I thought I’d take a moment to share something I’ve learned from backpacking.
In groups you have some leaders who have reasons for decisions and others that have excuses.
Reasons are when there is a discussion before hand and you work out alternatives and rationales in advance, before the decision is made.
Excuses are when someone makes a unilateral decision and then justifies it after the fact.
Which leads to the question:
Which type of leadership do you see more often?
Which do you prefer and which makes you feel more loyal?
Thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
Not really sure whether there is a dichotomy. Leaders make reactive decisions, and they make informed decisions, all the time. Not every decisi
I’m afraid that I see leadership excuses the most. It takes too long and requires faith to decide with reason. I’ve also learned that the more power someone has, the more likely they’ll make excuses instead of putting reasons in for their decisions. It’s also much easier with groupthink to forge decisions and then make excuses later than to take diverse opinions and craft a reason for a decision. Finally, I find it interesting that those who make excuses seem to present them with an “us against the world” or “we’re protecting the world from evil” as justifications. It’s just so hard for them to see that others may look at the world differently than them. There are examples of what I’m suggesting in politics, religion, business, and sadly maybe even in our own families. The bottom line is it’s easy to make excuses after a decision instead of having reasons before a decision. It’s also much easier to complain than it is to fix a problem.
IMO one of the worst reactive decisions recently was
When the “reasons vs excuses” conversation comes up regarding motivation, some observations about the individual are accessible.
People who use “reasons” language are interested in sharing power, responsibility, respect, and all that. They are willing to engage in a perspective that assumes “intelligent rationale” and all that.
People who use “excuses” language are interested in gathering or maintaining power (at least in their eyes). They are willing to engage in a perspective that assumes “their perspective is superior” and more rational/more intelligent then the individual offering “excuses”. They may be impatient and/or making a deliberate play to anger the lesser individual into being their best selves.
The church organization is no different. They use “excuses” language to attempt to maintain moral power/authority in a situation. The top-down structure depends on them being on top, being more “authoritative”.
Church leaders at the local levels may be different. I wouldn’t bet the farm on that difference, as eventually it comes back to the hierarchy.
I disagree with the simplistic dichotomy of reasons vs excuses as presented because of a fairly straightforward counterexample:
About 2 years ago, I was driving along the Interstate in a rural area when I watched a car coming in the opposite direction drive into the median and roll over. I immediately stopped, got out of my car and went to help the elderly couple who were in the vehicle. As I did so, my years of training (going back to Scouts as a youth, and including more recent First Aid and other emergency training I’ve taken through work and volunteer activities) took over, and I basically took charge of the scene (instructing someone to call 911, grabbing my first aid kit, evaluating the couple for potential injuries, etc) until first responders arrived to take over.
I made unilateral decisions without discussing them with anyone because that’s what my training said to do, and I could explain the reason behind every single one of those decisions and why it was correct. The fact that I made them unilaterally doesn’t mean that my after-the-fact explanations are excuses. It was simply a situation that warranted unilateral action because it was an emergency and needed immediate action directed by training. (Sadly, the person I directed to call 911 came up to me with his cell phone and asked me how to do it.)
Fortunately, in that case, no one was seriously injured. (Seriously, that Subaru rolled twice at highway speeds and two elderly people in their 60s or 70s walked away without obvious injuries beyond shock-related symptoms. I’ll definitely consider Subaru for my next car.) But until the situation was fully assessed, it had to be treated as an emergency.
The dichotomy is simplistic because it assumes that there is always the opportunity to work out alternatives and rationales in advance. That isn’t always the case. In an emergency situation, you sometimes have to trust a leader to make decisions because they are the one in charge, because the group chose them, or (in my case) because they are the person who had the training to take charge of a group of strangers in the moment. When that emergency happens, the leader should be able to explain their decisions without being accused of making excuses.
This really matters to me. If a leader involves me and says, here’s the problem, what should we do, listens to my thoughts, and there’s a discussion of alternatives and consequences, even if they make a unilateral decision after that I will be more supportive than if they just broadside me with it and then tell me I have to support it without hearing anything I know about it.
Church leaders are levels and levels down from this in that men make the decisions, and if they choose may consult women. That was when I started questioning my role in the church, when my kids were leaving the church, I knew why, and there was no one that wanted to know what I had learned about this. No one even asked or cared about their experience and what I had learned from it.
If you don’t talk to other people and listen to what they have learned you are doomed to repeat problems over and over with no respite. The church doesn’t care why my kids left. No one asks and no one learns. That’s not good leadership.
Amen observer. I made the same point but my response was truncated.Sent from my iPhone
Mormon leaders rely on heavy handed top-down leadership and decision-making styles. The reasons are painfully obvious: 1.) It reinforces the patriarchal order and absolute power of the Q15; 2.) Leaders can always refer to the prophet having direct communications with and speaking for God; and 3.) The hierarchical style validates their infallibility claims and theoretically stops any questioning or speaking ill of the Lord’s anointed.
Contrast that with most styles of corporate leadership where input is sought from various operating levels and decisions are typically consensus based – with attempts to serve the needs of customers, stockholders, and employees.
The LDS model is antiquated and insults the intelligence of members (especially women). The POX and subsequent remediation attempts represented a classic failure of leadership and decision making. But RMN quickly claimed it all came from God and case closed. There are more examples – including polygamy, disciplinary actions, etc. Dissenters are quickly referred to the SCMC which delights in punishing and ostracizing offenders.
Does anyone else get frustrated with the inability of Mormons to participate in the decision-making process? Even at the local levels, it is the patriarchy that wields the power. It is absurd that a Relief Society President must get priesthood approval to staff and operate her organization. Yet members sit back and just let it happen. Talk about lazy learners.
Imagine how successful any other organization or business would be if they routinely quashed contrasting opinions and relied on a mysterious grand wizard to make decisions. Of course, the LDS Church and Republican Party under DJT claim this model works wonders.
As an academic by training, I respect decision-making and leadership that is based more on well-stated reasons in advance. However, now being a self-employed business owner I realize that while it is ideal to have advance reasoning behind action, which everyone agrees with and approves, things don’t always go that way. And if things go bad for a while, maybe just a day, maybe a week, maybe a month, sometimes people continue to support you while others complain quite loudly. I’ve been put in positions where I simply cannot placate the complainers and I have had to use excuses to deflect criticism and maintain the course. I’ve been put in positions where I’ve had to make gut reactions that other people don’t like. I have had to be selective with what information I disclose to people who are complaining. I have had to choose to be slow to answer complainers or even ignore them altogether. For most people, I feel, I’ve delivered on most of what was promised. For a few others, however, I have not been able to satisfy what I think sometimes are unreasonable and excessive demands. The narrative of being a victim of circumstance has come in handy on several occasions.
Brad D,
“Complainers” A word to define people that speak up with concerns. Once a person is defined as such everything they say will be disregarded.
lws329, that’s not a fair response. It largely depends on the manner in which people “speak up with concerns” and their willingness to work with others. Yes, some people are labeled as “complainers” to dismiss them, but there are others who legitimately earn that label for themselves. It’s unfair to paint either side with a broad brush.
There are some people who “speak up with concerns” but also refuse to listen or accept that their concerns aren’t the only ones involved in a situation.
For example, I’m on the board of my neighborhood’s HOA. We’ve had some issues with property crimes (groups of people will enter our neighborhood on foot, look for cars left unlocked or items left on porches, and leave the neighborhood before police can possibly respond). Several people concerned about the crime have repeatedly suggested that we convert our neighborhood into a gated community (which we can’t do – either legally or physically), or that we hire private security (which would more than double HOA fees). When, in the course of discussions multiple people have pointed out that their proposed solutions aren’t feasible, their response has been to get louder and to claim that no one is listening to them.
Nevermind that we’ve worked with the city to increase police patrols, and we’ve taken what measures we can as an HOA. It’s still not enough for those individuals, and they loudly blame us as an HOA for “not listening to them”. They might have concerns, but they are also “complainers” because they have unrealistic and unreasonable expectations, and aren’t willing to work with the rest of the community.
It’s sort of like the old definition of a fanatic: someone who can’t change their mind and won’t change the subject. The difference between a complainer and someone who simply “speak[s] up with concerns” is that the complainer becomes a fanatic about those concerns.
lws329, for reference, I work in property investment. I differentiate between legitimate concerns that I can try to resolve (sometimes with success, and sometimes coming up short), and a select group of people who complain over the slightest thing and will never accept any sort of risk or loss whatsoever. People who will make it their mission to blame you and take you to court if anything goes wrong. People who refuse to understand no matter how much you explain things to them. One lady I was working with gave me a panicked call during COVID about why she was receiving missed payments on a mortgage investment she made. I explained that there were moratoriums and struggles for people to pay rent because, well, it was COVID and there was little recourse at the moment. We simply had to wait. Her response, “well, my other investments are making their payments, we need to take this to court.” My counter response, “court is expensive, and you do realize the dire circumstances we are in. We simply have to give it time.” No matter what I said, she would not relent and not accept the basic reality around us. She was impossible to calm down, impossible to work with. Suffice it say that after that call, I refused to take her calls, and responded only delayed manner by email. She eventually made a return on her investment. But I have not worked with her since.
Brad and Observer,
A great deal of what you are referring to is perspective. Honestly, you confirmed what I said with your responses. Often people in charge perceive, judge and categorize those who complain as someone who shouldn’t/can’t be listened to.
I hear you that your situation as a leader in the incidents shared was uncomfortable and difficult or impossible to resolve. I think the people seeking your help were clearly distressed as well.
I guess you being the one in charge, your distress is what is applicable here. Based on your point of view you have to make the decision.To be fair, it’s all you have to go by.
But it remains true that those of us who complain become categorized as complainers, and silenced as you explained you had to do.
Your discussion of these topics moves us right back to hierarchical structure. People at the top make decisions. People at the bottom are strongly and culturally enforced to accommodate the comfort of people at the top by being silent.
This is the reality of the structure. When I say this, it isn’t about you personally any more than what you were saying is about me personally. It’s the reality of a hierarchical structure. I don’t have any solutions but just like you have a valid perspective, I too have a valid perspective.
The difference between the people at the top of the hierarchy and the bottom is the concerns of people at the top are heard, and the people at the bottom are silenced, wrong or right. You see that as fair because of your experience of managing the decision making and silencing power is difficult and uncomfortable.
I am saying that my experiences at the bottom are difficult and uncomfortable as well, however I lack the power to change anything about the dynamic. Obviously you don’t have power to make everything wonderful either, but you do have some power the complainers do not.
lws327, the lady I was dealing with had over a million dollars. She was hardly at the bottom. In fact, the biggest complainers I have had to deal with are at the top.
lsw329,
I’m not talking about a a hierarchal structure. Using my HOA example, one of the biggest subjects that the “complainers” keep bringing up is insisting that we make our neighborhood a gated community. That’s not something that we can legally do for several reasons, not least of which because the streets are owned by the city and not by the HOA. We simply don’t have the legal right to block them off with a gate. Multiple people, not just the members of the HOA board, have pointed this out to the “complainers” and the “complainers” will not let it go. They keep insisting that becoming a gated community is the only solution to the crime problems that our neighborhood is facing.
Yes, as a member of the HOA board this does become a problem for me, because they then become disruptive in our meetings and block discussion of other solutions and other topics. But that doesn’t mean that their perspective is more legitimate than the rest of the community’s, nor does it mean that they are being ignored, even if they feel that they are. We have listened to their ideas and addressed them, but not in the way that they want us to. They simply aren’t satisfied because they cannot get the answer that they want (we can’t legally give it to them).
They have a legitimate concern (the crime invading our neighborhood), but they have chosen to hyperfocus in their response to it, and refuse to listen to other opinions or perspectives on the subject. They are a complainer because they refuse to work with the community, and instead insist that the community has to do it their way.
That doesn’t mean that everyone who expresses a concern is a complainer. Just today, someone else in our neighborhood reached out because a HOA-owned fence is damaged and neighborhood children are using the hole to sneak through and play in a run down barn. As a board, we agreed via email that it needs to be fixed immediately and directed the management company to get bids to repair it ASAP and select the one that could do the work the fastest. In the meanwhile, I am going after work to put up tarps to cover the hole until a more permanent repair can be done.
Again, a “complainer” is more of someone who has become a fanatic in expressing their concerns. They won’t listen to others, even when they express valid points (such as it being illegal to gate off city streets), and won’t stop pushing the issue once the rest of the group has reached consensus. Having a concern isn’t a license to hold a group hostage until they do things your way.
The church was so worried about kids getting conflicting messages from their church and their gay parents (but only if their gay parents are married), that they decided to not allow them to be baptized. Then the church was so sad about the heartbreak and cognitive dissonance their policy caused that they reversed the policy. It’s a double excuse, one for making the policy and another for getting rid of it, and both excuses completely fit the definition offered here.
Most folks who lead in the church don’t seek the position to which they are called. For me, that narrows the apparent dichotomy between the reasons and excuses–for the simple reason that they have less motive to protect any personal investment in their position.
DeNovo comments above: “Even at the local levels, it is the patriarchy that wields the power. It is absurd that a Relief Society President must get priesthood approval to staff and operate her organization.” Well, EQ and SS are led by men, and they also have to get bishopric (priesthood) approval to staff and operate their organizations. It isn’t priesthood approval that is required, it is bishopric approval, and in a ward only three people are in a bishopric, but lots of other people hold the priesthood. Is it the patriarchy that wields power, or the leadership? The bishopric and stake presidency are admittedly all male, but most males are not in the leadership. And all ward staffing decisions are made by the bishopric per the handbook, so the bishopric’s hands are tied. I think maybe we condemn the patriarchy a little too broadly, especially at the local level. It isn’t patriarchy that is the problem–it is our organizational rules, which might be based on patriarchy, but which not patriarchy per se. The rules in staffing ward RS, YW, and Prim are no different than for EQ and SS. Is it patriarchy-at-large that exercises unrighteous dominion over all ward organizations, or do local leaders do the best they can to implement the organization’s rules in the handbook, rules from which they may not deviate?
I think the formulation that reasons come from discussions beforehand and excuses come are for unilateral decisions is a little too simplistic. As others have described, a valid reason may be taken in a complete vacuum. And pre-discussion is the basis for a lot of excuses. Imagine that your organizational policy requires that you coordinate with all stakeholders ahead of time and to work for consensus. The leader does what the consensus decided, and the project fails. Organizationally, the big boss tries to hold the leader accountable, but the leader says that he simply implemented the team’s consensus approach. A leader who defers to the committee isn’t leading, but is only managing, and sometimes we need leaders more than we need managers.
Observer:
You bring up a good point when it comes to emergencies. Sometimes you just have to act. But what constitutes and emergency? In your case, it’s pretty apparent you were right there in the middle of one and needed to act immediately, but what about in today’s election?
Excuses and blame are very closely related. It’s easy to make an excuse after the fact or to blame when you are not in power or have any control over an action taken. Reasons have a lot to do with planning and hoping the plans will work or knowing that if they don’t, you can change your plans. With today’s politics before Biden left the arena, it was kind of that same old stuff and it was hard to see the reason for anything, just the blame but with Harris on the scene now there seems to be a clearer distinction between blame/excuses and reasons/hope. The campaign makes it about one person and not about us.
A second thing I see is one side seems to revolve around one person making all the decisions and framing it as an emergency to justify whatever it is being proposed. The other side though seems to spend more time talking about reasons and hope for doing what they believe. They also don’t make it about them but about us.
I hesitate to bring politics into this but the topic seems to apply to it so directly but also it applies to religion and business. I think it’s interesting that in Religion we really can’t talk about things so we are left to explain things with either excuses or reasons after the fact and not before an action unless we happen to be in a very special position. Business on the other hand has books written all the time about how the best businesses are more open rather than closed encouraging multiple opinions, input, and flexibility.
We may like to support that lone strong leader in our culture making all the hard and “right” decisions but in reality, there have been very few leaders like that who have successfully navigated and defended freedom in times when there is not a crisis.
Observer and Brad D.
So my comments weren’t ever about either of you. Honestly they were about people without decision making power, trying to change things within church hierarchical structure, which seems on topic to me for a Wheat and Tares comment. The fact that both of you reacted like I was talking about your individual situation is interesting. I don’t know what that means, but it might mean something valuable to you.
Brad D, regardless of how much money this woman had, she didn’t get to make the decision, did she? You did right? Additionally it’s a good observation that the more money and cultural credibility we each have the less likely we are to self silence when something matters to us. Those are the people that have the power to speak up, even if they don’t have any decision making power. There are lots of other upset people that just don’t have the energy, time and communication skills to even try to be heard and get their needs met in any forum.
Observer,
So you don’t have hierarchical decision making power, that the “complainers” don’t have? Just thinking about hierarchy and decision making power and trying to understand…
Everyone,
For me this is a thematic topic you can see in referring to women who complain as “Karens”. I always wonder to myself if it was a man who spoke up, would others be receptive to hear his concerns, and would they be more receptive to considering his ideas, than if a woman offered them? As a mother of children with disabilities I have often had to be persistent and demanding in order to get people in authority to consider meeting the unique needs of my children within their institutions. Yes, it does make decision makers uncomfortable. But I have no hope of trying to meet my children’s needs without speaking up and risking making decision makers uncomfortable. Call me a Karen all you want, I am going to keep trying…
In family counseling our psychologist, who was a former stake president, explained that the bishop couldn’t be expected to listen to my comments. He suggested that my husband should be the one to speak up. My husband completely agreed with me but in our pairing I am the bold extrovert, and my husband is the introvert, and speaking up is super hard for him and he just can’t do it. I believe the psychologist. It matters whether it is a man or woman who is the person speaking up in our church culture, as to whether the person is listened to or disregarded.
Observer:
I also get what you say about complainers and your HOA. I’m a member of a city council in a small town and have experienced the same kind of situation. People want their pound of flesh and aren’t satisfied until they get it. People like that are hard to classify on a reason vs excuse scale.
Local church leaders can’t lead. We have become a church of managers. Local leaders (as in any hierarchal org) can’t make individualized decisions, they have to follow the dictates and policies set in place by their superiors. When it gets murky, they may send queries up the ladder, but only rarely advocating for members, as it is considered next to treason to do so. Local leaders are told what to do and rarely informed why. They don’t seek inspiration for their callings because God and the Area Presidencies do not frequently agree.
Yes, I know I am an old grumpy dude, but I’ve seen too much…
lws329:
In your family counseling your psychologist, a former stake president, said you should have your husband speak up for you to be heard. Whow!!! I’d suggest a new psychologist, that is total disrespect to you as a woman.
lws329, there is no organization where everyone has equal decision-making power. That would be complete chaos. In the instance with the lady I mentioned, because I made the wise decision to deter her from suing the person who owed her money, the debtor didn’t have to pay legal fees in his defense, was able to get back on track and ended up paying off his loan. Had we acted rashly (and during COVID, mind you) it would have very possibly resulted in more loss than gain. I find it a bit aggravating that you refuse to accept that there are people out there whose complaints are panicky, over-the-top, and plain ridiculous and that each and every business has to guard itself often quite excessively from these types of people.
In another story, my wife’s friend sued us because she hurt her neck while my wife was driving a car with her in it and had an accident. The accident was not my wife’s fault. It was an icy, cold night, my wife skidded on a bridge and came to a stop without hitting anything. Then came other cars hitting into her car. Luckily no major injuries. My wife’s friend, however, was relentless in suing. Almost four years after the incident. She sued our insurance, and then us for $100,000. Our insurance paid her some. And the suit was dropped against us. She refused to accept that simply bad things happen sometimes and that it is nobody’s fault per se. Just bad happenstance. Someone had to be held accountable. She is no longer our friend.
Come on, Observer, people in their 60s and 70s aren’t elderly.
pufftaylor gets the post of the day!
lws329, you keep missing the point that I am making. As I said before, my experience with my HOA is an example of when someone is legitimately a complainer.
It’s not about hierarchal power. In my HOA example, the “complainers” weren’t just affecting me as a member of the board. They were also impacting the other members of the HOA, those who were their equals in the organization. Even after their voices had been heard, the “complainers” kept demanding that we discuss and adopt their “solution”, even though not only the board, but numerous other members of the HOA (their peers) had already addressed it and why it would not work.
When the “complainers” refuse to let go of the idea of making our neighborhood a gated community, and keep trying to force more discussion on it, they aren’t acting from a position of powerlessness. Instead, they are trying to steal power and control from their peers and bully them into agreeing with them. As a member of the board (who was elected by the community to represent them and their interests), I have a responsibility to protect everyone’s interests, and not just respond to those who make the most noise.
You can find people like that in almost any organization. In one ward that I lived in, there was someone who would constantly complain that the Bishopric wasn’t doing enough for emergency preparedness (they were an ultra prepper, and thought a year’s supply was for amateurs). They would constantly complain if the Bishopric did a lesson on any other topic, even if they did do an occasional lesson on preparedness (such as before hurricane season). I would categorize them a “complainer” just as much as I would categorize the gated community fanatics. I’ve seen similar attitudes for family history or temple work as well. Almost any time that someone develops a “hobby horse” that they beat to the exclusion of everything else in the Gospel, and they refuse to listen to anyone else’s perspectives, they transition to being a “complainer”. They might have valid concerns, but they are also not willing to listen to others’ valid concerns or responses.
They are the fanatics who can’t change their minds and won’t change the subject.
Also, pufftaylor, I misspoke. My parents are in their 70s. They are not elderly. They are positively ancient. I hear my father even knows what Brontosaurus tastes like. 😉
Hey there, Observer, I am not missing your point. You are talking about stuff that was never in my original post or topic. You are talking about something that has nothing to do with what I am talking about. I am sorry you having such a a hard time.
Brad D,
I think you are talking about something entirely different than I am. What you are writing about has little or nothing to do with my comments that are about church hierarchy. And you might reread my comments. I don’t have any solutions for any organization in regards to hierarchy. We can’t argue all day in any organization. Decisions have to be made. I just know that my voice is not heard. I have come to understand it’s counter productive mostly to even try any more. So it reduces my commitment to the organization.
Instereo,
I didn’t feel disrespected by the psychologists comments. He wasn’t stating anything about me. He was stating the facts about the church. He said priesthood holders tend to take other priesthood holders more seriously then they do women. So he was suggesting that was how we could get our bishop to listen to our concerns. He wasn’t understanding that this won’t work for my husband who struggles with social anxiety.
It’s the church that disrespects me as a woman, not the psychologist. The psychologist was just trying to help my family function better in the cultural set up of my ward. It’s the cultural set up of my ward and the church that builds on that culture, that disrespects women.
lws329, that’s quite revisionist. The “complainers” discussion started when you responded to Brad saying:
“Complainers” A word to define people that speak up with concerns. Once a person is defined as such everything they say will be disregarded.
I responded to you disagreeing with that, pointing out that you were painting with too broad of a brush, and that your response was not fair. Not every time someone is labeled a complainer is an attempt to have everything they say disregarded. There legitimately are some people who are fanatics and will complain until they get their way.
Pointing that out is not saying that you are one of those people, nor is that defining everyone who speaks up with concerns as a complainer. In fact, I have been careful in my responses to you not to label everyone who speaks up in such a manner, and have given examples on both sides, those who have legitimate complaints and those who are just complainers.
Speaking up from “the bottom” doesn’t give you* a special privilege to control or direct the discussion to the exclusion of everyone else. Just because you feel unheard doesn’t mean that you get to talk over others, or shout them down. If you insist that others listen to you, but also refuse to listen to others, then you have rightfully earned the label of a complainer.
Even going back to the original blog post, “Reasons are when there is a discussion before hand”. A discussion requires both sides to interact. If either side refuses to listen, then the discussion cannot happen. If the person speaking from “the bottom” refuses to listen when others respond to them, that doesn’t mean that they haven’t been heard. It only means that they are choosing not to fully participate in the discussion.
*Speaking in the generic you and not directed at any specific individual.
Observer,
Wow. Just wow. I am sorry you think I was trying to control the discussion and shout you down. I still don’t think we are really talking about the same thing. I am not trying to disrespect you in any way. All the stuff you are talking about are settings I really don’t know anything about. So I am deferring to you and saying again, I think maybe I am talking about something other than you are talking about. Really.
I am not trying to be revisionist. You are understanding my words to mean something different than I am trying to communicate ( or so I suspect?). I think we are talking past one another. We don’t have to work this out so please let go.
I was never trying to paint it in the general way you are taking it. Obviously you understood me differently. You don’t have to convince me of anything. You know your own story.
Decisions are funny things. The reasons/excuses for a particular decision often have more to do with the outcome than about the actual decision, and people tend to conflate good/bad outcomes with good/bad decision making.
A good/bad outcome isn’t the same thing as a good/bad decision. You can dump all your money into one extremely risky investment, get lucky, and get a huge payout – that doesn’t make you a financial genius (but that’s probably not what you’ll tell your friends). Similarly, you can follow every traffic law perfectly and still get in a bad accident to no fault of your own.
A leader who is truly good at making decisions will narrow in on the most likely outcomes, then make decisions that will maximize the likelihood of the best outcomes for the group they lead (and minimize the bad ones). But even if your decisions produce an 80% chance of a good outcome, you can still hit that unlucky 20%. That doesn’t make the decision a bad one despite the outcome.
I’d argue that the church is pretty sophisticated in it’s decision process, even though they are definitely not inclusive in who they give decision-making power.
To make it more complicated, the reasons/excuses that leaders give for for an outcome may have nothing to do with the decision at all and can be more about portraying an image. The church does this all the time when something doesn’t pan out (e.g. polygamy, black men and the priesthood, PoX, etc.).
lws329,
I never accused you of trying to control the discussion or shout me down. I specifically said otherwise. That’s why I put the little asterix (*) with a footnote saying “Speaking in the generic you and not directed at any specific individual.” at the bottom of my comment, something that it’s clear that you didn’t read. I wasn’t speaking of you (the specific individual), but of you (a generic individual), such as in sayings like “If at first you don’t succeed”.
It’s obvious that you are the one taking this discussion far more personally. I have not made it personal in any way, other than by giving examples from my personal experience to illustrate my points. You completely misread what I wrote, and in doing so acted as though I attacked you when I did no such thing.
Hey Observer No…
I did read that line several times trying to understand your focus….
Communicating in writing can be confusing at times. I didn’t regard it as an attack myself. Thank you for clarifying that you weren’t taking anything personally.
It may hard to sort out what you are saying about people you are labeling as complainers in general, vs your more specific frustration with my comments.
I write things I expected you to understand which you did not as well. For instance, the original comment you were responding to, I will rephrase:
I do think people get labeled as “complainers ” when they persevere with trying to communicate a problem (whether they are wrong or right about their complaint). Maybe it’s the only thing, decision makers can do, is ignore the repeat complainer. I am not saying decision makers should necessarily be doing anything differently. I am saying it is a problematic dynamic that can sometimes stand in the way of communication.
Is that any clearer? Communication in general is not as to accomplish as we often imagine.
.. not as easy to accomplish…
Sometimes communication is more what the receiver receives than what the sender sends. Both sending and receiving can present challenges. Sometimes (maybe too often) I can’t tell you what Bro. X or Sis. Y spoke about in sacrament meeting as I walk out the car after church. They may have sent wonderfully from the pulpit, but I didn’t receive well in my pew.
My daughter is again fighting fires in Canada. A month or so back she did a fire fighting leadership course, with an internationally recognized accreditation. She is at present leading a team of 5 men. Though her qualifications all up to 125.
I do not know what she has been taught about leadership, but I do know that lives depend on her decisions, her team plus those they are protecting. At present they are in Jasper.
One of the biggest concerns about trump is that his response to climate change is to oppose it as not profitable. In 4 years the world may be beyond recovery.
Geoff-Aus
as an Albertan, please send my thanks to your daughter for her work in Jasper. The reports of the size of the flame wall as it moved through part of the town was apocalyptic. At one point they had to pull the fighters out of the town because the air quality was so bad. One fire fighter has been killed fighting fires there. I appreciate all the work people have done to save this beautiful area.
Comments to to his post
are mainly political and for the most part support Liberal/socialist positions Very little applicable or directed to Mormonism. These discussions should be elsewhere. Go to another forum to express your political biases.
I need to cancel my earlier comment. I needed to read the comments more showery.
thoroughly