Quote:
Originally Posted by O.city
I think the unspoken thing goes....unspoken here. I'd imagine Pat was.....well you know.
Otherwise we'd have heard about it.
|
Pat's a company man - happy with the decision or not, he'd support it.
I had a conversation with my director the first time I brought her into a 'big boy meeting' and I said "Okay, the trade off you're going to make here is that if you want to be here and have some influence on the decisions that are made, regardless of WHAT that decision ends up being, its yours as well as anyone else in that room. If you can't walk
out of this room in support of whatever decision was made, regardless of whether you agree with it, you don't walk
in to this room..."
To me that's always been a fair trade. You're not entitled to be a dictator so if you have an opportunity to influence the decision, you got to say your piece and now you support whatever direction the group chooses to go.
Pat strikes me as someone that sees the world through a similar lens. If he's INVOLVED in the decision, he'll back it even if he disagrees with it. Contrast that to some prick like Aaron Rodgers who, if you don't involve him, will pitch a bitch about it. And if you DO involve him and then don't do what he wants, he'll go out there and tell everyone and their mother how awful he thought the idea was.
You can't have people in leadership like that.
Pat's just so ****ing dreamy, man. That guy does EVERYTHING right.