Imagine if you can the following situation: An administrative assistant comes in and hands the CEO of a company an important policy memo. The CEO takes a look at it, and is shocked. The document bears very little resemblance to the document that he dictated. He questions the assistant about the changes, and the assistant says "Well, sir, I was pretty sure that the policy that you dictated wouldn't be very popular in a lot of the offices. I thought that some of the offices might grumble about you, and I know that they would be angry with me, so I decided to changes around it bit. You know: Make it a little easier to take."
I've tried to imagine any number of possible responses from the CEO, but most of them only change in how quickly the assistant is fired and kicked out of the building. While something like this might work well as a plot for a comedy, anything less would be a recipe for certain disaster. A CEO that allowed himself to be overridden so easily could hardly be counted on to stand by any tough decisions that were required. And as soon as the assistant realized how easy it was to impose his will on the boss, it would be the assistant running the company, not the CEO.
And these are the civilized days. In less gentle times, simply approaching a king without invitation could lead to death. Back then, the king's word was law. In the case of the ancient Medes and Persians, that law was so sacred even the king himself could not change it once it had been decreed. It sounds harsh in modern times, and it was, but that doesn't mean that it was without cause. In a time when "state of the art" communication could still involve months at sea or on horseback, things had to be settled the first time. There was no waiting and asking for clarification. You obeyed or not, with consequences to follow. Consequences were likely to be severe. A king that ruled by decree could not allow his words to be changed. If he did, he would no longer be king.
He certainly could not be God.
No comments:
Post a Comment