On Selecting Subordinates

In my previous post, I indicating that sele for loyalty was actually a bad move. I figured I ought to lay out how/who I'd select instead.

Competence, ofc. And I'd want one with that whole 'servant leadership' mentality. Not loyal to me, but loyal to the Constitution and the laws of our nation.

And then I'd have my spiel. The 'you don't have to agree with me on everything, but before you decide to go outside with something, do me the courtesy of talking to me first. I'll give you a fair hearing'

(that could be a huge time commitment, but I don't think most people take you up on it unless it really matters to them, so it's generally worth listening when they do. Oh, and you also have to demonstrate that you really, really mean it. The first test case will either seal the deal, or convince everyone that it was just words, and not to bother). 

And maybe I prioritized things differently, or was aware of something they didn't. Generally people want to feel heard, and understand that they can't always get what they want.

If they still strongly disagree, then I'd encourage them to find another position. No hard feelings. 

Like, you can argue (preferably behind closed doors) right up until the decision is made, but once it's made that should be it.

Which is why I could see firing someone - not for lack of loyalty. Nothing I described was about being loyal to me - but for not taking me up on the offer to hear them out, and/or not being willing to accept a decision but refusing to leave (and instead trying to force the desired outcome).

I'm trying to think how this is different from wanting loyalty, and in some ways it prob looks and acts the same. I think the key difference is simply that 'loyalty' often ends up meaning 'be a yes-man/woman/person', so they hire people who do a good job of telling you what you want to hear. And generally value those people over others, who may be more opinionated and/or outspoken.

Idk, it's hard to say for sure without being on the inside of those decisions. 

Oh, and btw... If someone decides to 'leak', I don't think I'd see it as a problem. Just means I'd have to explain that reasoning in a more public venue.

And really, I can't help feeling why politicians are so afraid of that is because their reasoning wouldn't hold up in the face of public scrutiny. Goes back to 'they really don't believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people' do they?

Lest someone think I'm hopelessly naive, I'll just add one last thing. The wikileaks of our diplomatic cables didn't get much public dissent. Most of what I heard was 'it seems reasonable to keep that private, I can see why.' The public is probably not going to be too upset unless your private decisions really are a problem, and I'd ask you to reconsider why you think it's necessary to do something they wouldn't be okay with.