(Mis-)Management Lesson from King George III

A couple of weeks ago, I brought my kids to Philadelphia to see the historical sites: the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, etc. It’s a pretty humbling experience as an adult, and definitely worth the visit for all ages… I got pics of my kids with Ben Franklin, walking 10 paces with Aaron Burr, and signing the Constitution.

In one exhibit, my six-year-old was able to trace part of the Declaration of Independence... which made me realize I hadn’t read it in quite some time. So I sat down and read the whole thing (in modern font).

As I was overcome by a wave of emotion from the history and magnitude of that document, I was also struck by a revelation…

George III would have been a really bad CEO.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

The document begins with two memorable sentences — the second of which is perhaps one of the greatest lines in history: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” (Of course, the founders only said “men” here, and had a sadly narrow definition of “men” at that…)

But then after these two great sentences, plus a little more powerful preamble, the Declaration is, well, just a long list of complaints. Go ahead and read it. After a laundry list of more than 25 complaints, the founders state they’ve raised these issues with the King, who has essentially responded with a middle finger (though Thomas Jefferson and his writing team phrased it more eloquently), and that they’re fed up… and quitting the British Empire.

I haven’t seen “Hamilton” but I’ve heard the music, so I know George III got pretty pissed off at the colonists — luckily he got pissed off with a really great voice, and catchy tune. But he did respond with the British military, and it took 7 more years of war and singing before George finally gave up.

I wonder how things could have played out differently had George taken the colonists’ complaints more seriously earlier.

THE VERY BRIEF CONTEXT (WITH APOLOGIES TO HISTORIANS)

[DISCLAIMER: I’m both condensing and blurring a LOT of history, as well as the true power dynamics between the King and Parliament at this time, but hopefully the history buffs reading this will just let me go after George…]

Look, I get it… Britain had just come out of the Seven Years War and had a lot of debts to repay — both financial and political. So George (& Parliament) decided to generate revenue from the American colonies (more taxation), and began to exercise more control over the previously semi-autonomous colonies (less “representation”).

The colonists got quite upset — an understandable reaction to having freedoms (and money) taken away — and expressed outrage in various ways to George. And this is where George made a consequential miscalculation…

Rather than engage early and try to work things out with the colonists — most of whom had no appetite for rebelling against the Empire at the point — he tightened his grip further and tried to outmuscle his griping subjects. True, had Britain won the ensuing war, it would now have been called “The American Insurrection” rather than “The American Revolution,” but its cost in terms of lives, money and weakened geopolitics would still have been great for Britain.

EARLY INTERVENTION

Had George taken the colonists’ complaints more seriously earlier, he possibly could have avoided not just the loss of the colonies, but also war altogether. There were a continuum of points between 1763 (end of the Seven Years War) and 1776 where he could have engaged in negotiations with the colonists. No one likes “taxation,” but it was the “representation” that was the real issue. And “representation,” though superficially referring to Parliamentary representation, refers more broadly to “being heard”.

Looking at the list of complaints in the Declaration, it’s clear that many of these could have been addressed, or at least discussed, with productive earlier dialogue. None of these issues was as consequential as, say, the right to own slaves (which made the Civil War much more difficult to avoid). Rather, it was the totality of the complaints, and the fact that George (& yes, the Parliament) responded with more punitive measures, rather than productive dialogue, that many colonists were pushed to revolt.

Sure, George may have had to concede a bit, but that’s better than war, correct?

GEORGE III, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE

Imagine Britain, Inc. is a company. After a couple of tough quarters, the CEO, George III, decides to cut wages in the “Colonies” division. When the Colonies employees complain, their division heads appeal to the CEO to reconsider the decision. But rather than meet with the employees to explain and discuss the move, George instead responds by replacing the division heads with stricter supervisors… and when the complaints grow, he first eliminates vacation time, then institutes a dress code, and, finally, removes the coffee machine.

While many of the Colonies employees might initially reluctantly accept the wage reductions, when George shows his disregard for their concerns, and as the oppressive measures grow, you’d see a massive walk-out (or perhaps a strike, if the employees are unionized). Not only would the Colonies employees suffer, but so too would Britain, Inc. It’s a lose-lose!

A BETTER METHOD

Before instituting the wage cuts, George III, CEO, should first meet with the Colonies division heads. He could discuss the need to reduce costs, and indicate that every division would have to make some sacrifices... Then, together with the Colonies heads, George could work out some plan for roll-out, including having George meet directly with some key employees to sell the vision. This way, the employees would at least feel heard… maybe not full “representation” but at least they’d know the CEO does care.

And George III, KING, should have engaged in earlier dialogue with the colonists, rather than increasingly strong measures. While George (and Parliament) considered the colonists to be petulant, unappreciative subjects, driving them to revolt isn’t exactly the most productive response.

IN CONCLUSION

Sure, it’s unlikely Britain would still control the American colonies to this day — it became increasingly untenable for European countries to maintain overseas territories over the ensuing 2 centuries — but they probably could have held on a little longer, and had a softer landing.

And if you are running a company, or a division, or a film set, etc., and your “subjects” are upset about issues within the organization, don’t respond with intransigence, or by avoiding the issues. Engage directly. You may not be able to change the situation, but your people will know you care. And that “representation” can go a long way.

Otherwise, you may end up with a revolution on your hands.

Happy July 4th!!

Thanks for reading! Feel free to email me your thoughts.