|
|
Post by dave on Jun 4, 2016 7:58:17 GMT -6
montrose
I had never thought much about it but your post explained the concept quite clearly. Custer was an example of the "Peter principle" in the army. A person is promoted based on their current performance level not on abilities to perform the task. It is a well know concept that has proven to be very helpful in evaluations of employees and subordinates. Good point Will!
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Jun 5, 2016 19:08:13 GMT -6
montrose I had never thought much about it but your post explained the concept quite clearly. Custer was an example of the "Peter principle" in the army. A person is promoted based on their current performance level not on abilities to perform the task. It is a well know concept that has proven to be very helpful in evaluations of employees and subordinates. Good point Will! Regards Dave Dave, You raise interesting points here, I have been mulling over this. LOl, been drawing up logic boards to sort it out, and you don't want to know that that means. 1. The Peter principle is a linear concept. If you succeed at grade A, you succeed at grade B etc. The problem is that grades that involve leadership and management involve different skill sets as grades increase. 2. My argument is that promotion should be based on knowledge of the skill, plus leader assessment, plus manager assessment, with the deciding factor being the TASK. a. For a military mindset, this means the type of war we fights should have a huge factor in who we select as leaders, and within a war, operational and tactical factors play a role. b. Since you are an experienced college leader, let me try an analogy for your field. If my terms don't reflect the field, help me out here. c. College teachers go from grad students to lecturers to assistant professors to professors to department heads to school heads (the intermediate organizations of a collections of related disciplines) (Ask a military person to explain CA, CS, CSS, good luck) to college heads. And then collection of colleges that form a university. d. Knowledge. The lower end of the spectrum is very dependent on knowledge of that field. But as you slide up the ranks, management and leadership skills equal and soon exceed base knowledge. e. U curve/Laffer curve. (Giving away my own academic field). A decent department head leads his teachers in instructing that specified discipline. But many department heads are beyond useless at running colleges or universities. I have dozens of names in my own experience, I am sure you have hundreds. 3. My point is situational leadership/management. Where we pick a leader for a specified task, for a specified organization, knowing he may be useless in lesser or greater assignments. This theory is getting heavy discussion within senior leadership of Special Operations Forces, simply as we try to sort out why folks we think will fail succeed, and why folks we promote fail. Special Operations general grade officers have been a massive disappointment in the Global War on Terrorism. |
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jun 6, 2016 8:30:34 GMT -6
While I have no knowledge of supply side economics, diversity, Special Operations training, or the curves you allude to. I don't think your professors graded you on a curve. Many of Custer's commanders did grade him on a curve, he was even allowed to skip a grade or two. I was once held back, not ashamed of it, in fact it enhanced my ability to learn, as I was much more mature the 2nd time and from then on.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jun 6, 2016 10:42:53 GMT -6
Will
Excellent analogy using academic setting members to explain the military behavior of personnel. Basically people perform the same regardless of the arena, with faculty/staff mirroring military, which explains the universality of the "Peter principle" across the spectrum.
Your statement:
"2. My argument is that promotion should be based on knowledge of the skill, plus leader assessment, plus manager assessment, with the deciding factor being the TASK."
This is an effective way to determine who is best qualified for president during this campaign, taking emotions out of the decision process and providing an objective means of selection. But it will never happen.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on Jun 6, 2016 15:34:17 GMT -6
I think my faith is with your tongue in your cheek! Great observation and I could not agree more.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jun 7, 2016 6:31:41 GMT -6
Will
So what I take from this is just because you are good at conventional warfare you may not be as good at the unconventional.
Some of our best officers in the field were poor supervisors. They had the knowledge but the skills and abilities are different.
Steve
|
|
thegraylensman
New Member
Given a do-over, how could the 7th have won the battle of the LittleBighorn?
Posts: 3 
|
Post by thegraylensman on Nov 23, 2018 22:32:23 GMT -6
I would be interested in seeing someone making a comparison of George Custer and Ranald Mackenzie. I’m inclined to be of the opinion that Mackenzie was the better commander. -the gray lensman
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on Nov 24, 2018 6:44:36 GMT -6
I would be interested in seeing someone making a comparison of George Custer and Ranald Mackenzie. I’m inclined to be of the opinion that Mackenzie was the better commander. -the gray lensman Without knowing an awful lot about Mackenzie, I would agree with you. I also think most objective historians would, as well. And that is not a denigration of Custer; just a comparison. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Nov 24, 2018 7:29:36 GMT -6
A couple of things here. Custer was last in his class 1861, I think Mackenzie was # 1 in 1862. His first skill in military was as an engineer, probably a critical thinker. Grant said about him "most promising young officer." He was a bull dog. He was creative in non traditional warfare, a team player, and knew how to follow orders.
Appointed colonel of the 41st U.S. Infantry (later 24th U.S. Infantry, one of the Buffalo Soldier regiments) in 1867. Some officers were reluctant to lead African-American regiments,(Custer was offered a full colonelcy around the same time of a Black Regiment, he refused) but Mackenzie did well with the 41st. In 1871, he(Mackenzie) assumed command of the 4th U.S. Cavalry in Texas. He led the regiment in the Battle of Blanco Canyon and at the Battle of the North Fork in the Llano Estacado of West Texas. In October 1871, he was wounded a seventh time by an arrow.
Regards,
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by noggy on Nov 25, 2018 6:29:09 GMT -6
Compare actual results achieved by the two as "Indian fighters". Mackenzie got his jobs done. In terms of more conventional warfare, I don`t know enough anout his service during the ACW, but even if it seems like he did very well GAC certainly did too and is regarded one of the best cavalry officers of the entire war.
All the best,
Noggy
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Nov 28, 2018 14:56:32 GMT -6
MacKenzie won praise from US Grant during the CW and considered him "one of the most promising young officers" in the Army. He was wounded numerous times including losing fingers from one hand. (He was later known by "Bad Hand" by the Indians.)
After the CW he was one of the few officers who led Black Soldiers and was successful against the Comanche, culminating in their defeat at Palo Duro Canyon.
He also led the attacked on Dull Knife's Village after the LBH effectively forcing the Northern Cheyenne into reservations.
He felt it was more important to destroy an Indian Village than killing Indians and that proved true against the Comanche & Cheyenne.
He also suffered a arrow wound and fell out of a wagon on to his head which may have led to his mental instability later on. Some claim it was from syphilis.
He was a hard disciplinarian but was respected by his men and was considered one of the army's best Indian Fighters.
Unfortunately he developed a mental disability and was retired from the military in 1884 and spent the rest of his life in and out of mental institutions until dying in 1889.
Kinda hard to decide which was the worst way of dying . . . being wiped out at the LBH or dying of mental issues. Custer lives on and no one knows who MacKenzie is.
|
|
