David and his Kingdom

Organizational Behavior, BA583
Week Four – Biblical Analysis:
David and his Kingdom


David was an incredible leader in the nation of Israel. His called a Man after God's own heart (I Samuel 13:14) and although he did not have a perfect track record as a leader, God has used him to influence church leaders for thousands of years. Looking at David as a leader and his interaction with the kingdom of Israel we can learn how to lead effectively as Christian leaders in the twenty-first century, 3000 years after his death.
David is constantly viewed as one who is seeking Gods plan in every situation. This is evidence that David has a external locus of control (Robbins, pg36) to the extreme. From early youth he is constantly seeking God for how to act. One of the first instances we are presented with is when David is tending his fathers sheep and kills the lion & bear (I Samuel 17:37). This is presented simultaneously to declaring that God will deliver Goliath into his hand with a simple sling and stone. This pattern is evident throughout Davids life but it is highlighted during the flight from King Saul. Twice while David is fleeing for his life he is presented with an opportunity to take king Saul's life and does not do it. Davids rational is that God appointed Saul King and trusts that He will deal with Saul in His own timing (I Samuel 24:6).
Once David becomes King he fully depends upon God for large decisions like whom to fight against and when. Robbins relates the external Locus of Control personality types to be less satisfied with their work and they tend to blame others for problems. David however is influenced by his humility (I Samuel 20:1) and his proper view of God to counteract the negative aspects of the external locus of control.
David shared his view of God's ultimate control in unexpected situations where he led strongly with an example of ethical leadership (Robbins, pg169 & pg252) . The most profound situation is when Saul was after David to murder him, thus preventing David from taking leadership from him. David and his men were hiding in a cave when Saul''s army came by. Being close enough to your enemy to see him is a frightening situation, but to make matters worse Saul needed to take care of some personal business within arms-length of David's hiding spot. David literally had the opportunity to take vengeance on Saul for trying to kill him. David had done nothing wrong but conversely had served the King faithfully for many years. David could have, without human blame, ended the conflict that would last another several years which separated him from his family, his place of worship and his God appointed position of King of Israel. However, David understood that God was the One in control and recognized that He had appointed Saul as King to begin with. David trusted that God was going to fulfill His prophecy in perfect heavenly timing and it was not acceptable to kill his leader.
This personal control was witnessed on two separate occasions by his followers (I Samuel 2 & 26). Leading by example was Davids classic training method in which he instilled the ethics that were important to God. In this fashion David established the culture (Robbins, pg233) for Israel and future generations of Kings as well as leaders of Churches and Christian leaders throughout history. His personality defined how a “good leader” should behave. The author of Hebrew refers to David in the “hall of faith” (Hebrews 11:32-34) while David's name is used to describe the position of leadership in Israel throughout the Prophets. Jeremiah 22:1-4 God uses David as a reference for how to live to prevent the coming judgment on all of Israel. One for the most succinct scriptures that describes the culture he sought to pass on is I Kings 2:2-4,
“I am going the way of all the earth. Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man. 3 "Keep the charge of the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn, 4 so that the LORD may carry out His promise which He spoke concerning me, saying, ' If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'”
Formal Power (Robbins, pg177) - David was anointed as King at an early age, but he did not take over the kingdom until he was 37 years old. As the King, David had formal power and often utilized that both for positive and negative. On the positive sided David was a great commander and warrior on the battlefield as evidenced by his short battle with Goliath. Davids dependance on God for direction coupled with Davids Chain of command power gave Israel the victory in every battle recorded. When he spoke people listened and acted on what they were told.
However, Davids formal power also worked against him. Near the end of his life David was feeling proud which lead him into sin. We are never directly told what David's sin was but we see the penalty of it causes 70,000 men in Israel to die (I Chronicles 21:14). This episode is when David decided to count the mighty warriors in Israel and Judah. His right and man, Joab questions David and even warns him of his motives, but in the end the Kings power wins out. Joab goes throughout the nation for nearly a year until the job has been completed; 1.5 million warriors in all (I Chronicles 21:5). Gods reaction to this seems to outweigh the offense, He allows David to select the punishment, and God executes it quickly. Had David taken heed from his subordinate the penalty of this sin may have been completely eliminated.
The second and more infamous time Davids formal power caused problems was in his sin with Bathsheba. David saw what he wanted and commanded his guards to go get the beautiful bathing Bathsheba for him. This sin was only the beginning of a long trail of coverup that is a clear example of another behavioral decision making pattern: escalation of commitment (Robbins, pg91). Sin always begins as a temptation, but David did not capture his thoughts; he allowed them to turn into sin. This was followed by a cover-up and eventually worked out as murder of one of his Mighty Men (II Samuel 23:39).
One difference between this situation and that described by Robbins is that the typical escalation of commitment stems from a decision made, likely with good intentions, but which later becomes obvious it was the wrong decision. The desire to save face, in some cases, drives people to continue down a path that will not ever cause the desired outcome. However, David started off knowing that his initial choice was wrong. Which makes this an especially disappointing mistake by one of the most influential leaders in Israels history.
David made a few other mistakes, although less noteworthy, like how he dealt with discipline issues. There are several critical discipline incidents (Robbins, pg258) recorded for us ranging from how he dealt with his children to the commander of his armies, Joab. David did not obey God's command of Kings to not multiply wives for himself which caused multiple problems in his family and his Kingdom. Not the least of which is recorded in II Samuel 13, where Amnon, his son, raped his half sister Tamar. What was Davids response to such a hideous sin? “He was very angry”, according to verse 21. But nowhere is it recorded that David took any action. Ultimately, Tamars brother Absalom murders Amnon and flees the Kingdom later to form a coup in an attempt to overthrow his father David. Had David disciplined his son swiftly and severely as was required by God, this whole episode may have been avoided.
The second discipline issue I would like to discus is Joabs murderous ways. Twice Joab killed his peers who threatened him by the respect David had for them. II Samuel 3:27 records Joabs unjust murder of Abner and II Samuel 20:10 describes how he killed Amasa, Davids good will appointment from the ranks of Absalom's coup. But to top of Joabs insolence against David, Joab deliberately murdered his son, Absalom. David specifically commanded Joab to spare his son in II Samuel 18:5. This command was so well articulated that everyone in the rank and file of the army clearly understood that Absalom should remain unharmed (II Samuel 18:12). Although David temporarily removed Joab from command of the army (II Samuel 20:6) he was again head over the whole army of Israel only 18 verses later (vs 23). The question arises, how did David eventually deal with this? I Kings 2:5-6 record David asking his successor, Solomon, to deal with him.
These weak discipline decisions by David portray to his Kingdom that sin and disobedience are acceptable. As the King and culture setter for his nation David fell down in his job. As we have seen many of the problems relating to the end of his life were directly related to this stance, or lack thereof, toward these seemingly personal offenses.
It is difficult to look at the life of David without making some observations of the organization that he was leading, Judah and Israel. Robbins discusses loyalty (pg20) as a individual trait but David was able to garner extreme loyalty from many of his followers. The first glimpse of the loyalty David drew is the first time that King Saul decides that he is a political threat and he must flee for his life. David was encouraged by the outcasts of the surrounding area many of whom became the legendary Mighty Men of David as listed in II Samuel 23:8-39.
Throughout Davids life, there was one attempt to take away his kingdom however there were more than five separate occasion when David had to question the loyalty of those around him. This is not a particularly great track record as the point of this argument is to present the loyalty David had. It is interesting to note that two of the five situation were in dealing with Saul, one was instigated by his disloyalty to the Philistines and the last two were because David was attempting to bring the north and south kingdoms together. These five situations also highlight the fact that his closest friends are always with him. Those who knew him most intimately, stayed loyal through thick and thin ( II Samuel 15:14-18). Even Joab was loyal to David though He and David disagreed on the “best” solution for Absalom, I believe Joab was acting in what he viewed as Davids best interest. Joab believed that killing Davids son and threat to his King-hood, was the best long term solution which David could not commit to himself.
In the discussion of loyalty we see some interesting group dynamics specifically, group conformity to norms (Robbins, pg106). The most striking example is when Sheba a leader in Israel formed a revolt against David (II Samuel 20:1-2). This near tragedy happens as David is working his political strategy to reunite Judah and Israel (vs11). A political shouting match takes place between Judah and Israel about who has the greater claim to the King. In the midst of this Sheba declares that Israel “has no portion in David”. This notion had been prevalent as Absalom had made his way across the country making his stand against David. Once this mindset was revived, the entire nation of Israel abandoned David as their King.
Conclusion:
As we have seen David was by no means a perfect leader, nor was the “organization” in which he operated ideal. However, we are able to look deeply into scripture to see what is truly important to our Creator using both positive and negative aspects to learn and grow.

















Sources:
Robbins, S.P. (2005). Essentials of Organizational Behavior - 8th Edition. Pearson - Prentice Hall.
New American Standard Bible, Updated edition. La Habra, Ca: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.