If you were to classify yourself in either one of these groups, which group would you be in? Suppose a friend who knew you well had to decide which group to put you in, would they be right? If you had a choice, which group would you rather be in?
I like this picture of the praying mantis. My dad took this photo years ago. He loved these bizarre insects and he especially loved taking photos of them up close. He always said they looked like aliens from Mars. If you were to pick one of these insects up, they will look at you and turn their head back and forth as though they were studying you. Perhaps they were "sizing" you up. I always preferred to call these insects generals because of their unique and interesting movements and their stealthy maneuvering. They know what they want and how to get it! They truly are fascinating insects. When it comes to food, they are about as diplomatic as a lion in the African bush.
Most people fall into the diplomat category. These people tend to be the crowd pleasers and followers. They usually love political correctness. This keeps the "peace" and their own likeability factor. They feel a need to be socially acceptable, fitting in and conforming to social norms, attending to their peers' demands. Unfortunately they can be gullible and naive resulting in them being easily manipulated. The diplomats of the world desire peace at all costs. But these costs can be high from their inability to think critically and strategically. They may lack discernment and insight which necessitates planning. These weakness are greatly exemplified in Neville Chamberlain's appeasement with Hitler (Munich Agreement). After a peace treaty was signed by Hitler, Chamberlain came back to Britain with the treaty in his hand boasting of his "success" with Hitler. His underestimation of the enemy, lack of strategic planning, and his overwhelming desire for peace impeded any lucid judgment and intelligence on his part. Had Chamberlain been more aware, he would have considered Hitlers' charisma and political genius disguised in surreptitious movements and clandestine maneuverings as some bigger objective than just peace! (Hitler wanted a piece of Poland, a piece of Czechoslovakia, a piece of this and a piece of that). No "piece" treaty would have been achieved by a simple stroke of a pen.
Consider also the U.S. and Japan negotiations prior to Pearl Harbor. For any U.S. Diplomat to believe Japan was capable of peace was a grave mistake. Japan's earlier aggressive invasion of Manchuria in 1931, was enough to prove otherwise. The obvious weakness of the diplomats who strongly desire peace without applying knowledge is evidenced by the aforementioned facts. However, the diplomats have their strengths and as a result, have averted serious outright war and other major and minor conflicts. Their skills of negotiations and diplomacy are necessary in just about any relationship. This is where they shine. Take for example J.F. Kennedy. Because of his calm demeanor and skilled diplomacy, he avoided what could have become all out nuclear war. In the Cuban Missile Crisis (Bay of Pigs), the world came the closest to nuclear war since the atomic age began. So the diplomats have their strengths, notwithstanding their costly mistakes and blunders (weaknesses).
The generals on the other hand use their strategic and tactical minds to accomplish their clear objectives. The masterminds are always thinking ahead and their vision is their strength. The have the insight and discernment to plan for contingencies and unforeseen events. With their acute mental vision and perspicacious minds, they have the ability to see the truth that others can and will not due to the infiltration of political correctness. The generals hate political correctness and see it as a distraction; it clouds lucid judgment. They do not underestimate the enemy and understand the importance of staying one step ahead of the game. They expect obstacles but plan ahead tactically because their objective is to win. Rommel comes to mind when I think of a great general. Rommel hated the politics in Germany but he loved Germany. He hated what Germany had become under Hitler and the Nazi's but he loved commanding an army for the Fatherland. Unfortunately, even the best generals are not susceptible to "corrupt politics." The generals have their weakness though and one such example is that of General Patton. A great general was he, but diplomacy he lacked and the result got him demoted by Eisenhower. Pattons' thirst for war and winning (not losing) propelled him further into Africa causing the Axis powers to pull back. America needed a strong general like Patton, that was the only way to win a war against such an overwhelming power and Patton understood that this was no time for cowardice. The objectives and success could not be accomplished with a bunch of timid, weak soldiers. But he took his gusto too far and slapped a scared, inexperienced soldier. His diplomatic skills were no doubt lacking. He even wanted to fight the Russians after a marshall plan was set up for Germany. He said to Bradley that we were going to have fight them anyway. Patton was right because the Cold War came next. Although Patton had the strategic and tactical planning that made him an effective general, he grossly lacked "people" skills or shall we say diplomacy!
So with all these examples in each group, where do you see yourself? Each group has strengths and weaknesses but what is more important to you? Do your strengths matter more or your weaknesses to be improved upon? Do you prefer to strive for balance, knowing that you should try to improve some of your weaknesses because your strengths tend to come naturally?