Should you seek for books on leaders in historical past, you discover a recurring forged of characters observing you from the covers: Winston Churchill. Napoleon. Abraham Lincoln. Genghis Khan. Mao Zedong. They’ll usually be navy or imperial leaders, on horses or in uniform or armour, who triumphed in massive wars or led their nation via disaster. Preserve searching and you’ll encounter one other variant of works on management, that includes distinguished figures from the enterprise world. With various levels of sophistication, these males (and, generally, ladies) are handled as heroes, function fashions and inspirations – or, alternatively, as menaces. Enterprise leaders resembling Invoice Gates or Jeff Bezos are portrayed, whether or not positively or negatively, as uniquely {powerful} people – in a position, via sheer pressure of will or ruthless intelligence, to beat any obstacles life put in their approach.
Such books are celebrations of individualism. Their major impact is to advertise an individualist perspective on the world. They’re in style as a result of their political attraction is so vast: liberals can love this angle on management, and so will conservatives and libertarians. Virtually everybody, it appears, enjoys a very good success story. However you’ll often learn little in them about all of the issues that supplied the idea for the success tales however which had nothing to do with the protagonists personally, like being born to rich mother and father in a socially and economically steady nation with myriad academic and industrial alternatives. The message from this literary cottage trade is that the place there’s a will, there’s a approach. ‘Leaders’ are ‘winners’. They constructed themselves up and achieved greatness via their extraordinary qualities. They made their very own historical past.
It’s laborious to flee this view of leaders and management. It’s all round us. We nonetheless have a tendency to show, examine and have a good time ‘Nice Males’. All around the world, persons are in the hunt for larger-than-life figures who can lead them previous crises and catastrophes, and right into a brilliant future. Maybe that’s the reason leaders from a supposedly superb previous loom so massive within the gloomy current. However how did we get to this dominant view on management, with its give attention to omnipotent individualism? To reply this query, we should go all the best way again to antiquity, the place mythology holds the important thing. We have to revisit the earliest written works in human historical past and see what sorts of concepts about management they implanted in us. After which, now we have to see how these early concepts had been countered by a brand new and compelling imaginative and prescient of management that continues to be with us in the present day.
For tons of of hundreds of thousands of individuals, the Bible isn’t just a ebook, and even only a sacred ebook, however the supply of how to consider the world. It teaches us about kings, gods, wars, human nature and our origins. Its affect could be direct or oblique, relying on whether or not one is a spiritual or secular individual. However its profound influence on world civilisations – and on us as people – is plain. Which means, even when you’ve got by no means learn any of it, you will have imbibed lots of its teachings and values. So how has it formed us? What classes on management are we meant to attract from it?
The Guide of II Samuel, chapters 11 to 18, presents maybe essentially the most dramatic and bloody story within the Hebrew scriptures. It begins with King David, sitting in his palace in Jerusalem, lazily gazing at a lady bathing in a close-by home. David has his servants convey her to him. The lady, Bathsheba, is married to a Hittite named Uriah, a soldier within the Israelite military, who’s off preventing the Ammonites in one of many wars that had helped set up David as a strong and rich king. From her tryst with David, Bathsheba conceives. Keen to cover his deed, David summons Uriah from the battlefield. After feting him in his palace, David sends Uriah to have a conjugal go to together with his spouse in order that he can be assumed to be the daddy of David’s youngster. However Uriah ruins David’s plan when he refuses to go to his home, and as a substitute sleeps exterior the king’s door. He explains to David that he couldn’t probably sleep together with his spouse and really feel the pleasures of dwelling whereas his fellow troopers are mired in battle. Uriah’s honour and integrity push King David to higher duplicity: he sends Uriah again to the battlefield with a non-public message to David’s normal, Joab, instructing the final to put Uriah within the battle frontline, the place he’s more likely to be killed. And so it occurs: Uriah dies – due to a observe that he was ordered to take to his commander with out understanding its contents. Again in Jerusalem, Bathsheba grieves for her husband, and David quickly makes her the most recent of his many wives.
One of many issues that makes this episode stunning and disturbing is that David is a sacred determine to Jews, Christians and Muslims. His status, as such, is of a fantastic and admirable chief, who rose from nothing; a favorite of God, the modest shepherd boy who was ordained by Him to be king; who felled the mighty Philistine warrior Goliath with solely a sling and rock; who performed the harp for the tormented first king of the Israelites, Saul; who noticed the face of God, and spoke to Him, and based on Jewish custom, his home could be the king of Israel’s in perpetuity, and the Messiah (for Christians, this was Jesus Christ) would come from his lineage. In II Samuel, earlier than his encounter with Bathsheba, David rises to nice energy and expands his kingdom by triumphing in wars, protected and beloved by God, and all the time with righteousness.
However in his behaviour in direction of Bathsheba and Uriah, David is human, not godly – even low and immoral and slothful. He’s the precise reverse of what we would count on a fantastic chief to be. He not leads males on the battlefield or units a private instance of modesty and braveness, as he as soon as did, however sits in an opulent palace, a fats cat, a Peeping Tom, whereas others struggle and die on his behalf. So the scriptures give us a darker portrait of David than those that solely know him by status – as an icon, filtered via mythology or perception – may presume.
David mentioned to Nathan: ‘The person who did this deserves to die!’ Nathan’s response to David is: ‘You are that man’
Quickly after Uriah’s loss of life on the battlefield, the direct results of David’s orders to Joab, the Prophet Nathan pays King David a go to. Prophets play a vital function: they carry the phrase of God and function non secular authorities. Nathan is thus one of many solely individuals who can communicate instantly and freely to David, with out worry, since it’s like God talking. Nathan tells the king a narrative a few wealthy man and a poor man. The wealthy man had numerous sheep and cattle, however the poor man had just one little lamb. ‘He raised it, and it grew up with him and his youngsters. It shared his meals, drank from his cup, and even slept in his arms. It was like a daughter to him,’ Nathan tells David. Someday, the wealthy man had a customer and, as a substitute of taking one among his many sheep to arrange a meal for the customer, he took the one little lamb that belonged to the poor man, killed it, and served it.
The Bible then tells us that, upon listening to this story, ‘David burned with anger in opposition to the person’ and mentioned to Nathan: ‘As certainly because the LORD lives, the person who did this deserves to die! He should pay for that lamb 4 occasions over, as a result of he did such a factor and had no pity.’ Nathan’s response to David is: ‘You are that man.’ And Nathan continues, channelling God’s voice: ‘I anointed you king over Israel … Why did you despise the phrase of the LORD by doing what’s evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his spouse to be your personal … Now, subsequently, the sword won’t ever depart from your home … Out of your personal family I’m going to convey calamity upon you.’
Upon listening to Nathan’s phrases, David collapses in guilt, saying: ‘I’ve sinned in opposition to the Lord.’ Nathan reassures him that God will spare his personal life. However, from this level on, David and his household expertise a shocking sequence of tragedies. First, Bathsheba’s child, David’s son, turns into gravely in poor health. David and his servants pray and cry and quick, to no avail: the infant dies. (After this, Bathsheba turns into pregnant once more – this time with Solomon, whom we’re informed God loves, and who would ultimately succeed David as king.)
The biblical writer then recounts the grim episode involving three of David’s older youngsters, Amnon, Tamar and Absalom. Amnon turns into obsessed together with his half-sister Tamar. He lures her to his home by pretending to be in poor health, and asks Tamar to feed him. She does, and affords to feed Amnon truffles of meat, however he declines, as a substitute asking her to put with him. When she is horrified on the thought and tries to placate him by telling him to discuss his need with their father, he assaults and rapes her, regardless of her begging him to cease; as soon as completed, he’s consumed with ‘hatred’ for her and throws her out of his home. The devastated Tamar goes to her brother Absalom, who upon studying what occurred by no means speaks to his half-brother Amnon once more; we’re informed that ‘he hated Amnon as a result of he had disgraced his sister Tamar.’
Two years go. Absalom appears to have moved on (about Tamar we’re informed nothing). However then via trickery, Absalom manages to assemble all of the king’s sons – his brothers and half-brothers – and instructs his servants to homicide Amnon. When the information will get to King David, he’s first horribly misled to consider that Absalom has killed all his male siblings, all of David’s sons. Absalom flees Jerusalem and goes to Geshur, the place he stays for 3 years. David is described as rather more unhappy than indignant; he ‘longed to go to Absalom, for he was consoled regarding Amnon’s loss of life.’
The remainder of the episode is each transferring and stunning. Absalom and David reconcile after three years of estrangement, a young second between father and son that impressed nice works by artists from Rembrandt to Marc Chagall. However Absalom is quickly overcome as soon as once more by his demons. He launches a rise up in opposition to his father, who’s compelled to flee Jerusalem. Ultimately, after a bloody conflict between Absalom’s military and people who stay loyal to David, Absalom is killed in ugly vogue. David doesn’t have a good time his victory and restoration to the throne; as a substitute, he’s shattered, and the episode ends with David wailing in grief: ‘O my son Absalom! My son, my son, Absalom! If solely I had died as a substitute of you – O Absalom, my son, my son!’ What are we meant to be taught from this horrific story?
The Bible presents a theological conception of management: David is king by divine proper, chosen and empowered by God. Earlier, the Hebrews had been a wandering individuals with ‘Judges’ who led them, quickly, although completely different hardships and crises. These weren’t true rulers, however extra like guides or navy leaders in an emergency. The Israelites, below fixed assault by their enemies, particularly the Philistines, and conscious of the nice empires (resembling Egypt) that dominated their world, ask the Prophet Samuel to petition God to provide them a king, as all their {powerful} neighbours and enemies had. Samuel affords the individuals a stark warning about what it’s wish to be dominated by a king: he’ll take their sons to be his troopers, their daughters to be his cooks and perfumers, take over their lands, and enslave the individuals, and nobody can have the precise or the power to face as much as him. ‘When that day comes,’ Samuel warns the Israelites, ‘you’ll cry out for reduction from the king you will have chosen, and the LORD won’t reply you in that day.’
In different phrases, God tells the chosen individuals, after you have a king, there is no such thing as a going again. The individuals, undeterred by Samuel’s bleak prophecy (which greater than got here true), select to have a king rule over them. And as soon as they do, as Samuel warned them, that energy shouldn’t be meant to be challenged by different males – as a result of the king is God’s alternative and guidelines in his identify. That was why regicide (the homicide of a king) was thought of, nicely into the early trendy period, the worst crime one may probably commit – it was in opposition to the ruler and in opposition to God. On the identical time, the emergence of a king with earthly energy however nonetheless below God is a conception of management that’s constrained by a form of morality, even when that time period didn’t exist then. David abuses his energy, and the biblical writer implies that the sorrows and violence that observe are God’s punishment for that authentic sin. David’s successes and sufferings as king are guided by God.
A spiritual individual may consider that the Bible provides us God’s literal phrase. However, from a secular perspective, we all know that these tales are the product of human beings with human intentions. The story of King David’s fall from grace is an instance of the ways in which societies have all the time discovered to empower sure individuals to be leaders, attributing to them advantage and handing to them authority – but additionally, on the identical time, to restrict the facility of these rulers. On the one hand, the conception of management discovered on this story of King David’s crime and punishment provides the chief virtually limitless energy. However, it implies that there’s a threshold that even he can’t go; David, because the king, stays subservient to the upper energy of God. And so, even when abnormal individuals can’t verify their leaders, God can. And religion in God, worshipping God, doing God’s work, implies that the individuals could be certain of God’s safety from a frontrunner who abuses his or her energy. For even a king is beneath the identical divine authority because the lowest of his topics.
The Bible represents a foundational mythology – the works and tales that proceed to provide so many individuals a way of themselves, their world and their historical past. However these had been by no means merely phrases. They had been bedrock ideas for the way people organised their societies, in principally non secular and monarchical vogue, for hundreds of years to come back. From the standpoint of political management, there actually is little distinction between King David and ruling monarchs nicely into the trendy period. By means of social and financial upheavals, technological development, evolving bureaucracies and cultural adjustments, the essential thought conveyed within the Bible persevered: a king (or generally a queen, when there was no male inheritor to the monarch) ruling via divine authority.
Machiavelli helps usher us into the brand new world, the place the chief makes not solely her personal future, but additionally historical past
However within the trendy period, whilst monarchies continued, there was a significant shift in lots of states and societies, as individuals started to think about management as one thing unbiased of God. It’s not merely that societies and folks turned much less non secular. It’s that divine authority over society, and folks’s lives, lessened. And when that occurred, whilst most states and societies had been nonetheless dominated by absolute monarchs, individuals wanted to seek out new explanations and justifications for management. It wasn’t sufficient to invoke God. On this regard, within the historical past of how people have considered management, maybe nobody was extra impactful than Niccolò Machiavelli, finest generally known as the writer of The Prince, which he wrote in 1513 however which was revealed solely in 1532.
Just like the Bible, The Prince is a foundational work; whether or not one has learn it or not, we stay in a world that it has helped to form, instantly or not directly, for higher or for worse. Almost two millennia after the biblical story of David, Bathsheba and Uriah was written, The Prince was nonetheless a part of a world through which the existence of God was as actual to almost everybody in Europe (and most different locations) because the Solar and the Moon. Machiavelli acknowledged that God performed some function in human affairs; at numerous factors in The Prince, he appears to take without any consideration the concept rulers rose and fell at the very least partially due to God’s will, and due to ‘fortune’ (which he coupled with ‘God’). However he additionally claimed that males had ‘free will’ and that whereas ‘fortune is the arbiter of one-half of our actions’, ‘she nonetheless leaves us to direct the opposite half, or maybe rather less.’ Elsewhere, Machiavelli recounts a number of miracles and punishments that God was chargeable for, and with which he directed what occurred on the earth, however provides that: ‘God shouldn’t be keen to do every part, and thus take away our free will and that share of glory which belongs to us.’
However regardless of Machiavelli’s grudging acceptance that God nonetheless mattered, his prince exists in a brand new psychological universe from the one in II Samuel, one through which management is sure to not the supernatural, or to morality, however to goals. The Prophet Nathan’s parable in regards to the wealthy man and the poor man and their sheep could be modified below Machiavelli: the prince shouldn’t keep away from taking the poor man’s sole sheep as a result of it’s an immoral act that might anger God; he ought to keep away from it as a result of such a imply act would make him hated and the individuals’s hatred would thwart his ambitions. However, as a result of it’s ‘higher to be feared than liked’, it’s advantageous, and even fascinating, that these below the prince know that he’s completely able to taking their sheep (because it had been) if they don’t do as he tells them – and that he goes via with this punishment when it’s vital. This can be a wholly new mind-set of management as a result of it supplies a information for the aspiring chief primarily based not on what’s morally proper however on how politics works in the true world. Machiavelli, in that sense, helps usher us from the outdated world to the brand new, the place something appears potential, and through which the chief makes not solely her personal future, but additionally historical past.
But even in Machiavelli’s courageous new world, through which leaders can supposedly form their very own destinies, not all is feasible. Leaders nonetheless should take care of fairly {powerful} and resistant issues: constructions. Techniques. Establishments. Different leaders. Adversaries. Enemies. In a Machiavellian world, maybe essentially the most daunting problem going through rulers is different individuals realising that the ruler’s energy shouldn’t be assured and guarded by divine authority, so the ruler could be displaced – with out incurring God’s wrath. And so, studying about Machiavelli’s prince after studying about King David within the Bible brings us to the large query on the coronary heart of the problem of management: does the chief make historical past or does historical past make the chief? If we need to perceive management, and the way it works on the earth, ought to we be wanting primarily on the methods the chief modified the world? Or ought to we give attention to the methods through which the world produced, after which constrained, the chief?
Some individuals – let’s name them Machiavellians – are targeted on people. Some are extra targeted on the constraints. Karl Marx, for instance, in his essay The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon (1852), argued that:
Males make their very own historical past, however they don’t make it as they please; they don’t make it below self-selected circumstances, however below circumstances present already, given and transmitted from the previous.
Probably the most attention-grabbing debate about management, then, is between these (like Machiavelli) who consider that leaders make (and overcome) historical past, and people (like Marx, and just like the writer of King David’s story) who consider that historical past makes (and constrains) leaders.
The Machiavellian mannequin most likely applies finest to leaders who wield superior energy, or who’ve lots of built-in benefits. If, say, you’re a political chief in a functioning democracy and had been elected democratically, you will have broad legitimacy. If you’re a dictator backed by your nation’s navy and different establishments, or you’re the CEO of a big company in a rustic with a political economic system designed to serve the pursuits of huge companies and their CEOs, you’ll have lots of decisions in easy methods to ‘lead’. That is very true if, following Machiavelli’s recommendation, you consider you might be free from the constraints of morality, or God’s scolding oversight.
There’s a direct line from Machiavelli to the individualistic conception of management one sees in all places in the present day. However how does this view of leaders and their skill to form actuality apply to leaders who’re in opposition to energy? Leaders are generally heads of state or captains of trade, however different occasions they’ve significantly much less energy, making an attempt to constrain the leaders above them within the hierarchy. Maybe they’re whistleblowers exposing corruption or misdeeds inside mighty corporations or establishments, or members of an underground group preventing to overthrow a brutal dictator.
A number of the leaders in historical past who present us with essentially the most perception and inspiration won’t have had formal energy or authority. They may not even be well-known. They may not have succeeded, and they won’t have gained. However these leaders usually make an enduring impression on us – and the largest influence. Maybe it is because the conception of management that we discover in II Samuel, with its insistence on morality as a constraint on even essentially the most {powerful} rulers, nonetheless has buy in our world in the present day – and that the message on management within the Hebrew scripture has not been completely overturned by the Machiavellian viewpoint. At the least, not but.
This essay is predicated on the ebook Warriors, Rebels, and Saints: The Art of Leadership from Machiavelli to Malcolm X by Moshik Temkin, revealed by Public Affairs/Profile Books in 2023.
