Chapter 6 develops an integrated framework of leader–subordinate dynamics in Chinese SOEs. How do leaders interact with subordinates to execute their agendas, and how do subordinates respond? Grounded in reward, coercion, and legitimate bases of power, the chapter identifies SOE leader tactics such as leveraging position authority, conducting personnel ploys, emphasizing material and status gains, invoking external threats, underscoring superiors’ directives and policies, and appealing to subordinates’ personal duty and morality. Subordinates may react by praising and supporting the leader or by expressing alternative views, delaying or subverting implementation, shirking, engaging in critical expression, or quitting. Leader–subordinate interactions are iterative and evolve over time.

Ancient communications were slow and precarious, so overseas commanders enjoyed/suffered from partial absence of control by home authorities. Isolation should not be overdone. Literary sources mention official letters home only when remarkable for some reason. Requests to the senate for supplies from Rome were made routinely. Equally, some messages and orders arrived from Carthage. ‘Peripheral imperialism’, far-reaching decisions by men on the spot, are a feature of Roman operations in Iberia. Publius Scipio (father)’s decision to fight the war there is a good example. Other examples are reviewed. Hannibal’s treaty with Philip was co-signed by Carthaginian advisers. Appointment of good subordinates is an important indicator of the quality of a commander’s personal initiatives. Italian Locri is taken as a case study because Hannibal and Scipio both made decisions affecting it. Hannibal’s appointee Hamilcar was guilty of long-term arrogance but was perhaps not as bad as Scipio’s scandalous lieutenant Quintus Pleminius.

Chapter 7 analyses how groups present themselves at the peak of their developmental cycle through case study ANOC 28a, a subdivision of Simpson’s original ANOC group 28. This group shows how stelae can function both as objects to commemorate and strengthen family links, including the representation of household workers as essential group members, and as networking tools for colleagues seeking integration into a new space. The use of the term sn (‘collateral’) is quite complex here because it is applied to both relatives and colleagues, illustrating the intricacies of non-genealogical relatedness. The head of the group is crucial in this context as he is expected to take care of his subordinates who are, in turn, meant to be loyal to him. Sources often extol the virtues of the head of the group as a self-made man with excellent management and administrative skills, including the distribution of rations. These interactions exemplify the hierarchical nature of social relationships in ancient Egypt, which can be defined in the framework of asymmetric reciprocity. In this sense, the distinction between relatedness and patronage is not clear-cut, as they are both defined by similar practices in performative terms.