People have those things in spectrums, not all or nothing. You have to have at least some of all of them, but I’d argue that mediocre competency with really good communication and accountability is a better combination that really good competency with one of the others being mediocre.
I’m halfway through scrolling this long thread, and this is the first comment I’ve seen that isn’t overly cynical. It’s also correct.
I’ve been working for 38 years, and I’ve been someone who makes promotion decisions for 15 of them. The third one is helpful, not essential, but the others are super important. The people who rise to leadership positions aren’t necessarily the top technical people, they’re the ones who do those things with a good attitude.
The other thing I’d add is that they’re people who are able to see the big picture and how the details relate to it, which is part of strategic thinking.
I agree she’s not a progressive, and I wish she was. But I think she’s pretty effective at working the system to get things done, and she still seems pretty shrewd. I mean, the linked article makes a good case that she outplayed both McConnell and McCarthy.
The article’s point is that the committee was successful because of who was in it, and Pelosi was the one who orchestrated that, not showing McConnell or McCarthy to get away with their shit.
I sure feel that way about Feinstein, but Pelosi still seems to be one of the more effective politicians.
This is a great guide. The only quibble I have with it is the part about choosing an instance. There’s one aspect where it does matter: not every instance federates with every other. It’s good to be aware of any significant defederation vs what you care about when selecting an instance.