I found this fascinating in thinking about leadership in TSCC, and who gets 'promoted' and who doesn't.

"The paradoxical implication is that the same psychological characteristics that enable male managers to rise to the top of the corporate or political ladder are actually responsible for their downfall. In other words, what it takes to get the job is not just different from, but also the reverse of, what it takes to do the job well."

"In line, Freud argued that the psychological process of leadership occurs because a group of people — the followers — have replaced their own narcissistic tendencies with those of the leader, such that their love for the leader is a disguised form of self-love, or a substitute for their inability to love themselves. 'Another person's narcissism' he said, 'has a great attraction for those who have renounced part of their own... as if we envied them for maintaining a blissful state of mind."

Maybe these men will be TSCC's downfall?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-22/why-do-so-many-incompetent-men-become-leaders-.html

I have always loved "The Peter Principle". In the church especially the name is so appropriate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2013 04:22PM by releve.

The Peter Principle is exactly what I thought of too.

dogeatdog Wrote:
> the followers — have replaced their
> own narcissistic tendencies with those of the
> leader, such that their love for the leader is a
> disguised form of self-love, or a substitute for
> their inability to love themselves.

That makes sense to me!

Hi All I really enjoy reading everyones input!

So my take on the "Leaders" is easy. One thing that I have seen throughout my life is nepotism. I personally know of two guys from when I was growing up in TSCC that were both exed cause they had sex with there girlfriends after their mission. Both of their parents were either Bishop or Stake presidency. Now they themsleves, shock of shocks, are respectively Bishop and Stake President. Also I agree the "Leaders" are either tow the line corporate type, lacking compassion of any level, or arch conservative survivalist type who still believe in a second coming, food storage etc.

Why do incompetent men get called as leaders? Because the men calling them are incompetent.

Edit to add:
Ok now I went back to re read and I think I better understand the OP's point.
I think the ability to lead requires a different skill set than the ability to do or accomplish a specific task. I've been close to several fine leaders (and not so fine) of Fortune 500s here and abroad and leaders are promoted often because of the way they influence others. They are as strong as the team they hire and direct.

Just my $.02



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/29/2013 06:44PM by scully.

I think it is a hit and miss selection process. No power of discernment, no Holy Ghost powers equates to poor TCSS leadership.

First of all, LDS, Inc. eliminates 50% of its population from leadership because they do not have penises.

Then you take out all the men who have thought through this, have self-respect, and do not need to define themselves by climbing the greasy pole. What you have left are smarmy, anti-intellectual men who are fine with sexism, racism and homophobia.

If the church was run by women you would have a church that looked more like a caring organization. Wait, not the women that talk in GC. They suck. (Ad Hominem comment I know)

I used to hear that rhetoric, but look at female politicians. Many of them are far worse than their male counterparts. Bachmann and Palin are really nasty people.

I think women should have equal rights, but I don't think the church or any other organization would be kinder or gentler with them in charge. They are just as bad as men.

All my life i've seen very competent people be passed over for complete idiots. It always amazes me.

It would seem to me that you would choose the most competent people to run your company. Nope.

I would love to ask Bill gates what in the hell he was thinking letting that ding dong run microsoft. They finally canned him. About 10 years to late.

IMO my husband was by far the most competent male in our ward.

He dodged those high callings like the toxic waste they were. His take on it was he wasn't about to be that miserable and pay them for the privilege.

of those that take lds leadership positions.

Promoted for Loyalty and bootlicking. Not for skill sets.

Competent men know how to dodge callings

" In other words, what it takes to get the job is not just different from, but also the reverse of, what it takes to do the job well."

reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AYUB3tQs80

The church tells members their bishop is called by god and is there to solve their problems. Yet, the church gives them no training and no budget to actually help people. Who would what such a job? Someone with a big enough ego to believe they can do such a job. And look at the example the church leadership gives -- blame the members when things don't work out. Pay, pray and obey, didn't work out, well it's your fault. You must not have enough faith or you have some secret sin in your life. The church has all the answers, if they don't work for you, well that's your fault.

Because so many sheeple will listen and follow them. The incompetent leaders must be believable if they are to coerce the masses to give them money. Plus they must be so gullible to drink the kool-aid as to not allow themselves to find out about the lies.

In my experience of several decades, some are very competent, some are not. Some are a little unstable and odd, and some are not.

It depends on the person, their background experience (work, career,education etc.) and their people skills.

Some get away with horrific nonsense, and some wouldn't consider doing what some have done.

What I don't know, is how many turn down "callings" in leadership (and any other "calling.") . I have concluded it is probably a large number which is why many jokingly refer to "callings" by Desperation not Inspiration!

Leadership anywhere most often comes about because of previously in place leadership. In other words they pick people like themselves. Members have zero input into leadership selection. The stake pesident picks the bishops, etc. The people in leadership positions have some common characteristics, other than the obvious and silly ones like having a "penis". They often have the "look" of leadership, they're taller than average, their voices sound commanding or appealing, family ties to other leaders are important, and of course they usually have higher than average wealth and business success.

Also , to the post about two people who were ex'd and later became a bishop or SP, there is something incorrect about that story. EITHER they only got "probation" (very likely for a young person) or "informal probation" (equally likely). An ex'd member can not hold the office of bishop or higher. Not in the church of the last 30 years.

True. I'm glad you mentioned that.

There's a theory floating around, that you only promote people you can afford to lose from the front line.

That is The Inverse Peter Principle: people who are actually very good at creating the company's product tend to stay at the bottom, though they may get a pretty good salary. They do stuff of critical and obvious imortance that has to work.

People who are competent enough to not get fired, but not all that good, tend to get promoted to middle management positions where their incompetence is not as easily identifiable.

This is particularly common in the software industry.

I think we also have a negative observation bias. The idiots stand out and the competent are quickly forgotten. Since no one really stands out as great (what would define such a person? Maybe they babtized 100 converts during their tenure or the entire ward was translated a la the city of Enoch - sorry, not going to happen), only the utter failures and the pervs stand out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2013 09:02AM by ramonglyde.

At first glance thought the subject was "Impotent men"

dogeatdog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In line, Freud argued that the psychological
> process of leadership occurs because a group of
> people — the followers — have replaced their
> own narcissistic tendencies with those of the
> leader, such that their love for the leader is a
> disguised form of self-love, or a substitute for
> their inability to love themselves. 'Another
> person's narcissism' he said, 'has a great
> attraction for those who have renounced part of
> their own... as if we envied them for maintaining
> a blissful state of mind."

And WHY is Christianity (and that MORmON PRofit) so popular ?

people love to talk about Jesus and all His superlatives, however supposed and/ or mythological, because it's so much more powerful than talking about themselves, which is what they are really doing anyway.

>Maybe these men will be TSCC's downfall?

Joseph Smith destroyed MORmONISM as per his own insanely bloated stated *prophetic* expectations for it, even as he started it, with his BULL SHI-T antics -primarily his ADULTERY (mislabeled as polygamy) which is a blight that MORmONISM ,properly, has yet to be rid of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyXyxfAodtQ


GREAT POST !!!, (so UNLIKE some others (just a few) right now, that sound exactly like post priestDUD meeting chatter between MORmON members, ....no wonder they dislike the use of the term MORmON, even here, so much)

Our new stake president picked his best buddy for a counselor, and then his best buddy's best buddy for the other counselor. All rich, all white.

... and delightsome?