“‘The mission of the FBI,’ it reads, ‘is to protect the American people.’

As for the role of its much-vaunted Special Agents, the FBI defines their job as: ‘Staying ahead of the threat through leadership, agility and collaboration.’

Hmmm.

Where do those two bold statements of intent sit today, I wonder?

It’s hard to imagine there has even been a worse week for the FBI in its 109-year history…”

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...au-Incompetence.html

Well, there was the time when Hoover’s armored limo was turning left and was struck by oncoming traffic, after which the limo was forbidden to make left turns. Left turns had to be executed by 3 right turns thereafter.

That agency needs a complete overhaul. People need to retire or move on. The FBI has forgotten the reason for its existence.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
That agency needs a complete overhaul. People need to retire or move on. The FBI has forgotten the reason for its existence.

This for sure.

Any organization, be it a business or a government entity, feeds off of its leadership. As we have seen recently the leadership at the highest levels are political hacks and need to be replaced. Even then, it will take many years to fix the corruption that is imbedded within the FBI at this time.

Oh, and lets not forget that the FBI got tips that Saudi visa holders were in Florida getting training on how to fly airliners but weren't interested in learning how to land them. That was in 2001!!! So this problem is far from new.

Jim

Was it the Peter Principle that said that any bureaucracy, given long enough will eventually end up with every position filled by those incompetents.

Distant memory from my college days, and management training in IBM.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
Was it the Peter Principle that said that any bureaucracy, given long enough will eventually end up with every position filled by those incompetents.

Distant memory from my college days, and management training in IBM.

quote:

The Peter principle is a concept in management theory formulated by educator Laurence J. Peter and published in 1969. It states that the selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and "managers rise to the level of their incompetence".

How does this cover the top management appointed in, rather than home grown?

Maybe these guys are wonderfully competent, but thoroughly dishonest.

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
Was it the Peter Principle that said that any bureaucracy, given long enough will eventually end up with every position filled by those incompetents.

Not exactly, although it’s close. The Peter Principle states that people tend to be promoted to the level that they’re incompetent to do the job, and not just in bureaucracies.

He pointed out, however, that it was possible to avoid that oneself or for managers to prevent it from happening in their organizations if they recognized the principle and took appropriate measures. The problem is most acute in organizations, such as the Army, that have “up or out” policies: It’s not possible for someone to be left at a level where he’s competent, content, and confident. One’s only hope is to delay and stretch things out so that promotion to that level of incompetence is never mandatory. Unfortunately, however, that saddles one with the reputation of being lazy, lacking in aggressiveness, etc., not to mention development of “I could have” regrets in late life.