Why our generals were more successful in World War II than in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan

What people said

m0llusk · 2021-11 · Strong recommendation

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: [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.

Read the original HN comment ↗

sofrimiento · 2024-03 · Recommendation

This is a interesting talk held on UC Berkeley about the culture of firing officers during WWII: [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.

Read the original HN comment ↗

AdrianB1 · 2020-06 · Recommendation

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" ( [VIDEO] )

Read the original HN comment ↗