A good leader is a person who takes a little more than his share of the blame and a little less than his share of the credit……..
I have long held the belief that leaders are born, not made. To clarify, your potential to lead or level of acceptance as a leader is something you are born with just like your intelligence, ability to run fast or to jump high. Certainly through training, education and emulation, your skill set increases in any category. Why is there such opposition to this belief? My theory is that “leaders are made” sells and “leaders are born” would not; who would purchase the book titled “Leaders are Born, so Get Back in Line”? I will conclude with this, visit any playground in the world and you will witness leaders and followers…
The leadership debate is the same as the stuff I always used to listen earlier in life at school/interviews etc about being a "team player"..... People would always ask you what role you would typically play in a group. What a stupid question. I would always reply "How can I comment until you show me the group. Then I will tell you which role is required"...... All groups require clear leadership. I don't care if it is me that does it or someone else. The latter is clearly preferable as it requires less responsibility and pressure. It is always nice (if rare) to be in a group that requires none, or is well led and you can sit back and have an easy life..... but how often does that happen in the real world......? Most people don't want to lead. Many say they do, but find the responsibility difficult when it is finally given to them. Leaders just pick it up without being asked.... It is if people are genuinely inspiring that people easily and willingly follow them. The hope is that they are heading in the right direction!
Hi I work in the oil and gas industry, work with quite a few ex-forces lads, they have all done health and safety courses in oil and gas and have made good careers out of it.
I have just submitted my final assignment for my first year. I'm 1/6th of the way to being able to prove that my CV should be read.
no, the cv will only be read if you can support the role with past experience and knowledge. I read a fair few CV's when I am hiring people and experience counts more for relevancy than a degree. Having one is a good to have, not a must have. Qualifications should be stated at the very end of a CV, then the reader knows your work history profile and will more than likely have made a decision to progress the application prior to the qualification section.
It's a nice idea, but most job ads above a certain level ask for a degree before they will even consider you. I have done things and worked with people that you wouldn't believe, having had responsibility on a global level up the ying yang but I'm still no good with out the paperwork to prove it. I'm just another unemployed bloke with a lot to say for himself but no proof.
You being very defeatist. Ignore the requirement for a degree and apply. Send Cv, qualifications stated at the very end of the CV. What industry do you want to work in?
you don't get degrees by accident, you have to bust your ass to get them. i took the easy option and so far got lucky.
Erm. I'm one of those twats that pass everything whilst doing fuck all. If I ever put my mind to something and focused I'd be a very dangerous individual indeed.
iv got mates like that partyd hard all the way through uni and left with firsts. most of them are eternal students drink like fish and the rest off it. hold down jobs and constantly learning summit. quite envious really.
I have an interest in Physics anyway. So I mostly knew much of engineering. Plus I have 4d visualisation in my head. Was only the maths that needed the work. Who'd have known that could be interesting too. Bastard teachers. Twat cunts. Show me this stuff, not that shite long division.
