I was surprised to read an 18th or 19th century army manual that suggested, whenever one has the choice, that the ideal subordinate officers are either smart and lazy or dumb and active. Dumb and lazy has the obvious problems, but smart and active comes with the risk that they'll annoy their men coming up with all sorts of novel things to do that don't really need to be done. For people who had never heard of software, let alone software development, the authors seemed to know a lot about project management.
I remember this as a quote from a general where each combination of traits had its place except "dumb and active". Smart and lazy become generals, smart and active are field officers, dumb and lazy are grunts, dumb and active are shot.
https://wiki.c2.com/?LazinessImpatienceHubris