Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Leadership and Laziness
In my latest op-ed for the local fishwrap, I tell the tale of an old German general with the mouthful of a name Kurt Gebhard Adolf Philipp Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord. Between the world wars, he was tasked with restructuring the military, at least until he tried to kill Hitler, which got him into a spot of bother. But how he decided whom to promote and whom to fire fascinates me from a business perspective.
He divided the entire officer corps into four quadrants, which I illustrated in the chart to the right:
- Dumb and busy.
- Dumb and lazy.
- Smart and busy.
- Smart and lazy.
Since Hammerstein-Equord was a highly disciplined German officer, you would assume he’d fire those in Quadrant 2 (dumb and lazy) and promote those in Quadrant 3 (smart and busy). But you’d have it backward.
Instead, he considered Quadrant 1 (dumb and busy) to be walking disasters, and he fired nearly all of them. The Quadrant 2’s were fine if he gave them simple, repetitive tasks, and a hearty dose of Prussian boots to the hintern.
Quadrant 3 (smart and busy) seem like they would be the cream of the crop, but to Hammerstein-Equord they had … issues. These officers were always doing something, even when nothing needed to be done. Quadrant 3’s micromanaged their subordinates, created complicated new “improvement” programs, bothered their superiors with useless information, and, while they were mired in minutiae, missed the big picture. As a result, Hammerstein-Equord never promoted them to a commanding officer level.
The real stars lived in Quadrant 4. These smart and lazy officers were promoted to the highest levels of the military. They were clever enough to see what needed to be done but relaxed enough to find the easiest, most direct way to succeed. Quadrant 4’s didn’t get mired in the details, but delegated those chores to staff — and then left them alone.
Hammerstein-Equord’s quadrant is a handy tool for business, but also for politics. When I look at Washington, I see warehouse-sized offices filled with of Quadrant 1 and 3 types. Bureaucrats are usually mocked as lazy, I’m more concerned about the really ambitious ones. Always looking to create a new climate change scheme, transgender bathroom initiative, or tome of pickle regulations. And don’t get me started on energetic politicians.
A lazy leader would see a social problem and ask, “maybe the private sector should do this,” “looks like charities are handling it,” or “I’ll let my constituents figure it out for themselves.” A position of “don’t just do something, stand there” is inherently conservative.
To quote the sainted Calvin Coolidge, “When you see 10 problems rolling down the road, if you don’t do anything, nine of them will roll into a ditch before they get to you.” The key, of course, is to recognize that one serious problem and expend your energy on that.
Published in Culture, Politics
Well, I’m definitely in the lazy column, the row varies from day to day.
I would make a long and involved comment, but that’s too much work.
For easier reference, you should have put your numbers in your chart as well as in your text.
What quadrant does that comment put me in?
This is not my first time reading something along these lines. But I am glad to see the original source.
The Energetic Competents are great in war time for the most part. However they can get you into trouble. Monty, Guderian and Patton come to mind as examples.
I was going to write a 5,000 word rebuttal to this post but, man, that seemed like a lot of work.
We also must remember Dumb in this case was an average IQ of 120 to 130. So dumb at that scale.
James Blish came up with something like this in one of his stories, only the axes were Conscientious/Non-conscientious and Industrious/Lazy. Same basic conclusion – the innovator are conscientious and lazy
As for whether this works in the military? Paging @bossmongo. Boss Mongo, please pick up the white phone.
Seawriter
This post reminds me of Robert Heinlein’s observation:
My mother never tired of reminding me that I was born on a Sunday, the day of rest. As a fundamentally lazy person, I find comfort in Heinlein’s thought.
When I was living in Dayton, a challenger arose to face the Republican incumbent for state office. Her campaign emphasized that not only had he not proposed a single new law, he had voted against every new law that had come his way.
He won in a landslide, of course.
Does my dad’s moto of “Work smarter not harder” fit here?
Yes. I spent many years of my life on the one hand wishing that some of my employees would show a bit more initiative, and then bitterly regretting that they had done so, after the fact. I’ll take the dumb and lazy quadrant every time.
I have a quibble about the Dumb/Lazy quadrant. Worker bees are considered hardworking and industrious, not lazy. Utah, the Beehive State, has as its motto Industry. A beehive adorns their highway signs. They didn’t put it there because they wanted to advertise that they’re lazy.
Not sure what fits better in that quadrant but worker bees ain’t it.
.
It isn’t only that. Innovators usually are problem makers as well. And worker bees who get promoted usually turn into micromanagers.
I walked into the luncheon after the company Vice President gave his annual talk and introduction of new products. This was my 10th year. I was looking for anyone out of the 1500 people in the room I might want to dine with. A voice to my right said, “C’mon. Sit here with us.” It was the company VP. So I sat there with him and a few other managers I had never met. He asked what I thought of his “talk”. I quipped, ” Ya know Bernie, I’ve been coming to this for ten years now. And every year you tell me to work smarter not harder. And every year I go back and work smarter…so much so that now after ten years I’m a F***ing genius. All because of you.”
He laughed for 5 minutes. Thank goodness.
.
“Lazy” isn’t the right word. I agree. I can’t think of the appropriate word that might mean “slow down and focus.”
It seems to be tied to be being an ‘agent of change’. Worker bees are not agents of change.
You do that by getting someone else to work harder for you.
Umm… you quoted someone else’s comment.
Right, but you can’t change the word at the top of the column without messing up the lower-right quadrant. That’s the trouble with trying to shoehorn ideas into a simple quad chart.
A smart and lazy guy once said something along the lines of “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
In business, we refer to quadrant 1, Dumb and Busy, as loose cannons.
With respect to #s 1 and 3 in politics, a WFB, Jr. story: He had been talking with a young lad (about 10 yrs old) and asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up. The lad replied that he wanted to go into politics – to help people. Mr. Buckley turned and quietly asked the adult standing near him whether they could interest the lad in emigration.
Good thing you were smart enough to realize that.
Absolutely. The key is to focus on what needs to be done rather than just flailing about and chasing every perceived problem.
For what it’s worth, here is Hammerstein-Equord’s full quote:
But this quote of his is my favorite:
Explains why so many people want to work for the government.
Seawriter
I think we need to add a personality dimension to categorize Trump: plus or minus jerk. That makes him a smart, lazy, jerk. Of course, no one fitting that category has done anything great lately.
Well, there’s a difference between a jerk and a blowhard.
There is, isn’t there? Right? Why are you all laughing? What is so funny?
Von Moltke would be proud to see the update!
I use a “smart/clueless” versus “nice/evil” grid for the convention business, for customers.
About 80% of clients fall into the “nice but clueless” quarter, a small amount are in the “evil but clueless” area, a very few are “smart evil’ types, but the handful of clients I love working for are in the “smart and nice” zone – and the majority of them are fairly lazy, when you get right down to it. Which is fine, because they’re smart enough to hire good people to do our job – and trust them to get things done instead of them having to watch over us every second…