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?

The article we published earlier, ‘Don’t Promote Mediocrity‘ on the Army’s promotion system reminded me that in a hierarchy like the US military, personnel are promoted so long as they display competence.

If you’ve known me a long time, then you’ve heard me refer to ‘The Peter Principle.” Simply put, it’s the idea that everyone will be promoted to their own level of incompetence. Often, I’ll refer to someone reaching their Peter Point, which is level at which they are no longer effective. Generally speaking, a fellow might be a great Maj but then, they promote him to Lt Col and give him a command or a staff element and he is just soup sandwich. This is the level at which he becomes incompetent. We see it in all facets of society. For example, business, politics, and the military.

Interestingly, the German Army, long our foes, had a standing tradition to promote their best and brightest to serve on the General Staff. It was held that it didn’t take a lot to command a unit but that the devil is in the details. To this end, Field Marshal Erich von Manstein, a German Army leader in World War II, is credited with saying, “There are only four types of officer. First, there are the lazy, stupid ones. Leave them alone, they do no harm. . . . Second, there are the hard-working, intelligent ones. They make excellent staff officers, ensuring that every detail is properly considered. Third, there are the hard-working, stupid ones. These people are a menace and must be fired at once. They create irrelevant work for everybody. Finally, there are the intelligent, lazy ones. They are suited for the highest office.”

The American military on the other hand, puts its best and brightest in command positions and as there are few of those positions many an officer ends up as a staff officer.

I have long held that the most dangerous threat to the US military is the wrong guy in the wrong staff position. You can have the biggest rock star commander making decisions, but those decisions are based on courses of action presented by a staff officer. No matter what, the decisions made by a commander are tainted by the information he is presented by his staff. Consequently, the staff wields a great deal of power. Based on the American military promotion system, the folks who are gathering the information a commander needs to make good decisions, are, oftentimes, those that they don’t want to put in charge.

Granted, there are limited command positions available, and, not everyone who ends up on a staff is poor performer but take a look around your organization. You’ll find those that have met their Peter Point and you may see their subordinates ‘managing upward’ in order to mitigate the damage they can do.

Disruptive thinkers, weigh that when considering where to inject your ideas. Get buy in at the lowest levels possible because the staff will carry your water for you if they think your concept has merit.

Consider this line from the Gotthold Ephraim Lessing’s play ‘Minna von Barnhelm’ publiched in 1767 – “Mehr als Wachtmeister zu werden? Daran denke ich nicht. Ich bin ein guter Wachtmeister und dürfte leicht ein schlechter Rittmeister und sicherlich noch ein schlechtrer General werden. Die Erfahrung hat man.” Or, in English, “To become more than a sergeant? I don’t consider it. I am a good sergeant; I might easily make a bad captain, and certainly an even worse general. People have had this experience.”

The point here is that perhaps the notion of the ‘Career Corporal’ or ‘Career Captain’ might be good for the military rather than the up or out policies adopted post-WW II.

The war is almost over. We can’t have a bunch of cowboys running around making up the rules as they go along. The time is nigh to bring them to heel.

You may recall my recent comments on surviving as a disruptive thinker in conventionally minded organizations. Looks like folks on active duty are starting to consider what they have wrought and what a future military will look like.

Navy officer Michael Campbell has penned an interesting read, “Disruptive Thinkers: Intrapreneurship vice Entrepreneurship – Why this Distinction Matters” in which he asserts that entrepreneurs work outside the system and intrapreneurs work within the framework. I’ll throw in my two cents that anyone who has only served during wartime doesn’t have the length of view to see what things were like during the peacetime military. Lockstep adherence to the status quo is what we had. Even after the war began, unconventional thinking was looked at with suspicion by ‘company men.’ While the author suggests that the intrapreneur “puts the goals of that organization first,” so does an entrepreneur. He just looks outside the organization in order to make it better, and doesn’t allow the dictatorship of ‘good enough for government work’ to stifle his efforts. Rather, author Campbell vilifies the concept of entrepreneurship, writing, “failing as an entrepreneur in uniform can very well result in breaking a solemn promise between you and the American people.” Spoken like a future member of the board. For examples, he cites Lt Col Oliver North and PFC Bradley Manning. Laughable. He equates being a military entrepreneur with being a criminal. Too bad he didn’t suggest such examples as Gen Billy Mitchell.

I once had an O6 SF officer call me a used car salesman because he was threatened by my confidence, knowledge (as a mere O3, and an Air Force one at that) and ability to move in circles outside our organization to bring in new, enabling capabilities. What makes this completely outrageous is that this was in 04 and I worked in a future capabilities cell at a Theater Special Operations Command. If anyone should have been thinking outside the box, it was me. He was just very threatened by unconventional thinking. Then again, he was serving as a Chief of Staff and not a Group commander. I’d say the system had his number but that doesn’t mean that he couldn’t do damage outside of command.

Remember, bucking the system isn’t for everybody. You’ve got to decide if the juice is worth the squeeze. And, coming up with a new way to conduct arms room inventories doesn’t make you a disruptive thinker.

Please take the time to read the article I referenced. It is well worth your time and will give you insight into the future groupthink.

smallwarsjournal.com

And…make sure you keep up with disruptivethinkers.blogspot.com.