Conversations in Management
Tacitus
is one of the best known Roman historians, though little
information remains of his personal history (including his first
name which may have been Gaius). He was born in A.D. 56
to an upper class family. As an adult, he pursued careers in
both law and politics. He moved quickly through the civil
administrative ranks and ultimately served as a magistrate,
Senator and Consul. His years near the epicenter of Roman power
left him with some definite opinions about culture and morality.
He was deeply concerned about the balance of power between the
Emperor and the Senate. He worried that popular apathy
encouraged public corruption. He cautioned that power without
principle was the breeding ground for tyranny. He particularly
deplored the obsequious behavior of the Roman nobility who
sought to curry Imperial favor. A man of such strong opinions
might have been expected to write histories that reflected his
biases, but Tacitus had other ideas. Influenced to some extent
by Sallust, he sought to record events without anger or
zeal. He took a balanced, multidimensional view of people
and occurrences. In doing so, he probably came close to
telling it like it was.
One of the
hardest realities faced by modern leaders is that sometimes you
have to be critical. Most of us can talk a good line
about standards, adherence to policy and accountability, but
when it comes right down to it, we prefer to blink and look the
other way when faced with problem performance. Part of it is
fear of confrontation. Typically, problem performers are also
our most fractious workers. They aren’t likely to respond with a
smile and a hearty, “thanks for pointing that out,” when
we offer constructive criticism. More than likely, they’ll
respond with either anger, shocked indignation, blame shifting,
passive aggressiveness or the dreaded silent treatment—take
your pick. But most of us can live without this kind of drama
and so we obligingly ignore the issues. More often,
however, we let problems slide because we can’t quite believe
that our problem employee would willingly behave so
irresponsibly. We prefer to believe that the difficulty is the
result of some anomaly that will swiftly be corrected when the
person returns to their right mind. Never mind
that Suzy hasn’t made it to work on time since the last century,
Bob hasn’t uttered a profanity-free sentence since the Nixon
administration and Chris hasn’t ever met a deadline. No,
we expect that any day now the problem will resolve itself—after
all, they’re one of our best employees (with the exception of
this one flaw!). But whether we’re being obliging from
fear of a showdown or because of misplaced empathy, we’re doing
serious damage to both our organizations and to the positive
folks who actually get the job done. Ironically, while
obliging the problems, we end up offending the
very people we consistently rely on because of their good work
and good attitudes. It should be the other way around!
And perhaps it would be if we applied Tacitus’ method of
recording history to the workplace.
Tacitus
appreciated that everyone has strengths and weaknesses. In his
histories, he candidly addresses both qualities in any given
subject. He reports evenhandedly as neither booster nor
detractor. That’s a good approach for leaders, too. Try leading
from the middle—neither indulgent friend nor demeaning
taskmaster. Promote strengths and address weaknesses as they
occur. Don’t ever let either pass unrecognized. True, it’s an
obliging approach, but it won’t produce many faults!
—Ebert
Read More CM in the Archives! |
Find More In The Archives!
|
