5 ms·

George Marshall who was, among other things, Chief of Staff of the Army during WWII was lauded for his policy of yanking commanding generals if they didn't adap

George Marshall who was, among other things, Chief of Staff of the Army during WWII was lauded for his policy of yanking commanding generals if they didn't adapt to new positions quickly. But he lessened the stigma of being relieved by transferring them to other commands, still at flag rank. Several commanders early in '42 were removed from commanding infantry divisions, but were given commands of units in combat support or material support or training where they went on to deliver stellar service. So it was like finding the right guy (and it definitely was a guy back in those days) for the right job. This is in contrast to continental armies with aristocratic baggage who found it difficult to fire flag grade commanders (looking at you, monty.) But the political risk to his own career was enormous and the only way he got away with it was with the full support of FDR and his reputation earned partially as Pershing's Chief of Staff in WWI. 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. Which is to say... you might be able to cheat the Peter Principal, but the amount of effort seems great and you would have to work very hard to sooth the egos of those demoted or reframe the demotion as a lateral xfer.

tivert 3y ago
> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_marshal#United_States:)
- OhMeadhbh 3y ago
  _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.
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    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)
    - OhMeadhbh 3y ago
      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.
      - fsckboy 3y ago
        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_ranks 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.
        OhMeadhbh 3y ago
        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.
- bdw5204 3y ago
  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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Major_Major_Major
ranger207 3y ago
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
- throwaway458864 3y ago
  > 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.
  - OhMeadhbh 3y ago
    > 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.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
keybored 3y ago
> 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.
- burutthrow1234 3y ago
  [flagged]
nabla9 3y ago
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.
- QuercusMax 3y ago
  So MacArthur had a "reality-distortion field" like Steve Jobs? Interesting.
- mcmoor 3y ago
  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"
marcosdumay 3y ago
> 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).
sofrimiento 3y ago
This is a interesting talk held on UC Berkeley about the culture of firing officers during WWII: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxZWxxZ2JGE 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.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> 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.

tivert 3y ago

> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_marshal#United_States:)

OhMeadhbh 3y ago
_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.
- fsckboy 3y ago
  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)
  - OhMeadhbh 3y ago
    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.
    - fsckboy 3y ago
      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_ranks 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.
      - OhMeadhbh 3y ago
        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.
bdw5204 3y ago
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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Major_Major_Major

ranger207 3y ago

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

throwaway458864 3y ago
> 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.
- OhMeadhbh 3y ago
  > 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.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

keybored 3y ago

> 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.

burutthrow1234 3y ago
[flagged]

nabla9 3y ago

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.

QuercusMax 3y ago
So MacArthur had a "reality-distortion field" like Steve Jobs? Interesting.
mcmoor 3y ago
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"

marcosdumay 3y ago

> 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).

sofrimiento 3y ago

This is a interesting talk held on UC Berkeley about the culture of firing officers during WWII: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxZWxxZ2JGE 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.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> 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.