Think of how often we see political infighting within an organization. Many times, people are asked to choose sides, and it becomes a battle of “You’re either with me or against me.” Careers and livelihoods fall victim to disagreements carried on between big personalities elsewhere in the organization. Those who straddle the line of neutrality can barely avoid getting swept up in the shifting tides. Sometimes, people just don’t have a side in a fight, and forcing an either/or choice alienates these poor souls who would have been useful regardless of the outcome.
In Caesar’s campaigns during the early days of the civil war, we see the benefit of a much more gracious and productive way of dealing with competing interests.
In chapter 4, we explored how Caesar bet on himself, making the decision to cross the Rubicon and bringing the awful possibility of a Roman civil war to reality (49 BC). Here is more of that story.
Normally, an invading army created a wake of destruction and bloodshed. The loot it acquired was considered to be one of the prime motivators for fighting. “Win and get rich” was a pretty simple manifesto. Besides, sacking one city sent an example to the others. But as Caesar advanced toward Rome, he and his army showed great courtesy toward the Italian cities they crossed. He wanted no ordinary Romans to come to harm. Caesar’s attitude was, “If you’re not against me, then you’re with me.” This more tolerant approach often softened the path in front of his army.
About a month into the campaign, Caesar encountered his first serious resistance. The town of Corfinium was under the command of the ardent anti-Caesarian, Ahenobarbus (the great-great-grandfather of the future Emperor Nero). Ahenobarbus had once run for consul on a platform of recalling Caesar from his command. For nearly a decade, he had joined with Cato to fight, stall, and undermine Caesar at every turn. Now, as Caesar approached, Ahenobarbus dug in, determined to resist.
Caesar’s army had grown considerably, and it prepared to lay siege to Corfinium. Ahenobarbus was counting on senatorial commanders to send reinforcements, but they deemed the city to be indefensible and sent word that no troops would be coming. Ahenobarbus told his men that help was on its way but secretly made plans to escape. When word of his betrayal leaked, his men mutinied, arresting their commander and sending word to Caesar that they were surrendering. Most of these troops changed sides, declaring their loyalty to Caesar. Not only had Caesar won a great victory, but also he had grown substantially stronger while getting his hands on one of the ringleaders of the enemy, all without the loss of life.
With one of his bitterest enemies now his captive, Caesar shocked everyone around him, most especially Ahenobarbus: he pardoned this great adversary. Ahenobarbus had been one of the leading belligerents in the Senate for years. Full of blister, vitriol, and rhetoric, he had been among the most vocal calling for Caesar’s recall and prosecution. And Caesar let him go, unharmed. It was a remarkable act of clemency. This simple act has come down through history as one of Caesar’s greatest leadership moments.
Caesar’s clemency toward Ahenobarbus was part of a general policy of civility and leniency that was a hallmark of Caesar’s leadership. Forgiveness, he felt, would dampen future resistance by planting a seed of doubt in the minds of those who might stand in his way. His enemies claimed that he was a tyrant, that if he were allowed to maintain power, he would unleash bloodshed and terror. Caesar proved them wrong, undermining the way that his opponents sought to undermine him. His clemency was also a subtle invocation of power: only Caesar could grant a pardon. By using his power for good, he not only asserted his position but co-opted the power of Ahenobarbus. He softened the view of Ahenobarbus’s followers toward him with this act of benevolence.
Caesar understood that those committed to resistance are going to resist. For these people, dangling a grim punishment over their heads will just make their resistance more spirited, and a policy of revenge will only make things worse. The same applies to organizational politics. Caesar was able to see past his ego and let go of the impulse toward revenge. Little would be accomplished by starting cycles of recrimination, and much was to be gained by showing mercy.
Caesar’s clemency was not purely altruistic. There was an important and somewhat subversive element to this policy, which still holds today. By forgoing the socially acceptable process of revenge, Caesar swung people into his debt. They owed him. The case of Ahenobarbus is one of the starkest examples, but Caesar’s career contains countless examples of his clemency. Not only did he let his enemies go free unharmed, but also he welcomed them into his trust, bestowing upon them offices and honors. Over the course of his career, these personal debts accrued and became critical to growing Caesar’s power base.
Through his policy of clemency, Caesar lowered the upfront resistance he faced, softened the battles fought, and accrued political capital. Most important, he took a good portion of the power away from the recipients of his clemency for himself. They now had incentive to follow him: they owed their life to him. Consider the anecdote at the beginning of this book, where we see Caesar quash a potentially devastating rebellion by letting his troops know that they had deeply wronged him and then offering them his forgiveness.
No such magnanimity would be extended if people crossed Caesar a second time, however. They had proved that they lacked loyalty and had exhausted their political usefulness, the attributes that Caesar valued and sought the most. If power is the ability to influence and compel intrinsic action, then multiple instances of defiance and resistance proved that he had no power over them. When confronted with these rare occurrences, Caesar generally showed little mercy.
Kindness, grace, and diplomacy are strong competitive weapons. They can undermine the fighting spirit of the competition and create goodwill. In an age when talent is scarce and good people are often free agents, the way an organization treats its own people as well as its competitors can give it power. In the story that follows, Caesar’s reaction to finding enemies in his own camp illustrates how our own teams should interact with the competition.
With the surrender of Corfinium, the path to Rome lay open. Caesar’s respect for the lives and property of the citizens whose cities he invaded had caused resistance to evaporate, and he was able to move much more quickly than his opposition could handle. As the civil war progressed, Caesar’s policy of clemency continued to build and consolidate his power.
After his campaign in Italy, Caesar quickly turned to Spain to contend with the forces deployed by Pompey, his chief rival in the civil war. In Spain, families, friends, and neighbors found themselves staring across enemy lines at each other. They had reluctantly been brought into conflict through the chasm of civil war. With armies in close contact, soldiers on both sides eventually began fraternizing, roaming freely about the camps of their enemies. Sensing an opportunity to score a quick if largely insignificant victory, the Pompeian commander personally led a murderous rampage, slaughtering Caesarians within his camp.
Some were killed, some hid, and others escaped. Caesar, never one to miss an opportunity to demonstrate his magnanimity, allowed the Pompeians in his camp to leave peacefully or, should they so choose, join his army. He saw that he had nothing to gain by putting the enemies in his camp to the sword. What was a handful of fewer soldiers against the whole balance of an army? And by offering clemency and kindness toward the enemy, he built his legacy as a moderate and fair-minded leader.
Caesar courted a peaceful settlement, pointing out that fighting battles needlessly wasted Roman lives. He took great effort to blur the lines between “his” organization and “theirs.” His policy of kindness toward the enemy won him substantially more than it had risked. The fighting spirit of his army swelled while that of his enemy teetered on collapse. Unable to hold their position, the Pompeian generals surrendered Spain, which had been considered a stronghold of Pompey. Through their rash use of force, Pompey’s generals had greatly undermined their own cause. In contrast, Caesar used his power to neutralize a big chunk of resistance and lost only seventy men in the process. The campaign began with the armies roughly even in strength. In a short period of time, the fighting spirit of his enemies evaporated. He achieved victory when they acknowledged his supremacy and came to him en masse, truly a triumph of power over force.
The success of Caesar’s actions is a poignant reminder of the importance of graciousness toward those around you, especially those you are trying to win over. Caesar cleverly co-opted the power of his adversaries. The enemy factions at Corfinium and in Spain surrendered to him, almost en masse, and almost entirely without bloodshed. Through the use of pardons and fair-mindedness, Caesar won greater loyalty from more people and created a huge sense of obligation to him.
Power is centered on the individual. But through alliances, the power of others can be co-opted. A leader can extend their own power and influence through the relationships they forge with other key stakeholders. By aligning goals and values, and bringing legitimate value to the table, even junior partners in formal or informal alliances can grow their power through associations.
Throughout Caesar’s career he leveraged his skills as a conciliator to co-opt the power of others to his own advantage. In fact, in this strategy lies what was his political masterstroke.
Rome was crazy about history and tradition. At the time he was elected consul (59 BC), Caesar was on the rise, perhaps on his way to a potentially great career. However, he did not possess much of a history of accomplishments from which to draw. Despite his election to the consulship, he was contending with far more prominent people who had their own pressing agendas. He came into office as a small part of a big system, and with plenty of former consuls, distinguished citizens, and conquering generals floating around, the waters were murky as to where power truly lay. His predecessors all felt entitled to put forth their opinions; what is more, they had the authority of their history to back them up. Meanwhile, Caesar was an outsider and a populist. The conservative Senate distrusted him, and to top it all off, his co-consul for the year, Bibulus, absolutely hated him.
When Caesar took office, the two most prominent Romans were Crassus and Pompey. They were exceedingly powerful in the way that Caesar strived so ardently to be, and each had his own agenda and massive resources on which to draw. However, they were quite jealous of one another, and as a result, neither had been able to realize his goals, and both had grown increasingly frustrated at their futility. Enter the upstart Caesar. The consulship gave him the perfect opportunity and platform to do what no one else could: mediate between Crassus and Pompey.
Caesar organized an agreement between the three to support each other’s causes: Crassus would get financial relief for the struggling corporations in which he’d invested, Pompey would get land for his soldiers and validation for his eastern campaign, and Caesar would have help advancing his forthcoming land reform bill. This land reform issue, so important to the fate of the crumbling republic, had led to the downfall and death of many before him, and Caesar needed every bit of political firepower he could get his hands on in the looming fight with the belligerent oligarchs in the Senate.
This three-way alliance came to be known as the First Triumvirate. History has come to view the First Triumvirate as three powerbrokers working in concert for their respective aims. When we look deeper, we discover that the catalyst for this arrangement was the rivalry between the two great men, Crassus and Pompey. In a way, it was the power of the other that stopped both of them from getting what they wanted. Their rivalry helped create divisiveness in the Roman system, which in turn slowed down each man’s agenda. By indulging in petty infighting, Crassus and Pompey played right into the hands of the Senate, which had a vested interest in keeping the two in an antagonistic position lest anyone become too powerful on his own.
Caesar brought two powerful rivals together, reaping extraordinary personal gain. His agenda wasn’t limited to getting his policies advanced; he wanted to elevate himself through association. It should not be overlooked that he was the least powerful and accomplished of the three—by a wide margin. Caesar gained power by partnering with the most powerful people in Rome. Looking inside our own organizations for similar opportunities can yield great benefit. Conflict can often be destructive—especially in light of mutually beneficial alternatives. Powerful be the peacemakers.
Given their stature and resources, why did Crassus and Pompey need Caesar in the first place? The truth is, they probably didn’t—if only they could put aside their enmity to work together. Alas, they couldn’t, and Caesar immediately recognized the opportunity presented by their rivalry. Take note of this important qualifier, however: a junior partner cannot simply hang around senior leaders with political influence and expect to benefit from their greatness without offering anything in return. Leaders seeking to advance or secure their positions should carefully consider the need for reciprocity. In this case, Caesar brought a few very valuable assets to the partnership. For one, his office served as a platform from which he could pursue the agendas of his partners. For another, he brought the skill of mediation. Neither Crassus nor Pompey benefited from their rivalry, and Caesar showed them how they could benefit by working together.
Caesar managed to persuade Crassus and Pompey to put aside their mutual dislike and work as a team. By combining their power, they all stood to gain in a way that they could not on their own. Now, Caesar approached something akin to equal footing. Creating a sense of debt and obligation is also quite useful in the development of individual power. He did not have the prestige and martial accomplishments of Pompey. He did not have the limitless financial resources of Crassus. But he did have both of them working for him and committed to advancing his agenda. He gained access to their power, co-opting their accomplishments, resources, and influence to further his own goals.
Trust takes a long time to develop, and a savvy leader should look for ways to shorten the cycle time when they can. Through mutual value exchange, one leader can offer another a shortcut to developing trusted relationships with their teams or organizations. In Caesar’s case, his powerful allies encouraged their followers to get behind him. Eventually, Caesar earned the trust of his expanded circle by delivering genuine reforms.
Caesar’s year in office was one of great tumult and violence. But when compared against years in which similar reforms were attempted, things were downright civil. Certainly, they were devoid of the wholesale slaughter that had marked senatorial suppression of reform agendas in the past. Caesar’s ability to co-opt and leverage the power of others played a critical role in maintaining stability during a time of reform when people would rather have seen the whole system go down in flames. Commoners and soldiers considered him their friend and demonstrated a willingness to help him achieve his lofty goals. The loyalty went both ways. Caesar’s power came from his support of the people around him. From the lowliest soldier to the loftiest senator, Caesar was always willing to engage in a quid pro quo for mutual benefit.
No matter how far he rose, Caesar always took care to connect with the people around him. Now, at the dawn of this next chapter in his career, it was paying extraordinary dividends.