We’ve published this leadership model twice. The first time in 2012 and most recently, way back in 2015. It’s still worthy of debate.
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 it’s still a viable model?
“In the American model, the best and brightest take command.”
Aha…
Now I know why I will never be suitable as commander: Not lazy enaugh.
Ha, hilarious! Yes, dumb and energetic = “Bull in a China Shop”
The purveyors of UCP must of been in this category!
Ha, hilarious! The purveyors of UCP (and countless “mandatory fun” programs) must of been in the Dangerous category!
Here’s an interesting rundown from Quote Investigator: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/
It’s interesting food for thought. American commanders don’t really have the pull to shape their staffs in the way the model suggests should be possible.
Eric seems to have covered that in the story.
Since implementing this model, the German general staff has lost every major war it entered into with one exception, the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s. I do not quite understand the American military’s obsession with emulating a general staff that loses more wars then it wins. While this model served the US well in WWI and WWII how has it worked out in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe its time to get rid of the general staff concept in its entirety and come up with an organization for a 21st century military instead of a 19th century one.
Agreed, it doesn’t even apply to American govt and military, as it was created for an entirely unique reason that never applied to the US.
The Prussian/German general staff system was the result of its commanders coming from the Junker nobility, with many of the highest command positions going to members of royal families. While those princes, dukes, counts were often themselves professional officers, they were not promoted for competence or merit, but by blood, patronage, and politics. The General Staff was a way to ensure that they always had competent staff officers to support them, with a larger Chief of the General Staff present who would have their back.
In that regard, if a division commander told his chief of staff to go f**k himself and ignored him, the chief of staff would jump the chain and report that to the corps chief of staff, all the way up to the Chief of the General Staff, who would tell the King/Emperor/Commander-in-Chief, who would then use the formal chain of command to reign a s**t storm downwards onto said division commander, who would then follow his chief of staff’s “advice.”
Even before the abolishment of the nobility after WW1, the system was already becoming obsolete. Most senior generals were general staff officers, who would move from command to staff and back and forth throughout their careers. By WW2, it was still the same way. For every Rommel, who was not a member of the General Staff, there were a hundred generals (or thousand if the fuhrer reserve is counted) that were, but that was simply because most of the officers that were allowed to cross over from the Imperial German Army/Deutsches Heer to the Interwar period Reichswehr were near entirely general staff officers (the total force structure was limited to 100,000, including enlisted).
“A leader needs a time to be needed to lead.” – Me (quote me 3 x and then claim it for your own and wear it out).
“A leader wastes all time used solely to convince those [he] believes [he’s] charged with, that they need [him] to lead.” – again Me.
We definitely don’t follow this model as officers are required to serve both iin command and staff jobs to advance.
The end result is we often make officers who are great leaders be staff officers. The plans they produce often require the skills they have.
On the opposite end, we have the officers who would be great staff officers in command positions punching their ticket.
The worst practice we have is measuring success by rank which often drives poor practices e.g. the overly ambitious officer treating troops as stones to walk across and they cross a creek. Some seek command because it’s a career enhancer vs. actually wanting to be serve the soldier.
Unless an officer is prior enlisted he is trash.
I’ve worked for prior enlisted Os who sucked. It’s about the person.