When Alexander of Macedon determined to conquer the world, he lead his armies to the ends of the earth through seas, mountains and deserts, indifferent to the odds, until he managed to exert his influence over half the kingdoms of the ancient world, exceeding the greatest leaders in history, but his armies got tired at some point, after years of war in India, so the troops opposed his will to proceed east, where he thought the end of the world existed.
Alexander who is known for his brutality, did not force his army into a new war, and accepted his troops will to return east, but he dealt with the situation in a way proved how ruthless he is to tell them (I am the leader) … so he sent them back through a desolate road through the desert of (Tklamkan), which means (that nowhere), so he made it in the end of the road with only two thirds of the army!
Alexander managed to prove to everyone at that time and place that he is a man of principle. But, was it worth losing a third of the army?!
People may differ in how they judge this incident, but many of us in fact carries some of Alexander’s character in his genes… we hold on to our opinions, values and principles as they were unquestionable sanctities, in order to others we are men of principle, even if that principle was wrong!
Human character often varies, they are intrinsic with emotion, which is why we see them deal with similar situations in different ways, and deal with people from their own perspectives, and sometimes misjudge because they think that all people should behave the same way they do!
Of course, this rule cannot be applied in reality; because siblings of one blood, may vary in characteristics, and with the status quo, we must not judge others according to our values and view, but according to their values and view.
And at work situations that we deal with repeat in different ways, and the burden of holding on to principle grows if you are a manager, since you want to maintain your authority in front of your employees no matter the cost.
Surely, this is a matter of absolute importance, but management science has reached many kinds of ways to deal with employees, and one of them is the open-door policy that allows each employee to voice his opinion and participate in the management decision; if that decision is right.
If you support this method of management, and you are manager and not an employee, would you give up the principle of (Manager authority), and include the opinion of an employee you have?
I think manager authority will not be shaken if employees share him in taking a certain decision; because after all they are all on the same boat, and they must sail in harmony so that the boat goes in the right direction, and carries everyone to safety.
Matters maybe much more complicated in some cases, especially when your opinion as a manager differs from the opinion of a trusted employee, because this employee may be capable of seeing the matter in small details, due to his direct contact, while you see it from a wider angle; because your outlook must be more inclusive.
He does not wish to waste any part or element, and you do not wish to be lost in the details, and solving this equation might be difficult, so you must reach a meeting point with him, and understand from him the most important details, and discard what may lose sight of the main idea, and at the same time maintain your inclusive luck that guarantees the work will progress to maintain the success and continuum of the establishment, by this method alone you can agree with your employees, and leave no room for any cracks that slow down or threaten the work
Whatever way you will solve the equation between you and your employees, that you share the decision with them but maintain your management authority, do not follow the path of Alexander of Macedon; because the desert of (Tklamkan) is still lifeless and desolate!