Everyone has an idea of what “gone rogue” REALLY means. But there’s a lot of folks out there who would spin it to glamorize what they THINK they want to see in a leader.
Basically, to go rogue is to be your own boss. No rules. No tie downs. No strings attached. Behavior you would find in unattached people who are not accountable to others and whose success or failure falls on him/herself alone. Self Employed. Not a team player. No supervision. No commitment. Not bound by constituents <—- does this sound familiar?
Personally, I can only speak for myself. But a person “gone rogue” don’t make good leaders. And they certainly don’t make good employees in organizations. “Gone rogue” is something you’ll find in “lone” hunters, gamblers, political fix-it men like Carl Rove or Carville. There is a place for them in this world, but again, NOT in leadership roles. What would become of our military if its LEADERS were to go rogue?
Regardless if folks who follow Sarah Palin try to spin the positives of “going rogue” as befitting of a president, they need to realize that “gone rogue” means just what it says “gone rogue”. No matter if its Palin or anybody else. A person who “goes rogue” does it w/out authorization or consent from anyone. Last time I checked, the presidency of the United States has strings attached. The President has a boss and is checked & balanced by Congress. Which is something that Obama still fails to realize.
Yes, we already have a person in the White House who has “gone rogue”. Going rogue may be a cute label to identity some people, but its not flattering for a “Leader”. BUT check out where Im going with this:
Sarah Palin, a self-admitted “going rogue” person has already gave the caveat. She readily admits that if you hire her, that she WILL go rogue. She went rogue when she endorsed John McCain for his senate re-election bid. And she did this against the blessing of the tea party, who propped her up as the tea party darling. But “going rogue” don’t need no blessing from anybody. A “going roguer” just “do”. Is that so hard to understand? Again, she gave us the caveat, disclaimer, duly notified or what ever you want to call it.
The same with Obama, when he was straight up when he TOLD US he was 5 days away from “Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America” . But there are many folks EVEN TODAY who deny they heard him say it or that they didn’t think he meant it literally. Some say that they were deceived because he didn’t clarify what that statement meant. Obama didn’t lie about it. It’s that people were too mesmerized and caught up in the euphoria at the time he said it. But again, he did give us the caveat, disclaimer, duly notified or what ever you want to call it.
If Obama had said he would GO ROGUE, would folks still had voted for him?
And if they did, would they Blame Him for Doing It?
NOTE: Definition of Rogue (ref. investopedia) A trader who acts independently of others – and, typically, recklessly – usually to the detriment of both the clients and the institution that employs him or her. Rogue traders typically trade in high risk investments which can create huge losses but also large gains.