Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan
Why Hacker News recommends it
Used in hiring and management debates as an analysis of fast evaluation, quick dismissal without stigma, and the cost of keeping underperformers.
What it is
Thomas Ricks's Nimitz Memorial Lecture at UC Berkeley asks why US generals did better in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq and Afghanistan. A central point is the WWII practice of quickly reassigning or relieving underperforming generals.
Recommended by 3 HN commenters across 3 different months, 2018 to 2024.
What Hacker News said
Strong rec m0llusk · 2021-11 · on “Coding Interviews Are BS (largely)”
Possibly the best analysis of this I have yet seen is the video Why our generals were most successful in World War II that in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan: [this video] Essentially, the answer is the hiring methodology. If someone seemed like a best fit for a job then they were hired. They then had two weeks to demonstrate basic functional capacity and six weeks to make significant progress. If at any point things did not work out then they were immediately dismissed and replaced with someone else. The high rate of this process meant that there were always open opportunities even for those who had been dismissed from other positions, so things worked out for both employers and employees.
Recommends AdrianB1 · 2020-06 · on “Advice to new managers: don't joke about firing people”
Never joke about firing people, but don't hesitate to do it. That is the complete advice. Joking about firing people never brought anything good; firing people when needed, that is essential for organizations. There is a lengthy explanation in this: "Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan" ( [this video] )
Recommends sofrimiento · 2024-03 · on “Peter principle”
This is a interesting talk held on UC Berkeley about the culture of firing officers during WWII: [this video] 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.
Cites Nomentatus · 2018-11 · on “Musk shakes up SpaceX in race to make satellite launch window: sources”
Interesting comparison - how important firing (actually, relieving) high numbers of generals is in war, when the rubber has to hit the road. [this video]
Cites m0llusk · 2021-08 · on “If software engineering is in demand, why is it so hard to get a job?”
This reminds me of this historian's theory that WWII generals were unusually successful because of the dynamic way they were assigned and potentially reassigned within weeks: (US Berkeley Events 2011) [this video]
Cites m0llusk · 2022-12 · on “Against All Applications”
A potentially interesting contrast: Why our generals were more successful in WWII than in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq/Afghanistan [this video] Briefly, minimize the application process and aggressively review work. Any mistake or failure and you're fired, two weeks to prove competence or you're fired, six weeks until a significant accomplishment or you're fired. And no stigma against being fired, just keep trying until you find a fit.