An Army buddy reminded me about the Hammerstein-Equord leadership model. Below is a story initially published on SSD in May, 2012.
In the mid-1800s a Prussian Field Marshal named Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke developed a means to evaluate his officers.
Smart & Lazy – I make them my Commanders because they make the right thing happen but find the easiest way to accomplish the mission.
Smart & Energetic – I make them my General Staff Officers because they make intelligent plans that make the right things happen.
Dumb & Lazy – There are menial tasks that require an officer to perform that they can accomplish and they follow orders without causing much harm.
Dumb & Energetic – These are dangerous and must be eliminated. They cause things to happen but the wrong things so cause trouble.
I’ve also seen this attributed to various German Army leaders beginning in the inter-war years and seems to convey prevailing thinking. It boils leadership down into its simplest form and measures the leader on two axes: Intelligence (competence) and industriousness (or lack thereof).
As Chief of the Army High Command, the Anti-Nazi Gen Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord oversaw the composition of the German manual on military unit command (Truppenführung), dated 17 October 1933. In it, he proposed a classification scheme for military leaders.
‘I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined.
Some are clever and diligent — their place is the General Staff.
The next lot are stupid and lazy — they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties.
Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions.
One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent — he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.’
Remember, in the German model, the most promising go to the General Staff for grooming. In the American model, the best and brightest take command. Considering that, do you think its still a viable model?
Honestly I recall most of the leadership were simpletons at best. Vary rarely did those with common sense and brains make it into the command positions. Then again my MOS was 11B, so that may explain why so many where lacking.
I used this when I taught OCS and repeatedly since. The “stupid and diligent” we call type IV officers, I just heard one of them that was a mistake to commission make LTC. CSM (ret) J.
Wish there was a solid reference for this. It’s a great quote.
Regardless, it’s spot on.
Best and brightest or politically adept and ruthless?
Absolutely many earn their positions, but the U.S. military is a system, and for Careerists gaming it comes at any cost.
How many Command Officers ever vocally or in writing addressed UCP’s ridiculously ineffective colorway?
The Emperor Had No Clothes, and would have stayed that way indefinitely without those brave NCOs beseeching Murtha to save them from institutional inertia.
“We wanted Tan, Gray, and Green, but we ended up with Chalk, Concrete, and Asphalt. Our updated version will feature an accurate palette.” -Secretary of the Army, 2005.
Couldn’t make it happen.
Sorry, SSD has had me pissed about the silence concerning UCP for years. The Officer Paradigm is hilariously accurate.
Bill Gates (of Microsoft Fame) used a similar model “I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.”
Leadership, at any level and in any profession, is not as simple as a chart, formula, mantra, or textbook would have it seem. Leaders, good or bad or just average, are beset with critics and know-it-alls, most of whom never have the fortitude to step up themselves.
So you can only be smart or dumb…lazy or energetic? How smart? How dumb? How lazy? What’s “energetic” enough look like? Compassion, empathy, and situational awareness combine to help a leader in most situations. But that’s just part of the answer.
Leaders make mistakes. They get it wrong. They get complacent. They are brow-beaten by zero-defect mentalities above them and subordinates who “read it in a book” or saw it “in a movie.” Perfect, happy fucking endings that are not reality.
So, maybe the critic really does count…or is the oft-quoted passage only applicable to self-perceived and/or self-deceived meat-eaters? According to the internet, the US Military gets it wrong a million times more than they get it right. Really? I here the same complaining in the .LE world. I guess we’re just all fucked.
+1000
+2000
Spot on and appreciated
Well said
*hear*…damn fat fingers
The trick is to be Smart / Lazy but convince everyone you’re Dumb / Lazy.
You do understand that there is baggage that comes with each of these labels right?
Seams to me we wupped the Germans two times in a row.
Maybe following their model is not that good an idea.
You mean the best and brightest get fed up and leave the military? Because that’s what really happens.
I’d say that they weren’t really the best and brightest if they tapped out.
Really? A guy or gal that left as an LTC after 20 years of living the stupidity and not getting selected for BDE command “tapped out,” really? The officer who sees after his mandatory first five years that there’s no room for an innovator in government service, and leaves for the private sector “tapped out?” Get over yourself.
Making it to retirement is not tapping out. Quitting because you don’t like the culture is still quitting.
+1 Well said SSD.
If the military “culture” needs some fixing (and it always does) the professional fights to fix it as long and hard as he can. Then you pass the fight to the next generation.
Many officers leave service after his or her initial 5 years commitment (as do most enlisted at the end of their first term).
A military career is not for everyone. And there is nothing wrong with that. They can leave with honor and pursue other goals.
But to be blunt, if they are leaving because they didn’t get promoted as fast as they thought they should; or didn’t get the plum assignment; or because “the system is broke” and they don’t want to help fix it…then they are quitters.
It is only the ones that stay that get the opportunity to shape the profession.
TLB
I daresay I’ve seen far more of the best and brightest leave, than stay. That’s not to say I haven’t worked with some sharp and squared away individuals, because I have… but they are few and far between. TexasRat nailed it in his response. I’m not saying everyone who pulls 20+ is a koolaid drinking sheep, but that seems to be more the rule than the exception, at least in my own experience.
SSD you retired some time ago and as I’m sure you’re aware, the military has changed. You were cut from a very different cloth than those running the show today. Your generation of warfighter is almost nonexistent these days. I wish that were not the case, because this new generation sucks, but it is what it is.
As it currently stands, there is an overwhelming incentive for officers at all levels to simply keep their units looking sharp: going through the motions, turning in rosy-cheeked, optimistic assessment surveys while keeping off the commander’s radar, and above all else, not making waves. Despite the fact toxic behavior undermines everything we say we stand for, there’s a certain stigma placed on calling out the wrongdoing of those above you. As such, people go along to get along, and learn to live with it or ignore it altogether. The mindset becomes one of complacency: No matter what becomes of your battlespace, the deployment will eventually end and you will go home. Why challenge the status quo, risk a tongue lashing, or miss out on PT time when the reward for doing so might not come for years after the fact anyway? Why point out that the emperor has no clothes when everyone involved is going to get their Meritorious Service Medals and Bronze Stars if we instead just let him keep walking down the road? We should be better than this.
Political correctness and an obsession with skewed interpretations of equal opportunity and not wanting to offend someone are the order of the day. “That’s the way it’s always been” is the default resposne because no one wants to rock the boat. Gung-ho, mission minded innovators get told to shut up and color, while the do-gooders and whiners get to run the show and make off with the awards.
There are only two things more certain than soldiers complaining about “Gung-ho, mission minded innovators get told to shut up and color” or railing against perceived careerism. One is that old soldiers will claim the new crop is not as tough as they were. And the other is that new soldiers will revere previous generations of warriors as real fighters who did not exhibit whatever behavior they perceive as weakness their own era. All three memes are as old as organized warfare itself.
Members of SSD’s generation said the same things about their contemporaries in their own day. The medals or other rewards for being “a koolaid drinking sheep” may have been different, but accusations of such behavior predates Sparta. The details may change but the theme remains the same.
+1 Now there is some timeless truth! Bravo!
TLB
Concur with Bloke.
Seen it, endured it and did my best to shield subordinates from it but in the end still get stereotyped with the worst because of the rank I wore and/or that I chose to fight until my time was up.
We do more damage to ourselves by blaming everyone than being specific. It provides anonymity to the guilty and drains the morale of those that hold true to real values.
Agreed. We can’t blame the institution. It is made up of individuals.
The above is not a statement denying that careerist behavior does not happen. Nor am I attempting to diminish its toxicity. I only mean to comment on the fact that the behavior is not new, nor are complaints against it novel.
I understand your point entirely, and appreciate the interesting perspectives you and and majrod offered.