Great article. Thanks for it. As a British Indian this was enlightening.
The impact of social controls can’t be underestimated here.
First, the members of EIC, as you stated, were from a pretty concentrated part of English society.
Second, for these types of people there were three careers: EIC, government/chancery, military.
Third, societal status for a man was equal to one’s status on the one of the three you were in. Marriage, children, salary, future prospectives etc.
Finally, due to the concentrated nature, reputations were permanent.
A risky PM at stripe who wastes 6 months of an engineering teams time and produces a bad product will quit, join another cool startup (or google) and carry on. Today, CVS, references, networks are pretty weak in reputation permanence. Recent example is Neumann from WeWork.
So it’s this social controls on risk taking that allowed an autonomous structure more than anything, IMO. There was a highly centralised meta game that governed the highly decentralised core game.
I've just finished reading Dalrymple's The Anarchy, a history of the East India Company and of India at the time of its expansion. Absolutely brilliant, hugely recommended. It really highlights how qualitatively different the EIC was versus other colonial ventures, as well as the dangers in entrusting human lives to a transient rulership (employees generally returned to England) and amoral corporation (the only obligation was profits) with distant shareholders (who were conveniently isolated from the horrors inflicted).
Quite like Dalrymple but haven't read this I think, will look. But yes the downsides there from the amorality and transient nature of rulers caused immense suffering.
Great piece. I think it would be better if you defined latency for those of us not in tech, and if you think EIC’s need for bailouts means the model didn’t really work.
Ah very good point. Meant how long messages took to go from A to B. And the bailouts were partially a consequence of the crown wanting to stop some atrocities, take more control given domestic anger at the Company's works. So there's a very intriguing story there that goes beyond the model working.
Depends how you define high agency - the number of *ultra* high agency roles is now approximately zero, from the top (much stronger controls on royals, ministers, executives) to the bottom (farmers need to obey umpteen regulations, you can't just build a house if you want a house, etc).
The number of people who have more agency from not being dirt poor has of course increased dramatically.
Even in my own role (investment banking) I now need approximately 100 discrete permissions to lend money, versus about two when the bank started in the 18th century.
It matters insofar as the objective is growth vs objective is to continue to exist, which changes the op model. Like I said the church is def very interesting from an org pov. I talk about this inpetus briefly in https://www.strangeloopcanon.com/p/the-price-of-immortality
It was the introduction of the Telegraph that ended the EIC. The mutiny of its Awadi sepoys created front page news in the UK in 1856 within days. In 1800 the story would be months old before it hit the papers.
Aug 25, 2023·edited Aug 26, 2023Liked by Rohit Krishnan
The 1770 Bengal famine was also widely reported, and led to greater controls on the Company (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770), but despite being in many ways worse than the Mutiny, the impact was much more muted. I think it's more than a physical technology change, though; morals seem to have genuinely changed deeply in that period with regards to the broadly held circle of empathy.
The colonisation of Australia (1788 starting) and New Zealand (treaty of Waitangi in 1840) and the *dramatically* different treatment of the indigenous peoples in the two cases is, I think, an example of a real shift in morals in that period, with the American civil war (1861) being a violent convulsion of the gradual ending of that kind of barbarism in the West.
It is disgusting to read such romanticization of a company which killed tens of millions of people. No, it was not efficiency, it was slavery and brutality.
I agree with your principles here, but we don't do ourselves a favour by denying that they can exist simultaneously (and, indeed, is I think an excellent argument against a drive for efficiency at all costs).
The enemies of common decency cannot subsist on deceit alone; there are trade offs to be made, and to pretend there isn't weakens our ability to recognise and fight when EIC-like horrors are emerging.
Great article. Thanks for it. As a British Indian this was enlightening.
The impact of social controls can’t be underestimated here.
First, the members of EIC, as you stated, were from a pretty concentrated part of English society.
Second, for these types of people there were three careers: EIC, government/chancery, military.
Third, societal status for a man was equal to one’s status on the one of the three you were in. Marriage, children, salary, future prospectives etc.
Finally, due to the concentrated nature, reputations were permanent.
A risky PM at stripe who wastes 6 months of an engineering teams time and produces a bad product will quit, join another cool startup (or google) and carry on. Today, CVS, references, networks are pretty weak in reputation permanence. Recent example is Neumann from WeWork.
So it’s this social controls on risk taking that allowed an autonomous structure more than anything, IMO. There was a highly centralised meta game that governed the highly decentralised core game.
Glad you liked it! And reputation permanence is a great phrase.
I've just finished reading Dalrymple's The Anarchy, a history of the East India Company and of India at the time of its expansion. Absolutely brilliant, hugely recommended. It really highlights how qualitatively different the EIC was versus other colonial ventures, as well as the dangers in entrusting human lives to a transient rulership (employees generally returned to England) and amoral corporation (the only obligation was profits) with distant shareholders (who were conveniently isolated from the horrors inflicted).
Quite like Dalrymple but haven't read this I think, will look. But yes the downsides there from the amorality and transient nature of rulers caused immense suffering.
Great piece. I think it would be better if you defined latency for those of us not in tech, and if you think EIC’s need for bailouts means the model didn’t really work.
Ah very good point. Meant how long messages took to go from A to B. And the bailouts were partially a consequence of the crown wanting to stop some atrocities, take more control given domestic anger at the Company's works. So there's a very intriguing story there that goes beyond the model working.
If you were to guess, would you say that the number of high-agency roles in the British economy has increased or decreased since then?
Increased in number, decreased in percentage
Depends how you define high agency - the number of *ultra* high agency roles is now approximately zero, from the top (much stronger controls on royals, ministers, executives) to the bottom (farmers need to obey umpteen regulations, you can't just build a house if you want a house, etc).
The number of people who have more agency from not being dirt poor has of course increased dramatically.
> the number of *ultra* high agency roles is now approximately zero
Precisely!
Even in my own role (investment banking) I now need approximately 100 discrete permissions to lend money, versus about two when the bank started in the 18th century.
If you really want to know the answer to that question, study the Catholic church. It's been going for a lot longer than the EIC.
It's also of interest, EIC is specific only because it's actually a joint stock company.
I'm thinking of an operational model. Peter Drucker has cited it repeatedly as such. Whether it's a joint stock company or not is immaterial.
It matters insofar as the objective is growth vs objective is to continue to exist, which changes the op model. Like I said the church is def very interesting from an org pov. I talk about this inpetus briefly in https://www.strangeloopcanon.com/p/the-price-of-immortality
It was the introduction of the Telegraph that ended the EIC. The mutiny of its Awadi sepoys created front page news in the UK in 1856 within days. In 1800 the story would be months old before it hit the papers.
The 1770 Bengal famine was also widely reported, and led to greater controls on the Company (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770), but despite being in many ways worse than the Mutiny, the impact was much more muted. I think it's more than a physical technology change, though; morals seem to have genuinely changed deeply in that period with regards to the broadly held circle of empathy.
The colonisation of Australia (1788 starting) and New Zealand (treaty of Waitangi in 1840) and the *dramatically* different treatment of the indigenous peoples in the two cases is, I think, an example of a real shift in morals in that period, with the American civil war (1861) being a violent convulsion of the gradual ending of that kind of barbarism in the West.
It is disgusting to read such romanticization of a company which killed tens of millions of people. No, it was not efficiency, it was slavery and brutality.
I agree with your principles here, but we don't do ourselves a favour by denying that they can exist simultaneously (and, indeed, is I think an excellent argument against a drive for efficiency at all costs).
The enemies of common decency cannot subsist on deceit alone; there are trade offs to be made, and to pretend there isn't weakens our ability to recognise and fight when EIC-like horrors are emerging.