Every manager would love to have a wand and make things happen magically. Although this vision is only a dream, managers do have a lot in common with magicians. Both the manager and the magician aim to create a world different from the one we know. Both the manager and the magician construct a new reality; the magician using the stage and the manager using the workplace. Another similarity is that many magicians carved out a market in the corporate sector by providing entertainment at Christmas parties and similar occasions. But the similarities don’t stop here.

As an amateur magician I collect academic journal articles about conjuring and found two interesting papers exploring the similarities between management and magic.

… a wand and make things happen magically.

David Pollitt described how the management team of a large retailer was invited for a magic show as part of their professional development. Magicians follow rigid procedures to create the illusion of magic and the management team were encouraged to do the same to achieve results. Magician Richard Pinner performed a Russian Roulette inspired trick to illustrate that in customer contact there is only one chance to get it right.¹

Professor’s of management Joe Dobson and Terence Krell published a paper on how to use magic tricks to teach organisational behaviour.² They use magic tricks in the classroom to show that withholding information, like a magician withholds the methods from spectators, can create a power difference. So called forcing techniques commonly used by magicians are an illustration of the fact that our free will is more often than not bound and limited by the context in which we operate.

Perception is not reality

Although a magic wand is not a reliable management tool, these examples from academic literature show that professionals can learn from magic as it provides valuable lessons in psychology.³ Most importantly the magician’s ability to distort reality is a reminder that our perception is fragile and that we should always find out the facts, rather than relying on perception. The biggest difference between a manager and a magician is that a magician manages perception to create the illusion of a new reality. Managers focusing on perception in reality will find that they are creating an illusion.

1. Pollitt, David (2006). ‘Communication campaign conjures up success for Homebase: Magician theme makes for memorable launch of guides’, Human Resource Management International Digest 14(5): 38-39. doi: 10.1108/09670730610678271. [↩]
2. Krell, Terence C. and Dobson, Joseph J. (1999) The use of magic in teaching organisational behaviour. Journal of Management Education-23: 44-52. doi: 10.1177/105256299902300105. [↩]
3. K. Fatehi-Sedeh (1980) A card game as a teaching aid. Journal of Management Education 5(3): 57-60. doi: 10.1177/105256298000500316. [↩]

In a recent blog entry for Harvard Business Review, Jerry Weissman argued that misdirection is for magicians, not for presenters.

Misdirection is one of the few words of the specialist magician’s vocabulary that have made it into common vernacular.¹ It refers to an essential technique in sleight of hand conjuring to distract the audience so that the actions of the magician that are the real cause of the magic can not be perceived. Some contemporary magicians no longer use the term misdirection but prefer ‘attention management’ to indicate that that the audience is directed towards the narrative of the magic trick instead of the technique.

This technique is not only used by magicians, but basically all forms of the performing arts. Some even argue that misdirection is an essential skill in everyday human interaction.² Erving Goffman describes human interaction in a theatrical metaphor and emphasised the importance of managing impressions people have of each other.

Any good presenter is deeply involved in managing the attention of the audience away from the less important aspects of the presentation and focuses the attention to the important parts. In the Powerpoint era, beautifully designed slides can be used to give credence to an otherwise weak argument. The summarised and seemingly well flowing information hides gaps in knowledge and insecurities of the presenter.

We all require misdirection in our daily and professional lives to construct who we are in accordance with our ideal self. People holding corporate positions, for example, communicate through clothing and are, according to Goffman:

… blinding themselves and others to the fact that they hold their jobs partly because they look like executives, not because they can work like executives.

Goffman’s ideas might seem a pessimistic interpretation of human interaction, but deception is part of life because social reality is subjective. The manager has become an archetype of contemporary society. The manager is the prime example of homo economicus, the rational thinking problem solver that always seeks to maximise benefit, independent of social reality. This is, however, only an ideal that many of us strive to and we all play a role in the great theatre of life. This process occurs subconsciously and is a universal human trait.

Business presentations are a form of theatre even more so. Brief monologues designed to convince the listener that the presenter’s ideas should be implemented. Misdirection is a valid and natural way to create the ideal self of the lucid manager and convince people with your presentations. This post is, however, not an invitation to deceive in business presentations. Misdirection only works when it is subtle and skilfully applied.

1. A. S. Fleischman (1949), Words in modern magic, American Speech (24)1, pp. 38–42. [↩]
2. Erving Goffman (1959), The performance of self in everyday life, Anchor Books. [↩]