Creating Hardworking Idiots
The German World War II general Erich von Manstein is said to have categorized his officers into four types. The first type, he said, is lazy and stupid. His advice was to leave them alone because they don’t do any harm. The second type is hard-working and clever. He said that they make great officers because they ensure everything runs smoothly. The third group is composed of hardworking idiots. Von Manstein claims that you must immediately get rid of these, as they force everyone around them to perform pointless tasks. The fourth category are officers who are lazy and clever. These, he says, should be your generals. Discovering this information set me to wondering how General von Manstein’s categories might apply to business organizations today.
Lazy and Stupid
Most organizations have some managers within them who are lazy and stupid—at least, that has been my experience. Would you agree with the general that you can leave them alone, because they do no harm? I doubt it. Most organizations claim they try to get rid of any employee who is found to be lazy, let alone stupid as well. Maybe they try, but they don’t seem to be so successful, judging by the number who are left, some even in fairly exalted positions. Maybe one reason for this is that lazy and stupid people rarely do much active harm. The harm they do is more often based on missing opportunities and stifling the creativity of those who report to them. Bad enough, but not always easy to turn into clear grounds for dismissal—especially if the person in question is protected by someone powerful. Still, my guess is that even lazy and stupid people today realize that the best route to self-preservation is at least to appear busy and active.
Hardworking and Clever
Von Manstein’s next group is made up of hardworking, clever people. Organizations mostly want as many of these as they can get, for obvious reasons. But you’ll notice that the general seems to confine them to the military equivalent of middle management: jobs that are aimed at making everything run smoothly. I suspect one reason is that such people do make excellent administrators. They can take orders from above and turn them into practical ways of achieving the desired results. Some are so useful in these roles that they are never allowed to rise higher. Others maybe want to progress, but lack something that—at least in von Manstein’s view—is essential to become a good general. That something, it seems, is laziness. He wants the choice of generals to be made from people who are clever, naturally, but also lazy. Why should that make them better top executives?
Lazy and Clever
One reason might be that laziness is the principal spur to creativity. Lazy people are always looking for easier, simpler, and less arduous ways to do things. If they are also clever, the chances are that they will find them, and make them available to everyone else. Lazy people are also natural delegators, and find it very attractive to let their subordinates get on with their work without interference from above. Lazy, but bright, generals would be likely to make sure they focused on the essentials and ignored anything that might make for unnecessary work, whether for themselves or other people. In fact, it’s hard to see why you would not want your top managers to be as lazy as they are clever. It would indeed make them great strategists and leaders of people.
Hardworking Idiots
Now to the last group: the ones von Manstein said that you should get rid of immediately. That group is made up of people who are hardworking idiots, in his words. He says such people force those around them into pointless activities. I don’t know about you, but I suffered from several bosses I would unhesitatingly put into precisely that category. They were extremely hardworking—and demanded the same from their subordinates—but what they set others to work on (and what they spent their own time in doing) was mostly worthless. Maybe they were actually lazy and stupid people trying hard to seem busy, but too stupid to choose the right things to be busy about. It certainly felt like busyness for its own sake, and it was hateful. Or were they naturally hardworking idiots? Some probably were, but it’s my opinion that most such people are clever enough. It is the organization that makes them function like morons.
Today’s fast-paced, macho style of organizational culture creates, and then fosters, the hardworking idiot. Indeed, I think it takes a great many sound, useful, hardworking, and clever people and turns them into idiots by denying them the time or the opportunity to think or use their brains. If you don’t look busy all the time, you’re virtually asking for a pink slip, never mind what it is that you are doing—or whether it is actually of any use to the organization or its customers. It’s all so rushed and frenetic. If all that matters is “meeting the numbers” and getting things done (whatever those things are), managers will be forced into working hard at projects that they know make no sense.
The dumbing down of organizations isn’t caused by poor educational standards or faulty recruitment. It’s due mostly to the crazy pace that is set, and the obsessive focus on the most obvious, rigidly short-term objectives. The result is a sharp increase in hardworking idiots: people who are coerced into long hours and constant busyness, while being systematically forced to act like idiots by the culture around them. Don’t ask questions. Don’t cause problems by thinking, or waste time on coming up with new ideas. Don’t think about the future, or try to anticipate problems before they arise. Just keep at it, do exactly what is expected of you, and always get the most done in the least amount of time and at the lowest cost. If von Manstein is correct, the result will be that more and more employees will be used to perform essentially pointless tasks. Isn’t that exactly what we see?
I think that even a fairly cursory look around most organizations today would confirm the accuracy of this observation. Consider all the time wasted in unnecessary meetings. The obsessive emphasis on staying in touch, regardless of need. The torrents of e-mails, most of which are simply copies of documents of no direct relevance to the people to whom they are sent. The constant collecting of data for no clear reason. Management by numbers and motivation by numerically-based performance measures. Trust replaced by obsessive control and leadership by forced ranking of subordinates against vague criteria determined by committees with no idea of the specific circumstances.
You do not need ethical insight or human understanding to operate a machine, and machines are how many of today’s leaders see their organization: machines for making quick profits, not civilized communities of people working together to a common end. We can only hope some organizations at least see the error of their ways before the hardworking idiot becomes the commonest creature in the hierarchy. We are well on the way to that point, which is probably why so many people cherish dreams of getting out of the corporate rat race. It’s no fun to be forced to deny your own intelligence on a daily basis. We can still reverse the trend, but only by dropping the current out-dated dogmas, dangerous half truths, and total nonsense that disfigure management thinking. Let’s do it before it is too late.
Related posts:
- Raising the (Business) Speed Limit
- Those Much-ignored Essentials: Time, Thought, and Proof
- Speed, Simplicity, and Bad Choices
- Business Fundamentalism, One-track Minds and Magic Bullets
- Management Double-Speak
Adrian Savage is a writer, an Englishman, and a retired business executive, in that order. He lives in Tucson, Arizona. You can read his posts most days at Slow Leadership, the site for everyone who wants to build a civilized place to work and bring back the taste, zest and satisfaction to leadership.


Comments
bhuto says on October 2nd, 2006 at 6:04 am
Lazy and Clever:
The best manager is the one who makes himselfe no longer needed. as a manager he is suppost to delegate work and bring workflows and teams in a form so that everything gets done smoothly by the team(s).
the hardworking type might tend to doing the work himself and missing the opportunity to structure his area of responsibility to run by any given team (as long as the needede skills are represented).
the lazy type automatically tends to set everything up in a way so he does not need to do the work himself…
makes perfect sense to me
doublej says on October 2nd, 2006 at 6:41 am
Excellent article.
Hardworking idiots are worst leaders. Much of the ‘macho hours’ culture at work is down to this. People who get elevated beyond their ability generally use this to cover their anxiety of not being able to do the job.
Socially and professionally it’s very damaging. Those with a modicum of ability to work smarter are quite often scorned for not keeping the same hours or work ethic of those people who are in at 7am “just to dot the i’s and cross the t’s” ……and then don’t leave until 8 in the evening because they are STILL dotting i’s and crossing the same T’s
It is tragically common place….and alas leaves no time for authentic management - meaning those tortured souls and those who work with them are stuck. Forever….Mwah hahah haha !!!
Marina making pictures says on October 2nd, 2006 at 7:08 am
Interesting way to categorize people.
I wonder why someone would use a model of four types to describe very unique individuals. Very deterministic, I think.
Thank you for sharing this inspireing theory with me !
Matthew Petty says on October 2nd, 2006 at 1:06 pm
I absolutely love this article. I got off of the phone less than an hour ago getting the official “You have a new job.” In the interview I said quite proudly that I tend to be lazy but I’m the smart kind of lazy that finds easier ways to do things, and once I’ve found them I don’t have a problem sharing. The problem is I think I tend to get grouped into the hardworking/smart group because I get things done and it has often left me stuck in positions lower than my ability because they’re just so happy to have someone doing the tough job.
Will-I-Am says on October 2nd, 2006 at 8:07 pm
This scheme is usually attributed to Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord. The hardworking idiots, or the “stupid and ambitious” should be got rid of as quickly as possible, for there is nothing worse than ignorance in action. I like to think of the M*A*S*H characters who fit the various roles: Hawkeye and BJ the lazy and clever who usually got what they wanted, Burns the stupid and ambitious who was always causing trouble, and Radar the clever and hardworking who kept the place running. Perhaps you have other ideas.
Lance Walton says on October 3rd, 2006 at 4:36 pm
A lot of what you say in the final section echos what Tom Demarco said in his book, Slack: Getting Past Burnout, Busywork, and the Myth of Total Efficiency - see http://www.amazon.com/Slack-Ge.....0767907698.
Although Demarco doesn’t talk about ‘hardworking idiots’, he does make the point that the drive to ‘efficiency’ and short term objectives reduces the thinking time that is necessary to produce real gains. I guess in the end this makes us all perform less ably than we could.
Like everything that Demarco writes, its definitely worth reading.
Lance Walton says on October 3rd, 2006 at 4:39 pm
That URL should have been http://www.amazon.com/Slack-Ge.....0767907698 - your URL detector over-enthusiastically grabbed the final full stop
deep says on October 3rd, 2006 at 5:13 pm
A problem of course is that most would like to identify themselves with the lazy and clever bracket but that most are not as clever as their pride would like. So they’re just lazy to others but unused genius in their own minds. Like the old gimmick that if you ask (100) people in a room to raise their hand if they think they’re above average intelligence, and more than half the room will does.
I think as well that anyone who is gifted will find that lazy and clever allows one to whip through a certain difficulty level of tasks, but that if you’re really pushing your gifts to their limits, hard work is necessary as well. Such as going up against someone with similar strengths. So while the lazy and clever may be so at one echelon, if they pushed themselves up to where they should be, they might not have the luxury of laziness anymore. They might resemble those middle management officers in von Manstein’s ranks.
Back to the ego vs. intelligence thing. While criticizing the intelligence of superiors is a surely popular point to make, I think a lot of the time people do it without fully considering the other person’s point of view. Anyone can make a stupid decision when they have 100 other things competing for their time and attention. Someone may be able to come up with a lazy and clever way to handle something because they have a more intimate understanding of the things a superior only touches so as to organize and delegate.
Given the frequency with which the subject of information overload and efficient handling systems appears in blog writings, I’d say there is a good explanation for why the get out of jail free card is extended to ourselves but not those we take orders from. One that has to do with pride and not real intelligence.
pot says on October 10th, 2006 at 5:27 am
this affirms that my laziness is not entirely a liability!
Lisa W says on January 11th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Interesting and humorous theory. Reminds me of The Peter Principle: Reach our highest level of incompetence.
Zee says on January 19th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
I work in games ondustry and man, way too many Hardworking Idiots