Keith Hendy makes an excellent point about the potential for a "witch
hunt" here, and I am beginning to wonder if it was worth putting out
preliminary thoughts on a critical subject in an open forum like this one.
It may have been irresponsible of me to begin to share ideas without
putting the complete data set out for everyone to see. Of course, I
couldn't do that since it is not completed yet.
Indeed I have applied the PRELIMINARY data and criteria to successful
high achievers as a control group, and seem to find one or two key
differences. First is a pathological disregard for the truth. True
rogues manipulate information for personal aggrandizement and gain.
Secondly, rogues (by my early definition) are most definitely NOT team
players, unless the team goals align themselves coincidentally with their
own.
Awareness is the goal at this stage, not selection or termination. I
believe that there is some worthwhile information here in an embryonic
stage. I wanted to share it early because I think it important to safety
and efficiency, and if even one Bud Holland is identified between now and
the time the research is complete and published, it was probably worth
while. Again, I did not intend for this academic forum to start
formulating any organizational policy. But if it helps you keep your
antenna tuned a little better . . .
Was Bader a rogue? I don't think so, at least not by my criteria.
Tony K.