Vedius Pollio, a wealthy Roman, once invited his friend the Emperor Augustus to dinner. The entertainment was interrupted when a valuable crystal bowl was broken by a slave. Trying to impress with his toughness, Vedius ordered the slave boy to be thrown to the huge moray eels in his fish pond.
But August was not impressed. In fact, he was outraged by this new form of cruelty. He ordered Vedius to free the slave boy and told the other slaves to bring all the crystal goblets they could find and smash them in the presence of the master. He then told Vedius to fill the fish pond and get rid of the moray eels.
Most Romans, like Augustus, considered the cruelty to slaves shocking. They understood that slaves cannot simply be intimidated into doing their job well. Instead, the Romans used a variety of methods to encourage their slaves to work productively and willingly, from bonuses and long-term incentives to actions designed to boost morale and build team spirit. All this says more than we can imagine about how employers successfully manage people in today's world.
First of all, this story shows how comfortable the Romans were with leadership and command. They believed that there was a huge difference between having the organizational skills to manage a unit and actually being able to lead it. On the contrary, modern managers are often unhappy with promotions above their employees. I worked for ten years in a large corporation, and I had a lot of bosses who tried to be friends with me. Elevation of oneself above others is incompatible with democratic ideals of equality. Today's managers have to pretend to be one of the team members.
The Romans would have laughed at such weakness. Did Julius Caesar take his legions outside the territory to force them to support his invasion of Gaul? Successful leaders had to stand out from the crowd and use their superior skills to inspire, persuade, and sometimes get people to do what needed to be done. Perhaps we should learn from their straightforward honesty. The Romans thought deeply about slavery. They considered the household to be the cornerstone of a civilized society. In the same way, the modern corporation is the cornerstone of the industrial world, without which no modern life with all its material comforts is possible.
And just as a household needs slaves, companies need staff. Permanent employees, like slaves, are much more desirable than outsourcing. The Romans believed that outside contractors could not be relied upon as members of the main social group. They did not appear as directed, allowed themselves liberties with fees and, taking little pride in their work, performed their tasks poorly. However, with slaves being stakeholders in the system, the Romans could be sure that the work would be done the way they wanted it to be done.
Therefore, it was vital that the owner take the utmost care of who he allowed into his house. The purchase of any old slave risked undermining the morale of the whole house. The alleged slave owner tried to find out all the facts before making the purchase: whether the slave might have tried to run away, or loitering aimlessly, or was a drunkard.
The Romans considered smart slaves to be unpleasant and dangerous.
The law provided some protection here: your money would be returned if the slave turned out to be a gambler, but not if the slave was simply lazy. The philosopher Seneca notes how much attention buyers paid to where slaves came from, believing that their background often determined whether they would make good slaves. A Roman would not use a nasty little Brit as a personal servant because of his rude manner and appearance. On the contrary, young Egyptian boys were thought to make excellent pets.
Slavers have been known to cover up defects in their goods by hiding wounds with cosmetics or knocking knees down with fine clothes; modern employers should beware of the usual tricks used to embellish resumes. Like a slave buyer, they ask questions and dig deeper, all the while assuming that everything they hear is being manipulated in some way.
The Romans considered smart slaves to be unpleasant and dangerous. It is better to have the loyalty of slaves beyond their ability than to risk betrayal by someone with ambition and talent. And in fact, those of us who have worked in large corporations are all too familiar with the phenomenon of office politics that promotes less talented people. The Romans also took care to examine the morals of their potential slaves: were they liars or overly ambitious? Such questions were not a private matter of the individual, they were considered a vital factor in determining whether a slave would benefit the Roman household. Indeed, this is something we might recognize more openly today. From Enron to Tesco
personal flaws, such as greed and the capacity for deceit, played an important role in the corruption of corporate life.
Having bought them, the Roman master tried to reshape the character of his slaves in accordance with his needs. He made them forget their old gods and instead start worshiping the home shrine, mocking their former beliefs. He could brand them with his own mark. In the same way (albeit less brutally), the modern manager "reshapes" new employees by teaching them the mission of his company. They must perform rituals to publicly declare their belief in these new goals, such as attending off-days (or off-site events) and participating in humiliating group activities such as playing paintball or karaoke.
The Romans applied the carrot and stick method to their slaves. The side of the stick could be casually brutal. Emperor Hadrian, generally regarded as a kind and caring emperor, once gouged out the eye of a slave with a pen, who interrupted him while he was writing a letter. In one of the inscriptions of the 1st century BC. from Puteoli near Naples, a municipal whipping service is described, when the city council sent workers for several loaves of bread to whip the slaves of the owner, who did not want to do the dirty work himself. .
Like the weak manager who hides behind the personnel department when he needs to be fired, some Roman craftsmen were clearly refusing the violence inherent in their system. But most openly accepted the unpleasant actions that the role of master entails, viewing them as a means of advertising their strength and masculinity.
Slaves, like staff, were a significant investment, and this mitigated the cruelty of their treatment. Each cost a lot of money, which would have been enough to feed a family of four for two years. Being too strict with them simply hurt the value of your assets and reduced the expected profit. The Romans thought that such cruelty might lead to a short-term increase in productivity, but would soon wear out the slaves. In fact, if you try to force them to go beyond reasonable service, you will end up making your slaves sullen and unruly.
Such slaves were considered a nuisance and a curse. Instead, the Seneca urged the masters to make a commitment to the right treatment of the slaves. Forgive them for their mistakes, he said, chat with them, be polite to them, and share a meal with them. If masters did this, they might expect slaves to work diligently for years to come.
The Romans knew that workers, even slaves, needed incentives, and after training, slaves were given enough food to do their job well, but no more. For well-executed tasks, additional clothes could also be issued. The masters closely followed the work of their slaves and associated such advantages with worthy results. For wage-slaves, the main incentive may be money, not food or clothing, but the principle is the same.
Small perks can make a big difference to morale. Sometimes the masters felt it necessary to personally check the rations of the slaves to show them that they were interested in their well-being. Or they gave them some free time to keep their chickens and pigs and tend their own garden, or go to the forest for berries. Sometimes wine was distributed at festivals, but slave owners also feared that drunkenness could make even good slaves behave insolently.
Being a domestic slave meant more than just working. It was accepted that there should be some time for rest. This boosted morale, which in turn improved performance: a contented slave was a productive slave. It was known that the unfortunate slaves would wander aimlessly, trying to evade the work assigned to them. Or constantly moaning. These slaves, like office malcontents, had to be weeded out for fear that their negativity would infect the wider group.
Few office workers don't dream of throwing off the yoke and becoming ski instructors or writers.
Even when slaves were treated relatively well, they naturally yearned for freedom. This desire can be turned to great advantage by the owner. It was the carrot that motivated the slave to work hard and honestly. The Romans usually freed slaves after about ten years of good service, especially those domestic slaves with whom they had a good relationship. This desire for freedom was also a stick with which to punish a slave if he became disillusioned with something. Hope can help people endure all kinds of suffering; hopelessness can make them take desperate measures.
In Gellius' retelling of Aesop's famous fable of Androcles and the lion, the slave Androclus suffered an undeserved flogging every day. Only after endless insults did he finally dare to run away. Undoubtedly, there are few wage slaves who also do not dream of throwing off the yoke of their worldly existence and becoming ski instructors, writers or self-employed masters. Modern me
Managers must make their employees feel that they are earning enough, or that they have the ability to earn enough, that these dreams are feasible, however distant they may be in reality.
The Romans may have been more humane in some respects than we think, but they did not hesitate to punish their slaves, and they punished them severely. Flogging, crucifixion, racking, and leg-breaking with iron bars will be carried out in public to maximize the impact on bystanders. Or the children of a slave may be sold and never seen again.
When it came to being the undisputed boss, the Romans had a distinct advantage over modern managers. They needed contented and hardworking slaves, but they did not seek emotional interaction with them. From childhood, they learned to command, giving commands to their slaves: “Bring me my cloak!”, “Wash your hands!”, “Serve me breakfast, boy!”
In today's egalitarian world, such behavior is more a sign of psychosis than good management. But the Romans would have taken many modern methods of government simply as a way to hide the reality of power behind a mask of equality. The truth is that both legions and enterprises need leadership, and leaders must be able to command. Undoubtedly, maintaining morale and getting employees to support your decisions are essential components of a successful leader. But the Roman idea of leadership was to chart a course and lead people to that destination, willingly or unwillingly.
The Roman master had no desire to curry favor with his slaves or take advantage of their popularity. On a fundamental level, most people viewed slaves as possessions—Varro calls them “instruments that can talk”—that required little more attention than a refrigerator. They expected that their subordinates would unquestioningly help them in their struggle for personal success and glory. Modern managers cannot be so indifferent to the inner life of their employees. But they risk forgetting what the Romans knew so well: being a leader often means cutting yourself off from those below.
However, an aspiring manager may draw inspiration from the Roman belief that leaders and slaves are not born, but made. Unlike the Greeks, who believed that slaves were inherently slaves (as Aristotle argued), the Romans believed that the distinction between slaves and masters was simply a matter of fate and learning. Rome successfully assimilated a large number of freed slaves into its civilian body, and it would be pointless to deprive them of the opportunity to rise in society. We cannot know the exact number, but it was enough for Augustus to pass a law limiting the number of slaves that could be freed. We also have many references to people such as the poet Horace, whose father was a former slave and who subsequently mingled with the upper strata of Roman society.
A successful Roman master understood that the slaves were not stupid and would take the opportunity to undermine the authority of their master. However, oppression meant that open rebellion was as rare as today's labor strikes. Three major slave revolts, the last of which was led by Spartacus, took place between 135–71 BC. BC when slaves were cheap and expendable thanks to the rapid Roman conquests and therefore treated horribly. In most cases, Roman writers warned against small-scale acts of resistance. The surviving ancient manuals for managing the estate warn the owner to beware of slaves who gossip, fiddle with accounts or pretend to be sick. All this undermined the power of the owner,
For the Roman masters, the ownership of slaves was never simply a matter of economics. Accompanying a large retinue was a status symbol that made the craftsmen feel powerful and important. One prefect of Rome, Pedania Secundus, had 400 slaves in his house. As a good horse reflected well on the rider, so a well-mannered and respectful slave emphasized the dignity of his master. If there were hundreds of them, then the greater would be the glory. In the same way, modern corporate leaders are sometimes tempted to bloat their staff to advertise their importance to the world, whether or not those people are actually needed to complete the task at hand. This is our own form of empire building.
Slave ownership and hiring, in the simplest sense, are a million miles apart. Comparing the two may be provocative, but the similarities do exist. It is an inconvenient truth that both slave owners and corporations want to extract the maximum possible value from their human assets without depleting them, without provoking rebellion or flight. At a deep level, managing others always involves finding solutions to the age-old problems of evaluating people based on limited information, then rewarding, disciplining, and rewarding them, and finallyc, getting rid of them. As much as we may choose to hide the tougher side of wage-slavery behind the rhetoric of friendly working together, we could benefit from some straightforward Roman honesty. Everyone knew where they were then standing, even if sometimes it was a queue for a crucifixion.