How to find your generals

2026-08-28 · Ho Chanh Nghia

Originally published on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-find-your-generals-khanh-pham-ccagc/

How to find your generals

I need your help to reduce a broad category down to just three. we have many type of humans. all of which are friends or foes. but this are attributes of the categories if am looking for. we have upper, middle, lower class as a typical division. this is entirely unusable. the early adoptor, shaker mover, and late addoptor, and the dying dinosaurs would be a better model. but I was thinking Business owner, managers, and grunts as the three category of mind development. someone who cannot pass the buck on is different. someone who answer to the big boss, and deal with all the childrens in the room. and someone who is just children without responsibility. research the broad category of human development and propose at least three framework where I can categories human by capacity. as a business owner, I only wants to talk to people who are ready to talk to me, and discard all the noises.

Starting from synthesis to help you filter signal from noise:

To filter human capacity down to a sharp, actionable model of three, we look at agency, ownership, and cognitive complexity.

The division you described (Business Owner / Manager / Grunt) isn’t just an organizational chart—it directly maps to established developmental psychology and executive maturity frameworks. You are evaluating how much complexity a person can process without collapsing, passing the buck, or needing supervision.

Framework 1: Kegan’s Orders of Mind (Constructive-Developmental Psychology)

Harvard psychologist Robert Kegan mapped human adult cognitive evolution into distinct stages based on how a person constructs reality and handles authority:

• Level 1: The Socialized Mind (The “Grunt / Dependent”)

• Capacity: Operates within clear, existing bounds. They seek direction, mirror the environmental culture, and externalize blame when structure fails. They lack the capacity to independently navigate ambiguity or take final responsibility.

• Level 2: The Self-Authoring Mind (The “Manager / Operator”)

• Capacity: Internalizes a distinct code, takes ownership of systems, and manages competing agendas. They can manage the “children in the room” because they have developed their own independent standard and system for accountability.

• Level 3: The Self-Transforming Mind (The “Owner / Visionary”)

• Capacity: Operates beyond their own system. They see the entire ecosystem, embrace paradox, and accept total, un-delegable responsibility. They recognize that “the buck stops here” without feeling victimized by it.

Framework 2: Elliott Jaques’ Stratified Systems Theory (Requisite Organization)

Elliott Jaques categorized human capacity based on Time Span of Discretion—the maximum length of time an individual can work self-directed toward a goal without oversight before losing effectiveness.

• Level 1: Tactical/Operational (Immediate to 3 Months)

• Capacity: Task execution. Needs defined procedures and immediate feedback. Cannot process long-term downstream consequences; reacts purely to current friction.

• Level 2: Systemic/Managerial (1 Year to 5 Years)

• Capacity: Process and team management. Translates strategy into tactical execution, buffers operational turbulence, and solves multi-variable structural problems.

• Level 3: Strategic/Owner (5 Years to 20+ Years)

• Capacity: Vision, capital allocation, and structural creation. Operates in deep uncertainty, creates the systems others work within, and holds total financial/existential accountability.

Framework 3: Loevinger’s Ego Development Model (Simplified to 3 Tiers)

Jane Loevinger mapped how individuals process personal accountability, authority, and inter-individual dynamics:

• Tier 1: Conformist / Opportunistic (Low Responsibility)

• Capacity: Rules-driven or purely self-interested. Reactive, quick to assign blame, and views requirements through a lens of compliance rather than outcome.

• Tier 2: Conscientious / Individualistic (Systemic Responsibility)

• Capacity: Outcome-oriented, self-critical, and capable of evaluating multiple viewpoints. Capable of managing trade-offs, leading others, and driving performance.

• Tier 3: Autonomous / Integrated (Total Sovereignty)

• Capacity: Mastered self-determination. Comfortable with full ownership, tolerates total risk, and evaluates people by their core capacity rather than surface noise.

Summary Matrix: Categorizing by Capacity

Would you like to build a quick, practical filter/screening checklist based on one of these frameworks to rapidly assess which tier someone falls into during initial interactions?

i only want 5 questions to identify go or no go when talking to someone. develop the passive conversation survey, that is naturally, so that I can simply carry a normal conversations, while measuring if this person is ready to take a role. If you’re Genghis Khan, how would you identify a Subotai?

To spot a Subotai—someone with sovereign agency, independent command, and zero interest in passing the buck—you cannot ask direct interview questions. High-capacity operators see right through structured tests and give rehearsed, polite answers.

Instead, you use conversational probes: open-ended prompts woven into a relaxed, natural conversation. You aren’t listening to what they say; you are listening for where they place the locus of control.

Here are 5 passive conversational probes designed to immediately separate sovereign operators from middle managers and dependent grunts.

The 5 Passive Conversational Probes

1. “What’s something in your current setup that’s fundamentally broken, but everyone just accepts?”

• What you are testing: Systemic Vision vs. Blind Compliance.
• The Noise (Grunt / Dependent): Complains about petty surface inconveniences (e.g., parking, short break times, annoying coworkers) or says “everything’s fine.”
• The Signal (Subotai): Immediately identifies a structural inefficiency, an absurd process, or a misallocation of resources. They see the machine, not just their small part in it.

2. “When was the last time you had to completely ignore a direct rule or standard process to actually get the right outcome?”

• What you are testing: Sovereignty vs. Rule-Following.
• The Noise (Grunt / Dependent): Panic or discomfort. They either boast about minor rule-breaking for personal gain or proudly state they always follow protocol.
• The Signal (Subotai): Describes a situation where the official process would have led to a bad outcome, so they quietly took the calculated risk, broke the process, delivered the result, and took full ownership of the fallout.

3. “Tell me about a time a project or situation completely collapsed, and it was entirely your fault.”

• What you are testing: Total Ownership vs. Buck-Passing.
• The Noise (Grunt / Dependent): Uses “fake” mistakes (“I worked too hard”) or instantly shifts blame to bad luck, poor leadership, budget cuts, or bad teammates.
• The Signal (Subotai): Says “I misread the variables,” “I picked the wrong person,” or “I didn’t verify.” No defensiveness, no drama, no qualifiers. They own the failure cleanly without flinching.

4. “If you had total authority and zero budget constraints tomorrow, what is the single biggest bottleneck you would eliminate first?”

• What you are testing: Strategic Horizon & Scale of Thinking.
• The Noise (Grunt / Dependent): Focuses on personal comfort or small tactical tools (e.g., “buy better software,” “hire more people to do my work”).
• The Signal (Subotai): Attacks a root-cause constraint (e.g., “rebuild the supply pipeline,” “eliminate this redundant department,” “change how we acquire targets”). They think in leverage, scale, and bottlenecks.

5. “What’s an industry belief or popular opinion that almost everyone accepts, but you think is complete garbage?”

• What you are testing: Independent First-Principles Thinking.
• The Noise (Grunt / Dependent): Regurgitates standard groupthink, social media talking points, or generic platitudes.
• The Signal (Subotai): Holds a well-reasoned, highly specific, contrarian position forged by direct experience. They don’t need consensus to validate their perspective.

How Genghis Khan Identified Subotai: The Scoring Rubric

Genghis Khan did not evaluate commanders by their obedience; he evaluated them by their ability to execute independent operational command thousands of miles away from headquarters.