In Search of Elixir ...

Definition

The dictionary defines elixir as the philosopher's stone.  The term comes from the Arabic word al-iksir -- a word to describe alchemists' attempt to find the potion that would turn ordinary metals into gold.  Another definition describes it as sweetened aromatic solution of alcohol and water containing, or used as a vehicle for, medical substances. Synonyms include: cure all, panacea, principle, solution, and remedy.

A Little History

During medieval times, obsession for ways to prolong life indefinitely reached its peak. Experiments abounded in all walks of life. Monks started to distill essences and spirits in their quest to create the ultimate liqueur. Some derivatives were even forbidden by governments because they believed, that drinking them, would surely drive people crazy.  

During the frontier days, the wild West was invaded by so-called "snake oil" salesmen. Men that would go from town to town selling concoctions that would cure any and all ills. Soon the term "snake oil salesman" became synonymous  with untrustworthy sales people.  

This preoccupation, and indeed obsession, with the "magic bullet" is nothing new.  People have been looking for the remedy of all remedies for centuries, if not millennia.  No culture seems to be immune to it.  We all seem to be looking for that extra something that would give us an edge, that would enhance our success, and improve our lives.  

Management Education

I have seen the mania for elixir cross into American management education.   

It started, it seems to me, during the 1960's with Robert Blake and Jane Mouton's Managerial Grid. Their model of managerial styles suggested that there is a perfect style for managing people and that they had a way of measuring it.  Thousands, if not millions, attended the Managerial Grid phase 1 seminar.  Participants discovered their style and received suggestions for improvement.  Blake and Mouton were proponents of the one best style where the management leader shows high concern for people and high concern for results.  

During the 70's two professors from Ohio State University, Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, argued that there is no one best style, and that it all depends on the maturity of each subordinate. Their argument was convincing enough to generate a large scale movement toward Situational Leadership.  The seminars that follow taught management leaders how to be an effective situational leader.  Hersey and Blanchard's work generated many copycats and contributed to increased availability of off-the-shelf questionnaires that people could use to measure and analyze their own style.   

Concurrently, psychologists began offering interesting ways to examine more deeply one's behavior and motivation, and assess one's personal strengths and weaknesses. More questionnaires generating more data for the layperson to interpret and draw conclusions from.  

Mainland Europeans were initially skeptical. They saw the Americans' preoccupation with styles as a superficial and a meaningless exercise.  They watched with amusement what Americans were up to, but were reluctant to join the parade.  Soon, globalization changed all that as American multinationals began to export their management development practices to their subsidiaries and branch offices.  As managers and executives began to migrate from company to company, and from industry to industry, and as Europeans began to populate American business schools' programs, the all-on-board movement gained speed.

So What?

At this point you might be wondering what is the point of this blog.  After 50 years of experimentation, the market has pretty much reduced the number of copy cats and it has forced the distillation of what I believe is the essence.

My conclusion?  There is no one best way to lead, that it all depends on circumstances.  

The management development market is quite efficient. Over time, it eliminates the stuff at the edges, the fads,  programs of the month, and concentrates its attention to the more serious findings.

Successful leaders are remembered fondly, not so much for their style, but for what they managed to accomplish during their tenure, and, of course, the legacy they leave behind. They are also remembered for what they stood for much more so than what they were against.  They are easily forgotten when people cannot associate results with them.  They are vilified whenever their leadership caused physical or mental anguish.

I have grown skeptical of the premise that starts with "everything being equal..." this is better than that.  Little or nothing seems to be equal from one organization to another ... Cultures, product cycles, market conditions, technology, history, and other factors make it almost impossible to generalize one company's experience, let it alone, duplicate it.

Having the wind behind one's sails can make heroes of most of us.  As Elvis Presley was quoted to have said:  You cannot knock success!  Being at the right place, at the right time, with competent and dedicated colleagues is certainly the best wind behind a leader's sails.  Innovative products and a friendly market place cannot hurt.

I have become partial to leadership development programs that teach us how to to capitalize on our core strengths rather than focusing on our weaknesses.  I have become an advocate of programs based on sound research data, and I have grown distrustful of personal leadership philosophies. I am now more and more keen of programs that focus on continuous learning rather than programs that promise magic bullets or been there, done that.

Old age or wisdom?  You decide.  What are your thoughts regarding leadership and management development?