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.
Why Hacker News points people here: Used in hiring and management debates as an analysis of fast evaluation, quick dismissal without stigma, and the cost of keeping underperformers.
“Possibly the best analysis of this I have yet seen is the video”HN comment, 2021
“Possibly the best analysis of this I have yet seen is the video”
Hire quickly, evaluate within weeks, dismiss fast without stigma
Full comment
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.
RecommendsAdrianB1Jun 2020
“There is a lengthy explanation in this”
Lengthy explanation of why firing underperformers matters
Full comment
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 )
RecommendssofrimientoMar 2024
“This is a interesting talk held on UC Berkeley about the culture of firing officers during WWII”
Ricks on culture of firing officers during WWII versus later wars
Full comment
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 itNomentatusNov 2018
“how important firing (actually, relieving) high numbers of generals is in war”
Importance of relieving many generals in wartime
Full comment
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 itm0lluskAug 2021
“WWII generals were unusually successful because of the dynamic way they were assigned and potentially reassigned within weeks”
Historian's theory of WWII generals' dynamic assignment and reassignment
Full comment
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 itm0lluskDec 2022
“A potentially interesting contrast”
WWII hiring approach: fast evaluation, quick firing, no stigma
Full comment
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.
