and services to the government for profit and gain.

For further details and specific example of how the MIC has influenced our decision makers and contributed to the deaths of our finest youth, please see the following:

ABOUT THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

It is corrupt and driven by corporate influence:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politi…

http://www.vanityfair.com/politi…

It is broken and riddled with incompetence:
http://rosecoveredglasses.blogsp…

http://rosecoveredglasses.blogsp…

Why is Trump saying the US military needs to be rebuilt?

Are Americans workaholics?

Standard

My answer to Are Americans workaholics?

Answer by Ken Larson:

We are culturally wired to get things done and get them done now. We spend more hours at work as a result and not always productively.

As I traveled in other countries and negotiated with their cultures, they marveled at how I wished to fly into town, sit down and get it done and leave the same day or the next at the latest.

Most of the countries I visited in Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere wished to socially interact, show me some hospitality for a day or two and then talk business. They were uncomfortable in doing so without getting to know me personally and quite honestly thought I was nuts for not taking more time off and working a 60 hour week.

The answer to your question is simply a very unique American work ethic that I found over 36 years was not a very healthful one.

Are Americans workaholics?

The One Year Budget Cycle Must Go

Standard

         Photo Courtesy “Dabble With” dot com     

By  Ken Larson                               
Having  dealt with the funding process in the government contracting industry  (both large and small business) for over 40 years through many  administrations and much frustration, I can discuss with  some  credibility a major weakness in the huge machine we call the US  Federal  Government — the one year budget cycle. Its tail end is whipping everybody this month and we have undergone previous sanctimonious “Shutdowns”, with the promise of more to come.

A huge reason for much of the largess in this entire area is the one year budget cycle in which the US Government is entrenched.

About mid-summer every agency begins to get paranoid about whether or not they have spent all their money, worried about having to return some and be cut back the next year. They flood the market with sources sought notifications and open solicitations to get the money committed. Many of these projects are meaningless.

Then during the last fiscal month (September) proposals are stacked up all over the place and everything is bottle-necked. If you are a small business trying to get the paperwork processed and be under contract before the new fiscal year starts you are facing a major challenge.

Surely the one year cycle has become a ludicrous exercise we can no longer afford and our government is choking on it. It is a political monstrosity that occurs too frequently to be managed.

Government must lay out a formal baseline over multiple years (I suggest at least 2 fiscal years – ideally 4 – tied to a presidential election)  – then fund in accordance with it and hold some principals in the agencies funded accountable by controlling their spending incrementally – not once year in a panic mode.

Naturally exigencies can occur. A management reserve can be set aside if events mandate scope changes in the baseline due to unforeseen circumstances. Congress could approve such baseline changes as they arise.

There is a management technique for the above that DOD, NASA and the major agencies require by regulation in large government contracts.    It is called “Earned Value Management” and it came about as a result of some of the biggest White Elephant overruns in Defense Department History.

http://www.smalltofeds.com/2008/…

I contend we have one of the biggest White Elephants ever in front of us (a National Debt approaching $20 Trillion)

We need to get this mess under control, manage our finances and our debt or it will manage us into default.

 

Why should I pursue the duty to reduce suffering in the world?

Standard

My answer to Why should I pursue the duty to reduce suffering in the world?

Answer by Ken Larson:

We are inherently designed as human beings to feel good about helping others. It is built into our hereditary design.

Reducing suffering also builds on the platform that all humans share with respect to innate optimism.

Ken Larson's answer to Is it beneficial to have high expectations about one's own future?

Why should I pursue the duty to reduce suffering in the world?

What is the best way to build a great team without feeling threatened by your superior team members?

Standard

My answer to What is the best way to build a great team without feeling threatened by your superior team members?

Answer by Ken Larson:

From the profile in your question, I believe you should consider becoming a manager on your project and not necessarily a leader.

The terms leader and manager cannot be used interchangeably.

One is a science. The other is an art.

Leadership is a science and can be taught. I have known great military, scientific and technical leaders in their narrow bands of expertise who were lousy managers, did not aspire to be managers and generally were not managers. They could lead others, but lacked the vision to manage resources, time, communication and the big picture.

Excellent management is driven by innate personal qualities, which, when combined with leadership, create the management art. Below are two principal management attributes I have observed that make great managers different from great leaders:

1. They know how much leadership to offer and how much to let the individual grow on his or her own. They strike the right balance between specific and generic guidance so the unique individual traits of the workers come through in the business model and solutions to problems, system design and success of the firm are derived from the people running the enterprise and not from the leader.

2. They manage constructively by fostering an environment respectful of all points of view but manage by driving to fulfilling progressive objectives as a first priority and blend differences of opinion decisively.

What is the best way to build a great team without feeling threatened by your superior team members?

Why can’t a powerful country like the US defeat ISIS?

Standard

My answer to Why can’t a powerful country like the US defeat ISIS?

Answer by Ken Larson:

We are chasing a symptom of the problem and not the problem itself.

From the Gulf War to the invasion of Iraq, from Arab Spring through Syria, it is apparent the region will be in chaos with power vacuums and power assumptions for years, driven by religious radicalism and a tribal mentality.

The U.S and Western powers as well as Russia must recognize the above facts and leave the Middle East. Their very presence has been driven by their Military Industrial Complexes with money or geopolitical proxy as drivers – not democratic ideals or even communist ideals.

The Arab/Israeli issue must be resolved with international negotiation. All wars eventually result in negotiated settlements. Avoiding them by negotiation in the first place is the most effective war weapon and by far the least costly in materials, debt and lives.

We have not realized that military victory is defeated.

It will take many more deaths to bring that reality home.

The great powers must decide how many more deaths they wish to cause or donate.

Military Victory is Dead

Why can’t a powerful country like the US defeat ISIS?