4 ms·

I know I'm not supposed to mention The War, but according to John Boyd, there was a similar phenomenon in the German army which aided the success of Blitzkrieg

by theoh 10y ago

I know I'm not supposed to mention The War, but according to John Boyd, there was a similar phenomenon in the German army which aided the success of Blitzkrieg tactics: 'According to General Gunther Blumentritt, such a scheme presupposes a common outlook based upon “a body of professional officers who have received exactly the same training during the long years of peace and with the same tactical education, the same way of thinking, identical speech, hence a body of officers to whom all tactical conceptions were fully clear.” Furthermore, a la General Blumentritt, it presupposes “an officers training institution which allows the subordinate a very great measure of freedom of action and freedom in the manner of executing orders and which primarily calls for independent daring, initiative and sense of responsibility.”'

elcapitan 10y ago
That's actually an older (going back to 19th century) German army leadership style, called Auftragstaktik (mission style tactics, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics). It means that instead of giving concrete orders how to do something, the leader gives order to achieve a certain goal, and it is in the autonomy of the next level of leadership to decide about how to do it. This is directly related to Clausewitz' understanding of war as something that is very much up to chance and unpredictable outcomes, rather than something that can be planned completely beforehand.
- theoh 10y ago
  That's interesting. Two quotes from the Wikipedia page that I think are relevant to this discussion of management styles: "[There is the following] implicit requirement imposed on superior commanders: * to give their subordinates no more orders than are essential (every order given is regarded as an additional constraint upon its recipient), and: * to be extremely rigorous, absolutely clear, and very succinct in the expression of their commands." "Few armies seem to have mastered the approach. The Wehrmacht are perhaps the premier example—a degree of competence achieved only after rigorous training under Hans von Seeckt between 1919 and 1935." So Boyd's observations about WWII are corroborated by that account.
  - elcapitan 10y ago
    I guess the big mental requirement there is the ability (on all command levels) to understand strategy and translate it into tactics, and to change from one tactic to another in order to achieve the same strategic goal. This was what Helmuth von Moltke (Chief of Staff of the Prussian Military) coined as "No plan survives contact with the enemy" (paraphrased). The battle between top-down and bottom-up management styles is still pretty alive in most companies, I guess.

by theoh 10y ago

elcapitan 10y ago

That's actually an older (going back to 19th century) German army leadership style, called Auftragstaktik (mission style tactics, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics). It means that instead of giving concrete orders how to do something, the leader gives order to achieve a certain goal, and it is in the autonomy of the next level of leadership to decide about how to do it. This is directly related to Clausewitz' understanding of war as something that is very much up to chance and unpredictable outcomes, rather than something that can be planned completely beforehand.

theoh 10y ago
That's interesting. Two quotes from the Wikipedia page that I think are relevant to this discussion of management styles: "[There is the following] implicit requirement imposed on superior commanders: * to give their subordinates no more orders than are essential (every order given is regarded as an additional constraint upon its recipient), and: * to be extremely rigorous, absolutely clear, and very succinct in the expression of their commands." "Few armies seem to have mastered the approach. The Wehrmacht are perhaps the premier example—a degree of competence achieved only after rigorous training under Hans von Seeckt between 1919 and 1935." So Boyd's observations about WWII are corroborated by that account.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  I guess the big mental requirement there is the ability (on all command levels) to understand strategy and translate it into tactics, and to change from one tactic to another in order to achieve the same strategic goal. This was what Helmuth von Moltke (Chief of Staff of the Prussian Military) coined as "No plan survives contact with the enemy" (paraphrased). The battle between top-down and bottom-up management styles is still pretty alive in most companies, I guess.