Thought

How To Gain Your Boss’s Appreciation

Quintus Curtius Thought , ,

boss1

A lot has been written about how to be an entrepreneur.  A lot has been written about how to innovate.  Not as much has been written about how to be a good employee.

Being a good team-player is not glamorous.  Being a good team player is not what receives all the attention.  But it is just as critical–if not more so–than the innovator or trend-setter.

We don’t talk much about the virtue of obedience very much.  Which is our loss.  Because obedience is absolutely critical.  In everything.

Before you can innovate, before you can create, before you can speak as an authority, you must obey.  You must submit.

Yes, I mean you.  

One of the (many) problems in America today is that there are too many chiefs, and not enough Indians.  Too many cooks, but not enough servers.  Too many shit-talking bastards, and not enough work-horses.

You get my drift.  I tend to curse a lot when I speak colloquially.

In every type of situation in life, we will have some form of boss.  In every situation.  No man is an island, unto himself.  No man.  Not a single one.

Very, very few people are answerable to no one.  There is always someone else.  Someone who needs to be kept happy.

And this is something that most people will not tell you.

It is this:  you need to learn how to obey.  I don’t mean a slave.  I don’t mean that you should demean yourself.  I mean something more along the lines of loyalty, fidelity, and comradeship.  There is a quiet dignity in these virtues.  They are somewhat out of style now, in this age of bombast and self-promotion.

That’s what I mean.

All that innovation stuff comes later.  After you’ve built a foundation.  After you’ve demonstrated your worth.  Yes, you.  You’re not a unique snowflake until you’ve proved that you are.

So, let me talk about how you can gain your boss’s appreciation.  Do you really want to know?  I will tell you.

First, put yourself in the position of the average boss.  He is harried, harassed, and overworked.  He already has a lot of problems.  And he doesn’t need more of them.  He doesn’t need you to add to his problems.

Bosses want this:

1.  Do your fucking job.  Your boss doesn’t want to spoon-feed you.  He doesn’t want to wipe your nose or your ass.  He wants you to do your fucking job.  With no bullshit, no back-talk, and no attitude.

So do your fucking job.  Isn’t that simple?  If you have to study extra to learn your job, do it.  If you have to work harder than Mary Jane Rottencrotch to learn your job, then do it.

But do your fucking job.  No whining, no bullshit, and no problems.

2.  Don’t be an asshole.  An asshole is someone who thinks the rules of the world don’t apply to him.  An asshole thinks he can do whatever he wants.  Don’t be an asshole.

How do you know if you are an asshole?  Here’s a good test.  If more than three people think you’re an asshole, you are an asshole.  Figure out why, and correct yourself.

3.  Don’t fuck your boss up.  Your boss wants things to go smoothly.  He has a million things on his plate.  The last think he needs is more of your stupid drama.  So get your head out of your ass.  What do I mean by not “fucking your boss up”?

I mean don’t do things to embarrass your boss.

I mean don’t do things to make your boss look bad.

I mean don’t cause drama, create drama, or perpetuate drama.

That’s what I mean.  If more people could understand the beauty and the simplicity of these principles, there would be much less problems between bosses and employees.

boss2

Your boss is (usually) not evil.  He’s (usually) not trying to go out of his way to make your life difficult.  But the reality of the rough-and-tumble of life is that he is stressed out.  He wants to have his stress reduced, not increased.

Bosses hate whiners, complainers, and assholes who cause drama.  He wants things to run smoothly.  If there is a problem, he wants you to have a proposal on how to solve it.  He doesn’t want to hear your stupid-ass bullshit.  

So there you have it.  There it is.  Let’s recap the three things you need to do to gain your boss’s appreciation (notice I didn’t say respect.  That a subject for another day):

1.  Do your fucking job

2.  Don’t be an asshole

3.  Don’t fuck your boss up.

If you can follow these rules, you’d be surprised at how much your boss will appreciate it.

Read More:  The Three Types Of Travel Writing

 

 

Fury Is Good

Quintus Curtius Thought , , ,

A few days ago I had a chance to see Sylvester Stallone’s 2008 remake of his 1980s film Rambo.  It was two hours of mindless violence, and I loved every minute of it.

Few actors throw themselves into the action as fearlessly as does Stallone.  He’s in his 60s now, and he’s as pumped up as ever, doing nearly the same things he was doing in the 1980s.  Incredible.

You can say what you want about Sylvester Stallone.  But he is a very driven man, with a singular sense of purpose.  I respect that.  I admire his audacity.

Toujours, l’audace.

I know, I know.  You’re going to tell me that he uses all sorts of “performance enhancing” drugs, and what not.  Maybe.  I don’t really know.  And I don’t think it really matters, for my purposes here.  The point is the ethic, and the spirit.

And the fury.  I love the fury of speed, action, and movement.  It creates its own poetry.  It carries its own logic.  It forces upon us the necessity of decision.   And the necessity to be decisive.

Speed, action, and movement.  Get action.  Get movement.

Some men are born for conflict.  Some are born for struggle.  It’s in their blood.  This is the sentiment of the movie, expressed repeatedly in the voice-overs.

I wrote about one such man in my book Thirty Seven.  His name was Ernst Junger, and his book Storm of Steel is a flowering of cathartic violence.  And this is good.

Sometimes, violence is necessary.  Anyone who ever said that violence never solved anything doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

There are times when violent struggle cuts through, clarifies, and crystallizes the essence of an issue.

I was reminded of this recently when watching a video of a man getting beaten up on a subway in St. Louis.  He was accosted by a group of punks, and then assaulted.  He did not defend himself.  He curled up into the fetal position, and then proceeded to give interviews to the media about how “nobody helped me.”

Well, why didn’t you help yourself?  What did you do to defend yourself?

He was preyed on because he communicated weakness and defeat.  And the aggressors sensed this.

If you don’t take steps to defend yourself, no one else will.  The only person who cares about you, is you.

Conflict is all around us.  Conflict and struggle are the fulcrums of our earthly existence, and the existence of every other sentient form of life here with us.  We can either deal with it, or we can curl up into the fetal position.  Just like the sorry specimen on the subway.

When we adopt this as our ethic, we notice that our capacities for deterrence are enhanced.  We communicate, in silent form, the message that we are not to be trifled with.  Aggressors can sense this, on some animal level.  And you have to mean it.  You have to be prepared to fling yourself into action, when such threats materialize.  The moment of truth comes for all of us.

You will know if you have the soul of a fighter when that feeling of transcendent radiance comes over you, in the midst of violent conflict.  Everyone around you will be dithering and running here and there.  But you will be in your zone.  Your conflict zone.

It is a mystical feeling.  It is an inexplicable feeling.  But it is there.  And it is real.

A man finds his true essence at such moments.  It is a moment of clarity.  A moment of transcendent, mystical truth.

And it is glorious.

When someone assaults you, and when someone intends to do you harm, you don’t sit there and hold your head in your hands.  You don’t give interviews to the press.  You don’t expect others to do your fighting for you.

You attack with a fanatical fury until the threat is neutralized.

Fury, in all its transcendent forms, has a goodness that is distinctly its own.

 

Read More:  On Conflict

Pantheon Is Now Available

Quintus Curtius Thought ,

(Click on the cover image above for purchase information).

My second book, Pantheon, is now available.  You can find out all the specific details on the book and its contents by clicking on the “books” tab in this website’s home page, and then selecting “Pantheon.”

It is offered in both paperback and in Kindle reader.   

What is the book about?  I am concerned with what makes men great, or greater.

To probe this question, we must rely on historical and biographical example, as well as the hard-won wisdom from life’s rough-and-tumble.

So, we are building on the foundation laid in Thirty-Seven to make the edifice of self-knowledge stretch higher and higher. As the spires reach skyward, so do we.

If we can keep company with the best of men, we cannot help but become better.  Nature has endowed us with a lively curiosity about the workings of personality and character; and we should make use of this inquisitive nature to better ourselves.

That man who is indifferent to the higher things in life will not be swayed by appeals to such principles.  But we do not direct our efforts to such a man.

The example of moral good, and glorious actions, cannot fail to inspire awe in the idealistic man.  It is to him that my book is directed.

If we can provide a consistent example of virtuous deeds and conduct, we can fill the idealistic heart with a dominating purpose.

This purpose is my purpose.

My intention is for you to embark on the conquest of your world.  I have forged the sword.  And now you must grasp the pommel.

And we cannot help but generate action, and a noble purpose, which is the first step in self-realization.

 

Help me, O Muse, and carry my words aloft,

On swift and airy currents, that they may solace

The expectant calls of seeking hearts.

On Why Too Much Attention To Pets Is Unwholesome Vanity

Quintus Curtius Thought , ,

vanity

Plutarch relates a story at the beginning of his Life of Pericles.  He tells us that the emperor Augustus, on one of his frequent forays into Rome to mingle with the people, once caught sight of some foreigners making merry with some small monkeys and puppies.  They were carrying the animals here and there on their backs and shoulders for the amusement of the crowd, and were showering them with affection.

Augustus disapproved of such displays, believing them unfit pursuits for mature and well-adjusted men.

“We are told,” Plutarch says,

…that he [Augustus] then asked whether the women in those countries did not bear children, thus rebuking in truly imperial fashion those who squander upon animals that capacity for love and affection which in the natural order of things should be reserved for our fellow men.

In the same way, since nature has endowed us with a lively curiosity and love of knowledge, we ought equally to blame the people who abuse these gifts and divert them to objects which are unworthy of attention, while they neglect those which have the best claim to it.

We should wonder what Augustus would have made of the modern female celebrity, who carries about her pet as an ornament, always ready to use it as an attention-seeking accoutrement.  It may seem that such an activity is harmless.  But it is not.  Certainly, love of animals is a good thing, and can show a certain tenderness and humanity.  But when this love extends too far, and becomes an affectation, then it has ceased to be virtuous.  It then becomes a distraction from the proper cares of the mature man, and essentially a vice.

The frivolous person who cares more about his pet than his life’s responsibilities has indulged in the vice of vanity.  In Latin, we call this vice vanitas.

He who devotes undue affection on his pets cares not about his dog or cat, but about himself.  The pet is a buffer, a shield, and a weapon.  The pet is used as a means of avoiding sincere interaction with others.  It is a manipulative and vain person who devotes too much time to his pets.

vanity2

The modern woman’s fixation on her pets is a profoundly antisocial act, which deserves stern condemnation.  It is unwholesome vanity and frivolity, masquerading as benevolent affection.  It is dishonest emotive expenditure.

By lavishing attention on her pets, the modern woman (or man, who is often equally guilty) seeks to dodge his duties to his fellow man.  The pet becomes a substitute for life, requiring no reciprocal obligations.

Your pet is not an extension of you.  Your pet should not be used as a means of dodging your responsibilities to yourself and to others.  Their enjoyment should be confined within the boundaries of a momentary diversion.

As humanists, we place the study of man above all else:  we aim for the perfectibility of man, for the polishing of his soul, and for his accession to the world of Intellect.  Humanism values human concerns over those of frivolous sentimentality.  We respect our fellow creatures of the earth, but know that they are not our fellow travelers.  There is this perceptible barrier, this unbridgeable gulf, that separates us.

This gulf will always separate us.

The natural world is an abundant source of pleasures.  We respect the beauty and variety of the natural world, but are conscious of the fact that of all creatures on land and in sea, only Man has the capacity for reason.  Only Man has the ability to approach the divine principles, as those principles have been understood for many centuries.

Look to yourself, and abide your own perfectibility; it will not be found in unhealthy fixations on the baser creatures of the earth.

 

Read More:  The Material Requirements Of Victory

The Three Types Of Travel Writing, And Their Uses

Quintus Curtius Thought, Travel & Exploration , , , , ,

travel1

Travel writing is a popular genre.  We live in an age of travel, where it is easy to plan a sojourn to the most remote of locations.  Most people today hardly give a thought to the fact that their routine international destinations of travel were, until very recently, accessible only by ship or overland travel.  Even as late as the 1860s, the source of the Nile River in Africa was unknown.

Continue reading →

Dealing With Grief, And Providing Comfort

Quintus Curtius Thought , , ,

Cicero believed that there were four “disorders” of the soul:  delight, lust, distress, and fear (Tusc. Disp. IV.12-15).  He believed that all of these disorders were the products of either some judgment, or some belief.  In other words, we ourselves create the conditions for these disorders, by our own flawed judgments or erroneous beliefs.  And if we can correct these deficiencies, we can cure ourselves of the disorder.  It is a pretty theory.  But I am not convinced of its rectitude.

Are these emotional “disorders” truly the products of personal judgment or belief?  Or are some of them involuntary reflexes to our ingrained personality traits?  It is not easy to say, but Cicero is correct in urging us to take charge of our own emotional states.  If we cannot control ourselves, then no one can.  So it is better to follow Cicero and his Stoic path, even if it be not quite right, since they empower us with more control over our own destinies.

Sense-perception is the starting point of all emotional states.  We should be neither insensible, nor oversensitive.  To be the former is to be an unreasoning brute; the latter, a delicate flower wounded by the wind.  Occupying some middle ground strikes the right balance between these two extremes.  For when the distress of grief hits us, it is the middle ground that proves itself to be the most stable, and the most able to withstand the emotional tremors rocking us like a ship in the waves.

 

One of the reasons for excessive displays of grief is guilt.  We believe that, if we torment ourselves in overwrought expressions of grief, we can somehow repay a secret debt.  Displaying the intensity of our grief will placate the gods.  The flagellant who punishes himself seeks to drive out some inner demon; and the wailing mourner with hands to the sky believes that her shrieks will find heavenly satisfaction in direct proportion to their intensity.

And how may grief be assuaged?  In what manner may one give relief from the misery of anguish, whether it be in ourselves or in others?  Dolor can be dealt with in these ways:

1.  Removing it completely

2.  Softening it

3.  Stopping it from extending

4.  Diverting it with replacement emotions

Of these four options, the first seems the most unrealistic.  Emotions are not completely voluntary; they cannot normally be turned on and shut off like a valve in a pipe.  The second option, that of softening, is a better option; and this consists of speaking comforting words to the grief-stricken, whether it be ourselves or another.

Words of softening provide solace to the bereaved, and should always be forward-looking and positive.  For those afflicted by grief, an excursion into the past affords no relief.  The past is the repository of sorrows, the store-house of pain.  This is because grief and memory reinforce each other, and agitate each others’ glowing coals into new intensities.  Also to be avoided are attempts to make rational arguments to the bereaved.  It is a mistake to try to argue with the grief-stricken, and to try to show by one proof or another that it is folly to be overwhelmed by lamentation.  The heart is not a mechanical contrivance, to be wound up or unplugged on command.

The third option, that of preventing the extension of grief, follows from the softening of grief.  Grief’s waves, properly endured with time, will diminish in frequency and amplitude.

The fourth option, that of diversion, seems to be the best and most practical.  For it is not enough to tell ourselves or someone else “do not grieve.”  The more we try not to think about something, the more we think of it.  The mind is like a dog with a bone in its jaws:  try to pull the bone out of its mouth, and he clamps down that much harder.

Alleviation from grief comes with productive diversion.  The fixation on sadness must be replaced by another activity.  In this way the mind finds itself another “bone” to clamp down on.  The old bone of grief is released, and replaced with the new, positive, forward-looking activity.  And this is why the focus of a new hobby, a new job, or a new activity is so beneficial for those who are waylaid by dejection.

One interesting observation Cicero makes is that grief is a form of envy.  That is, we resent the sudden void left by the departure of something precious, and envy those who have what we now suddenly lack.  Perhaps this is true.  But I have also heard grief described elsewhere as rage turned inward.  We feel rage at our loss and deflect this rage back upon ourselves.  Either way, grief is linked to envy or rage; perhaps both of these emotions play a part.  Envy and rage are burning fires, which will consume the bearer unless properly quenched.

No matter how the cure is effected, grief must be controlled and contained.  There is nothing so loathsome as one who refuses to release himself from the grip of sorrow.  The sympathy of others quickly can evolve into contempt.  As Cicero says,

Quid autem est non miserius solum, sed foedius etiam et deformius quam aegritudine quis adflictus, debilitatus, iacens? [Tusc. Disp. IV.35]

Which means, “What is not only more miserable, but also more terrible and grotesque, than he who is debilitated and afflicted with distress?”

The quote above I have taken from his book Tusculan Disputations, a dialogue which discusses various Stoic philosophical problems.  You can find the book by clicking here.

Read More:  Cicero’s Four Cardinal Virtues

 

Good Facts Are Not Enough: The Material Requirements Of Victory

Quintus Curtius Thought ,

victory

By trade, I am a practicing attorney and a partner in a law firm.  In my fifteen year legal career, I have tried a large number of criminal cases in federal and state courts.  I have also litigated an equally large number of complex business and consumer bankruptcy matters in federal bankruptcy courts.  This background, combined with my previous career as an military officer, has taught me a few things about conflict and its management.

Conflict has a trajectory.  It begins, simmers, crescendos, and then approaches a climax.

It is one thing to read about a subject in a book.  One can read about the theories of Sun Tsu, Jomini, Clausewitz, or any number of military theorists.  And this is a productive use of time, worthy of time and effort.  One can also read about jury trials, or see movies about them, however imaginary or misleading many of them are.

And so many of them are laughably misleading.

But it is quite another matter actually to be in the hot-seat.  To handle a jury trial alone, from start to finish–from voir dire until the final verdict–is not something that can be imparted by the written word.  Writing is incapable of expressing the emotions, the stress, the exhilaration, the anger, and the eruption of intensity that comes with this experience.  There is nothing else like it.

There are law school graduates.  There are people with diplomas on their walls.  There are people who spend their legal careers safely ensconced in some corporate or government office, afraid to get their hands dirty.  There are those with opinions about everything, without having done anything.

And then there are the few who actually fight it out in the real world.  The few who are actually capable of doing what trial attorneys do.  Those who have actual clients, actual businesses, and actual victories.

In an earlier post, I discussed some aspects of conflict.

One aspect in particular deserves additional mention:  the need for material support.  Or, we could call it logistical support.  I was thinking about this today in my office.

This is what I have seen time and time again:  good facts are not enough.  If you wish to be successful in the arena of conflict, you need the tools to do the job.  In the legal world, these tools are generally twofold:  (1) the financial resources to litigate the case successfully; and (2) having a client who is supportive, responsive, and engaged in the battle.

If either of these tools is lacking, victory is in doubt.

Let us discuss the financial issue.  With money, a litigant can hire experts, can fight every motion, and can wear down the other side with discovery.  Money makes a difference.  Money sends a strong message to the opponent.  Money is an asset, just as surely as gasoline and food is an asset to a mechanized army.

Would OJ Simpson ever have been acquitted if he had been indigent, and been forced to use a public defender?

ten1

People don’t like to deal with this reality.  But it is there.  Even if you have a good set of facts, or a good case, you need to get that truth out there.  Financial resources are a great asset.  Anyone who thinks otherwise simply has never been in the playing field.

But you also need a cooperative, engaged, and supportive client.  If you client is “dropping his pack”, not answering your calls, being sullen and uninterested, then your job is measurably more difficult.  You cannot drag an unwilling mule to the fight.  Your client has to want to win.  If it is a bankruptcy litigated matter–say, a Chapter 11 reorganization–your client has to want to reorganize.

He must have the willpower, and the tenacity, to see things through to conclusion.

If you turn around, and no one is following you, then victory is in doubt.

One of the most frustrating things in my career is a situation where you see that a client has great facts, but is either unwilling or unable to carry those facts through to a successful conclusion.

But this is the way things are.  This is part of the moral dimension of conflict.  For a successful outcome to happen in a conflict, many different moving parts must come together in the right way.  And you can only control so many of those moving parts.  We cannot manage all aspects of conflict.

Good facts are the raw material to begin with.  But it’s still a long way from there to the finish line.

Read More:  On Conflict

Cicero’s Four Cardinal Virtues

Quintus Curtius Thought , ,

knocker

According to Cicero, the sources of moral righteousness are four in number (De Officiis I.15):

1.  The perception and intelligent development of truth (In perspicientia veri sollertiaque versatur);

2.  The preservation of civil society, with the faithful rendering to everyone what he is properly owed (In hominum societate tuenda tribuendoque suum cuique et rerum contractarum fide);

3.  The greatness and power of a noble and unconquerable spirit (In animi excelsi atque invicti magnitudine ac robore);

4.  In the order and moderation of things which consist of temperance and self-control (In omnium, quae fiunt quaeque dicuntur, ordine et modo, in quo inest modestia et temperantia).

What is moral and good, according to Cicero, has to spring from one or more of these sources.  They can be connected with each other, depending on the situation.  The first of these sources, as listed above, revolves around the search for truth.  The remaining three relate to our conduct within organized society.

And this is where Cicero makes an important point.  The search for truth is a morally righteous thing.

Truth is not primarily an intellectual pursuit; it is a moral one.  It is an impulse that arises from the deepest core of our moral being.

 

To learn more about Cicero’s views on conduct, self-improvement, and ethics, check out my translations of his timeless classics On Duties and Stoic Paradoxes.

 

Why Avoiding Time-Wasters Is Important

Quintus Curtius Thought , ,
fools1

Whether you are in business for yourself, or you are an employee, you will be beset by time-wasters.  Of the many people in the world, a good proportion fall into this category.  Time-wasters drain your energy, contribute no value to your life, and upset your serenity.  They are everywhere.  To get the most out of your life, it’s not enough to take positive action to do good things.  You also need to take action to avoid negative things.  Avoiding something bad is just as productive as doing something good.  We often forget this fact.  We devote a great deal of attention to the one, and hardly any attention to the other.

Continue reading →

On Conflict

Quintus Curtius History, Thought , ,

conflict

What is the nature and purpose of conflict, and how may it be dealt with?  These are questions that have been considered by many through the centuries.  And rightly so, as conflict–in which I include war as well as any other clash of wills–is at the core of existence.  Whether we speak of Nature or the metaphysical realm, the clash of two opposites is at the heart of the eternal dialectic.  To understand this, and to cope with its implications, is one of our primary duties.

The goal of conflict is for one side to make the other side change its mind:  that is, for one side to impose its will on another.  As two or more opponents clash, what Clausewitz called “friction” is produced.  He defined friction as the force which makes “even the seemingly easy, difficult.”  And this statement captures one of the essential principles of conflict.  In the heat of conflict (whether it be a trial in a courtroom, a contest of wills between people, or warfare), even the simplest things become very difficult.  Conflict feels like trying to run in a dream.  Action becomes slow, plodding, and uncertain.

I have particularly noticed this in two settings.  One setting was in the operation of military forces in the pursuit of some goal.  Military operations never evolve as planned.  Communications will go down.  Radios or signals intelligence will be flawed.  Logistics will be impeded.  Unexpected disasters will happen.

Another setting in which I’ve noticed the operation of friction is in the trial of a legal case in a courtroom.  Small problems become magnified into big problems.  Witnesses will not perform as expected.  Juries or judges will do or say unanticipated things.  Evidence you want to introduce will be denied, or will have a different effect than that desired.

This is the distorting lens of conflict in action.  Conflict magnifies things, making the insignificant, significant. We can try to control some of these elements, but complete control is not possible.  The better way is to learn to use “friction” to our advantage.  We must embrace fluidity, friction, disorder, violence, and uncertainty, knowing that they are inescapable.

The human dimension is found in the operation of moral forces.  Conflict is a human activity, and so we must take account of the behavior of humans.  Wills will fail; exhaustion will set in; passion will cloud judgment; boldness will accelerate the tempo of operations; and frustration will slow down operations.  We must know ourselves, as well as the opposing will.  The purpose of collecting intelligence in conflict is to better manage the moral dimension of conflict.

In conflict, our primary purpose is to know what we wish to accomplish.  Strategy is this knowledge.  You would be surprised how often this matter is overlooked.  Not knowing what one is wanting to do is the beginning of failure.  If you do not know what you are doing, friction will decide for you.

There are two main styles of conflict:  attrition and maneuver.  In attrition conflict, we wish to wear down our opponent by the expenditure of some resource (money, materiel, or lives).  In maneuver conflict, we wish to win by a judicious use of our power, achieving ends in the most efficient way.  Both methods have their uses.  The decision to employ one style over another will depend on the circumstances.

In general, maneuver is useful for parties at a disadvantage in strength.  The Boers in the Boer War, Hannibal in Italy during the Second Punic War, Nathaniel Greene in the American Revolutionary War, Lettow-Vorbeck’s campaign in East Africa in the First World War, the irregular warfare practiced by Michael Collins and the IRA in Ireland in the early 1920s, the North Vietnamese Army during the Vietnam War, the German Army in Italy in 1943-1944, are all examples of employment of maneuver.  Many other historical examples can be found of attrition, such as the US military in the Second World War.

The failure to adapt strategy to means and ends is the beginning of failure.  Trying to do something beyond one’s means is the beginning of failure.  Since conflict is difficult and expensive, we must match means to ends.  Winning by maneuver should be the preferred option, as it involves less time and expense than attrition.

There are many examples in history of leaders trying to do things beyond their means, of allowing their ambition to exceed their ability, or of not matching their strategy with their resources.  This is the beginning of failure.

As stated earlier, conflict magnifies everything.  Small problems become big problems.  The best way to manage the job of leadership and command and control in conflict is not to micro-manage everything.  Over-management slows down the tempo of operations.  We must let subordinates, comrades, or employees use their own initiative to solve problems on their own.

All preparation for conflict must take these things into account.  We must train in an environment of uncertainty, fluidity, and hardship.  Adolf Von Schell’s classic treatise Battle Leadership was written after long experience on Germany’s eastern front in the First World War.  He recommended that training be done at night, in the worst conditions, so that men would get used to the disorder and chaos of real-world operations.  We must imitate this advice.

We can try to “manage” friction.  We can try to “shape the battlefield.”  But these efforts always come up a little bit short.  In the prologue to Sun-Tzu’s treatise Art of War, the author describes how he imposes discipline on a group of concubines that he intends to train as a military unit.  The method used is fear.  This is an example of trying to control friction. It can work, in some small ways.  But not in every way, and not comprehensively.

Micro-management impedes this effort.  When someone has to verify everything before doing anything, the pace of operations slows.  Leaders should tell subordinates what they want done, but necessarily how to do things.  Goals should be specified, not means.  The man on the ground should then employ his own training and initiative to get the job done correctly.  The problem with this, of course, is the fact that in real conflict, people often don’t take the initiative.

The use of “mission orders” also presupposes a high level of training and initiative for subordinates.  In practice, this is not often the case.  It isn’t easy to find people with good training or sufficient initiative.  But this is why training, initiative, and vigorous leadership is so important.  They speed up operations, increasing tempo and fluidity.  By swarming a clumsy opponent with a high tempo of operations, we can induce a general collapse of his will.  This is the essence of maneuver.  The opponent is “outcycled” in that his rate of decision-making is overwhelmed by the rate of decision-making of his adversary.

Successful management of conflict comes from an appreciation of these principles.  We must accept the reality of the “magnifying” effect of conflict.  We must accept uncertainty, friction, and the moral problems of conflict.  They can never be eliminated.  It almost seems that there is a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for conflict:  as we try to control one factor, other factors will remain unknown.  We must place our faith in the principle of maneuver conflict:  the use of decentralized “mission orders” that specify ends, and not pedantic micromanagement.

We must focus on training and preparation, in order to minimize the effects of uncertainty and friction.  And we must be responsive to changing facts and conditions immediately.  In this way, a speedy tempo of operations can be produced.  This firestorm of activity can permit us to impose our will, and cause the opposing force to “change its mind.”

For this is the goal of conflict:  to get the other side to change its mind.