
This intricate knot was constructed of cornel bark. There are a few versions of its origin, but either way, it came to symbolise the power of the priests and priestesses of the ancient region of Phrygia. It was located in Gordia, the capital, and may have been a knot-cypher (whose secrets were passed on through the generations of priests and priestesses). In 333 BC Alexander the Great wintered in Gordia. Recognising its symbolism, he attempted to untie the Gordian knot, but was unable to find the end of it. He solved this problem by slicing through the knot with a single stroke of his sword. The ends of the rope were exposed. This decisive, somewhat destructive solution to a seemingly complex dilemma became a metaphor for one form of human problem solving.
Alexander subsequently conquered Asia to the Oxus and Indus rivers, and is painted as one of the great military and political leaders in human history. History is replete with them. Man’s quest for power and the necessity of military might to enable this has resulted in “leaders” often being cast in heroic, military moulds. Note that successful armies are nothing if not organised, clear hierarchies. The institutionalised religious structures of the world have a similar feel and have also produced their share of “leaders”.
The great names of music, literature, art and science are often cherished (or otherwise) for their individuality, and their ability to see and hear the world differently. They leave a very tangible legacy. I can still buy a Mozart CD or some poetry by Tennyson. These people are usually seen as almost “apart from” their human systems, rather than leaders of them.
Much of the literature on leadership in the business environment uses mental models from our history. It often stresses that characteristics such as decisiveness, clear communication, charisma, oratorial skills and “being good with people” are effective pre-requisites for good leaders. Alexander the Great had these in spades, as did Caesar, Churchill, Mao Tse Tung, Margaret Thatcher and Bill Clinton.
These notions of powerful leadership are deeply imbedded in our psyche. Clearly there are situations where they are necessary for survival, when urgency is the driving force.
The industrial age, which spawned the new class of business managers and leaders, began only 150 years ago. This is a drop in the bucket of human history. Business models originally used an hierarchical approach to organisation. The workers were seen as a commodity, as part of the process of production. They, like other parts of production, were to be “managed”. Hierarchies predicate increased power for those at the top of the pile, vice versa. This approach has held sway for most businesses since.
The dramatic changes in Western culture (followed more recently by burgeoning powers in China and India) over the past 50 years have broadened the base of educated people. The recent explosion of the internet has made more information more available to more people. This has been described as “the democratisation of knowledge”. There has been an associated re-think of the way business can be “managed”.
There is a new look being taken at how people at every level of business can potentially contribute to solving the business’s problems. Companies such as Toyota enshrine and operationalise this process. People are expected to make suggestions about improving the business. Ideas are assessed, tested and rewarded handsomely when they work.
Alexander’s action with the Gordian knot was an heroic and symbolic gesture. Most problems facing business in the current economic climate are complex ones. Decisive “strokes” have some dramatic appeal, but a more measured approach using the intellectual firing power of many individuals will be more successful in the long term. There are after all, many more records of successful human military and political achievements than of its decisive failures. History is usually written by the winners.