LEADERSHIP TRAITS DEMONSTRATED BY ALEXANDER THE GREAT
Visionary, team builder, mentor, he shows us some timeless leadership
lessons but also some glaring failures.
Although the ‘Great Man’ theory of leadership belongs to the scrapheap of
history, its allure continues to mystify. Underlying this theory is the assumption
that if the right man (yes, it is often assumed to be a man) for the job emerges,
he will almost magically take control of a situation and lead a group of people into
safety or success. While such leaders are rare, there are times when a singular
individual steps out from the crowd and serves as a paragon of leadership.
One such individual was Alexander the Great; one of history’s most famous
warriors and a legend of almost divine status in his own lifetime. He falls into the
elite category of individuals who changed the history of civilisation and shaped
the present world as we know it.
From a leadership perspective, it’s not very difficult to say that Alexander was
without peer. He could be magnanimous toward defeated enemies and extremely
loyal toward his friends. As a general, he led by example, leading from the front.
Alexander’s reign illustrates a number of important leadership lessons which
remain applicable to business and political chiefs today:
1. Have a compelling vision
Alexander’s actions demonstrate what can be accomplished when a person is
totally focused—when he or she has clarity coupled with a ‘magnificent
obsession’. Through dramatic gestures and great rhetorical skills, Alexander
spoke to the collective imagination of his people and won the commitment of his
followers.
2. Be unsurpassed in execution
Alexander not only had a compelling vision, he also knew how to make that
vision become reality. By maintaining an excellent information system, he was
able to interpret his opponent’s motives and was a master at coordinating all
parts of his military machine. No other military leader before him ever used speed
and surprise with such dexterity. He knew the true value of the statement “One is
either quick or one is dead!”
3. Create a well-rounded executive team
Alexander also knew how to build a committed team around him and operated in
a way that allowed his commanders to build on each other’s’ strengths.
4. Walk the talk
Alexander set the example of excellence with his leadership style; he led his
troops quite literally from the front. When his troops went hungry or thirsty, he
went hungry and thirsty; when their horses died beneath them and they had to
walk, he did the same. This accessibility only changed when he succumbed to
the luxury of Persian court life.
5. Encourage innovation
Alexander realised the competitive advantage of strategic innovation. Because of
his deft deployment of troops, his support for and reliance on the creativity of his
corps of engineers, and his own logistical acumen, his war machine was the
most advanced of its time.
6. Foster group identification
Alexander created a very astute propaganda machine to keep his people
engaged. His oratory skills, based on the simple language of his soldiers, had a
hypnotic influence on all who heard him. He made extensive use of powerful
cultural symbols which elicited strong emotions. These ‘meaning-management’
actions, combined with his talent for leading by example, fostered strong group
identification among his troops, and motivated his men to make exceptional
efforts.
7. Encourage and support followers
Alexander knew how to encourage his people for their excellence in battle in
ways that brought out greater excellence. He routinely singled people out for
special attention and recalled acts of bravery performed by former and fallen
heroes, making it clear that individual contributions would be recognised. He also
had the ability to be a ‘container’ of the emotions of his people through
empathetic listening.
8. Invest in talent management
Extremely visionary for his time, Alexander spent an extraordinary amount of
resources on training and development. He not only trained his present troops
but also looked to the future by developing the next generation.
9. Consolidate gains
Paradoxically, three of Alexander’s most valuable lessons were taught not
through his strengths but through his weaknesses. The first of these is the need
to consolidate gains. Alexander failed to put the right control systems in place to
integrate his empire and thus never really savoured the fruit of his
accomplishments. Conquest may be richly rewarding, but a leader who advances
without ensuring the stability of his or her gains stands to lose everything.
10. Succession planning
Another lesson Alexander taught by omission is the need for a viable succession
plan. He was so focused on his own role as king and aspiring deity that he could
not bring himself to think of the future when he was gone. As a result, political
vultures tore his vast empire apart after his death.
11. Create mechanisms of organisational governance
The final lesson that the case of Alexander illustrates (again by omission) is the
paramount importance of countervailing powers. Leaders have the responsibility
to put proper mechanisms of organisational governance into place, using checks
and balances to prevent faulty decision-making and the abuse of power.
Alexander began his reign as an enlightened ruler, encouraging participation by
his ‘companions’—loyal soldiers drawn from the noble families in Macedonia. But
like many rulers before him, he became addicted to power. Hubris raised its ugly
head. As time passed, Alexander’s behaviour became increasingly domineering
and grandiose. He tolerated nothing but applause from his audience, so his
immediate circle kept their reservations to themselves. As a result he lost touch
with reality, another factor leading to his failure to consolidate his empire.
Alexander The Great Leadership – Greatest of World Conquerors
PART-2
Statue of Alexander the Great at Thessaloniki city in Greece
Alexander the Great was one of history’s most celebrated conquerors. Born as heir to the
Macedonian King, his great ambition led him to take on the high Persian Empire. At its
height, Alexander’s empire stretched all the way from modern-day Italy clear to the
Himalayas.
Alexander The Great Leadership: A Short Biography
Alexander was born July 20, 356 BC in Pella, a city in the Ancient Greek Kingdom of
Macedonia. As the son of Philip II, King of Macedon, Alexander was raised as a noble
Macedonian youth. Learning to read, play the lyre, ride, fight, and hunt were high priorities
for Alexander.
As he got older, his father had the famous Aristotle tutor his son. His father knew he could
no longer effectively challenge the mind and body of his son. Aristotle educated Alexander
and his companions in various disciplines such as medicine, philosophy, morality, religion,
logic, and art. Many of his study companions would later become generals in his army.
When King Philip was assassinated, Alexander ascended to the throne at the young age of
20. After quelling small uprisings and rebellions after his father’s death, Alexander began
his campaign against the Persian Empire.
Crossing into Asia with over 100,000 men, he began his war against Persia which lasted
more than seven years. Alexander displayed tactical brilliance in the fight against the
Persian army, remaining undefeated despite having fewer soldiers.
His successes took him to the very edge of India, to the banks of the Ganges River. His
armies feared the might of the Indian empires and mutinied, which marked the end of his
campaign to the East. He had intended to march further into India, but he was persuaded
against it because his soldiers wanted to return to their families.
Alexander died unexpectedly after his return to Babylon. Because his death was sudden
and he did not name a successor to his throne, his empire fell into chaos as generals fought
to take control.
Today, Alexander the Great is still considered one of the most successful military leaders in
history. His conquests shaped not just eastern and western culture but also the history of
the world.
Alexander The Great: Leadership Lessons
1. Believe in yourself
From a very young age, his parents instilled in Alexander a belief that it was his destiny to
conquer the Persian Empire. This belief would stay with Alexander until his deathbed. At a
few points in his life, Alexander even believed that he was the Son of Zeus and was to be
worshiped. This demonstrates the depth of his self-belief.
Although it may seem to many that such extreme egoism could be harmful, it is essential for
your self-worth and self-confidence to believe in yourself wholeheartedly. There has never
been a leader in the history of the world who did not have a considerable amount of selfbelief and confidence. This is how great leaders inspire the same level of self-confidence
and self-worth in their teams, and it is how you can too.
Do you genuinely believe in your ability to succeed? If you can’t give an outright ‘yes,’ take
a closer look at what beliefs are holding you back.
2. Leverage your team’s strengths
Alexander was a brilliant and cunning tactician in battle. He knew that the disorganized
Persian army would not be able to withstand his phalanxes (a body of troops in tight military
formation). So he used them to their best effect each time, breaking through enemy ranks
and forcing the Persians to retreat.
A good leader understands the strengths and weaknesses of his team, and he puts them in
positions where they are more likely to succeed.
You might liken it to being a chess player. You have a variety of resources at your disposal:
people with differing skills and abilities. The key is always to learn how to position each
person in a role that leverages their strengths.
3. Make yourself an unnecessary part of the team
Although Alexander conquered much of the known world during his time, his empire never
survived him. His strength when he was alive became a weakness after his death.
After Alexander had passed away, no one had the charisma or leadership to rule such a
vast empire. Civil war soon broke out, and what Alexander built in one generation was
destroyed in the next.
A good leader makes himself indispensable to the team, but a great leader makes himself
thoroughly dispensable! He can step out of the team and still have them perform at full
capacity.
So find a way to position your team such that you become an unnecessary part of it. When
your team is still able to perform at a high level even when you remove yourself from the
equation, you have done your role as a leader.
Alexander The Great: Ambition
Alexander was taken with the character Achilles in Homer’s epic tale, the Illiad in his
growing up years. He decided to model himself after Achilles.
Alexander’s teacher was the well-known philosopher Aristotle, and he annotated the full
version of The Illiad for Alexander, so he could better emulate Achilles. He cherished this
gift from his mentor and would even sleep with it under his pillow.
He also received encouragement from his mother, Olympias. Rumors were that she
consulted with the gods regarding her son and told him he was a direct descendant of
Achilles and Hercules. This fueled the fire inside of Alexander.
After taming a wild horse at just 14-years old his father, Phillip II of Macedonia, was seeking
to purchase, he proudly said, “My son, look thee out a kingdom equal and worthy of thyself,
for Macedonia is too little for thee.”
Weaknesses of Alexander The Great
1. His temper was well-known. He could erupt like a volcano, and it was best not to get
to close so you wouldn’t get any fallout.
2. While he was not considered an alcoholic by today’s standards, he did turn to spirits
heavily on occasion.
3. He was too eccentric for many, including those close to him. Because of this, just
before his death, he lost the loyalty of many people.
Famous and Well-Known Quotes from Alexander the
Great
“I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep; I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a
lion.”
“There is nothing impossible to him who will try.”
“I had rather excel others in the knowledge of what is excellent, than in the extent of my
power and dominion.”
“Remember upon the conduct of each depends on the fate of all.”
“I am indebted to my father for living, but to my teacher for living well.”
“Heaven cannot brook two suns, nor earth two masters.”
“How great are the dangers I face to win a good name in Athens.”
“A tomb now suffices him for whom the whole world was not sufficient.”
Random Facts of Alexander The Great
What is Alexander The Great Known For?
During his leadership run between 336 – 323 B.C., he was successful in uniting the Greek
city-states and led the Corinthian League.
How did Alexander The Great die?
The exact causes are not known as it was not a custom in his day in age to list the cause of
death as it is today. The most common belief is he died of typhoid fever (which, along with
malaria, was a common form of death during that period in ancient Babylon). This was the
theory proposed by the University of Maryland School of Medicine in 1998. Other theories
included alcoholic liver disease, fever, and even strychnine poisoning.
King Darius – Commonly known as “Darius The Great” he was the fourth Persian King of
Kings of the Achaemenid Empire.
Battle of Issus – Occurring in 333 B.C., this battle happened early in Alexander The
Great’s invasion of Asia in which he was successful in defeating the Persian army led by
King Darius III.
Persian Customs –
Battle of Gaugamela – See the following video summarizing the battle fought in 331 B.C.
LEADERSHIP TRIATS PART-3
History is not predictable; in many ways it can take on a life of its own. But sometimes, an
individual's sheer presence is enough to bend history to his will. One such individual
was Alexander the Great. Through his conviction, vision, mental dexterity, oratory, and superb
physical endurance he was able to shape destiny, for himself and for the lands he conquered.
Alexander the Great & Bucephalus Mosaic
by Ruthven (Public Domain)
Even from a young age, Alexander showed maturity beyond his youth. His ability to
conceptualize, anticipate, and take risks, was evident in his many victories. He persevered in
Sogdia and in the Makran, hostile regions with vicious climates. Alexander maintained
remarkable poise and exhibited leadership when all hung in the balance. When he took an arrow
through the chest and another in the leg, he pressed on – the wounds only spurred him on to fight
harder.
BATTLE OF GRANICUS: A LEADER (AND LEGEND)
IS BORN
Alexander’s battle at Granicus River was the most crucial military event in his life. Why would
Granicus be more significant than the siege of Tyre, or the monumental battle of Gaugamela?
At the time, Alexander was a young 22-year-old king and general. As far as the enemy was
concerned, let alone his own men, Alexander was unproven in battle and faced a superior Persian
force, headed by a seasoned military commander, Memnon of Rhodes. In addition to his lack of
experience and questionable leadership skills, Alexander’s army, before even meeting the
Persians in battle, was already at a disadvantage. The Persians had scouted the area meticulously
and sought the high ground on the east bank of the Granicus River. Fighting a superior Persian
army commanded by an able general would prove a daunting venture. But Alexander, despite his
youth, was decisive in his plan of attack and confident in his own ability. His brilliance lay in his
bravado and daring charges; bold troop movements would allow him the opportunity to exploit
openings in his enemies’ ranks. His ability to read his opponent and adapt quickly to changing
circumstances was uncanny. It was an invaluable tool that would be put to the test at the
Granicus River and determine his status as a warrior king.
According to Guy Rogers (lecture, Thomas Edison State College, Trenton, NJ, Spring 2004), the
bank would have been three to four meters high, which would be difficult for Alexander’s men
to traverse without taking heavy casualties. Moreover, the Persians could rush the crossing
cavalry and annihilate them through sheer force. This contingency was the beginning of his
prowess, so instead of an en masse movement across the river, an additional force would engage
the Persians and make a pawn’s sacrifice for Alexander and his men.
Amyntas and his cohort confronted the Persians while Alexander and his cohort swung around
and penetrated the Persians from the flank. Alexander’s intentions were realized when the
Persians failed to engage the rest of his men with the same devastating force that they had
unleashed on Amyntas. The situation for which Alexander had hoped opened up before his very
eyes. Amyntas had given Alexander the opportunity and time to lead the Companion cavalry,
Alexander’s choicest warriors, into battle.
ALEXANDER'S
BRILLIANCE
LAY
IN
HIS
BRAVADO AND DARING CHARGES; BOLD
TROOP MOVEMENTS WOULD ALLOW HIM THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLOIT OPENINGS IN HIS
ENEMIES’ RANKS.
The Persian commander Mithridates met Alexander’s assault and Alexander dealt with him like
he would deal with many to come, he struck him in the face with a splintered spear. Alexander
had killed a Persian commander in full sight of his men; a slight that would not go unanswered.
Rhosaces and Spithridates, the brother of the slain Mithridates, pursued Alexander to finish the
young upstart once and for all. Alexander was quick to react. He took the offensive against
Rhosaces and gored him, but he inflicted a potentially fatal blow that left Alexander’s scalp
loosely intact. Disoriented and cleaved, Alexander did his best to get back to his men, all the
while oblivious to Spithridates stalking close behind. As Spithridates came in for the kill, Cleitus
cut him off and severed his shoulder from his body, thereby immobilizing the arm that held the
scimitar that would have ended Alexander’s great campaign before it had even begun.
It was a momentous victory, not because Alexander had been outnumbered two to one, which he
was not, but because this was the battle which proved his ability as a capable commander and
legitimated his rule as king. He had shown his men that he was a shrewd military commander
and that he cared deeply for them. The 25 bronze statues commissioned by Alexander to
Lysippus as grand memorials to brave Macedonians evidence this. Alexander also sent 3,000
suits of armor back to Athens with the inscription: "Alexander son of Philip and the Greeks,
except the Spartans, from the barbarians who dwell in Asia."
But more importantly, Alexander laid the foundations of a relationship that would prove itself
time and again until his death. After the battle, Alexander talked with many who had been
wounded and asked them to tell him of their individual roles in the battle and how they received
their wounds. By doing this, he formed an indestructible bond between him and his men. That
bond would prove his greatest strength in the most trying times. Robin Lane Fox sums up
Alexander’s role in Granicus:
The bravery which bordered on folly never failed him in the front line of battle, a position
which few generals since have considered proper; he set out to show himself a hero,
and from the Granicus to Multan he left a trail of heroics which has never been
surpassed and is perhaps too easily assumed among all his achievements. (495-496)
Sogdiana & the Sogdian rock
The hinterlands of the Persian Empire were remote and autonomous. They might even be said
to be independent of Darius’ rule. After Darius’ death, Alexander, the newly crowned “King of
Asia” saw fit to reestablish dominion over this insufferable region called Sogdia. Even though
this adventure cost him two years of his life, the loss of many men, and extreme hardship
throughout the whole ordeal, Alexander was able to press these obstinate barons as only he
could. One of the most notable sieges occurred at the 'Sogdian rock'. Here his men were asked to
literally 'fly' before the local barons would submit. Alexander’s men did fly and perched
themselves on the top of an adjoining mountain in full view of the besieged, which frightened the
locals into a quick surrender. The second rock was more inaccessible, and even though the baron
Sisimithres did not know it, it was impregnable. He was coaxed into submission by the baron of
the first Sogdian rock, Oxyartes. Alexander’s daring feat led to his victory and he was given
access to Sisimithres’ largess, which included a large store of badly needed foodstuffs.
Alexander’s army would eat until their bellies were content; they had endured trials and
hardships that left them little more than ghosts of their former selves. This was a welcome respite
where they could enjoy the fruits of their labor – no matter how ephemeral. While his ambitions
lay in conquering all who stood before him, Alexander was confronted with the prospect of
leaving his newly won kingdom to his subordinates. This would not do. Alexander needed to
secure his conquest by having an heir to pass his kingdom to. Oxyartes’ daughter, the
enchantress Roxane, was a likely, if not foolhardy, choice.
Map of the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom
by PHGCOM (CC BY-SA)
ALEXANDER’S GREATEST CHALLENGE – THE
MAKRAN
According to Fox, "Not even the sum total of all the army’s sufferings in Asia deserved to be
compared with the hardships in Makran." (399) Makran was a wasteland if there ever was one.
Between the accounts of Alexander’s own officer, Nearchus, as well as the descriptive accounts
of Fox and Green, a very uninviting picture is pieced together. Alexander’s plans to
invade India had been thwarted by the mutiny at Hyphasis. If he could not sate his ambitious
desires in India, then he would return to the heart of the Persian Empire in grand style – through
the Makran, the most infamous route to Mesopotamia. Queen Semiramis and King Cyrus are
the only ones to have ever traversed it. Alexander saw this as a great opportunity to defy nature
and fueled his mania to rival the feats of the gods. He was an adventurer and explorer at heart but
knew he needed to be fully prepared to meet the challenges that lay ahead. He weighed historical
reports with present intelligence and planned for most contingencies.
ALEXANDER WAS A DREAMER; HE BELIEVED
HE WAS FATHERED BY A GOD AND THOUGHT
THAT NO FEAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE.
Still in the Punjab, Alexander assembled a fleet of ships that would accompany him by sea while
he and his army traveled by land. Alexander was a dreamer; he believed he was fathered by a
god and thought that no feat was impossible. But did he really know what he was getting himself
and his men into by venturing into the Makran? Probably not, but his ingenuity and god-like
example, a stellar feat under adverse conditions, must have been a great boost in morale for the
men. If Alexander would even think of attempting such a gamble, then it must be possible. His
men knew that whatever he conjured came to fruition. He had yet to know defeat, so why should
this situation be any different?
Makran would be a "severe test", and probably this was the allure for Alexander. (Fox, 390)
Knowing that others had attempted such a crossing and came out alive proved irresistible. He
could not pass it up without surpassing such a feat. Throughout the journey, Alexander led by
example even though he was suffering from a significant injury to his lung from an arrow back at
Multan. One anecdote retold by Peter Green captures an inkling of the character of Alexander
and the effects on morale are impressive:
Nevertheless, [Alexander] contrived to preserve his prestige and popularity by sharing
the men’s worst hardships. Once, when a helmetful of muddy water had been found for
him in some nearby gully - but no more was to be had - he laughed, thanked the donor,
and then tipped the water out into the sand. So extraordinary was the effect of this
action that the water wasted by Alexander was as good as a drink from every man in
the army. (434)
This gives us a glimpse into the enigmatic nature of Alexander, a man we can only hope to aspire
to in times of hardship and a man we can only come to know through the eyes of those who
knew him best.
Fox sums up Makran and Alexander’s reasons for enduring it:
Makran was the ambition of men who wished to set a record and had nothing left
to conquer but a landscape which Persia had left alone. The route was not merely
difficult; it was the most hellish march that Alexander could possibly have chosen. But
nobody opposed it. (403)
The most telling bit of information is the last sentence of that quote, "But nobody opposed it."
Why did not anyone oppose it? The answer can be traced back to the River Granicus, where
Alexander had won his men’s loyalty and love for all time. He was the man everyone wanted to
be and the man no one could refuse. At the end of their quest, they saw the "hill of Semiramis".
It was a memorial for those who had come before and a relief to those who now passed by.
"Semiramis’ name greeted the survivors, so she could be said, for solace, to have gone through
the desert too." (Fox, 402) But, in Alexander’s defense, he did not come out with a mere twenty
survivors but thousands.
REIMAGINING
THE
FUTURE:
ALEXANDER HAD LIVED LONGER?
WHAT
IF
If Alexander had lived longer, he surely would have continued to indulge his thirst for
conquering by going south into Arabia, north into the lands surrounding the Caspian, and West
into North Africa. It is reasonable to assume that if he had lived, those countries would have
been conquered in due time. Future campaigns had already been seriously considered and
planned before his death in Babylon and were probably first conceived after Hephaestion’s
death at Hamadan. If he could triumph over the greatest empire in the known world in under a
decade as a neophyte, just think what he could do at the height of his power. If Alexander had
lived to an age comparable to Parmenio’s, the ancient world might have been far different from
what is recorded in history textbooks.
The Empire of Alexander the Great
by Captain Blood (CC BY-SA)
If Alexander’s past record tells us anything, it is that those who he conquered had little to fear if
they accepted his rule. He traditionally incorporated others’ beliefs and practices into his own
and often pushed them to the forefront. There were many precedents to favor such actions.
However, there was one thing that native peoples might have had to fear - relocation and
migration. While they might be allowed to keep their customs and their religions, they might be
asked to 'mix' with other ethnic groups, like Macedonians, Greeks, and Persians. This was one of
Alexander’s last wishes, so it may have been implemented somewhere down the line.
Alexander would have been his empire’s greatest strength. Like Napoleon, his presence was
worth 30,000 men. The loyalty of all his men would have been crucial – which may have
ultimately been his Achilles heel. Palace intrigue plagued the Roman Emperors and as
Alexander’s empire grew, his would be no exception. The more his ambitions dictated him, the
more he became a slave to his own desires.
Alexander slowly but surely moved his way to be seen as a god, not as a king. It is possible he
would have ruled as Ptolemy did in Egypt. It is reasonable to suggest that eventually he would
be revered by all as a living god, not just as a son of a god. He was already depicted as divine
on coinage and in song. Eventually, Alexander’s empire, upon his death, would have been left to
either his son or his appointed successors. His successor, in order to keep everything in order,
would have to possess some of Alexander's qualities, particularly his military prowess, magnetic
personality, and persuasive manner, the army's loyalty being essential. The dissolution due to the
lack of such an heir was evident after Alexander’s death and took a generation to end.
ALEXANDER REMEMBERED
This is the story of Alexander who traveled to the ends of the earth on a quest for conquest,
glory, and a lasting fame that would surpass Achilles and the heroes of old. The idea to make the
world his footstool was not a mere wish but a reality. Alexander knew that if he only thought of
it, his men would see it through as long as he could win them over. Fox eloquently paints a
stunning portrait of who Alexander was and continues to be in our hearts and minds:
He was famously generous and he loved to reward the same show of spirit which he
asked of himself . . . Though he drank as he lived, sparing nothing, his mind was not
slurred by excessive indulgence; he was not a man to be crossed or to be told what he
could not do, and he always had firm views on exactly what he wanted. He was also a
man of passionate ambitions, who saw the intense adventure of the unknown. He did
not believe in impossibility; man could do anything, and he nearly proved it. Born in a
half-world between Greece and Europe, he lived above all for the ideal of a distant
past, striving to realize an age which he had been too late to share. (496-497)
Alexander has yet to be rivaled by man since his rule in the 4th century BCE. "Alexander’s true
genius", observes Green (488), "was as a field-commander: perhaps, taken all in all, the most
incomparable general the world has seen." It is only a pity that Alexander did not have
a Homer to record the greatness of his deeds and the guarded secrets of his heart. As Green
concludes,
Yet his legend still lives; the proof of his immortality is the belief he inspired in
others. That is why he remained greater than the measurable sum of his works; that is
why, in the last resort, he will continue an insoluble enigma, to this and all future
generations. (488)
If so, maybe we would hold in high esteem the hero of the classic Alexander the Great, instead of
the heroes in the classic works of the Iliad and Odyssey. Alexander would have been delighted
to rival the heroics of Achilles in a work retold from father to son through the generations.
Thereby his memory and deeds would be remembered for all time.
PART-4
#6: EARN YOUR POST
Psychological research has demonstrated that leadership does not occur in a
vacuum. It occurs when a group of people shares a common identity. In order for an
individual to begin building influence over the group, he must be viewed as part of
the group by the other members. In other words, a leader must be "one of us", not
"one of them". Group membership alone is not enough for an individual to rise to a
position of influence, but it is a prerequisite.
How does this relate to Alexander the Great? He was born as a prince of Macedon.
So wasn't he just handed the crown when his father Philip was assassinated? Yes,
and no.
Alexander's father was the king of Macedon, but his mother Olympias was a
foreigner. This caused some people close to the Macedonian Royal Court to
question Alexander's claim to the throne. At a royal feast in 339, a powerfu l
nobleman named Attilus publicly insinuated that Alexander was not a legitimate
heir to King Philip.
When Philip appeared to side with Attilus instead of his insulted son, Alexander
became enraged. He threw a cup toward the men, prompting Philip to rise from his
chair and draw his sword. Philip was known for both his exceptional consumption
of alcohol and his temper. Fortunately for Alexander, the drunken king tripped over
himself before he could do any lasting damage. Still furious, Alexander insulted his
incapacitated father.
"Look now, men. The man who is preparing to cross from Europe into Asia
cannot cross from couch to couch." - Plutarch quoting Alexander, Parallel Lives:
The Life of Alexander , 1.9
This confrontation was so heated that Alexander and his mother immediately fled
their homeland out of fear they may be harmed. A few months later, once the
tension had subsided, they returned to their posts in the Royal Court.
The young Alexander may have been a prince, but he had not yet been embraced b y
his own countrymen. So how did he remove any doubt that he was worthy of his
father's crown? By excelling in the activity his peers valued above all else - war.
When Alexander was only sixteen years old, Philip appointed him regent of the
kingdom while he led embarked on a foreign campaign. During this short time in
charge, Alexander successfully quelled a rebellion in Macedon's northern
territories. After this first military victory, he founded his first city, calling it
Alexandropolis.
When Philip returned home and learned of his young son's achievement, he was
very impressed. From then on, he brought Alexander on his most important military
expeditions.
Most famously, Alexander was charged with leading the left flank at the pivotal
Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE. There, Alexander was responsible for leading the
charge against the Sacred Band of Thebes, who until then were the most feared
military unit in all of Greece. After Philip's army emerged victorious, Macedon was
confirmed as the new superpower on the Aegean peninsula. Meanwhile, the teenage
Alexander was well on his way to a legendary status of his own.
To gain credibility as a leader, one must understand what matters to the group he is
seeking to lead. He must observe and study the group, then demonstrate his
devotion to its principles. The young Alexander did these things masterfully.
The crown of Macedon hardly fell into Alexander's lap. By the time Philip was
assassinated (under suspicious circumstances) in 336 BCE, the twenty year-old
Alexander had already earned immense credibility as a leader.
The same day Philip was pronounced dead, the army affirmed Alexander as the
rightful king. In only a few years time, Alexander would leverage his credibility to
launch one of history's most successful and ambitious military campaigns.
#5: IDENTITY A COMMON ENEMY
As soon as the 20 year-old Alexander inherited the throne of Macedon in 332 BCE,
he was faced with numerous threats. Two years earlier, at the Battle of Chaeronea,
Alexander's father, Philip II, had secured Macedon's grip over all of Greece. But the
peoples of the Greek city-states resented Macedonian rule and saw Philip's death as
an opportunity to rise up.
Alexander dealt with these threats immediately. He quelled a rebellion in the
northern provinces then marched to Thebes, where he destroyed their army and
ransacked their capital. After witnessing Alexander's strength and ruthlessness,
Athens led the other city-states in surrendering to Macedon. With his hold over
Greece temporarily secure, Alexander began assembling a multicultural Greek army
for a new purpose - to invade Asia.
According to the social identity theory of leadership, effective leadership is not
about personality or timing. It's about the group's collective sense of togeth erness.
Without this shared identity, no individual can accumulate influence.
But a group's sense of well-being is not based on objective measures. It's based on
comparison. For a leader to truly maximize the potential of the group, he must make
it clear who the group's rival is. For Steve Jobs and Apple, the rival out-group was
Microsoft. For Alexander the Great and his Greek army, it was the Persians.
It didn't take long for the Persians to take notice of the young Alexander's
aggression. Finally, after the upstart Macedonian king had wreaked enough havoc
on his western borders, the Persian king Darius III left his royal capital and led an
army to challenge Alexander. The two arch-enemies finally squared off at the
mouth of the Pinarus River, near the town of Issus, in 333 BCE.
Before the must-win Battle of Issus, Alexander addressed his diverse army. First, he
explained to his own people, the war-like Macedonians, why they should not fear
the Persian fighters:
"Our enemies are Medes and Persians, men who for centuries have lived soft and luxurious lives;
we of Macedon for generations past have been trained in the hard school of danger and
war"
(Arrian, 2.7).
Then Alexander addressed the Athenians and Thessalonians, reminding them why
they were superior to their enemy:
"They will be fighting for pay - and not much of it at that; we, on the contrary,
shall fight for Greece, and our hearts will be in it."
And finally, he compared the northern barbarians who fought for Greece to the
Persians:
"As for our foreign troops - Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians, Agrianes - they are
the best and stoutest soldiers in Europe, and they will find as their opponents the
slackest and softest of the tribes of Asia."
Alexander's united Greek army prevailed over Darius and the Persians that day. The
defining moment came a few minutes into the battle. Darius, spooked by how close
the Macedonian cavalry was getting to his royal chariot and personal bodyguards,
turned and fled the battlefield. The Persian army crumbled at the sight of their
leader abandoning them.
After defeating Darius for the first time at the Battle of Issus, Alexander led his
army south toward Egypt. He planned to secure his control over the Mediterranean
while Darius regrouped. Soon, the two kings would clash again in the decisive
battle of Alexander's campaign.
The peoples of Alexander's army held many resentments toward each other. But by
focusing his diverse army on a common enemy, Alexander was able to minimize
the negative effect of these inter-group rivalries. The more the Athenians,
Thessalonians, and Macedonians bought into Alexander's narrative of a united
Greece vs. Persia, the more cohesive and devastating their army became.
#4: FIGHT ON THE FRONT LINE
The kings of ancient Macedon were not the kind of kings who watch their armies
fight from afar. They were expected to fight alongside their soldiers. Alexander
exceeded this expectation.
At the Battle of Chaeronea, an 18-year-old Alexander led the charge against the
ancient world's most feared fighting force, the Sacred Band of Thebes. At the
battles of Issus and Guagamela, he confronted the Persian king Darius III, ruler of
the world's largest empire. At the Battle of Granicus, Alexander's friend Cleitus the
Black had to intervene before a Persian soldier sliced his head off. The list goes on
(for a detailed account of Alexander's battlefield injuries, see this article by MJ
Mann via the Second Achilles website).
Alexander's closest brush with death, however, came when during a siege of a
hostile native fortress in along the easternmost borders of his empire. Without
warning, he snatched one of his bodyguard's ladders and used it to scale the enemy
wall alone. It seemed like a kamikaze move, even by Alexander's standards. By the
time reinforcements caught up with him, Alexander had been struck by numerous
rocks and arrows and was rapidly losing blood. It was weeks before he could walk
again.
Alexander's 10-year campaign through Asia was physically taxing. By the time he
was thirty, his body had taken a battering. The speed and agility he was once known
for were gone. Even so, Alexander took immense pride in his scars. The Greek
historian Plutarch explains why:
"He did not cover over nor hide his scars, but wore them openly as symbolic representations,
graven on his body, of virtue and manly courage " (I, IX).
What does Alexander's willingness to risk his life have to do with his leadership?
First, you might wander whether Alexander needed to be so cavalier. Wasn't he
risking everything he built by continuing to be so reckless? Yes, he was. But
Alexander wasn't interested in preserving the territories and peoples he had already
conquered. He always wanted more.
Ok, but isn't it smart for a leader to stay "above the fray"?
Sometimes, sure. But not when it comes to the values and behaviors that are most
vital to the group's collective identity. Courage and honor in battle was at the core
of his army's identity. It's the thing Alexander's soldiers valued above all else.
Through his audacious behavior on the battlefield, Alexander was able to
continuously remind them why he belonged in the position of authority.
It's also about inspiration. Group members (in this case, soldiers) lose motivation
when they start to think that their leader is acting out of self-preservation or greed.
It highlights the difference between leader and follower and undermines the
collective identity that is crucial to a leader's intrinsic influence.
By fighting alongside his troops, Alexander proved that he was not merely in it for
his own gain. He was not commissioning slaves to fight on his behalf while he
waited in a position of relative safety. Just like them, he could be killed at any time.
Aware of this, the men who fought with Alexander were emboldened. They were in
it for the sake of the group's well-being and glory, not individual reward.
In the final year of his life, Alexander's increasingly-tyrannical behavior nearly
resulted in a mutiny. It was then, while addressing a crowd of angry soldiers, when
he invoked his many wounds as proof of his devotion to the group. He dared
someone else to match his sacrifice:
"Come now - if you are wounded, strip and show your wounds, and I will show mine. There is no
part of my body but my back which has not a scar; not a weapon a man may grasp or fling the mark
of which I do not carry upon me "
(Arrian, 7.10).
Although Alexander wasn't as skillful in battle as his mythological ido ls, he didn't
need to be. In fact, the scars he earned served him well. They were tangible
evidence of his sacrifice to the group.
Unlike leaders who use the group's resources to ensure their own survival,
Alexander risked his personal safety at every turn. For a band of roving conquerors,
displays of bravery were the most powerful means of accumulating influence. In
this arena, Alexander was second to none.
#3: SHARE YOUR SPOILS
As a student of Achilles, Alexander was sure to always respect the tîmê (honor) of
his loyal followers. This meant being extremely generous with the incredible
amount of wealth and political power his army accumulated in its march across
Asia.
One of the finest examples of Alexander's generosity occurred while he led his men
through an arid stretch of plains in pursuit of a powerful Persian general named
Bessus. At one stage of this chase, the Graeco-Macedonians ran severely low on
fresh drinking water. By the time Alexander's scouts discovered a nearby river, he
and many of his soldiers were too dehydrated to leave their tents. So, the scouts
collected water in their helmets and animal-hide sacks and brought it directly to
their weakened king.
After summoning enough strength to ask them who the rest of the water was for,
they told him that it was for the common soldiers and their children. As the story
goes, Alexander refused to take a sip, instructing the scouts to bring the others
water before taking care of him. But the scouts insisted, saying that the lives of any
common soldier or child was far less important to the group's success than the life
of its king. Alexander replied "if I alone should drink, the rest will be out of heart."
When the word of Alexander's refusal reached the rest of the army, the soldiers
became energized once again.
"For while they had such a king, they defied both weariness and thirst, and
looked upon themselves to be little less than immortal" (Plutarch, 42).
Appearance-wise, Alexander was hardly distinguishable from his soldiers. He was
of average height and build and did not wear the opulent royal costume associated
with autocrats like the Great King of Persian. Alexander's everyman appearance is
best illustrated by the greeting he received upon capturing the royal family of
Persia.
When the Persian King Darius abandoned his army on the battlefield at Issus, he
left everything behind, including his mother, wife, and children. On the morning
following his victory, Alexander brought along a few of his close friends and
advisers to greet them.
When they arrived at the Persian tent, Alexander and the Macedonians were blown
away by its lavishness. The massive royal tent was furnished with the finest Persian
couches and tables. All of its utensils were crafted from gold. A refreshing aroma of
exotic eastern spices hung in the air.
"This must be what it's like to be a king," Alexander remarked, with a hint of both sarcasm and
wonder
(Plutarch, 20).
Then, in a famous moment of confusion, the Persian Queen Sisygambis, Darius's
mother, bowed before Hephaestion instead of Alexander. Because Hephaestion was
taller, the Queen had mistakenly assumed he was in charge. Her public mistake
prompted a rumbling of laughter from Alexander's comrades and a terrible fear in
her. With Darius defeated, she and her family were completely at the mercy of this
king she had just insulted.
But Alexander took the mistake in stride, remarking that "he, too, is Alexander"
(Arrian, 2.7). It was both a testament to Alexander's bond with Hephaestion and his
lack of interest in maintaining an air of superiority over his followers. He dressed as
they dressed and lived as they lived.
Alexander's first tutor, Leonidas (not to be confused with the 5th century Spartan
king depicted in the film 300) is credited with instilling a sense of frugality in
Alexander from a young age. When the Persian governor Ada offered Alexander
the service of her finest cooks, he told her that Leonidas had taught him a better
diet:
...for his breakfast, namely, a night march, and for his supper a light repast"
(Plutarch, 22).
According to the social identity theory of leadership, it is critical that a leader be
seen as a champion of the group's interest, rather than merely his own. The more he
is seen to be increasing his own wealth on the backs of his followers' efforts, the
less inspired the followers will become. An uninspired army is a vulnerable army.
Through his words, behavior, and lifestyle, Alexander painstakingly made the case
that he was fighting for the glory and honor of the army, not his own enrichment.
His own words below, taken from a speech he made at Opis, attest to the effort he
made to be viewed as an advocate for the group.
I have appropriated nothing myself, nor can anyone point out my treasures, except these
possessions of yours or the things which I am guarding on your behalf. Individually, however, I
have no motive to guard them, since I feed on the same fare as you do, and I take only the same
amount of sleep. Nay, I do not think that my fare is as good as that of those among you who li ve
luxuriously; and I know that I often sit up at night to watch for you, that you may be able to
sleep"
(Arrian, 7.9).
#2: BUILD A GROUP IDENTITY
"...without a shared sense of 'us', neither leadership nor followership is possible."
- The New
Psychology of Leadership
In recent years, social identity theory has had a profound effect on how
psychologists and historians understand the phenomenon of leadership. One of the
most critical insights that have come from this approach is that leadership can only
take place in a group with a shared identity. Why?
Because as a person comes to identify as a member of a group, he or she
experiences cognitive changes in how they think about themselves and their
interests. Over time, the interests of the group as a whole begin to outweigh their
individual well-being.
In other words, individuals start caring more about the success of the group than
getting ahead on their own. This change, called depersonalization, is absolutely
critical for a group to perform as its peak potential. Without it, a group is nothing
but a bunch of people looking out for themselves, rather than genuinely working
together.
Depersonalization is also the process that allows for an individual to become
influential over the group. Only once a collection of people see themselves as
having something in common can an influential leader emerge from the pack.
What does this have to do with Alexander? Wasn't he born into his position of
leadership? He was born a prince, but leadership is not about authority, it's about
influence, inspiration, and persuasion. For Alexander and his army to defeat the
powerful Persian Empire, he needed to unite and inspire his army.
Unfortunately, the various peoples of his Graceo-Macedonian army were hardly
friendly with one another. As neighbors, they had been fighting over resources for
centuries. In addition, the Athenians considered the Macedonians to be barbarians.
Their democratic and highly-cultured society was much different than the
monarchical, tribal society of Macedon. Although the Macedonians appreciated the
Athenians' artistic and literary abilities, they resented the Athenians' elitism and
believed them to be inferior fighters.
The internal rivalries and history of conflict between these Aegean peoples
threatened to end Alexander's dreams before his famous campaign into Asia even
began.
So how did Alexander the Great foster a shared identity among the soldiers of his
army?
He took advantage of the thing that both the Macedonians and the southern Greeks
had in common - their mythology.
Even though the societies of the Aegean peoples serving in Alexander's army were
starkly different, the soldiers were all familiar with the epic poetry of Homer and
other myths. These legends, and their accompanying religious beliefs, gave the
Greek peoples a sense of unity, especially in the face of civilizations from beyond
the Aegean Peninsula, like the Persians. It was the thread that held the bickering
city-states and kingships of Greece tenuously together.
Alexander made the most of this common ground. He led his army to the ruins of
Troy at the outset of his campaign into Asia and made sacrifices to the heroes who
died there. Just like the Greeks who invaded Troy hundreds of years before,
Alexander's army was seeking revenge against a barbaric eastern power. Alexander
cast their march into Asia as a new Trojan War.
Every chance he got, he invoked this common past through public sacrifices to the
gods and heroes his soldiers admired. Instead of a diverse group of peop les
bickering over petty grudges, they were a united Greek army seeking the same
success of their shared ancestors.
By invoking the imagery of the Trojan War, Alexander expertly tapped into the
power of the greatest pan-Hellenic myth. However, he did not assign himself to the
role of Agamemnon, the power-thirsty Greek king of the Iliad. Instead, Alexander
made it clear that he and his army were fighting for something greater than wealth
and power - eternal glory. For this reason he styled himself after Achilles, the hero
who valued his own legacy above all else.
#1: STAND FOR WHAT THE GROUP STANDS FOR
According to the social identity theory of leadership, a leader's effectiveness isn't
determined merely by how intelligent, eloquent, or attractive he (or she) is. The
leader's traits come second to the strength of his relationship to the group he is
leading.
In order to influence a group, a leader must cultivate a persona that resonates with
the group on an emotional level. To do so, he must be seen by group members as
embodying their shared identity and values. In other words, he must stand for what
the group, as a whole, stands for. Psychologists call a leader who successful does
this an "ingroup prototype".
Alexander led a diverse army of peoples when he invaded the Persian Empire. He
invoked the legend of the Trojan War, a story all Greeks were familiar with, to help
foster a shared sense of identity and purpose among his soldiers.
But how did Alexander position himself within this Trojan War narrative? The
answer reveals just how skillful Alexander was in the art of leadership.
Alexander's interest in the heroes of ancient myth is well-documented by the Greek
and Roman historians who wrote about his life. While he was fascinated by both
Dionysus and Heracles, Alexander most admired the hero Achilles, the greatest
warrior of the Trojan War. According to the best sources on Alexander's life, the
Macedonian king had felt a sense of rivalry with this particular hero ever since he
was a child (Arrian, 7.14). This interest was sparked by Alexander's bloodline. The
family of his mother, Olympias, was believed to be descended from Achilles.
When he led his army through the ruins of Troy, Alexander made a special show of
honoring Achilles at his tomb. "I would rather see the lyre of Achilles, which he
used to sing the glories of brave men," Alexander told a priest who offered to show
him the harp of the Trojan prince Paris (Plutarch, 15).
Alexander adopted Achilles' style on many occasions in his life. He cut h is hair
short like Achilles (a rarity in that time), treated his enemies in the same brutal
fashion (Curtius, 4.6.29), and may have carried a shield believed to have been used
by the hero. Alexander knew the myths of Achilles by heart. He kept a special co py
of the Iliad beneath his pillow wherever he slept (Plutarch, 8).
Why did Alexander make such a show out of his admiration for Achilles? Was it
merely a sign of his ego, or was there a practical reason for his emulation? To
answer this, one must understand what the myth of Achilles represented to
Alexander's army.
Achilles was considered the most talented soldier of the Greeks who King
Agamemnon led against Troy. Beautiful and supernaturally quick, he was granted
the nickname "swift runner" by the epic poet Homer.
But Achilles also had a darker side. His tempter and rage were also godlike in their
intensity. When Agamemnon threatens Achilles' honor, the hero simply withdraws
from battle and allows scores of his fellow soldiers to fall at the hands of H ector
and the Trojans.
When Achilles was born, a prophecy was made that said he would either live a
peaceful, long life in obscurity or a short life but achieve eternal glory. After
Achilles' best friend Patroclus is killed by Hector, he decides to return to battle and
get his revenge. According to myth, he dies shortly after killing Homer and
hundreds of other Trojan soldiers.
While Achilles is a flawed character, his life came to represent a pure devotion to
the Homeric Code. This code of ethics placed a man's honor (his level of respect in
society) and glory (his legacy) above all else. The ancient Greek warriors,
especially the Macedonians, took this code very seriously. Andrew Stewart,
Professor of Ancient Mediterranean Art and Archaeology at the University of
California Berkeley elaborates ancient Macedon's special connection to Achilles:
"...as texts, inscriptions, even the royal tombs at Vergina, readily demonstrate, Macedonia still
defined itself through its relation to the heroic past. If male excellence (arete), particularly
excellence in war, represented its highest value, then Achilles was its paradigm"
(81).
Alexander's special reverence for Achilles helped him remain at the heart of his
followers' shared identity. The most important faction of his army, the
Macedonians, were especially influenced by the message this affiliation sent.
But Alexander's emulation of Achilles also helped bring other factions of his army
together. Achilles, who allegedly came from a kingdom in Thessaly, was especially
revered among the immensely important Thessalonian cavalry. Meanwhile, for the
Athenians and others, Alexander's connection to the Homeric myths reminded them
that they shared a common Greek past, even if they viewed the Macedonians as
more barbaric.
So, by playing up his desire to rival Achilles, Alexander both united and inspired
his diverse army. He showed them he stood for the values that they held most
dearly, the ones which separated them from their Persian enemies. In other words,
he reinforced his status as the group prototype.
Did Alexander really believe he was a rival of Achilles? It's impossible to say what
he believed in his heart. But it's not a stretch to say that his attempt to be viewed as
a "new Achilles" by his followers was his most ingenious leadership secret of all.
PART-5