Chapter 27 – Directing – Knowing Your Friends/Enemies

Directing – Knowing Your Friends/Enemies

The Ambiguity of Loyalty

Sometimes a manager must navigate the complex boundary between ally and adversary. No biblical figure embodies this ambiguity more profoundly than Joab, King David’s military commander. Throughout David’s reign, Joab demonstrated unwavering operational loyalty while making independent decisions that sometimes contradicted David’s explicit wishes.

The relationship between David and Joab presents a fascinating case study in organizational loyalty, independent judgment, and the tension between immediate tactical success and long-term strategic alignment. Was Joab an insubordinate liability or David’s most valuable asset? The answer depends entirely on perspective—and provides powerful insights for modern managers facing similar ambiguities in organizational relationships.

The Joab Chronicles: Loyalty or Liability?

Joab’s relationship with David spans decades and encompasses several critical incidents that reveal the complexity of their professional relationship. Rather than presenting Joab’s story as a simple narrative of heroism or villainy, the biblical text portrays multilayered motivations that defy easy categorization.

Abner’s Assassination: Revenge or Strategic Elimination?

After Abner (former military commander for Saul’s son Ish-bosheth) defected to David’s side and was negotiating to bring all Israel under David’s rule, Joab took independent action:

“Without David’s knowledge Joab sent messengers after Abner, and they brought him back… Joab took him aside into the gateway, as though to speak with him privately. And there, to avenge the blood of his brother Asahel, Joab stabbed him in the stomach, and he died.” (2 Samuel 3:26-27)

David’s response reveals the tension in their relationship:

“When David heard about it, he said, ‘I and my kingdom are forever innocent before the LORD concerning the blood of Abner son of Ner. May his blood fall upon the head of Joab and upon his whole family!'” (2 Samuel 3:28-29)

This incident established a pattern that would define their relationship including:

• Joab taking independent action without authorization
• David publicly denouncing the action while benefiting from its results
• David failing to discipline Joab despite expressed outrage

Uriah’s Orchestrated Death: Loyal Execution or Moral Compromise?

When David wanted Uriah eliminated to cover up his affair with Bathsheba, he trusted Joab to arrange it:

“In the letter he wrote, ‘Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.’… So while Joab had the city under siege, he put Uriah at a place where he knew the strongest defenders were.” (2 Samuel 11:15-16)

This incident reveals:

• David’s willingness to use Joab for morally questionable assignments
• Joab’s willingness to execute orders that compromised his military ethics
• The transactional nature of their relationship

Tactical Deference: Humility or Political Calculation?

When Joab was about to capture the city of Rabbah from the Ammonites, he deliberately deferred the final victory to David:

“Joab sent messengers to David, saying, ‘I have fought against Rabbah and taken its water supply. Now muster the rest of the troops and besiege the city and capture it. Otherwise I will take the city, and it will be named after me.'” (2 Samuel 12:27-28)

This action demonstrates Joab’s political acumen. By sacrificing personal glory, he:

• Reinforced David’s position as king and military leader
• Prevented potential jealousy or suspicion from David
• Built relationship capital for future independence

Absalom’s Reconciliation: Wise Intervention or Manipulation?

When David was estranged from his son Absalom, Joab orchestrated a reconciliation:

“Joab son of Zeruiah knew that the king’s heart longed for Absalom. So Joab sent someone to Tekoa and had a wise woman brought from there…” (2 Samuel 14:1-2)

The woman’s staged performance convinced David to reconcile with Absalom. When David realized Joab was behind the intervention, his response was positive:

“The king said to Joab, ‘All right, I am granting this request. Go, and bring back young Avshalom.’ Joab fell to the ground on his face, prostrating himself, and blessed the king.” (2 Samuel 14:21-22)

This episode shows Joab’s:

• Perceptive understanding of David’s emotional needs
• Willingness to manipulate circumstances for perceived greater good
• Comfort operating outside formal channels to achieve results

Absalom’s Execution: Insubordination or Necessary Intervention?

When Absalom rebelled against David, the king gave explicit orders to protect him:

“The king commanded Joab, Abishai and Ittai, ‘Be gentle with the young man Absalom for my sake.’ And all the troops heard the king giving orders concerning Absalom to each of the commanders.” (2 Samuel 18:5)

Yet when Absalom was found vulnerable, Joab took decisive action:

“Joab said, ‘I’m not going to wait like this for you.’ So he took three javelins in his hand and plunged them into Absalom’s heart while Absalom was still alive in the oak tree.” (2 Samuel 18:14)

This direct disobedience highlights:

• Joab’s willingness to override David’s explicit orders when he believed them contrary to the kingdom’s interests
• The tension between personal loyalty to David and institutional loyalty to the kingdom
• Joab’s prioritization of strategic objectives over emotional considerations

Truth-Telling During Grief: Courage or Insensitivity?

After Absalom’s death, David was consumed with grief, neglecting his responsibilities to the kingdom. Joab confronted him bluntly:

“Today you have humiliated all your men, who have just saved your life and the lives of your sons and daughters… You love those who hate you and hate those who love you… Now go out and encourage your men. I swear by the LORD that if you don’t go out, not a man will be left with you by nightfall.” (2 Samuel 19:5-7)

This unfiltered feedback demonstrates:

• Joab’s willingness to risk David’s anger to protect the kingdom’s interests
• His prioritization of organizational needs over David’s emotional state
• His understanding that leadership requires difficult conversations

Final Judgment: Justice or Betrayal?

Despite decades of service, David’s final instructions to Solomon regarding Joab were harsh:

“You know what Joab son of Zeruiah did to me – what he did to the two commanders of Israel’s armies, Abner son of Ner and Amasa son of Jether. He killed them, shedding their blood in peacetime as if in battle… Deal with him according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to the grave in peace.” (1 Kings 2:5-6)

Solomon later executed Joab, justifying it based on both his support for Adonijah’s claim to the throne and his past killings:

“ADONAI will bring his blood back on his own head, because he struck down two men more righteous and better than he – he killed them with the sword without my father David’s awareness.” (1 Kings 2:32)

This final judgment reveals:

• The complexity of assessing loyalty across a career of mixed actions
• How past actions can be reframed based on later events
• The danger of being perceived as too independent within a hierarchical organization

Management Applications: Navigating Loyalty Ambiguities

1. Recognize the Difference Between Directive Loyalty and Strategic Alignment

Joab’s relationship with David demonstrates the difference between following specific directives and aligning with larger strategic objectives. Throughout his career, Joab frequently disobeyed specific directives while maintaining alignment with what he perceived as the kingdom’s strategic interests.

Organizations need to distinguish between:

• Directive compliance – Following specific orders or procedures
• Strategic alignment – Acting to advance organizational mission and values

When these conflicts arise, mature organizations need processes to resolve the tension rather than simply demanding blind compliance.

2. Understand the Mixed Blessing of Independent Actors

David simultaneously benefited from and was threatened by Joab’s independence. Joab’s initiative provided strategic advantages (eliminating threats, delivering victories, providing hard truths) while creating political complications (unauthorized killings, appearing to usurp authority).

Therefore, leaders should:

• Assess whether independent actors create more value than disruption
• Establish clear boundaries for independent action
• Create channels for independent thinkers to challenge direction constructively
• Develop tolerance for the discomfort that comes with empowered subordinates

3. Beware the Danger of Convenient Hypocrisy

David’s relationship with Joab reveals a pattern of convenient hypocrisy—publicly condemning actions while privately benefiting from them. When David wanted Uriah eliminated, he trusted Joab; when Joab killed Abner or Absalom, David condemned him.

Leaders should:

• Maintain consistency between public positions and private expectations
• Avoid creating “fall guys” who take blame for organizational decisions
• Recognize how hypocrisy undermines trust and organizational culture
• Take responsibility for the outcomes of subordinate actions, even unauthorized ones

4. Value Truth-Tellers, Even When Uncomfortable

Joab’s most valuable service may have been his willingness to tell David difficult truths. When David was consumed with grief over Absalom, Joab’s harsh words pulled him back to his leadership responsibilities. Similarly, Joab was the only advisor who opposed David’s census (2 Samuel 24:3-4).

Leaders should:

• Cultivate relationships with subordinates willing to speak uncomfortable truths
• Create psychological safety for dissenting perspectives
• Listen carefully to criticisms, especially from experienced team members
• Reward appropriate challenge rather than punishing it

5. Recognize How Perspective Shapes Loyalty Assessment

The biblical text presents two valid interpretations of Joab’s career:

• A loyal servant who repeatedly saved the kingdom through decisive action
• An insubordinate killer who pursued personal vendettas while undermining royal authority

Both perspectives have textual support, demonstrating how loyalty assessment depends on framing and perspective.

Leaders should:

• Consider multiple perspectives when assessing loyalty conflicts
• Recognize how personal biases affect loyalty judgments
• Evaluate patterns of behavior rather than isolated incidents
• Consider both intentions and outcomes when assessing loyalty

6. Understand How Organizational Politics Affects Loyalty Perception

Joab’s final downfall stemmed largely from backing the wrong successor. His support for Adonijah created the political necessity for Solomon to eliminate him as a potential threat, regardless of his past service.

Leaders should:

• Recognize how succession dynamics affect loyalty assessments
• Understand that past loyalty provides limited protection during leadership transitions
• Build relationship networks beyond the current leadership
• Prepare for leadership transitions by building credibility with potential successors

The Strategic Cost of Eliminating Independent Voices

King Solomon’s execution of Joab illuminates a broader pattern in his governance – consolidating power by eliminating voices of independence and traditional tribal structures. While this approach may have strengthened his immediate authority, it created longer-term vulnerabilities:

“King Solomon divided Israel into 12 districts, not based on tribes or past relationship, but by taxing authority. This helped weaken the tribal based system… In his effort to squash competition, King Solomon destroyed the strongest element of the Israelites, their strong tribal ties.”

This strategic choice eventually contributed to the division of the kingdom after Solomon’s death. By prioritizing immediate control over sustainable governance structures, Solomon sacrificed long-term organizational resilience.

Leaders should:

• Consider the strategic costs of eliminating independent voices
• Encourage dissenting opinions and allow them to be raised and vetted as devil advocates are sometimes correct, but are often silenced by fear
• Appreciate that short-term compliance may come at the expense of long-term organizational health
• Diverse perspectives contribute to more robust decision-making
• Traditional structures often contain wisdom and relationship capital worth preserving
• Centralized control can create brittle organizational systems vulnerable to disruption

Deliverables

• Cultivate truth-tellers, not just yes-people – Surround yourself with individuals who will take action and speak honestly when you’re uncertain or headed in the wrong direction.
• Distinguish between tactical disagreement and strategic disloyalty – Recognize that the most loyal team members may be those who occasionally challenge specific directives to protect larger organizational interests.
• Maintain consistency between public statements and private expectations – Avoid creating a culture where team members are expected to take actions you publicly condemn.
• Reassess initial judgments about allies and adversaries – Recognize that early assessments of loyalty may prove incorrect over time as motivations and outcomes become clearer.
• Look beyond personal loyalty to organizational impact – Evaluate team members based on their contribution to organizational objectives rather than merely their compliance with your directives.
• Consider the strategic cost of eliminating independent voices – Recognize how consolidating control by removing independent actors can damage long-term organizational resilience.

Discussion Questions

1. What do you think might have happened if Abner or Amasa were not killed?
2. Do you think King David was right in asking King Solomon to kill Joab? Was King Solomon justified in killing him?
3. If you had an employee similar to Joab how would you handle them and their actions?
4. Do you think Managers might not know who their true enemies are and why or why not?
5. When have you witnessed a situation where an initially perceived “disloyal” action ultimately benefited an organization?
6. How can organizations distinguish between appropriate independent judgment and insubordination?