The Practically Perfect Officer

Sydney Harbor - photo by JoAnn Sturman

Scott Sturman
fliesinyoureyes.com

Reading policy journals is informative but dull.  Just how much can one speculate, if there are 100 unknowns and only 90 equations to solve them?  One of the few articles from Foreign Affairs which held my undivided interest from start to finish, “A Natural History of Peace,” was a clever piece written by a professor of biologic sciences at Stanford University about primate behavior and how it relates to conflict and peace.  The the writers from the Hoover Institute’s Policy Review are less inclined to sound like a text book.  Whenever I see a Mary Eberstadt article in the table of contents, such as “Is Food the Next Sex?,” I make it a point to read her observations which are insightful and entertaining.

As luck would have it, I was catching up on some unread journals and found Henrik Bering’s “The Perfect Officer,” which I hoped would help me understand why my Air Force career was so short and tortured.  I found a few justifying sentences, but it was von Manstein’s Matrix which caught my attention.  The concept reminded me of the Thomas Harris book I’m OK, You’re OK., the archetypical four square matrix on how to get in touch with one’s feelings.  The concept is simple, but a clever author can stretch the four options into a 200 page, large print best seller.  As I recall, “I’m OK and you’re OK” is a healthy situation, while “I’m not OK and you’re not OK,” is not.  “I’m OK and you’re not OK” and “I’m not OK and you’re OK” are somewhere in between.  What a surprise!  Psychologists make fortunes writing these self help books and can expect an open invitation to appear with Dr. Phil.

Manstein was a Prussian field marshal and author of the book Lost Victories.  He dispelled the myth of the blindly obedient Prussian soldier, and instead attributed success to clearly defined goals set by the general staff, while allowing subordinates great flexibility in dealing with fluidity of the battlefield.  In the Prussian model leadership is of supreme importance, hence officers were selected for all around ability.  Although education and intelligence were important considerations, character and the skill to handle perilous situations trumped the former. 

Manstein’s version of the Harris matrix centers on the opposites laziness and hard work and stupidity and intelligence.  The marshal used these traits to predict the performance of military officers.  In his view the lazy, stupid officer is harmless and can be left alone, while one who is hard working and intelligent is suited to be a staff officer where every detail must be considered.  The pariah is the hard working, stupid officer, who will sacrifice others for his personal benefit and create irrelevant duties which detract from the effectiveness of the unit.  This character type is disruptive and undermines the integrity of the organization, thus Manstein recommended the stupid, hardworking officer be fired immediately.  The intelligent, lazy officer provides the biggest surprise.  In Manstein’s view these traits are essential for the highest levels of command which require innovative, but simple solutions and the confidence to delegate authority to subordinates.

I thought about some of the officers I met nearly forty years ago and tried to fit them neatly into Manstein’s Matrix.  My alcoholic commander, Lt. Col. Michaels, was stupid and lazy, and destroyed many junior officers’ careers before a few of us hastened his retirement.  The charismatic Captain Henry, on the other hand, was intelligent and hard working, but his lack of reverence for the regulation book was not conducive to a star studded career.   Manstein’s Matrix just doesn’t jibe with personal experience.  It is far too random to make any predictions.  One could just as well throw darts at the four squares to achieve similar results.

Whether it is military or civilian organizations, I think the Germans had it right about the importance of character and its relationship to leadership.  The level of individual intelligence and capacity for work varies over broad ranges, but great leaders all possess the ability to instill confidence and elicit the best efforts of those under their command; when faced with an agonizing choice, they invariably act in the best interests of the organization rather than for personal gain.  If character is the measure of leadership, perhaps the current 10% Congressional approval rating is overly optimistic.