So who were Burke and Wills?

“No expedition has ever started under such favourable circumstances at this”.

Robert O’Hara Burke – leader of Burke & Wills Expedition

Yesterday over 160 years ago, watched by 15,000 cheering people, 19 men, 26 camels, 23 horses and six wagons loaded with 20 tonnes of supplies, including 80 pairs of boots, a cedar-topped oak desk with matching chairs, a bath, rockets, a Chinese gong and six tonnes of firewood, left Royal Park in Melbourne heading north. It was the first expedition in Australia to use camels for transport. This was the start of the famous Burke and Wills expedition. Sponsored by the Royal Society of Victoria the expedition was attempting to be the first to cross Australia, from south to north and return. By the second day at Essendon, only eight kilometres from Melbourne, three of the six wagons had broken down.

It was the best equipped expedition in Australia’s history, sponsored by a Victorian Government, flush with the wealth from the Gold Rush, and the Royal Society of Victoria. It was led by an Irish-born police officer, Robert O’Hara Burke.  Initially the second in command was George Landells, but he left the expedition less than two months later following disputes with Burke, so, William John Wills replaced him. The first night, Burke rode back to Melbourne to see Julia Matthews perform at the Princess Theatre as he was infatuated with her. It is alleged that Burke’s main motivation for leading the expedition was to win Julia’s heart and her mother’s approval. It took the expedition two months to reach Menindee in western New South Wales, even though it took a mail coach just over a week to make the same journey.

Burke, following a questionable army career where alleged gambling debts meant he had to resign his commission, joined the Irish Constabulary. When dissatisfied there, he boarded a ship for Australia. With the Gold Rush in full swing and the resulting chaos, and a shortage of police he managed to secure a position as a Police Inspector. He gained a reputation as an eccentric, a gambler, a risk-taker, and a strict disciplinarian with a “talent” for getting himself lost. Through connections and lobbying Burke somehow got himself appointed as the leader of the expedition. Burke had no knowledge or experience in managing an expedition and had never travelled in the Australian Outback. Wills in contrast, was a surveyor and scientist and was considered by his friends as dependable, rational and intelligent.

By June 1861 over eight months later, nine of the original 19 men had died, including Burke and Wills. When it became apparent that the expedition was in trouble, four separate expeditions went into the Australian interior and not one person lost their life.

So, what went wrong?

It was obviously a well-equipped expedition, backed by a government and a Royal Society.

By the time the expedition reached Cooper’s Creek in central Australia, the outer limit explored by Europeans it was early summer. The sensible action would have been to wait until after summer when the severe desert heat had subsided. However, Burke decided to make for northern Australia with three other men to beat a rival expedition from South Australia, led by John McDouall Stuart. Burke instructed a party to wait behind for three months. In the searing summer heat, the expedition walked up to 30 kilometres a day until they reached the north coast of Australia. By then, the animals and men were exhausted. Instead of spending time recuperating they headed back, not before letting some of the camels go which could have been used as food.

On the return journey, the men became exhausted and began to run out of food. One of the men, Gray died, and they began to eat the remaining camels. By the time they reached the Cooper’s Creek depot over 4 months later, the depot party, who were starting to suffer from scurvy had already left, ironically in the early morning of the day they arrived.  Malnourished and exhausted they were too weak to catch the depot party heading south. The survivors’ meagre supplies soon ran out and despite trading their fishing gear for some fish, they failed to befriend or observe how the local the local aboriginals were able to hunt and gather food. Burke had little respect for the local people and in one incident fired over the heads of some aboriginals who tried to offer them food. Just over two months after arriving at the depot, both Burke and Wills died of starvation. Only King survived. He was taken in by the local Aboriginals.

What management lessons are there for managers in the failure of the Burke and Wills expedition?

Here are three lessons I think we can learn from Burke and Wills.

  1. Leadership – the lack of sound leadership often leads to failure. Clearly Burke was a brave man, clearly irrational and mentally unfit to lead such an expedition. Moreover, bravery is not an alternative to experience and leadership.
  2. Planning – there is no substitute for sound planning. Right from the start the expedition was poorly planned. It had too much equipment, much of it not needed. Travelling in the Australian Outback in summer with its extreme temperatures was ludicrous. Furthermore, Burke had no bush skills and left a trail of confused orders and wasted equipment. The 20 gallons of lime juice to prevent scurvy was dumped early in the expedition leading to the depot party suffering from scurvy. In contrast explorer John McDouall Stuart, Burke’s rival in crossing Australia was an experienced bushman. He carefully planned and after several exploratory expeditions in previous years, successfully crossed Australia in 1862
  3. Bureaucracy – Governments and bureaucracies do not lead to the most appropriate outcomes. Flush with government money and with issues of egos, arrogance and prestige, the Royal Society selected an expedition leader who was clearly unsuited for the job and who purchased inappropriate equipment. For example, why would you need six tonnes of firewood, a bath and cedar-topped desk?

If you are interested in learning more about the expedition, I recommend the following book:

“The Dig Tree”, by Sarah Murgatroyd 2002

Management lessons from the Battle of the Somme

“Lions led by donkeys”

Eric Ludendorff – German World War I General

This quote is attributed to World War I General Eric Ludendorff. Although he didn’t actually say this, he was describing the British tactics in the Battle of the Somme in France. The battle lasted for over 4 months in 1916, and resulted in just under 624,000 casualties

146,431 British Commonwealth and French Allies deaths

164,907 German deaths

It became a potent symbol of the futility of war, where the ‘flower of British manhood’ was lost and a byword for incompetent leadership.

The plan in World War I was to the break the German trenches through a week long arterial bombardment. The aim was to destroy the German trench system including the barbed wire protecting the German trenches, its occupants and neutralise the German artillery. The Allied infantry would then advance in waves through ‘no man’s land’ with little or no resistance and take the German positions.

However, the plan failed in its main objectives.

Why?

The German troops were too well dug in and low-level cloud prevented aerial artillery spotting. It had also been confidently assumed that the shells would destroy the German barbed wire in front of their trenches. Unfortunately, it was only partially successful and left ‘no man’s land’ a tangle of barbed wire and craters that made it difficult for the advancing infantry to negotiate. After the bombardment the Germans emerged from there bunkers and met the advancing infantry with well-placed machine guns.

Were there other reasons?

Yes, more importantly many of the artillery rounds were duds. An estimated 30% failed to explode or were the wrong type of projectile. This lead to the barbed wire remaining largely intact. Furthermore, much of the bombardment had been of shrapnel, not high explosive, and it failed to make sufficient impact on blowing away the wire or damaging the deep enemy dugouts.

What caused the high level of dud artillery shells?

World War I was an industrial war. Massive amounts of materiel were required – shells, ammunition, ships, railways and aircraft as well as kitting out millions of combatants. In 1916, after 2 years of war Britain was running short of artillery shells. In order to meet the demand many companies who had no experience in manufacturing munitions began production. While manufacturing shells may not be difficult, it was a different story with fuses. Fuses were technically difficult to manufacture, and quality suffered. Quality controls in the expanded munitions industry were poor. It is also difficult to expand production capability rapidly without quality issues. This was exacerbated by worn gun barrels (1.5m shells were fired in the first week) which contributed to shells not landing fuse first and exploding. The majority of the faulty fuses were tracked to a single manufacturer. Remedial action was quickly taken, and progressively, after the Battle of Somme, the problem was resolved.

What were some of the other reasons?

Although technology was a major factor, it was further exacerbated by incompetent leadership and strict adherence to a flawed and untested strategy. General Haig, the British commander had never visited the front and saw the effects of the bombardment and later the massive loss of life.  A patrol into ‘no man’s land’ the night before the Allied infantry were to advance reported that the barbed wire had not been destroyed. This report was ignored.  Also, low-level cloud prevented aircraft from spotting this problem. Other patrols into ‘no man’s land’ reported hearing the Germans singing in their trenches, indicating the barrage had failed in its objectives, and were also ignored. Other factors were the inexperience and immature state of training of the officers and artillery gunners.

Should Haig and his staff have done something different, once they knew the bombardment had been only partially effective?

Could they have avoided the tens of thousands of casualties of the opening attack?

It is easy in retrospect to believe that they could have.

However, the Commonwealth forces faced an impossible situation. Their major ally the French, were pushing hard for the British to launch an attack to reduce the German forces pitted against them in the Battle of Verdun and prevent the destruction of the French Army. There had also been no opportunity for surprise and with the artillery barrage the Germans knew full well the attack was coming.

What could they have done?

Cancel or delay the attack?

Yes, this was possible.

Fire an even longer bombardment?

This was not practical due to shortage of shells, and dud or incorrect shells. The die was cast.

It is easy to be wise in hindsight.

So, what are the management lessons from the Battle of the Somme?

  1. Do NOT overly rely on technology – – technology is an enabler and not the answer
  2. Quality control and competent supervision is essential in organisations, as demonstrated by poor management in the factories
  3. Incompetent leadership severely impacts on organisations. Over 150,000 Allied deaths could have been prevented if the facts had not been ignored. This was further complicated by not having a Plan B, using an unproven strategy, not having enough equipment and not doing their homework

There are valuable lessons for managers in learning from military blunders.

Can you think of examples in your work life or in your organisation where the over reliance on technology, poor supervision and quality control severely impacted an organisation?

Procrastination and egos cost businesses..

procastination-1

“It does not take much strength to do things, but it requires a great deal of strength to decide what to do.”
Elbert Hubbard : writer, publisher and philosopher

How often, as business owners and managers do we procrastinate on making decisions because of the feared consequences?
Sometimes we procrastinate making the most obvious decisions and further compound indecision by allowing our egos to rule rather than practical common sense. Let me give you an example.

Recently a friend was caught up in a situation that not only cost the business significant money but was a major distraction for the business in general. An employee who was still within their probationary period was responsible for bullying two other employees causing them to leave. Despite advice that the offender should be terminated without recourse as they were within their probationary period, the owner procrastinated and the offending employee remained employed after their probationary period. The owner then decided to act on the advice and terminate the employee, who immediately filed for ‘unfair dismissal’. Australia’s employment laws make it quite difficult to terminate employees after their probationary and court imposed penalties are high.

The owner was advised to make a one off payment to make the problem ‘go away’. He refused, stating it was against his principles to make such a payment. Lawyers were engaged, time was spent to present the case to the government tribunal and everybody was distracted. The indirect cost was considerable. The offender then doubled their demand for ‘go away’ money. The final outcome was a large legal bill, plus a payout to the ‘offender’ and wasted time and effort by the business owner and advisors.

All this was avoidable. The offender should have been terminated within their probation period. (https://5-dimensionz.com.au/2014/06/23/the-effect-of-disruptive-employees-in-the-workplace/) Their actions had already resulted in two long term employees leaving the business which was poor management. The second piece of advice to pay out the claim would have also solved the problem. However, pride and ego rather than common sense ruled the roost.

In business sometimes we have to put our pride and ego aside and make a decision that is best for the business. I have been guilty of this in my career, however several painful experiences have caused me to reflect my actions.

Can you think of an example where you procrastinated or allowed your ego to either delay making a decision or discarded common sense advice and made the wrong decision?

What is the cost of safety to a business?

“The purpose is clear. It is safety with solvency. The country is entitled to both”

Dwight D Eisenhower, US President

Industrial safety, Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) and now Work Health and Safety (WHS) is becoming increasingly more prominent in the media and especially in state of Victoria where the government safety agency WorkSafe runs high profile media campaigns that tug at your emotions.

Many business owners see safety as an overhead cost that should be avoided where possible.

Is this good business practice?

Can poor safety be detrimental financially to your business?

Many business owners would see it as a risk worth taking. Is it?

Just recently a major transport company lost nearly $100m of business primarily due to their poor safety record, highlighted by a fatal accident that caused the death of two people in 2013. http://www.smh.com.au/business/fatal-crash-fallout-costs-cootes-transport-jobs-and-major-fuel-contracts-20140130-31plm.html

A major multi-national company would not allow them to tender on a major contract because of their substandard safety. Poor safety is often a symptom of poor systems and management. If safety is poor it is likely that there are other major issues with the business. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-03/cootes-accused-of-cutting-corners-on-truck-maintenance/5234052. The ramifications go further. The holding company in the past month has had $239m wiped off its value and now 540 jobs will be axed. Clearly poor safety does not pay! http://www.afr.com/p/futureforums/brakes_on_mcaleese_ipo_after_crash_gDAAZ3Yj6F9l7rCPJuInhK

By way of example, I managed a major interstate transport division for a public company where the managing director was passionate about safety. The evidence was clear; vehicle servicing schedules, management of driver hours, no speeding trucks, clean trucks (a good sign of a well-managed transport business), driver training and rigorous selection.

The evidence of success for the division I managed was emphatic. Low driver turnover, high truck utilisation, high profitability and no fatal accidents in the 6 years I managed the business. How was it done?

It was quite simple. A management system was implemented where drivers’ performance was reviewed weekly (over 120 drivers), drivers were involved in managing their own performance, driver selection criteria was rigorous and maintenance schedules were strictly adhered to. Supervisors and drivers were involved and a culture from senior management that safety was paramount.

As a business owner or manager, next time you wish to cut corners for safety keep in mind the consequences…………….and remember to ask the question: “is the business at risk?”