Was Caesar a good manager?

Disclaimer!

I do not position myself as an expert in management, finance, and history. I would call myself an explorer and a dreamer who is interested in looking at ordinary things from an interesting angle, so I would be very happy if you correct me in the comments and share your thoughts.

Was Caesar a good manager?

Gaius Julius Caesar is one of the greatest military commanders and statesmen in history. It is particularly interesting to mentally place him in the position of a manager or director, to adopt his effective methods and also learn from his mistakes.

So, a brief overview: Gaius Julius Caesar lived from 100 BC to 44 BC. He was a successful military commander who conquered and held a significant territory in modern-day France, led an army of more than 100,000 soldiers, and became the dictator of the Roman Republic, which covered an area of 5 million square kilometers and had a population of about 60 million people. Caesar's rule was interrupted by his own death at the hands of former supporters and followers who inflicted 23 knife wounds

If we continue to build upon the fantasy, it would suggest that Caesar was the CEO of the most powerful corporation of his time, excelling in project management and achieving significant successes, but due to a conflict with the board of directors, he lost everything and was thrown out on the curb. Intuitively, I want to delve into two aspects of Caesar's legacy: his role as a great military commander, searching for insights among his army leadership qualities - this is a clear success story, and as a statesman, where there were undoubtedly successes, but it is very interesting to examine his downfall.

Caesar's army would not have been so strong if he had not reformed it qualitatively. Therefore, I will draw conclusions based on his military reforms:

1. Change in legion structure: Caesar reduced the number of legions, but increased their size, making them more mobile and effective in battle. Each legion consisted of approximately 6,000 people divided into ten cohorts, each of which consisted of three centuries.
2. New recruitment system: Caesar created a new recruitment system that allowed him to recruit more professional and loyal soldiers. He reduced the service period but increased pay and gave them the opportunity to obtain land upon completion of service.
3. New weapons: Caesar made changes to the weapons, arming legionaries with a short sword called the gladius, which was more effective in close combat, and the pilum, a long throwing spear that was effective at medium range.
4. Training and discipline: Caesar paid great attention to training and discipline in the army. He implemented strict discipline and maintained a high level of professionalism and readiness for battle.
5. Espionage: Caesar introduced a system of espionage that was an important part of his strategy for military success. Spies were used to gather information about enemy plans and actions, as well as to obtain information about terrain and other important factors that could affect the outcome of battles.

Caesar's reforms in the army made it more organized, professional, and mobile, allowing him to win many wars.

Based on these reforms, I will suggest the management principles of Caesar:

1. Mobility and speed: It doesn't matter how many of you there are if you are slow and unresponsive. For me, this is associated with product teams that need to quickly and effectively launch new products to market.
2. Professionalism and loyalty: Caesar clearly bet on professionals and sought to constantly educate his soldiers. He also paid them very well and had a good reputation among ordinary people and soldiers, which gave him very high loyalty from them. The classic problem: it's hard to find professionals, they need to be paid a lot, but they can always be poached, but loyalty cannot be bought.
3. Innovation and modern tools: Caesar actively engaged in reforms and, in particular, modernized the weapons of his troops, which gave him an advantage on the battlefield.
4. Analytics and preparation: He understood that information is the key to victory, so he hired and bribed spies to gain access to important information about enemies and carefully prepared for military campaigns.

These are interesting and very high-quality principles. Personally, I find them appealing, but what ruined Caesar?

I dare to express my opinion. Caesar's downfall was caused by his arrogance and self-absorption, which generated negative reactions from high-ranking Roman officials. Caesar was killed in a conspiracy involving a large number of people, including his associates. I don't believe that all the conspirators were close friends who never had any enmity towards each other, but it's easy to believe the opposite. Hence, it can be concluded that the reason for the execution of the dictator is not simply the desire to seize power, but rather more complex. Caesar's persona became so problematic that his enemies united against him. I would identify three reasons:

1. Caesar's personality, which irritated many. He did not see the need to share his opinions with anyone and aimed to make decisions independently, often in favor of ordinary people, to enhance his reputation. Towards the end of his life, Caesar lived luxuriously and decadently, which also sparked a lot of anger.
2. Ambition and dictatorship. The constant concentration of power in one person's hands led to dissatisfaction among the elite. It was evident that Caesar would never voluntarily relinquish power, which contradicted the very essence of the republic, so the desire to get rid of him arose.
3. Economic situation. The significant growth of the state led to difficulties in managing it, and the prolonged wars depleted the economy, which Caesar did not pay enough attention to. As a result, taxes rose, corruption increased, and the treasury was exhausted.

So, it turns out that Caesar's mistakes were rooted in his belief, as a CEO, that his position was unshakable and that he couldn't be fired, so he didn't bother to explain anything to other directors and just dictated tasks to them, while taking credit for all the successes and a large portion of the profits. Against the backdrop of declining financial performance, the figure of such a CEO became highly controversial, and he was decided to be removed from his position. As is fashionable to say now: he did a poor job with stakeholders.

Based on all the reasoning, I can conclude that Gaius Julius Caesar was an excellent manager and leader, but he was undone by greed, a desire to be a sole leader, and self-absorption.