Prompted by this article on management gurus on Slate’s The Big Money, here is a video that contains my thoughts on the nature of management gurus, specifically how they can damage their reputations by offering the same thinking over and over again, and how gurus are different from high quality consultants:

I recently came across this article in the Financial Times by Michel Ferrary of the Ceram Business School, in which he argues that companies (and the boards and senior management therein) with a higher number of women managers are better able to face the economic downturn. This finding will certainly find favour across a number of quarters.
However, the research that we have conducted–which spans 12,500 top teams and well over 2,000 boards–suggests that there is no difference in operational or strategic performance between male and female managers. In fact, gender emerged as the least predicted demographic concerning effectiveness of performance.  It should be noted that similar findings applied to education, sector, religion, geographical location and personal background. [...]

One of my favorite leaders in history is Alexander the Great . He ruled and commanded, but also interacted with others of his period by displaying greater skill in battle and a greater capacity for discourse in debate than his fellow Macedonians or his enemies.
He had theatrical skills but was also a man of daily routine. He attended to the business of the day (there was justice to dispense, taxes to be levied and distributed, pay, subsistence, and court expenses to be accounted for, appointments to be made and revoked) but was always ready for battle, and even so, the Olympian manner he adopted in battle and in the hunt was rarely used in the management of his immediate circle.
Reconnaissance and staff discussions preceded the advance to combat, highlighting precision, timing and caution. To lead so well, without the aid of modernity, is quite impressive.