Good training and equipment more valuable than a large workforce - lessons from Boadicea

I am a little surprised at the reaction to my suggestion of St Benedict's Rule of Leadership.

Would I have caused the same reaction in this discussion had I chosen Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War'?

The way I read Victoria's comment was which historical figure have you (ie: me personally) learnt something from. For me it was when I was given a book on The Benedictine Rule of Leadership as a joke present when I started my MBA - and it was the single most useful thing I read over the whole course of my studies. Having a strong, personal academic base, the provenance of information is important to me. The main author, Dr Craig S Galbraith, is well respected in his field. He is a professor of technology, entrepreneurship, and corporate strategy, with a PhD in strategic management and mathematical economics and an MBA in manufacturing management.

Before continuing, I am not Catholic nor do I have any leaning towards other religions; I did say 'get past the religious aspects' in my posting. However when I flicked through this book a couple of the headings stood out, leading me to read the whole book. It made sense.

The Rules deal almost exclusively with the internal workings of organisations. It focuses on proper management, motivation, and organisation of daily work as well as the most basic, universal principle of leadership. There's too much to go into here, but St Benedict proposed things that we now take for granted but, more importantly, shows how these can be achieved. I can't imagine anyone beyond the most dictatorial dictator (nice alliteration there...) arguing against things like:

• a sustainable organisation is lean and self-sufficient, flexible and decentralised, focused on a common objective, and without bloated hierarchies
• innovative ideas are most often bottom-up, coming from asking advice from those working on the shop floor, listening to the lower echelons, and questioning the individuals who spend their days doing the work in question
• business ethics is part of a broader management system and cannot be forced upon an organisation but rather the leader(s) must create the environment in which subordinates make the proper ethical choice

Yes, in something that's 1,500 years old there is a bit of 'just be selective about the bits that fit', but isn't that true of life in general? How many people have given or received cash payment or goods in kind for a job? HMRC rules say that this should be declared, but have you for the £5 the old lady next door gave you for cutting the grass? And 'little or nothing being a valid example or comparison now' reminds me of the scene in Life of Brian where it's asked: "What have the Romans ever done for us?". 

It is presumptuous of us to act as if leadership philosophy was born after the start of the 20th century.

Not sure that "The problem with applying things like the RSB to modern business life is you have to ignore a lot of what he said/wrote and just be very selective about those bits that "fit"." is that visceral a reaction :-)

And as for the art of war - yes almost certainly , as with The Politics by Machiavelli etc. (although I think the last one s a great book as long as you understand why it was written) and many other historical (and quite a few modern) books

My point was simply that there is a lot in the RSB and you do have to ignore quite a bit of it to make it fit (IMO). its great you disagree it would be boring if not. You pick a few things people can agree on from the RSB I can pick a few things we would not and we could play tennis here for a bit :-) but probably never get anywhere.

And no one is being presumptuous here so I think thats a little unfair. But you do have surely to recognise that things were written in their own time and with their own global socio political outlook which may well not translate in 21st Century management philosophy other than at the trite or bland level.

Not sure that "The problem with applying things like the RSB to modern business life is you have to ignore a lot of what he said/wrote and just be very selective about those bits that "fit"." is that visceral a reaction :-)

And as for the art of war - yes almost certainly , as with The Politics by Machiavelli etc. (although I think the last one s a great book as long as you understand why it was written) and many other historical (and quite a few modern) books

My point was simply that there is a lot in the RSB and you do have to ignore quite a bit of it to make it fit (IMO). its great you disagree it would be boring if not. You pick a few things people can agree on from the RSB I can pick a few things we would not and we could play tennis here for a bit :-) but probably never get anywhere.

And no one is being presumptuous here so I think thats a little unfair. But you do have surely to recognise that things were written in their own time and with their own global socio political outlook which may well not translate in 21st Century management philosophy other than at the trite or bland level.