Being kept in the dark

I've tried to think of successful business leaders or political leaders who tell their employees, "I don't want to know anything. Give me no details". And I've tried to imagine how that would work. It seems the leader would layout general goals and objectives and the employees would individually decide how to achieve the desired result. All of this with no guidance from the top.

---

It seems to me that this leader would have nothing to gain or lose by the actions of the employees. Had he or she had a vested interest, they would intuitively want to be in charge. Picture, if you will, the CEO of a large company whose job depends on producing results for the shareholders. He would be directed by the board and his employees and departments would be managed to meet those goals stated by the Board of Directors. In this scenario, the CEO has his job, reputation, and income hanging on producing results. In the case of the ultimate CEO-- Barack Obama -- I wonder who are his Board of Directors? Who lays out the desired outcomes? Obama doesn't have to worry about the usual burdens carried by a CEO. His term is defined. His reputation is established, depending on which side of the political spectrum one sits, and his income is secure. So he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by being kept in the dark. Bruce Butler

---