Individual Term Paper

1

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus: Leadership in Antiquity and Modern Ages

By

Alexandra Chauran

Managing Human Resources in Public and Non-Governmental Organizations

Dr. Lee Allen

February 14th, 2014

Valdosta State University

Introduction

It’s easy to make the mistake in thinking that the principles of good leadership of the

past won’t apply to the modern age. After all, technology and other aspects of civilization

have come a long way. However, the goodness that is within people has never changed. As

such, the way that good leaders approached the common good in antiquity is startlingly

pertinent even today.

This paper will examine general advice and thoughts regarding good leadership across

antiquity and the modern age. In particular, through exploring the writings of Marcus

Aurelius Antoninus, Emperor of Rome, one can find quite poignant parallels between the

problems faced in antiquity and those faced today.

And so, before beginning the journey of the following pages, begin by reading the

following blessing to a public administrator by Marcus Aurelius himself for himself. It does

take on the quaint tone of an administrator led by piety in equal measure with hubris. “Let the

deity which is in thee be the guardian of a living being, manly and of ripe age, and engaged in

manner political, and a [citizen], and a ruler, who has taken his post like a man waiting for

Individual Term Paper

2

the signal which summons him from life, and ready to go (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011,

Kindle Location 1319-22).”

Scope

This paper covers the ages of antiquity, which include the years prior to the fifth

century. The age of modernity is generally thought to have begun after the fifteenth century,

at the end of the Medieval Ages. In comparing and contrasting antiquity with modernity, this

paper will confront the problem of defining good leadership. With the commonalities found

through the ages, recommendations will be made for leaders going forward into the future.

Antiquity

In era of myth, approximately 2000 BC, modern politics was as yet unformed. Social

interactions were merely social, without taking on a broader scope. “People lived according

to myths, narratives wherein gods were constantly expressing the creative forces of the

universe.” In this context, the myths are not merely fables or fairy tales, but express

universal truths that cannot be shared lore in any other format (Scott & Garrison 2012, Kindle

Location 858-68).” Thus, myths were not phoney or make-believe. In fact, myths were

realities that were lived within the mind and carried on in communities across many

generations.

Reality was experienced differently for people in antiquity. “There were two planes

of existence, (1) a higher, transcendent, ‘sacred’ realm of existence in which the gods are in

the perpetual process of creating the world, and (2) a lower realm, the ‘profane’ world, which

was made up of only the ordinary acts of existence that had not been sanctified by ritual

(Scott & Garrison 2012, Kindle Location 897-904).” Of course, this sacred realm represented

reality, while the lower realm represented illusion. Ritual was a way of sanctifying or

making real the day to day life of birth, hunting, death and politics. By leading rituals, the

leaders of antiquity were continuously engaged in the act of sacred creation. These were the

only truly meaningful acts, and of course they were enacted by truly meaningful leaders.

Political events were thought to be shaped by mythological entities such as the fates,

in accordance with guidance from the Gods. Even in modernity, “to the extent that external

forces control our lives, politics is irrelevant. For all our political efforts may come to

nothing (Scott & Garrison 2012, Kindle Location 1044-47).” Certainly the outcome of

wasted effort by leaders is something that will never disappear from the human experience.

However, in antiquity it was thought that there was some sort of overriding natural force, a

secret order to the universe, which would prevail.

Tough modern positivism may have eliminated the fear of many unknowns, lessons

from antiquity are still valid today. “It is the test of time that makes the ancient lessons

valuable to the business manager. Many business lessons have existed for such a short time

that they have yet to crystallize as valid strategies (Michaelson 2010, Kindle Location 238-

41).” By observing successful leaders of antiquity, such as Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, we

can learn lessons that can aid the leaders of today.

Individual Term Paper

3

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (121 AD – 180 AD)

Ceasar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus was a dedicated public administrator, and a very

good one at that. He improved the Roman Empire greatly during his period of

administration. Indeed, Rome never saw such heights again after his death. He was

exemplary of great leadership in all that he did.

“He [Marcus Aurelius] regarded himself as being, in fact, the servant of all.

The registry of citizens, the suppression of litigation, the elevation of public morals,

the care of minors, the retrenchment of public expenses, the limitations of gladiatorial

games and shows, the care of the roads, the restoration of senatorial privileges, the

appointment of none but worthy magistrates, even the regulation of street traffic,

these and numberless duties so completely absorbed his attention that, in spite of

indifferent health, they often kept him at severe labor from early morning till long

after midnight. His position, indeed, often necessitated his presence at games and

shows; but on these occasions he occupied himself either by reading, or being read to,

or in writing notes. He was one of those who held that nothing should be done

hastily, and that few crimes were worse than waste of time. (Miller 1989, 91-92).”

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus

Illustration by Alexandra Chauran

Indeed, many of these writings mentioned above with which Marcus Aurelius

busied himself were private writings meant to motivate and sometimes even chide

himself. These writings were later compiled into the book, Thoughts of Marcus

Aurelius Antoninus. Many of these thoughts will be shared in this paper to define

good leadership and how to bring good leadership about. For example, “My nature is

rational and social,” Marcus Aurelius wrote, “and my city and country, so far as I am

Individual Term Paper

4

Antoninus, is Rome, but so far as I am a man, it is the world (Marcus Aurelius &

Long 2011, Kindle Location 1925-26).”

Marcus Aurelius wrote extensively about a love of justice and “the idea of a

polity in which there is the same law for all, a polity administered with regard to equal

rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which

respects most of all the freedom of the governed,” which he said he learned from his

brother Serverus. (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1064-68). He

learned from his adopted father and predecessor, Emperor Antoninus Pius, “a

readiness to listen to those who had anything to propose for the common weal

(Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1087-90).” From childhood, one

can observe that Marcus Aurelius’ deepest values were formed around taking care of

his fellow man.

Despite being raised by a great leader, Marcus Aurelius wrote that he was

grateful to the gods that he did not leap into public administration too early, since he

was able to learn from Emperor Antoninus Pius a certain humility. “It is in such a

man’s power to bring himself very near to the fashion of a private person, without

being for this reason either meaner in thought, or more remiss in action, with respect

to the things which must be done for the public interest in a manner that befits a ruler

(Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1136-41).” Marcus Aurelius

frowned upon leaders who took themselves into palaces away from their people,

because it made them out of touch.

Much of Marcus Aurelius’ writings are philosophical in nature, in which he

holds debates with himself and also expresses his belief in the gods as governors of

his universe. For example, this debate about positivism: “Either there is providence

or atoms [fortuitous concurrence of things]; or remember the arguments by which it

has been proved that the world is a kind of political community (Marcus Aurelius &

Long 2011, Kindle Location 1413-15).” Ironically, the experiential portion of his

observation has to do with faith, which is the faith that there is some order in the

universe brought about by politics. Marcus Aurelius believed that people exist for the

sake of society.

“We are fellow-citizens; if this is so, we are members of some political

community; if this is so, the world is in a manner a state. For of what other

common political community will anyone say that the whole human race are

members? And from thence, from this common political community, comes

also our very intellectual faculty and reasoning faculty and our capacity for

law (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1430-33).”

Marcus Aurelius believed that society itself was superior to any individual’s wants or

needs. “The intelligence of the universe is social. Accordingly it has made the inferior things

for the sake of the superior (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1734-36).” By

this he meant that the gods created each individual person for the service of society as a

whole. Likewise, he thought that “whatever the rational and political [social] faculty finds to

be neither intelligent nor social, it properly judges to be inferior to itself (Marcus Aurelius &

Long 2011, Kindle Location 2080-81).” This sense of conscience Marcus Aurelius believed

should be highly developed within a good leader.

This is not to say that a good leader must be a doormat to his or her people. “I

remain, am free, and no man shall hinder me from doing what I choose; and I choose to do

Individual Term Paper

5

what is according to the nature of the rational and social animal (Marcus Aurelius & Long

2011, Kindle Location 1728-32).” Marcus Aurelius assumed that humans were generally

good and rational creatures. It would not be some struggle, therefore, to conform with one’s

true nature.

But what of those who do not conform to goodness? Marcus Aurelius has an

philosophical explanation for them as well. “Men cooperate after different fashions: and

even those cooperate abundantly, who find fault with what happens and those who try to

oppose it and hinder it; for the universe had need even of such men as these. It remains then

for thee to understand (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1909-12).” So, even

trouble-makers are there for a reason. Perhaps there is some ultimate and hidden reason for

some political opposition, for example to poke a hole in a faulty system. Good leaders are

those who work with dissenters to find out what is the best public good that can come about

from disagreements.

Humanity, in Marcus Aurelius’ opinion, is driven by a natural need to coexist with

one another and create strong communities around good leaders. Those who act against this

natural law are only hurting themselves. “That which is not good for the swarm, neither is it

good for the bee (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1950-51).” This view may

seem refreshingly optimistic, but it is a view shared by many good leaders today.

Modern (After the 15th century)

“’Modernity’ is the period marked by the end of the Church’s domination of thoughts

and institutions that defined the Middle Ages, and the beginning of the time when secular or

nonreligious thoughts and institutions became preeminent. Machiavelli’s work The Prince

(1513) is a classic of modern political realism (Scott & Garrison 2012, Kindle Location 1495-

98).” This is not to say that spirituality in leadership is dead. In fact, spiritual leadership has

evolved into emotional intelligence, and the aim is to foster growth, self-improvement and

self-awareness in followers.

Whole soul leadership, also known as spiritual leadership, “builds on the ideas of

displacing values and maintaining a culture of trust, as it focuses attention on the whole-soul

nature of both the individual leader and each follower (Van Wart et al. 2008, Kindle Location

1326-41).” In a sense, this style of leadership links the internal mythic world with the

external world of public administration. The mythic world still exists in modernity, no matter

how much leaders may try to deny that fact. The myths of the ancient world have been

replaced with popular culture, newspaper stories and promises made by politicians. Spiritual

leadership merely honours this fact.

Spiritual leadership draws humanity together in a way that is very much like Marcus

Aurelius philosophised. That which is bad for the swarm is bad for the bee, he wrote. Well,

spiritual leadership likewise assumes that humanity shares a sort of hive mind.

“This [spiritual leadership] perspective assumes that people have only one

spirit, which manifests itself in both our professional and personal lives, and that the

activity of leadership engages individuals at this core level. ‘Spirit’ is defined in

terms of the basis of comfort, strength, happiness; the essence of self; the source of

personal meaning and values; a personal belief system or inner certainty; and an

emotional level of being follower (Van Wart et al. 2008, Kindle Location 1326-41).”

Individual Term Paper

6

Spirit is not supposed to be addressed instead of science. In a model of leadership

perspectives, both spiritual or whole-soul leadership and scientific management are depicted

within the same model of concentric triangles. Scientific management is enfolded within

spiritual leadership, so that both can coexist (Van Wart et al. 2008, Kindle Location 1349-

52). Observe the diagram below, simplified to show the perspective of science to spiritual

leadership.

Illustration by Alexandra Chauran

Modernity has not seen the abandonment of ritual in public administration. “The

organizational culture movement has of late greatly expanded the discussion of symbols,

myths, and rites in administrative organizations. (Van Wart et al. 2008, Kindle Location

2711-19).” Furthermore, ritual hasn’t become unrecognizable. “Collective ritual has six

formal properties: repetition, role playing, stylization, order, staging and social meaning

(Van Wart et al. 2008, Kindle Location 2711-19).” Just as in antiquity, this ritual serves to

draw humans closer to reality. “When performed socially (rather than individually), it has the

effect of endowing certain interpretations of reality with a legitimacy that is recognized by

the social group (Van Wart et al. 2008, Kindle Location 2711-19).” The spiritual reality

remains to be the truth, as far as myth is concerned.

Problem Identified: What is Good Leadership?

Identifying the traits of truly good leadership is an ongoing problem. “Throughout

history, most near geniuses do seem to have had this inner urge. Something called a passion,

the madness of the gods. Or merely a deft touch (Van Wart et al. 2008, Kindle Location

5866-67).” Without making people have some sort of mad genius, how can we culture good

leadership?

Individual Term Paper

7

The first step may be acknowledging those aspects of good leadership that are left up

to chance. “All public managers are lucky. But being lucky is not enough. For the luck to

count, for the luck to contribute to success, the manager has to recognize and exploit it (Van

Wart et al. 2008, Kindle Location 13026-27).” When luck is not present, the public

administrator must recognize the problem and take steps to mitigate the issue until such time

as a lucky opportunity arises.

A good leader is also resourceful. As Sun Tzu wrote, “To a commander adept at the

use of extraordinary forces, his resources are as infinite as heaven and earth, as inexhaustible

as the flow of the running rivers. They end and begin again like the motions of the sun and

moon. They die away and then are reborn like the changing of the four seasons (Michaelson

2010, Kindle Location 1003-6).” The truly resourceful leader has infinite power at his or her

command.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus’ Idea of Good Leadership

Marcus Aurelius took great leadership very seriously. Most importantly, he thought

that leadership was more than just a role or a positional level of authority. In fact, he thought

that leaders should not be seduced by the ease of slipping into a role. Leadership worn

simply like a hat can lead to laziness and pompousness.

“Take care that thou art not made into a Caesar, that thou art not dyed with

this dye; for such things happen. Keep thyself then simple, good, pure, serious, free

from affectation, a friend of justice, a worshipper of the gods, kind, affectionate,

strenuous in all proper acts. Strive to continue to be such as philosophy wished to

make thee. Reverence the gods, and help men. Short is life. There is only one fruit of

this terrene life – a pious disposition and social acts. Do everything as a disciple of

Antoninus. Remember his constancy in every act which was conformable to reason,

and his evenness in all things, and his piety, and the serenity of his countenance, and

his sweetness, and his disregard of empty fame (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011,

Kindle Location 1858-63).”

Marcus Aurelius abhorred the idea of leading a lavish life based on a position of

leadership, even if that position were well earned. He thought that these luxuries dulled the

senses, and allowed a leader to be more easily swayed by external events. “Let the part of thy

soul which leads and governs be undisturbed by the movements in the flesh,” Marcus

Aurelius wrote, “let not the ruling part of itself add to the sensation the opinion that it is

either good or bad (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1713-16).” If he felt

pain, Marcus Aurelius would not base decisions on that pain. He would have been a

particularly frustrating torture victim.

The only real pleasure that Marcus Aurelius took was in pleasing humanity as a

society. “Take pleasure in one thing and rest in it, in passing from one social act to another

social act, thinking of God (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1781-82).”

Marcus Aurelius believed that he was created in order to serve his citizens, and thus serving

them would bring him the highest joy.

In other words, Marcus Aurelius thought of himself as a cog in a magnificent

machine. Serving the citizenry was his purpose and anything contrary to that was destructive.

“As thou thyself art a component part of a social system, so let every act of thine be a

Individual Term Paper

8

component part of social life. Whatever act of thine then has no reference either immediately

or remotely to a social end, this tears asunder thy life (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle

Location 2522-24).”

Possible Solutions

Ever since Hermes Trismegistus wrote “know thyself,” such self-knowledge has been

some of the hardest to find and most important information in the universe. “You have the

right to self-awareness. Know your strengths and weaknesses (Edelman et al. 2008, Kindle

Location 195-99).” Put in other words, “Know the enemy and know yourself, and your

victory will never be endangered (Michaelson 2010, Kindle Location 2029-30).” When one

has knowledge of both the self and the enemy, one has a potential advantage as a leader over

any situation.

Another solution to the problem of not knowing what good leadership may be is to

detach from outcomes (Edelman et al. 2008, 1639). When serving people for the sake of

serving people, a leader will always meet his or her goals. However, when a leader has the

idea to push a specific outcome upon a society, he or she will often be left in frustration.

Finally, another good leadership aspect is creativity. “There are five main approaches

to the question of what causes creativity. These are intuition, synthesis, imagination, levels

of attention, and conflict (Van Wart et al. 2008, Kindle Location 5985-86).” Having

something cosmically important to do may be key to living out one’s creative potential.

Otherwise, there will be no impetus to engage the five approaches to creativity that are

suggested above.

In summary, good leadership is not bestowed by the voters or by the corner office.

“Generalizing for simplicity, leaders are best advised to use positional power sparingly and

strategically, and to try to rely most heavily on their personal power (Van Wart et al. 2008,

Kindle Location 5075-78).” One’s charm, charisma, creativity, self-knowledge and smooth

detachment from outcomes is more valuable than any political seat.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus’ Possible Solutions

Of course, our friend Marcus Aurelius also had some potential solutions to the

problem of defining good leadership. “A man should always have these two rules in

readiness; the one to do only whatever the reason of the ruling and legislating faculty may

suggest for the use of men; the other, to change thy opinion (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011,

Kindle Location 1450-53).” In this statement, Marcus Aurelius expresses both a confidence

that the natural order will be attained or restored, as well as a humility about the process.

The solutions of Marcus Aurelius are always laissez faire because he believed that the

best leadership was the natural order of things. “Always run the short way; and the short way

is the natural: accordingly say and do everything in conformity with the soundest reason. For

such a purpose frees a man from trouble, and warfare, and all artifice and ostentatious display

(Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1583-85).” Once a leader is freed from all

pretence, he or she can enact a role with the best intentions.

Individual Term Paper

9

Implementation Plan

To know yourself, implement the following plan. “The self-examination takes place

in three spheres: Physical, intellectual, and moral. For physical health, see a doctor; for

intellectual health, read, listen and visit your battlefield; for moral health, find an external

guru who will hold up a mirror and give you an honest picture (Michaelson 2010, Kindle

Location 2055-59).” You’re not a doctor or a lawyer, so don’t step outside your own scope

of practice, even if that practice involves getting to know yourself.

Live your life with intention. Ask yourself questions: “What do you intend to

accomplish at work this week? What do you intend to experience in your career this year?

How do you intend for your business to grow?” Once you have the answers to these

questions, you can begin the internal metaphysical work. As Marcus Aurelius would say,

“Such as are thy habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of thy mind; for the soul is

dyed by the thoughts (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1682-85).” Like will

attract like, and positive thoughts will bring more of the same.

“Hold your intentions in your mind, write them down, visualize them in your head,

and then imagine them actually happening and becoming real. Then develop the

practice of rewriting your intentions every morning, knowing that this is what you are

attracting to your life. Know that this is the career that you are creating. Once you

put your intentions ‘out there,’ the wheels are in motion (Edelman et al. 2008, Kindle

Location 471-83).”

The important part of this implementation plan is to put these thoughts in writing. “If

your plan is not in writing, you do not have a plan at all. Instead, you have only a dream, a

vision, or perhaps even a nightmare (Michaelson 2010, Kindle Location 300-301).” How

will you know when your intention has been set into motion? You’ll notice that

synchronicity will happen for you more often. Perhaps the right thoughts will come to you at

the right time. Perhaps the right people will come across your path and be noticed by you at

the most opportune moments. You’ll have to keep your predictive senses keen in order to

jump on opportunities as they arise.

“There’s no crystal ball issued to public managers when they take their office.

Still, several principles should guide their efforts to remain accountable to the public

trust when operating in this type of accountability environment: Develop and nurture

organizational routines for continuously scanning changes in the accountability

environment; use multiple methods to keep in touch with citizens, elected officials,

and peers in order to continuously monitor emerging needs; and work with legislators

in a bi-partisan or nonpartisan way to craft legislative proposals that are responsive

to the public interest (Van Wart et al. 2008, Kindle Location 4906-14).”

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus’ Implementation Plan

Marcus Aurelius also considered predicting the future to be an important part of

implementing good leadership. “Consider the past – such great changes of political

supremacies; thou mayest foresee also the things which will be. For they will certainly be of

like form, and it is not possible that they should deviate from the order of things which take

place now (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 2093-96).” Truly, the patterns in

history repeat themselves, and the good leader should be ready for that.

Individual Term Paper

10

Marcus Aurelius wrote his own implementation plan. He told himself to pray the

following prayer every morning in order to gain empathy for those he would encounter in his

work as a public administrator. This attitude helped him keep his values close at hand.

“Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busybody, the

ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by

reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil. But I who have seen the nature of

the good that is beautiful, and of the bad that is ugly, and of the nature of him who

does wrong, that it is akin to me; not [only] of the same blood or seed, but that it

participates in [the same] intelligence and [the same] portion of divinity, I can

neither be injured by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly, nor can I be

angry with my kinsmen, nor hate him. For we are made for co-operation, like feet,

like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one

another, then, is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed

and to turn away (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location, 1169-75).”

For Marcus Aurelius, constant thought policing was an important part of being a good

leader. “Every moment think steadily as a [citizen] and a man to do what thou hast in hand

with perfect and simple dignity, and feeling of affection, and freedom and justice (Marcus

Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1190-95). Of course, he wrote these things down,

which created a record as well as allowing him to cement these thoughts further in his mind.

Evaluation Criteria

Before evaluating whether the implementation plan has been successful, it is

important to have a sense of perspective. “While the trials and tribulations of other people

are of a different flavour than ours, the fact is that we all have the shared experience of being

human. This creates a commonality that makes us the same. We are all connected (Edelman

et al. 2008, Kindle Location 1587-88).” Note that this mirrors the perspective of antiquity in

which we all share a hive mind, or at the very least a hive need.

The same organizational structure will not work for every organization or with every

public administrator. Conflict is to be expected. Conflicts don’t need to be evaluated per se,

as they are an eventuality, however they do need to be addressed without guile. A suggested

narrative is thus: “We both know that we have a challenge here. I don’t know what the

solution is, but I’m sure there’s a good one out there. Let’s work together to find it (Edelman

et al. 2008, 1679-80).” Finally, in the evaluation plan, a practical approach is needed.

One common practical implementation that can be evaluated is to use the acronym

POSDCORB (plan, organize, staff, direct, coordinate, report and budget) (Van Wart et al.

2008, Kindle Location 1312-14). This can be evaluated at key stages such as the planning

stage and the report stage, in order to make minor adjustments along the way.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus’ Evaluation Plan

Marcus Aurelius was suspicious of evaluation plans that gave too much positive

feedback. “To be received by the clapping of hands? No. Neither must we value the clapping

of tongues (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1818-21).” In his day,

Individual Term Paper

11

evaluation was usually the feedback of the crowds. As such, Marcus Aurelius’ own plan was

to retreat within himself to meditate. Observe and try the meditation below:

“Retire into this little territory of thy own, and above all do not distract or

strain thyself, but be free, and look at things as a man, as a human being, as a citizen,

as a mortal. But among the things readiest to thy hand to which thou shalt turn, let

there be these, which are two. One is that things do not touch the soul, for they are

external and remain immovable; but our perturbations come only from the opinion

which is within. The other is that all these things, which thou seest, change

immediately and will no longer be; and constantly bear in mind how many of these

changes thou hast already witnessed. The universe is transformation: life is opinion

(Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 1421-26).”

It may seem strange, in the modern era, to trust one’s own intuition above that of the

cheering crowds. Marcus Aurelius, however, thought that personal gnosis was an important

aspect of reflection. “I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than

all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinion of himself than on the opinion

of others (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 3083-84).” This is not to say that

observable outcome is unimportant. Marcus Aurelius had much to say about how the

outcome of policy or an implemented plan should be evaluated.

“That which does no harm to the state, does no harm to the citizen. In the case

of every appearance to harm apply this rule: if the state is not harmed by this, neither

am I harmed. But if the state is harmed, thou must not be angry with him who does

harm to the state. Show him where his error is (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle

Location 1703-5).”

When evaluating, Marcus Aurelius cautioned to avoid the temptation to create blame

or to try to read more into the situation than is apparent. “Do not look around thee to

discover other men’s ruling principles, but look straight to this, to what nature leads thee,

both the universal nature through the things which happen to thee, and thy own nature

through the acts which must be done (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 2110-

12).” There are natural laws that can be observed. Anything else is hearsay.

That said, Marcus Aurelius championed transparency during the evaluation process.

“Enter into every man’s ruling faculty; and also let every other man enter into thine (Marcus

Aurelius & Long 2011, Kindle Location 2424-25).” He thought that one should not be

secretive about one’s maneuvers, and thus followers would learn to trust their leaders.

Conclusion

In conclusion, good leadership during antiquity was wonderfully similar to good

leadership today. It appears that high expectations for the human experience is key for

leading people to the best of one’s ability. A sense of perspective, too is important “Life is a

warfare and a stranger’s sojourn, and after fame is oblivion (Marcus Aurelius & Long 2011,

Kindle Location 1262-64).”

Bibliography

Edelman, Russ & Hiltabiddle, Timothy R. 2008. Nice Guys can Get the Corner Office:

Individual Term Paper

12

Eight Strategies for Winning in Business Without Being a Jerk. New York: Penguin

Group.

Emperor of Rome Marcus Aurelius & Long, George. 2011. Thoughts of Marcus Aurelius

Antoninus. Seattle: Amazon Digital Services.

Mainiero, Lisa A. and Tromley, Cheryl L. 1989. Developing Managerial Skills in

Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Michaelson, Steven. 2010. Sun Tzu the Art of War for Managers: 50 Strategic Rules. 2nd

Edition. Avon: Adams Media Corp.

Miller, L.M. 1989. Barbarians to Bureaucrats: Corporate Life Cycle Strategies. New York:

Random House.

Plummer, D. L. 2003. Handbook of Diversity Management: Beyond Awareness to

Competency Based Learning. Lanham: University Press of America.

Scott, Gregory M. & Garrison, Stephen M. 2012. The Political Science Student Writer’s

Manual 7th Edition. Uppter Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.

Van Wart, Montgomery and Dicke, Lisa A. 2008. Administrative Leadership in the Public

Sector. New York: M.E. Sharpe.