The Leadership Lessons of George Washington

Given the choice between working for a manager who operates in a top-down fashion issuing orders without benefit of alternative opinions, versus one who seeks a diversity of input, most of us would prefer to work for the latter. I dare say, too, that the latter type is more likely to be successful in the long run, by a number of measures.

      Would you judge George Washington a successful leader? Do we know why he was successful?

      There are few historic leaders that garner as many clichés as George Washington. The “Father of our Country” is credited for winning the American War for Independence, as well as providing the right vision at the right time to help guide the establishment of our Constitution, and serving as our first president, setting the standard for all those that followed.

      But it was a book, Washington's Crossing, by David Hackett Fischer, that really opened my eyes to the man’s truly distinctive leadership qualities.

      In school, we learned the abbreviated and hackneyed story of Washington. I don’t recall delving into the specifics of his character, what made him a great leader.

      Fischer’s book covers a brief chunk of the history of the Revolutionary War, from December 1776 to the following spring. In four to five months, the Continental Army, under the astute and wise leadership of Washington, reversed the fortunes of the Continentals and changed the course of the war. By comparing the leadership style of Washington to that of his counterparts, Gen. Sir William Howe and, more specifically, Gen. Charles Cornwallis, we learn why Washington really was a great leader. 

Shifting to Offense

To briefly recap the story, the British army chased the Americans out of Long Island and Manhattan, into and across New Jersey in the waning weeks of 1776. The rebels’ fortunes looked dismal as they crossed the Delaware River and made winter camp in Pennsylvania.

      As the year approached its end, the British and their Hessian allies prepared to continue its march into Pennsylvania with the goal of overwhelming and occupying Philadelphia, the Continental capital.

      But with a bold and highly risky strategy, Washington took the offensive, taking his ragtag army back across the ice-choked Delaware on Christmas night, surprising and overwhelming the Hessian camp in Trenton the following morning.

      Two days later, they fended off the reinforcing Brits and again went on the offensive by attacking the British stronghold at Princeton. The two successful battles really did turn the tide of the war in at least three important ways.

      First, the victories provided both the Continental army and the Continental Congress with their first major success of the war and an important boost in confidence. Second, they helped recruit badly needed fresh troops while drawing equally critical supplies. Third, British and Hessian armies’ losses badly shook their confidence, from the officer corps to the rank and file, and put them off-balance and on the defensive.

      Their victories put the Americans on the offense, where they would remain for the balance of the war. By the spring of 1777, opposition leaders in Parliament in London began arguing that it was time to pull out of the conflict. Parliament was reluctant to grant Howe’s desperate requests for supplemental troops and supplies.

      Through the winter and early spring months of 1777, Americans continually harassed the opposition in the so-called “forage wars” of New Jersey, preventing the British and Hessians from obtaining critical feed for their horses and thereby reducing their mobility – the equivalent of denying gasoline and diesel supplies to a modern army. 

Superior Leadership Style

Through it all, as the Fischer repeatedly illustrates, it was Washington’s superior leadership style that made the difference. In one passage, he wrote:

“…Cornwallis imposed his plan from the top down, against the judgment of able inferiors, and prepared to attack in the morning. [Meanwhile,] Washington in his council of war welcomed the judgment of others and presided over an open process of discovery and decision that yielded yet another opportunity. In the night, Washington disengaged his forces from an enemy only a few yards away, and an exhausted American army found the will and strength to make another night march toward Princeton.”

You can sense the rigidly hierarchical style of the professional British general, bound up in the traditions of his army, while not brooking any alternative ideas or input from his officer corps, blindly moving ahead with his own plan.

      Washington came from a different stock, with a far more democratic army and officer corps. It would have been anathema of him to ignore or not seek the thoughts and ideas of his senior officers. And when he did, time and again it made the difference between victory and defeat.

      The more effective presidents over the years have been those that assume the role of senior executive – Lincoln, Kennedy and Reagan come to mind – presidents who surrounded themselves with a diversity of viewpoints, and sought the full range of opinions and insights before reaching a conclusive and final decision. The less effective presidents have been those that wasted precious time to build and reach consensus among their advisors. Or, conversely, those that led without benefit of alternative viewpoints and ideas.

      Washington’s is a leadership style that endures and remains highly applicable in a range of modern and conventional challenges. Clearly, in this way, George Washington established the model for the ideal leader, not just in politics, but also in the military and business.