Navigation In Depth

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Perhaps the jobs once thought of as desirable, really aren't any longer. Maybe there's more to life than working in some office to make someone else get rich.

Therein lies the value of being young - seeing it all in a way that we can't possibly see.

Well, I'll grant you that. Particularly the "we can't possibly see" part. I think it's been that way since man first headed out on this planet. We haven't destroyed ourselves yet with each succeeding generation although we've certainly developed our ability to do that.

Continuing this aspect of the discussion is getting pretty far away from the original poster's question about whether or not a navigation class would be beneficial. So perhaps with regards to the future of the next generations, the best position to take is "we'll see." :)

And on the subject of navigation, thanks again for Active Captain. No matter what generation a boater belongs to it's a very cool, creative, and valuable use of technology and is a huge benefit to the decision making process.
 
Last edited:
Jeffrey-- One more thing, sorry, but I didn't want to let it slip by unacknowledged.

As something of a professional storyteller I really like the imagined dialogue and visuals painted by your analogy of the introduction of the sextant to navigation. How cool it would be to know what the reaction was of the traditionalists. And of course it's a perfect parallel to the introduction of new technology today. I remember when the iPad came out and reviewers and other folks were grumbling that "it's just an oversized iPhone but it doesn't even have a phone in it."

Anyway, thanks for your sextant scenario. Playing the scenes in my mind has made my day.:)
 
i would totally agree with you if the evidence supported it. Unfortunately it doesn't. For a dose of reality, talk to the HR managers, program directors, customers, finance department, etc of the company I work for. They do not share your rosy view of the upcoming workforce, which is one reason we are trying so hard to minimize it as quickly as possible.

I like working with the younger employees in our organization. They have new ideas and very creative ways of looking at things. That part is great. But when it comes time to execute those ideas, to make decisions about implementing their ideas... not a clue.

A good friend of mine is one of the top directors of photography in the commercial production industry in the US. He says exactly the same thing. The young folks entering the field have wonderful ideas and are full of cool new concepts of how to shoot and edit. But they can't execute their ideas to save their lives. As a result, costs skyrocket, deadlines are missed, and the clients are not happy.

We're wondering off topic, but I feel a lot better about the younger workers than I do the employers and that's where I see the problem. People don't come into jobs knowing how to do them. They never did. But companies once had good training programs, developed people, promoted from within. Ultimately they had this professional with 30 years experience and expertise who still had memories of how little he knew when he started. Young employees have traditionally come in perhaps knowing basics, having a base on which to add knowledge, but knowing little about the real world they were entering.

Most companies today just aren't willing to invest in people and train and develop them. Then they look at what one doesn't know and it never crosses their mind they should have taught that to the employee.
 
BandB,
Why train then?
They are so mobile now they won't (on the average) be there in the future so employers see it as a waste of time and money. Rightfully so I'd say but it's tough on the guy that does stay.
 
Equally qualified if their role is limited to bookkeeping, but less qualified in accounting.

My wife is an accountant, one that is highly qualified and valued at her work. Yet I doubt she ever did accounting by hand. Are you saying that accountants like her are less qualified than those that did accounting "by hand"?
 
My wife is an accountant, one that is highly qualified and valued at her work. Yet I doubt she ever did accounting by hand. Are you saying that accountants like her are less qualified than those that did accounting "by hand"?

No, I'm not suggesting by hand. I'm saying learned the basics of accounting. She could do it by hand, I'm sure, if she had to. She understands the entries she's making. I've seen people in small businesses who have no idea. You ask them about something and they say, "I don't know. The Computer did that." I've seen some crazy things done that a trained accountant like your wife would never do. Example: A small business set up in Quickbooks with an "Accountant" setting it all up for them. They were in Florida and yet deducting disability insurance from every employee's check based on the sample set up which I believe was based on New Jersey. They had done this for three years. A good portion of the purchase price of the business had to go to reimbursing all those employees.

It's not the mechanism you use, not computer vs. hand that is important, not electronic vs. paper. It's understanding what you're doing, why you're doing it, and how it works.
 
BandB,
Why train then?
They are so mobile now they won't (on the average) be there in the future so employers see it as a waste of time and money. Rightfully so I'd say but it's tough on the guy that does stay.

Well, I believe in building loyalty and doing it both ways. It starts with employers showing loyalty to employees and then most of the time they will return it. That's been my experience and we do invest considerable time and money in training. The payback is our retention rate is very good.
 
Thanks Marin. Since we've all wandered off topic, there's the Rolls Royce Merlin Engine and the Packard built Merlin. The Canadian aircraft were equipped with the Packard Merlins. The Merlin engine was probably the finest piston engine of the war. The P-51 was quite an average aircraft with the Alison engine. It wasn't until the Merlin engine was installed that it became arguably the finest fighter in the war. And while we're talking about photos, here's my favourite
ImageUploadedByTrawler Forum1431473925.377484.jpg


Jim
Sent from my iPad using Trawler Forum
 
Yes, Rolls was so swamped building Merlins for UK-produced aircraft that when the demand went up as the result of the successful British installation of a Merlin in the Mustang, they licensed Packard to produce Merlins in the US.

Packard also produced a marine V-12 engine, I believe on an assembly line right next to the Merlin line. This was the 4M-2500, the hydroplane-derived engine that was used in the Elco and Higgins PT boats. This was Packard's own engine, not a licensed product. While not an aero engine, it had an aero engine in its heritage, the Liberty engine.

The Merlin was surpassed only by the Griffon, which was essentially a super-Merlin. One of the Griffon's improvements was the use of slide valves.

Surplus Griffon engines were the ultimate piston power for the unlimited hydroplanes that raced on Lake Washington, Detroit, and other venues. Bernie Little, a very wealthy Budweiser distributor, was the owner of the Miss Budweiser series of hydroplanes. When he discovered the value of the Griffon he bought up every single one he could find. Not because he needed them but to keep them out of his competitors' hands.
 

Attachments

  • U1.jpg
    U1.jpg
    39.5 KB · Views: 63
Last edited:
But what's really happening here? People are gradually becoming dumbed down.

Nothing new here look at the Kansas 1895 8th grade graduation exam , and tell me what percentage of Kollege Profs could pass today.

V
Final Exam, 8th Grade. Salina KS, 1895

www.indiana.edu/~p1013447/.../8thgradeexam.htm


Indiana University


This is the eighth grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, KS. ... 8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS 1895 ... Tell what you can of the history of Kansas. 6. Describe ...
 
Well, I believe in building loyalty and doing it both ways. It starts with employers showing loyalty to employees and then most of the time they will return it. That's been my experience and we do invest considerable time and money in training. The payback is our retention rate is very good.

What you are saying is very true, and I see it in my technology industry.

I do not know which started first, employers unwilling to invest in employees or employees that jump to new employers with the skills paid for by their previous employer.

What I do know is that today in my field we pay for and attend allot of skill building training on our own time; that is if we want to be successful. Since the employer has not supported that training we, the employees have no guilt when another employer offers us a better, or better yet the perception of a better situation.

What I see is employers searching out key technology staff and recruiting them, as opposed to building those skills in their existing staff. This makes for a great situation for someone willing to go the extra mile to obtain in demand skills. Unfortunately this also can create some resentment from co-workers who are unwilling to obtain those new skills as technology changes thinking that it is the employers responsibility.
 
Last edited:
FF,
Much of the content of that test is relative to specific information given in class or a specific book or other similar source.

Dosn't take away from your point though. Kids dodn't spend half the day play'in games on an i-phone. They worked on the farms and STILL had time to learn this stuff.
 
As a market becomes more fluid, there is less loyalty. And less need for it. It is inevitable and again, one of those things that was different from the past when switching jobs, doctors, or gas stations was more difficult.

The worker of today doesn't owe any loyalty to their employer except for the contract they're under (which should have been negotiated). They earn what they receive. And the company doesn't deserve loyalty from the employee - they must create a desirable environment to make their employees happy.

It's easy to make the argument that this is a wonderful thing for a civilization because it moves everything towards true freedom.
 
Jeffery S wrote;
"It's easy to make the argument that this is a wonderful thing for a civilization because it moves everything towards true freedom"

Most would probably think this element of evolution is something treasured and loosing it is reason to weep or be sad but your point is excellent. Most want structure and dogma though. True freedom requires a high degree of independence and that's probably lacking to a degree that would not allow it. We would need to be like wild animals alone in the world to be truly free. And then freedom would be limited by the forces of the natural things surrounding us.
 
Last edited:
Guess the thread has come full circle...lose your electronics and you are truly free to navigate any which way....:D....wild and free....:thumb:
 
BandB,
Why train then?
They are so mobile now they won't (on the average) be there in the future so employers see it as a waste of time and money. Rightfully so I'd say but it's tough on the guy that does stay.
I think that Eric has a damn good point. We pondered that exact question over 25 years ago in my own company. The result was an emphasis on specializing the manufacturing process. (ie) Instead of training a tool maker that could do it all, we trained expert milling machine operators, lathe hands, grinders, (surface, centerless, etc.) We could pay them more money because of their increased productivity & they couldn't move to another tool & die shop for 25 cents more an hour! They were not journeyman tool makers! When the workload picked up, we hired apprentices and "specialized" them.

With the advent of CNC machines, the type of person we were looking for completely changed. Now, we had need of basic mechanics with computer skills to operate all the CNCs and robots!

So, when Eric asks the question "Why train?" I think he meant it in the context of training employees that could do it all. With that in mind, I think he's absolutely correct and I actually experienced that in my own company! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
As a market becomes more fluid, there is less loyalty. And less need for it. It is inevitable and again, one of those things that was different from the past when switching jobs, doctors, or gas stations was more difficult.

The worker of today doesn't owe any loyalty to their employer except for the contract they're under (which should have been negotiated). They earn what they receive. And the company doesn't deserve loyalty from the employee - they must create a desirable environment to make their employees happy.

It's easy to make the argument that this is a wonderful thing for a civilization because it moves everything towards true freedom.

I think that Eric has a damn good point. We pondered that exact question over 25 years ago in my own company. The result was an emphasis on specializing the manufacturing process. (ie) Instead of training a tool maker that could do it all, we trained expert milling machine operators, lathe hands, grinders, (surface, centerless, etc.) We could pay them more money because of their increased productivity & they couldn't move to another tool & die shop for 25 cents more an hour! They were not journeyman tool makers! When the workload picked up, we hired apprentices and "specialized" them.

With the advent of CNC machines, the type of person we were looking for completely changed. Now, we had need of basic mechanics with computer skills to operate all the CNCs and robots!

So, when Eric asks the question "Why train?" I think he meant it in the context of training employees that could do it all. With that in mind, I think he's absolutely correct and I actually experienced that in my own company! :rolleyes:

It appears that the two of you are supporting the exact opposite positions.

While Jeffery is suporting the "free agent" concept, Codger is supporting the "make the employees dependent on you" concept.

Myself, as a "worker" I REALLY enjoy the "free agent" concept of employment. I take personal responsiblity for keeping my skills current, relevant, and in demand, never asking an employer to do that for me. That gives me the freedom to take those skills to another employeer for whatever reason I choose.

Employers today really love this kind of employee. The ability to hire someone that can come in and perform well from day one has allot of alure to an employer. It also in my opinion forces employers to not only pay employees better, it forces them to have "nice" "happy" work places. Thats because in todays world an in demand worker will be gone before lunch if the employer does not treat them well.

I know lots of people that are dependant on a single employer because their skills have stagnated over time. Many of them hate their jobs, and their employeers, and their dependance, yet they are unwilling to go the effort to stay relevant in the workplace. So they end up in a cycle of bitching about their situation, unhappiness, etc...which leads to lackluster performance, which I suspect probably results in lackluster performance by their employers in their competitive market.

Seems to me that happy employes that strive to keep up their skills, results in higher productivity, which in turn makes their employeers more successful as well.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. But you can only be a free agent if you have pertinent experience, the smarts, and motivation to pull it off. I too am a free agent, but not everyone can be.

Building a high quality employee, that undoubtedly will be shared by different employers is the underlying strength of industry and countries in general.
 
Funny...being in the part time market....I see some but not a huge change over the last 20 years.

Good employees are just that and good employers are just that.

The problem is when someone comes along and substitutes management over leadership..and things start to go bad.

No different in the military or the civilian world....when bean counters override good leadership....things start to fall apart.

That is good if leadership still recognizes the bottom line....

....which is what I think Northern spy just alluded too....identify which employee or position is what and make sure you fill it, reward it or see that it really is an anybody job.
 
Last edited:
The problem is when someone comes along and substitutes management over leadership..and things start to go bad.

That is a great summation of why our latest product program was the worst program in my company's history and why the previous program was the best.
 
That is a great summation of why our latest product program was the worst program in my company's history and why the previous program was the best.
And why politics and the US Military is wandering around in uncharted waters......and no I don't want to go over to the forum section I try to stay out of.....
 
It appears that the two of you are supporting the exact opposite positions.While Jeffery is suporting the "free agent" concept, Codger is supporting the "make the employees dependent on you" concept.
.
This may not sit well with a lot of folks but it is absolutely an honest explanation of why OWNERS of businesses do what they do. I say OWNERS because their interests are sometimes diametrically opposed to what EMPLOYEES desire.

Employees want to make as much money as they can doing a job that has no inherent liabilities or excessive demands. A job that will allow them to spend more time recreating and having quality time with their families. A job, if they stay with the employer, that will lead to a decent retirement income (401K?) when their carreer has ended. Couple that with being satisfied at the end of their work day with their contribution to the company. I find no fault with that model.

Owners, on the other hand, have a considerable outlay of treasure, both monetary and time, and want to see a better than average return (profit) for their significant investment. Their efforts are usually channeled towards making the business run as efficiently and smoothly as possible.These efforts may or may not include a lot of personnel training depending on the nature of the business. The obvious goal being to survive while maintaining profitability. Make no mistake about it, most successful owners that I am aware of are very interested and committed to creating a work place that has happy employees, a congenial environment and is above all, profitable. Profitability, of course, is the driving force that makes the owners & the employees successful.


So, to boil this down to it's lowest common denominator, "No, Kevin, I'm not the least bit interested in making the employees dependent on me. But rather, I am interested in making the whole enterprise successful!"
 
"A good friend of mine is one of the top directors of photography in the commercial production industry in the US. He says exactly the same thing. The young folks entering the field have wonderful ideas and are full of cool new concepts of how to shoot and edit. But they can't execute their ideas to save their lives'

Making movies requires Talent , sticking together air craft required precision and dedication , or at least great Quality control inspections. Big difference,

Any artist or talent usually has a portfolio of work to display. No portfolio , no job interview.

After a court decision the airlines had to interview folks that had a commercial license. The interview expanded to include a ride in the antique DC 8 simulator, where more than one pencil time attempted to flee , while about 15 ft up , while underway.

The film guys should be able to sit a candidate in front of a Movieola (or the electric replacement) with 15 min of rough cuts and a task to create a 30 second spot in a couple of hours..
 
Last edited:
The film guys should be able to sit a candidate in front of a Movieola (or the electric replacement) with 15 min of rough cuts and a task to create a 30 second spot in a couple of hours..

No they shouldn't. I have no idea what half of that even means but I can assume it has to do with a process that's 30 years old.

That new candidate probably knows the ins and outs of iMovie, FinalCut, and the social controls of YouTube. The reason the "Movieola" guy is having problems staying afloat is because he's living in the past instead of understanding the present. By letting that candidate go, he's watching his own business slip through his fingers.
 
This may not sit well with a lot of folks but it is absolutely an honest explanation of why OWNERS of businesses do what they do. I say OWNERS because their interests are sometimes diametrically opposed to what EMPLOYEES desire.

Employees want to make as much money as they can doing a job that has no inherent liabilities or excessive demands. A job that will allow them to spend more time recreating and having quality time with their families. A job, if they stay with the employer, that will lead to a decent retirement income (401K?) when their carreer has ended. Couple that with being satisfied at the end of their work day with their contribution to the company. I find no fault with that model.

Owners, on the other hand, have a considerable outlay of treasure, both monetary and time, and want to see a better than average return (profit) for their significant investment. Their efforts are usually channeled towards making the business run as efficiently and smoothly as possible.These efforts may or may not include a lot of personnel training depending on the nature of the business. The obvious goal being to survive while maintaining profitability. Make no mistake about it, most successful owners that I am aware of are very interested and committed to creating a work place that has happy employees, a congenial environment and is above all, profitable. Profitability, of course, is the driving force that makes the owners & the employees successful.


So, to boil this down to it's lowest common denominator, "No, Kevin, I'm not the least bit interested in making the employees dependent on me. But rather, I am interested in making the whole enterprise successful!"

I do not disagree with anything you said. In your previous post you indicated that you intentionally held back training employees so that they could not have the skills to move to other jobs, taking the results of your training with them. You said it, not me.

I can see why that approach might be beneficial in some ways with some workers. The problem as I see it is that having employees dependant, wether it was intended or not in some cases might affect their productivity as I indicated above, and that resultant loss in productivity might negativly affect your bottom line.

Please also understand that I recognize that the dependence problem is in my opinion more the fault of the employee than the employer. Employees need to take control of their own careers. They need to take the time on and off the job to develop job skills that are marketable.

I am sure your method is and has been very successful for you and your industry, just be aware that there are other methods that are effective as well. We are also in different industries. There is no way someone could enter my field using OJT as the method of skill building, so my comments are based on my and similar fields and your comments are based on you as an employer and your industry.
 
Last edited:
No they shouldn't. I have no idea what half of that even means but I can assume it has to do with a process that's 30 years old.

Supercharged thread drift........

One of my first projects I had in this industry was to rebuild an old Moviola so it could be used as a backup edit system. This was in the early 1970s and that technology was ancient then, dating from the 1920s

For a historical perspective, Woodstock was the first theatrical movie edited on a flatbed. That was 1970 and while flatbed editors had been around for a long time already, that movie almost overnight changed the way film editing was done in Hollywood forever. A lot of movies are still shot on film, but it's just the capture medium. The editing is all done on video.

(First photo is a basic Moviola with one picture drive and one sound drive. The sound drive could be manually coupled or de-coupled to the film drive. Second photo is an 8-plate KEM, which is what I learned to edit on. This is the same kind of edit machine that was used for Woodstock.)

That new candidate probably knows the ins and outs of iMovie, FinalCut, and the social controls of YouTube..

They do, and that's all very nice but it doesn't get a project done. What the newcomers to the field lack is the ability to eficiently execute a concept through to an end product that meets the customer's requirement. They have great ideas and concepts and I include these people in my projects specifically for that reason. They think of things I never would have thought of and their concepts are often better than the concepts I did think of. But once we have a locked-in concept and direction and it's time to produce the project I dismiss them from it because their lack of "big picture" ability slows the process to a crawl and skyrockets the cost.

Also, and this is a huge generality, but they have the attention span of a gnat. This is exactly what you want when you're flailing around for an idea. But when a project requires a continuous effort to get it completed, they can't deal with it. So their execution is generally very superficial.

This is fine if the "customer" is also superficial, which defines the bulk of the folks who get their information from YouTube and Facebook. Unfortunately, in the ad agency world and the corporate world, the customer is not superficial. They are also very demanding and extremely cost-conscious. So a sloppily done product that cost an arm and a leg and took a ton of time to produce doesn't cut it.

However.... as the overall dumbing down process continues, even in the agency and corporate world superficial work will, and is... very slowly... becoming more acceptable. Eventually, it will be the new normal, which will be okay, because the audiences and customers won't know any better, either.

BTW, Final Cut is not considered a viable edit system anymore, at least not in a professional sense. We had it at one of our sites for a number of years but have since replaced it with Adobe Premier. Our primary edit systems are Avids which get updated periodically. You can do a lot with iMovie but it's a toy compared to the more comprehensive edit systems.
 

Attachments

  • Moviola.jpg
    Moviola.jpg
    129.5 KB · Views: 51
  • KEM 8-Plate.jpg
    KEM 8-Plate.jpg
    11.7 KB · Views: 185
What the newcomers to the field lack is the ability to eficiently execute a concept through to an end product that meets the customer's requirement.

Efficiently is a funny word there. Wanna bet that more will be uploaded and watched on YouTube just today in these 24 hours than the professional film media will put out in the next entire year?

...but they have the attention span of a gnat. This is exactly what you want when you're flailing around for an idea. But when a project requires a continuous effort to get it completed, they can't deal with it. So their execution is generally very superficial.

I feel very sorry for you for thinking like that. It's sad - I'll explain why.

I work with about a dozen young developers and entrepreneurs. When I was in my early 20's, there were a bunch of great industry guys who took me on and taught me from their experience. I like to think that I'm giving something back to the next generation in the same way.

The guys and gals in their young adult years that I see are wonderful, energetic, determined, and exceptional models for taking on the challenges that are coming. But you see, I see the future in those positive ways myself.

It's sad because I have a feeling your dim view of today's youth is based on your own dim view of the future. There's nothing wrong with that and it doesn't make one a bad person. It's just sad. I'd rather like knowing that tomorrow is going to be better than today, even if I'm not in it.
 
...

The problem is when someone comes along and substitutes management over leadership..and things start to go bad.

No different in the military or the civilian world....when bean counters override good leadership....things start to fall apart.

That is good if leadership still recognizes the bottom line....

I have been very lucky and only had one or two bad managers. Most of the managers I have had have been good people but few of them have been leaders. Conversely, in one of my careers, I know some people who are leaders, and I would follow them, and have followed them, into dicey situations. Their job has management in their job title somewhere but I don't know how good they are at management but if the poo hits the fan you want to be with these leaders. :thumb:

Management is not easy but many people can be a decent manager. Not many people can be leaders.

What was this thread about? Navigation? Was Columbus a good Manager and/or Leader? :lol: Trying to get back on track. :rofl:

Later,
Dan
 
Efficiently is a funny word there. Wanna bet that more will be uploaded and watched on YouTube just today in these 24 hours than the professional film media will put out in the next entire year?

It's easy to load tons of simple fluff stuff to the internet which is what most of it is. In that regard you are correct and efficiency may have been the wrong word. Of course, there is a wee bit of difference between somebody's iPhone video of their girlfriend riding a skateboard for the first time and say, The Imitation Game.

What I meant by "efficiency" is the ability to deliver a complex project on time and on cost and be exactly what the customer wants. In this regard, the next generations seem to have a really tough time. I believe it is because they are losing the ability to think for themselves and have to have a ton of confirmation from others. Hence the constant "communication" with texts, etc. Nothing wrong with this but it takes time and in this business, taking time escalates cost and antagonizes customers.

There is no question that these folks are bright, creative, and energetic. Which is why I always include them in the conceptual phase of a project. But watching them try to do the tasks that are demanded in this industry is like watching paint dry in terms of progress. They are as exuberant as hell and have lively meetings and are constantly talking about doing this, that and the other. But in terms of actually getting the job done, they are far, far slower than what the industry demands, at least today.

Of course, the end result will be that everything will happen slower as industry devolves to match the way the newer generations work. How management, stockholders, customers, etc. will deal with the increased production time and vastly increased cost remains to be seen. As I said earlier, the company I work for is dealing with it by simply eliminating employees wherever possible and replacing them with machines. This and farming work out to other countries where the productivity problem doesn't exist. This works in some industries but not in others.

When I was in my early 20's, there were a bunch of great industry guys who took me on and taught me from their experience. I like to think that I'm giving something back to the next generation in the same way.
I think that is a terrific attitude and I commend you for it. If you have the good fortune to work in an industry or environment where you can do this--- and the people you're mentoring are receptive--- it's a great thing to do. I do that as much as I can, but the environment I work in actually puts up roadblocks to doing this. The reasons are far to complicated to describe here.

The other problem that has occurred in our design and manufacturing areas is the younger generations refusing to listen to the "old timers." This is a big reason why our most recent program was such a disaster. In the past, every new program examined the previous programs to learn what worked and what didn't work. The new guys listened to the old guys and the lessons learned were applied to the new program.

This was not done on our newest major program because it was decided to start with a clean piece of paper despite the warnings of what would probably occur. All the warnings came true and the program fell into turmoil and confusion. Eventually, the financial and customer relation penalties to the company became so staggering that we brought back the top people from the previous program in an effort to get things back on the rails.

I know some of these guys because I worked with them on the previous program. And what they told me was this--- the newer generation people, for want of a better term, refused to listen to them. Unlike the previous two generations--- boomers and WWII--- the new folks put no value on the experience the previous generation people had in running the most successful program with the best product the company has ever had.

And so the new program staggered on as it had been, the penalties continued (and continue) to mount, the product itself was flawed in countless ways, we missed the delivery date by years, and the customers continue to be pissed off.

Mentoring is a two-way street. If both parties are receptive, it's a fabulous thing to do.
 
Last edited:
I have been very lucky and only had one or two bad managers. Most of the managers I have had have been good people but few of them have been leaders. Conversely, in one of my careers, I know some people who are leaders, and I would follow them, and have followed them, into dicey situations. Their job has management in their job title somewhere but I don't know how good they are at management but if the poo hits the fan you want to be with these leaders. :thumb:

Management is not easy but many people can be a decent manager. Not many people can be leaders.

What was this thread about? Navigation? Was Columbus a good Manager and/or Leader? :lol: Trying to get back on track. :rofl:

Later,
Dan

What is hysterical to me and makes me green with envy (to a point)....the best business man I know is completely lovable and a great guy...yet stinks as a leader in many respects and is a lousy manager from what his office staff kids about.

Go figure....as usual ....to be successful at anything whether from years ago or today...it takes the right combination of things at the right time.
 
Back
Top Bottom