Great leader if efficiency and productivity are the expectation. In most of cases, politician, not leader is the one who climb to the top, because efficiency and productivity are not priorities in society and most of corporate.
Only in the case of military, leaders are expected to be of real leadership, as otherwise the consequence is obvious. In non-military environment, this is rarely the case hence often you would find the stupid and diligent types, which should be fired according to these nazi's theory, are actually in charge.
I sometimes find the smart and lazy in charge, because their laziness forces them to be charismatic.
In reality this seems like a false classification. People of all types make it to the top, and it's hard to find some simple metric that says what will do it.
At a prior large consulting firm that I worked for, they did a huge analysis and found the only predictors of success as a senior consultant were "Did they get a 3.0 in a tech degree or a 3.2 in a non-tech degree?" and "Did they have any kind of job while in college?" That seems to suggest smart enough and diligent enough for entry level. The same firm did an analysis to see which managers made good partners, and they couldn't find any predictors. The entry level predictors no longer mattered. School didn't matter. Competency (process, technology, etc) didn't matter. Industry didn't matter. Length of time to get promoted to manager didn't matter.
I tend to look at the MacLeod hierarchy through a three-dimensional analysis: subordinacy, dedication, and strategy (knowing what to work on).
People with 0 or 1 of the 3 traits will never become players and aren't worth worrying about. To have all 3 is almost a contradiction. If you're strategic, you'll choose dedication (to advance fast) or subordinacy (to have an easy life) but never excel in both-- that's a fool's errand. You only get a 3-for-3 match in a protege situation (it makes sense for someone to be dedicated and subordinate, because he's subordinating to someone powerful who's protecting his career).
Strategic and subordinate (but not dedicated) people are the MacLeod Losers, the clock-punching 9-to-5ers.
Subordinate and dedicated (but not strategic) people are the Clueless. Their unconditional work ethic can bring them into middle management but they never get any further, because they never learn how to "work smart".
Strategic and dedicated (but not subordinate) people are the MacLeod Sociopaths (most of whom aren't sociopaths). But even though they tend to be highly dedicated, they're also often accused of laziness since they commit so little to the efforts they judge not to have value (and they're often open about doing so).
Only in the case of military, leaders are expected to be of real leadership, as otherwise the consequence is obvious. In non-military environment, this is rarely the case hence often you would find the stupid and diligent types, which should be fired according to these nazi's theory, are actually in charge.