Explanation:
1. General Washington decided not to impose a battlefield strategy on his field commanders. The general consensus among historians is that Washington was a mediocre military strategist at best. However, a recent study in the Academy of Management Journal cast some doubt on that consensus.
The study found that in large, multifaceted enterprises, the biggest threat to speedy strategic decision making is “strategic imposition” from the mothership. Historians still debate whether Washington favored a “Fabian strategy” of quick attacks and even quicker retreats, or a more traditional strategy of fighting major head-to-head battles. The discrepancy comes largely from the fact that he imposed neither strategy. His young and mostly inexperienced commanders were free to employed either one. At a high level, Washington decided that the Colonies would always have a standing army in the field that was as well-trained as possible under the time and budget constraints, rather than a hodgepodge of untrained militia men roaming the countryside. Beyond that general strategic direction, and some basic tactical goals, Washington let his young leaders make their own strategic decisions in the field—capitalizing on the speed and agility advantage they had over their larger and better-trained competitors.
2. Washington decided to oversee renovations on Mount Vernon during the most tenuous year of the Revolution. Imagine leading a comically outnumbered, under-resourced, and woefully unskilled force where the majority of your teenaged army marches throughout the New England snow barefoot because you can’t afford to buy them shoes in a war that—if lost—could send you to the gallows for treason. Then in the midst of all this, staying up late at night sending letters home describing the right color of the new curtains in the living room. Historians are still puzzled as to why throughout 1776, Washington continued micromanaging his home renovations from the front lines of the most difficult, dangerous, chaotic, and important leadership position of his life. Perhaps the only thing more puzzling is how he maintained confidence and composure in spite of knowingly facing such overwhelming odds.
Modern psychology might provide a clue to this riddle. Psychologists at UCLA and NYU discovered that after making a benign decision such as where to go on vacation and then making a basic plan for executing that decision, people showed significantly higher self-esteem and optimism, while feeling less vulnerable to completely uncontrollable risks such as earthquakes. In other words, making even a small decision on something completely unrelated to your primary focus can shift you into a confident, empowered mindset.
One of Washington’s greatest assets during the American Revolution and his presidency afterward, was his ability to inspire the confidence and alignment needed to gather political and financial support from so many diverse stakeholder groups including the Continental Congress, the American public, the French government, and his own soldiers. Perhaps this peculiar, yet easily controlled side project was precisely what enabled Washington to stay in the confident, decisive mindset that his leadership role demanded.
3. Washington Decided not to make himself supreme ruler of the United States. After risking his life to lead the American Revolution—often bravely putting himself directly in the line of fire—Washington shocked the entire world by voluntarily returning all his powers to the American people and their elected representatives. It was a decision that even led his recently defeated foe, King George III, to comment that Washington was “the greatest character of his generation.” We will never know whether this decision was driven by altruism or a self-interested desire to be adored by history. What we do know is that decision aligned perfectly with the pattern of decisions Washington established throughout his lifetime. He was an exemplar of what Wharton professor Adam Grant describes as “otherish”—people who are both highly giving and highly self-interested.
Regardless of how pure Washington’s motives may or may not have been, it’s easy to imagine a bright future for a world populated by leaders who treated every decision as an opportunity to reveal the high quality of their character.
