Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapper33
“Bureaucracy is the enemy of talent”.
|
And that is why I do not do well in those hierarchical situations....
Because you are an Admiral it does not mean that you have any other talent except for being able to get your nose brown. The same is especially so in corporate structures... At the beginning of WW2 the US Navy was loaded up with Bureaucratic Admirals, where a series of defeats and less than favorable outcomes cleaned out the dead wood allowing capable men to assume the helm. The US military was manned during WW2 by Civilians who were intent on winning the war and getting back home as soon as they could and were not career orientated militarists. They did what it took.
The people who rise to the top in the Bureaucratic hierarchy have a common trait they are concerned first and foremost with their own self interests...the ship be damned so long as it does not sink and the paint looks good...
Years ago I was watching ole Charlie Rose interview the CIC of the Afghan army...he had gaming the US military down by citing all the metrics of how capable the Afghan army was... you may look good on paper but when the bullets fly the truth in the puddin shows up.
Ole US Grant was an abject failure at everything he did except for lead men in battle. He graduated from West Point liked to drink when he was bored which was most of the time, left the Army and failed as a grocery clerk...but when the CW came along and the chips were on the table he did what it took to win..
The only decision that he regretted was at Cold Harbor in 1864 where he ordered a frontal attack against a dug in Rebel position...it cost him 10,000 men in less than an hour. From being take em head on Grant he became end run Grant after Cold Harbor...Lee didn't realize Grant had an epiphany and moved his army to where he thought Grant would move next. Luckily for Lee he was able to recover in time because the Union army was slow crossing the James River. That led to the stalemate siege of Petersburg.