I think that intelligent and diligent is better.

Thank you Dr. Mohannad for your answer

Based on the Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord classification categories, the Intelligent but lazy person will still survive in leadership positions

Thank you Harry. I think Hammerstein-Equord meant that Intelligent but lazy person should get position higher than intelligent and diligent person.

Thanks for the invitation. For me, the combination of intelligence and laziness in a person is not suitable for their qualification to get highest leadership positions. Because, laziness is a great break on human progress and intelligence is not enough, if things, of course, work properly.

Regards

Wars are won in accordance with the exact execution of any orders from the higher commanders. There is a famous phrase: "Orders are not discussed, orders are being carried out". That is, wars are won by a group of "stupid" regardless of whether they are lazy or diligent. However, what is especially important, this property is "decency", which should be in the first place for the highest leadership positions. In my understanding, the mind must include self-control also, but this does not mean the quality of a lazy person. Remember Truman's famous meeting with Stalin at a conference in Potsdam, when Truman told Stalin that the United States already has an atomic bomb. Stalin was absolutely not embarrassed and did not answer, but he understood everything perfectly and gave the order to speed up the creation of an atomic bomb in the Soviet Union. Self-control is precisely the great quality of the mind. In my opinion, the highest leadership positions should be held by decent, intelligent and diligent people.

I am following.

The reality of our world! However, there are exceptions - The USA was really lucky to have so many dedicated and intelligent leaders more 250 years ago who created their constitution; Iraq had truly amazing leaders throughout its history including Gilgamesh, Narm Sin, Gaudea, Hammorabi, Ashurbanpal, etc.

No. But, how do you stop them: Trump is an example of what happens

when not-so-bright or not-so-focused folk grab the reins of power. How do we administer an IQ or knowledge test to a potential leader? Many very bright people may well have caused major problems for us. I recently read that ambition was a more powerful attribute of Franklin Delano Roosevelt than intelligence. Slippery slope here.

This is a high-quality answer produced by 10 monkeys typing for 10 days.

Thank you all for your answers.

Bill gates said: “I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.”

These links also show you how lazy leaders are more efficient:

https://ericgeiger.com/2014/04/effectiveness-lazy-intelligent-leader/

https://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2013/09/why-clever-and-lazy-people-make-great-leaders/

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-clever-and-lazy-leaders-are-more-efficient-2013-11

Why being clever and hardworking isn’t the best combination

At first glance, it might seem like being both clever and diligent would be the best combination you could hope for. While it’s not necessarily bad, von Hammerstein-Equord actually allocated these people to his General Staff, or what might be similar to middle management today.

The difference in these people who aren’t lazy is that they’re more likely to follow instructions and simply work hard at what they’re told to do.

Those who are clever but lazy tend to question existing processes and look for ways to streamline their work rather than simply getting it done.

Clever and lazy people often don’t mind standing out by asking questions and trying out new approaches, whereas many clever, hardworking people simply want to fit in.

For those who are clever and hardworking, however, being self-employed could be the answer to avoiding blending into a big company. As self-employed experts, clever and diligent people tend to do well.

Intelligent and Lazy An under-appreciated aspect of today's workforce that von Hammerstein-Equord thought fit to lead “because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions.”

These people can be challenging to work with. They delegate and trust people to do their jobs. They don't micromanage; They question. They avoid unproductive things (think meetings, paper shuffling, busy work). They don't seek consensus because often that means more work, not less. They focus on a few key priorities. They don't run around with solutions looking for problems.

Often they have no desire to ‘move up' in an organization. This gives them the freedom to be different.

No No , diligent people are successful potential leaders who can responsibility , the rest are followers !!!

Lazy persons should not have a place in leadership. A blend of the two may blindfold others to offer him/ her such leadership positions. Diligent and intelligent persons go far and sit in leadership seats for longer periods.

So 100 of John A. Ledingham's Monkeys can rule the world. Just wait another year!

As expected, it depends on your notion of “lazy,” as opposed to “fatigue”, or “exhausted”. Ask anyone who teaches in the public school system. Seven-eight periods a day, often while trying to handle a rowdy class, or even one in which the enthusiasm of youth is excessive.

One of my brothers was a public school teacher assigned initially to elementary classes, subsequently asked to teach at the junior high level, and then as part of the high school faculty. He often pointed out that it required both he and his wife grading papers and filling out curriculum forms every evening to do the job. By the way, his IQ (for what it is worth) was more than 150. So, he was, by that measure, “intelligent”.

My youngest brother, IQ more than 135, taught “Special Needs” children and was regularly assaulted by SN teen-agers. Neither was satisfied with the time left for family or friends after the close of the school day, which often wore on into the evening advising student clubs, coaching, or other activities.

The issues often continue in for those in university faculty positions. Some institutions require a faculty member to teach three, four and even five courses three times a week, and maintain publishing articles in scholarly journals. In addition, many require faculty not only to cover their courses, but to also plan their advisee’s schedule. More work that is considered part of the job.

At both the public school and university, the Administration is often heard to complain about the faculty being “lazy,” or not dedicated to the”family” (read smaller universities) or to the ”mission”(larger universities). That attitude sometimes carries over to the public, with comments such as: “When I retire, I think I’ll go into university teaching,” as though being part of a university faculty is tantamount to already being retired.

So, not surprisingly there are a perspectives to be considered. Among them: What is lazy?

And: What is simply taking advantage of a profession that for those dedicated to teaching and those equally dedicated to teaching and scholarship, the options are limited.

Do you think intelligent and lazy people qualify for highest leadership positions?

I think is possible because I came across leaders that are intelligent & "lazy". I need to quality "lazy" in the sense that not literally lazy i.e. do nothing at all but rather they don't do things until last minute. From my personal observation, I find that there is a correlation between intelligent people & laziness - to them they are intelligent / smart & can get things done easily, but prefer to wait till last minute to do it or at the right timing according to their convenience etc.

Also want to share that intelligence & diligence are not the only factors tied to the leader himself / herself but also need to consider other factors like his / her attitudes toward his / her followers (e.g. compassionate heart that can motivate the followers), the followers' characters / attributes, the environment / situation they are in etc. as depicted in the attached diagram.

I think such ideas can be scrapped. There is no place for research that defines human beings as 'lazy' or 'stupid'. These ideas are antiquated and have no place in modern scholarship. I recommend following Drucker:

https://www.slideshare.net/par913/qualities-of-effective-leadershipx

The sheer premise of having a matrix composed of such semantics, as have been used, is surprising as it is shocking.

As Peter Drucker said, management is about doing things right, leadership is about doing the right things (I might add that better leaders do both, with time on their side). Here are more reasons for you to upgrade to Peter Drucker:

https://hbr.org/2009/11/why-read-peter-drucker

Hope this helps (in spreading some sanity around the world),

Thanks all for your valuable answers.

I agree with Dr.Han Bing Fung

best regard

It coud be the first stage, later they can improve their attitude to become diligent.

I agree with Santosh. Lazy and stupid are not helpful words. Maybe what you intend with the word Lazy is "efficient use of personal time and effort" where as laziness is "minimising use of personal time and effort". In addition their are other dimensions to consider in excellent leadership - for example the management of emotions and the ego, and actively using one's intuition, instinct, insights and ethical philosophy as well as rational logic in decision making. You might be interested in this new book http://bit.ly/2z4DAbi "Leading Beyond The Ego.

Thank you Saad Kariem and Roger Vargas .Thanks John Knights for your opinion and suggestion.

I am absolutely amazed at the discourse among educated people as to even embrace the idea of a person being lazy or stupid and to hold an intellectual conversation on it....as if those descriptors are clinical diagnoses!!

I am literally alarmed!!!

Dear Judy

We are talking about the appearance of being lazy by leaders who prioritize inputs instead of being reactionary. In .5 sec you can determine a threat level, determine if the level is increasing or decreasing or stable, measure that against 5 other threats, and determine a reasonable course of action or inaction based on many factors, and your own free will and wishes and experience.

Now the above traits are common to all humans, for example, we all use them every time we drive a car.

Now the man/woman we classify as being stupid at a task in an organization, is the very person we trust on the road at a roundabout. Stupid is relative to situation. I am socially stupid enough to answer your suggestion, yet in my field you could trust me with your life.

kind regards

Derek

Thank you so much Judy Rashid and Derek Auret

A 1,000 foot question:

Respectfully - is it possible that branch approaches to leadership miss the mark in providing relevancy to real world applications? For example, are those leaders who use focused strategic use of their time lazy?

I may suggest that the model is a bit fragmented above and attempts to include to many variables that have little interconnection with each other.

Interesting none the less. Thank you for all of your ideas and models.

These days when society demands that our leaders spend around 18 hours a day working (in some capacity or other, counting working meals), I doubt any lazy person would seek office, or if they did, wouldn't get selected.

The most important predictor of success seems to be grit. Angela Duckworth notes in her celebrated article (cited 2433 times) - Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals that consistent work and not IQ works best for success. So I guess lazy people cannot do justice to leadership positions even if they are a genius.

Hammerstein-Equord was a German Army General, active in the early twentieth century. His description of the word 'lazy' was the person who was not easily ruffled, who had the 'nerves' and 'mental clarity', to be a military strategist.

We have to remember the context. In today's knowledge driven dynamic world, we may use words like 'creative', 'visionary', for people who showed 'nerves' and had 'mental clarity' in the turbulent world.

And sure, a combination of intelligent + creative and visionary would make for a great leader!

Thank you so much Terri Dawson Paul Syms Hanif Qureshi Mita Brahma

I believe that it was to Field Marechal von Moltke, head of the 19th Century Prussian Army, that the classification was attributed in first hand, although slight different: stupiud and lazy officers were to be excelent liason (PR) officers, while the stupid and diligent should be shot, as they were a danger to the army. The metaphor of the inteligent and lazy commander suggests that he or she is there to make others diligent

Thank you very much for the invitation.

I don't agree with Kurt von Hammerstein-Eqourd that anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, although some countries has this type of a leader, as for some people prefer the talk not actions, lies not reality.

A real leader must has Clever and Diligent Category.

Absolutely not. intelligent and lazy people are not qualify for highest leadership positions.

Best regards.

there is transition phase too. Proper implementation of action plan during transition phase the lazy one can be motivated to be diligent. Because organisations require intelligent persons on the top.

An interesting take on this, Jeevan Jyoti, but maybe not as applicable to the military situation as the business/political arena? In the military the commander is responsible for the vision and the top-level decisions, and at the higher levels for appointing the right people, whereas (by and large) it is the staff officers -- the intelligent and diligent in this model -- who are responsible for implementation of the plan.

I agree with JJyoti.

While we would always like to have the best, the brightest, the more loyal, most committed and most ethical in leadership positions, unfortunately it does not always happen. What I have looked for in selecting junior leaders have been bright and dedicated, who were willing to learn and had the personality to fit within the segment of the organization to which they had been assigned. I looked for consistency, not necessarily moments of brilliance and the willingness to push themselves while ensuring they never thought themselves to be a team of one. Individuals who had the courage to empower those around them and lead while truly displaying a concern for those within the organization. So brilliant but lazy, no. Consistent, promising and willing to learn that displayed leadership ability that could be enhanced with guidance and direction, absolutely

I think yes, they can solve problems easily by creative ways.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/28/clever-lazy/

David has an interesting perspective regarding criteria for leadership, but my thoughts often go to a time when people lived a bit more separated from one another, without the mass media systems we find today. In that environment, the items might be "degrees of “intelligence" and “degrees of laziness." At any rate, as I have written before, the situation requires a more drefinitive treatment of the notions of (1) intelligence, and (2) laziness. My opinion on this comes from observing how people react given different situations; emergencies, illness, crisis of various types, and a different type of leadership, such as that found in an organizational environment -- ad agencies, traditional corporations, and so on. If we recall, as best we can, actual behavior in which persons have exhibited leadership -- spontaneous or planned -- it seems to me that “leadership” actually describes many different behaviors across many different situations. And, in that sense, I don’t see purposeful laziness, and it also seems that just about anyone might be a leader, at any time...or not. What, then, are the characteristics? First, I would ‘look to Jim Grunig’s notion of “publics” in terms of interest, and my own work concerning “involvement,” and the other variables separating action, interest, and non-involvement. My intuition (at least better than a stick in the eye) is that the key characteristics in “leadership" might be a combination of confidence and character.

I have laughed. You are right. It is not all times that we get to have a combination of such 'favorable' characteristics. Sometimes, we need to make tough, risky decisions on our HRs. Particulalry in the army, your example fits well.

However, in other institutions, you can not take the lazy to lead, no matter how brilliant. Even in the army, there are some roles which you cant always entrust to the 'brilliant lazy', perhaps a 'slow-minded but diligent' usually carries the day to put the 'brilliant lazy' to good use.

Interesting stuff.

I do not believe that intelligent and lazy people are quailfied for highest leadership positions because they also serve as role models and laziness can not be a good role model.

I agree with Mita Brahma that intelligent + creative & visionary would make a great leader . The term lazy has a negative impression & the features described under clever + lazy suggest strategies for success , rather than laziness .

Definition of laziness: the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy; idleness

Not laziness, but a "take" on leadership. I've heard it said, or I read it somewhere, that if 10 of the CEOs of leading organizations were tested,

7-8 of them would be classified as psychopaths or sociopaths. I don't know for certain that I'm a member of either group, but my guess, based on my experience, is that the claim rings true. What does this say about leadership?

I do not think so Dr Ayad Al-Rumaithi

If it were true that intelligent and lazy people qualified for higher leadership positions, then I would have had to get a higher position.

Dear Ayad Al-Rumaithi , To be a leader is indeed needed by intelligent people, but people who are not smart do not necessarily fail to become leaders, because one of the factors that makes a person able to become a leader is environmental factors, broad relationships, interaction with society, and talent. regards.

Referring to what is the character of each, Yes, I go with the job for persons with both clever and lazy !!!

Yeh, may be possible.

Perhaps luck has a role in that

I do not hope so . An intelligent personality is always appreciated but as well as

laziness will decelerate his quality . As leadership always require some kind of endurance / sweat ie hard working nature.

Yes, I think so.

Do you think intelligent and lazy people qualify for highest leadership positions?

They might or might not be able to lead because leadership is not only depending on intelligence & laziness of the leader but also on other factors that influence how capable they can lead the followers to achieve certain goals outlines by the leader. Others factors that might leadership of a leader includes:

Has this model been tested in a variety of contexts?