The Nature Of Leadership

9 Pages 2138 Words

There have always been leaders and followers throughout history; the Roman Empire exhibited different styles of leadership. There were five prominent leaders in this period Agricola, Augustus, Julius Caesar, and the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. Each of these leaders had their own style of leadership and political strategies. They came to power and maintained control in different ways. They had they own agendas, and their fate rested in the hands of the Roman people. The point to be made with respect to these particular men is related to the obvious correlation between the nature of a leader’s agenda and the impact of his reign. In the end, a ruler’s fate was dependent not on his agenda, but on style and strategy with which he pushed his agenda. These leaders methods were completely altruistic were heralded as great leaders, while those with devious and/or unethical methods of pushing their agendas were hastily assassinated. “Leaders need to listen to the people they are leading is can affect how people feel.” (Daly)
Gnaeus Julius Agricola style of leadership was simple: do the job. If Agricola had a goal, then he simply did the best he could to attain that goal. He was incorruptible and straightforward. He was not devious, nor was he unethical. (Hadas) People loved to see these qualities in a leader, and as a result, they loved Agricola. There was no difficulty about recognizing him as a good man, and one could willingly believe him to be a great man. He had fully attained those true blessings, which depend upon a man’s own character. He held the consulship and bore the decorations of triumph: what more could fortune have added? He had no desire for vast wealth, and he had a handsome future.
It is likely that even if he made a decision that was initially looked down upon by the people, the people still knew that Agricola was altruistically making the decisions that he felt were best. (Encyclopedia Britannia) ...