Hacker News Reader

It's interesting reading about WWII generals because they're so well-studied it's relatively easy to notice patterns about them. One is that there were a few different types based on what they were good at. Patton was a good tactician and (mostly) beloved by his men; Eisenhower was a logistician with little experience actually commanding but he got along with everyone; Nimitz was good at delegating (aka finding the right man for the job); etc. A lot of leadership stuff is universal, but then a lot of it is also dependent on what's needed for the job, and a person's skills and leadership patterns may not be exactly what's needed for the job. The Peter Principle is that if you do a good job you get promoted, as you get promoted it gets harder, eventually you reach a point where your skills aren't enough to overcome the next level of difficulty increase. Most people would probably be able to go a lot further if they were fit into the right positions to use their particular leadership pattern

> A lot of leadership stuff is universal, but then a lot of it is also dependent on what's needed for the job, and a person's skills and leadership patterns may not be exactly what's needed for the job.

Leadership is what's needed for leadership jobs. It's in the title. All leadership is the same: inspire the troops, block the bullshit, elevate the good shit. How you do that changes by rank.

> The Peter Principle is that if you do a good job you get promoted, as you get promoted it gets harder, eventually you reach a point where your skills aren't enough to overcome the next level of difficulty increase.

The Peter Principle isn't about difficulty, it's about skill set. As you climb the ranks you need a different skill set. The job isn't harder, the job is different.

> The Peter Principle isn't about difficulty, it's about skill set. As you climb the ranks you need a different skill set. The job isn't harder, the job is different.

This is a great observation and think it isn't very well described when talking about the Peter Principal. My Dad retired as a Colonel and required a LOT of political skills. He said he wasn't really interested in the politics of being a flag grade officer and thought he was too old to learn them. Me, on the other hand, never progressed past small unit command. And never even got to the point where politics were a major part of my job. In my unit we were all just trying to not get killed and find opportunities to use the logistics training we received.

> Leadership is what's needed for leadership jobs. It's in the title. All leadership is the same: inspire the troops, block the bullshit, elevate the good shit. How you do that changes by rank.

A big part of leadership, which might be covered under your 'block the bullshit' point, is fighting the higher level managerial battles, and only relying on your lower level staff for their specialized support.

If there is one thing I hate about some managers is throwing their employees to fight political battles with other managers, or high level Executives, while the manager hides in the bushes.

The manager's job is to fight those battles, and yet I've seen them hide from them a lot, while using their workers as shields.

> If there is one thing I hate about some managers is throwing their employees to fight political battles with other managers, or high level Executives, while the manager hides in the bushes.

The “never bring a knife to a gunfight” rule of management.

> He is also the only person in the US Army to be considered for the rank of Field Marshall, mostly because FDR thought it would be funny to have Field Marshal Marshall.

According to Wikipedia, he got an equivalent rank that was named "General of the Army" It was not called "Field Marshal" because having a "Marshal Marshall" was considered undignified (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_marshal#United_States:)

_considered_ for the rank of field marshal. i did not imply he was promoted to field marshal. and even then, it was very likely just a joke.

well then you should have implied it because he was promoted to a rank equivalent to field marshall, 5 star general. (neither rank existed at the time, and when the rank was created, "field marshall" was eschewed as a name for it)

it would have been inaccurate to say George Marshall was promoted to Field Marshal, because he wasn't. He was promoted to General of the Army. It's sort of like saying someone who was promoted to Gunner in the Marines is a Chief Warrant Officer. The two are equivalent in rank, but very different roles in their organizations. And if you referred to a Navy Captain as a Colonel, people would look at you funny, even though the two are considered equivalent rank.

It's quite normal and ordinary to say and execute as if, for example, a "Group Captain" in a Commonwealth air force is the equivalent to a "Colonel" in the US Air Force. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_comparative_military_r...

The US doesn't have a Field Marshall rank; European forces do. The promotion of Gen Marshall to five star general was intended to make rational the lines and ranks of command, including between coordinated forces of allied nations.

it's not the name of the title that matters, it's the rank in the hierarchy.

The US doesn't have a Field Marshal grade, but before 1947, it could have been created by the president. I believe it requires an act of congress now. But there's little will to do it because of its association with aristocratic traditions in Europe. Which is why when FDR suggested it, it was interpreted as a joke.

I imagine that's where Joseph Heller got the idea for a character named Major Major Major Major:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Major_Major_Major

This is a interesting talk held on UC Berkeley about the culture of firing officers during WWII:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxZWxxZ2JGE

Thomas E. Ricks main hypothesis is that the US failures in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq can be attributed to the culture of firing under-performing disappearing.

It mirrors what I've seen in a lot of organizations as well, under-performing executives keeping their jobs when they shouldn't.

Wehrmacht gave great support from the sides.

At the beginning of the war, American flag officers were humiliated by their much more experienced and skillful Wehrmacht counterparts. Lt. Gen Lloyd Fredendall and other fools just had to go or the war would end before it started. It was a natural evolution.

The only subpar American general who thrived in WWII was Gen. Douglas MacArthur. He came out of every mess he created with a hero's reputation. He could fix everything with a bombastic speech and infinite self-confidence.

So MacArthur had a "reality-distortion field" like Steve Jobs? Interesting.

I don't know if it's actually a quote someome that era said but it goes like "Best American general in WW2 is General Logistics"

> He is also the only person in the US Army to be considered for the rank of Field Marshall, mostly because FDR thought it would be funny to have Field Marshal Marshall.

Considering that when the 5-star rank (General of the Army) to which he was promoted had three other people promoted to it at the same time, if he was considered for promotion to Field Marshal but they ended up choosing a different name for the rank, he probably wasn't the only one.

> So it was like finding the right guy (and it definitely was a guy back in those days) for the right job.

I almost spit out my coffee while reading HN. “Holy shit” I think to myself, “the second world war was a boys club!” My mind reels as a I pace the room and look at my Condoleezza Rice and RBG posters. “How many potential career women did WWII hold back? And in turn their daughters and granddaughters from the lack of example and inspiration that those women could set?” I now know that I have a new research project on my hands. The electric typewriter beckons.

> but the amount of effort seems great

You "just" have to consider moves through the managing pyramid and promotions to be independent concepts.

I mean, this is basic stuff that you can read on any management book. (Y careers, and the like.) And if you try it on the real world, every single person will think you are crazy and fight you (except for the competent ICs inside the organization).