http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-2.xsd
the stoic pragmatist (Tacitus, histories 4 6-10)
Toxic managers, oppressive supervisors, incompetent administrators, obstinate directors, corrupt pastors, demoralizing coaches, tone-deaf conductors, weak chairpersons, delusional executives, confusing professors . . . how do you react when those in positions of leadership do not rise to their task? Do you blow up at them? Do you snipe from the sidelines or sabotage them? Do you fly under the radar to get by? When those who are expected to lead us do not lead well, how do we follow without losing our sanity and self-respect? Consider these questions with insights from followership theory (Kelley's "five follower types") and Roman philosophy. We will travel to the Roman Empire, an era when followership was literally a matter of life or death. Our focal episode is a debate between two Roman senators, as recorded by the historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-120 CE). Tacitus' historical works, which narrate the reigns of the early Roman emperors (14-96 CE), portray some of them as power-mad and dangerous, easily the worst leaders in history. Hence the topic of the debate: is it possible to be a good follower of a bad emperor?