In a previous article, I have dealt with the first key problem, that of micromanagement, of having too many general officers in the U.S. Army. And because of this propensity to micromanage, this bloat in generals leads to the second problem: creating unnecessary work. General officers literally create “work” out of thin air, dreaming up something for people to do. And the more “intellectual” and “hardworking,” the more “work” they create.[1]
In the 1960s series of Star Trek, an episode in the first season called “Space Seed,” has Capt. Kirk telling Mr. Spock that he needed the historian to go along on a mission. Kirk comments that it will “give a chance for that historian to do something for a change.” To make matters worse, he couldn’t even recall the historian’s name. While a TV show, it highlights what many people think of historians, especially in the Army. Compounding the problem is that many senior officers in the Army already think that they are historians, and they already know it all.
I learned that despite the regulations that tell me how to do my job as an historian, I’m really not doing anything important unless a senior officer is actually tasking me to do a project for him. If I somehow avoided being tasked for a job, but was busy as a beaver trying to write an annual history, collect documents and do historical interviews with key personnel… these being my primary tasks per regulations and federal law… the view of the leadership was that I wasn’t doing anything of value. And don’t dare tell them I’m reading anything. That’s the least productive thing I can do in their eyes. Rather, one must create “products,” which give others on the staff things to do.
Regarding how generals can create work, I will let one episode highlight how this happens.
When my 4-star command was getting ready to move to a new post due to the BRAC decisions of 2005,[2] I was tasked to come up with three names for the new headquarters building, from which the commanding general would choose one of them. By regulations, we were to form a committee, research the appropriate type of names that could be selected, and create packets for each name proposed.
As a good historian, I went back to the process in 1984 that created the name for our current building, then called Marshall Hall.[3] In examining the paperwork, I discovered that the committee selected three names and presented them to the 4-star commander. Marshall’s name was not one of them. After all… there were a lot of “Marshall Halls” out there. The commander looked at the list, scratched through the names and wrote “Marshall Hall,” followed by his initials. All of that time… all of that research work… all of the meetings… for naught.
With that in mind, my Historical Office decided to make an end run. After all, many of our staff offices in the Command were undermanned and overworked (we have plenty of managers, but few worker bees). We went to the commanding general and presented a few names, one of them being “McPherson Hall,” for Civil War Union General James McPherson who had been killed in action not far from our post. He was delighted at our selection and stamped his approval. We presented the name to the Garrison Commander at our soon-to-be new post, and got his approval as well, along with the approval of another command that was to share our new building.
We had triumphed! We had avoided the churn and saved time and workload for overloaded people on the staff.
And then a 1-star general got hold of it, upset that we had not consulted him as per regulations in naming the new building. Yes, my historical office had gone around the process regulations, but not because we thought that our own pet project was more important. Rather, we did so to facilitate the project at hand and get it done.
But this particular 1-star was not happy we did that. We were forced to take the paperwork back, do the research, prepare the packets, and present three names. Marshall’s name was not one of them. After all… there are a lot of “Marshall Halls” out there. In the end, a new general in charge, a 3-star temporarily in command, scratched through the names proposed and wrote…
“Marshall Hall.”
Russ Rodgers has several books published on Amazon.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
[1] I’ve learned that the worst bosses to work for… in and out of the Army… are those who are considered smart and hardworking. These literally dream up things to do. The best ones to work for are the smart and lazy. These look for the best and most effective way to accomplish a mission without creating drama and unnecessary effort.
[2] Base Realignment and Closure. A process to reduce the number of bases ostensibly to save money.
[3] Named for General of the Army George C. Marshall.