Nehemiah’s difficulties did not stop there either. To be sad in King Artaxerxes presence was dangerous enough. But in addition to that, what Nehemiah wanted was to go to Jerusalem and rebuild its walls, and it was precisely this king who earlier had been petitioned against the rebuilding of the walls and had stopped the work as a result. Nehemiah’s plan meant asking him to reverse his own former policy. I commented on this situation briefly in the last chapter by referring to the opposition to the first attempt to rebuild the walls which took place under Ezra and was recorded by him. A strong Jerusalem was a threat to the supremacy of the nearby city states. So when the second group of exiles returned under Ezra and began to rebuild the walls subsequent to their beginning to rebuild the temple, the rulers of the region of Trans-Euphrates petitioned Artaxerxes:
To King Artaxerxes,
From your servants, the men of Trans-Euphrates: The king should know that the Jews who came up to us from you have gone to Jerusalem and are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city. . . .
Furthermore, the king should know that if this city is built and its walls are restored, no more taxes, tribute or duty will be paid, and the royal revenues will suffer…. In these records you will find that this city is a rebellious city, troublesome to kings and provinces, a place of rebellion from ancient times. That is why this city was destroyed. We inform the king that if this city is built and its walls are restored, you will be left with nothing in Trans-Euphrates (Ezra 4:11-16).
After receiving a letter like that, it is no wonder Artaxerxes stopped the work. It was no small matter for Nehemiah to ask the king to reverse his own “wise” policy.
But Nehemiah succeeded, and his success shows how we too can succeed in middle management. The chapter gives six secrets to Nehemiah’s triumph.
1. Loyalty. The story does not make a great point of Nehemiah’s loyalty to King Artaxerxes, but his whole demeanor as well as his success presupposes it. When the king asked why his face looked sad and he replied, “May the king live forever!” we do not think of this as hypocrisy or even mere formality. Nehemiah seems to have had the king’s interests genuinely at heart.
Many persons in middle management err at just this point. Sometimes they err obviously and openly by trying to outshine their boss or make him look bad. By doing so they hope to advance over his failure. At other times they are not even aware of what they are doing. Or they try to change their boss, expecting to correct his weaknesses rather than to build on his strengths.
Peter Drucker, who has written many helpful books on management, says correctly that the right sort of loyalty is to the advantage of the middle manager as well as his boss. “Contrary to popular legend, subordinates do not, as a rule, rise to position and prominence over the prostrate bodies of incompetent bosses. If their boss is not promoted, they will tend to be bottled up behind him. And if their boss is relieved for incompetence or failure, the successor is rarely the bright, young man next in line. Conversely, there is nothing quite as conducive to success, as a successful and rapidly promoted superior.”1
This is not promoting a false or sinful loyalty, of course. To be loyal does not mean that we are to appear loyal when we are actually opposed to what is happening, nor that we are loyally to support wrong actions. It merely means that as long as we are working for someone we must be loyal to him. If we cannot be loyal, we should seek employment elsewhere.
1 Peter F. Drucker, The Effective Executive (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), 93.
