I divide officers into four classes -- the clever, the lazy, the stupid and the industrious. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the high staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy is fit for the very highest commands. He has the temperament and the requisite nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious must be removed immediately.
In the variation I read, the "clever and lazy" officer is actually the MOST fit for battlefield command because he is likely to find the fastest and most efficient way to get a task done. I found this deeply reassuring because I am... well... clever and lazy. I strive for excellence in my work, but I have no desire to work late into the evenings adjusting my PowerPoint fonts for the commander.
I wanted to write a post about this, but my Air Force colleague over at Pick Your battles beat me to it. He focuses on the "stupid and industrious" in the above quote: those who "put in long hours, prioritize their job over time spent with the family, come in on the weekends, and rarely produce anything useful for the Air Force." Maybe a bit harsh, but there's a lot of truth in his analysis, which is very much related to the various papers written lately critiquing the military's PowerPoint culture.
By the way, if you want a guy who likes to challenge the system, this is him. He's waging war against Air University because he suffered a serious violation of his academic freedom, is embroiled in a legal battle with police for violating his 4th amendment rights, and wrote an ACSC thesis comparing Air Force fighter pilot culture to Enron. He seems to be enjoying it, too.
10 comments:
This came up in a recent blog post. An Army Lt. Col. whom I'll call "Christopher" attributed it to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, writing in 1933.
I have always considered myself clever and lazy. I think the perfect description of the perfect military officer is found, not in Anton Meyer's 'Once an Eagle', but in Robert Heinlein's 'Time Enough for Love', in the chapter entitled 'The Man Who was Too Lazy to Fail'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Enough_for_Love
See this discussion thread on the blog, "On Violence"
http://onviolence.com/?e=225
German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
I thought it was Von Moltke the elder
Robin Olds just wrote a similar thing but said it was told to him by Hap Arnold just after the war was won. He divided officers into four different categories using different words but along the same lines, except he said it's important to fire the deadwood. It's in Olds recent autobiography.
See Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord on Wiki, which cites it as follows:
"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"
Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
Blue skies! -- Dan Ford
I've heard that attributed to Napoleon.
"stupid and industrious"
An apt description of that self acclaimed "cabal" of loser neocons, Likudniks, Judite & Christian Zionists whose ministrations helped lead the previous US administration to ignominy and ruin.
I think this comment is probably far older than whatever source you can find... it would fall into the category of 'basic truth' that is restated every few decades in a new way to keep it relevant to people. it probably goes back to Socrates, who epitomized the virtues of being clever and lazy.
Stupid industriousness, it should be noted, is equally pervasive within any political group or institution; it may take different forms, but it is always there. Whether you believe that its starting wars and being unable to stop them out of fear of admitting error, or whether its burying your country deeper into debt because its simpler politically to keep spending rather than demand any real austerity... its the same animal.
One of my favorite short essays on the topic of stupidity (and there are many, it being a bottomless topic) is by Carlo Cipolla, "The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity"
here: http://www.cantrip.org/stupidity.html
He hits upon a dynamic semi-related to your quote; the framework he uses is a ven diagram/2x2 matrix between "helping yourself + helping others". Wherein helping yourself AND others = intelligent, helping yourself and hurting others = banditry, hurting yourself and helping others = haplessness, and hurting yourself and hurting others = stupidity.
The main benefit of laziness being, I assume, that you are unlikely to do much damage with whatever stupidity you do possess, out of sheer lack of effort.
This also an indirect argument for the idea of a (semi) limited and fragmented adversarial government with checks and balances. If everyone were ever able to actually *agree* about anything, they'd probably do things far more damaging to themselves than they already manage. (if that's conceivable) This is one of my great concerns about liberals today, who like, say Thomas Friedman, pine for our nation to "Become China for a Day", and have enlightened despots 'authorize the right decisions'. It labors under the delusion that industrious politicians are a good thing.
Post a Comment