science vs instinct

I just finished reading an excellent book by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton “Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths And Total Nonsense: Profiting From Evidence-Based Management” (recommended by Mary Poppendieck).

Pfeffer and Sutton discuss a simple and elegant idea that “new” is not necessarily better when it comes to management practices. A lot of currently trendy ideas have in fact been around for years, and some even proved less than stellar.

The book is full of stories how people and organization keep doing things that verifiably do not work – based on evidence collected in real life or even in thoroughly designed experiments. Time and time again it is scientifically proven that money are not a good motivation tool; that ‘hero’ culture is counter-productive; and smart people behave like utter fools when made to follow strict rules. Although this research has been available for a long time, lots of organizations and their leaders continue to use the less-than-beneficial practices.

“Hard Facts” presents the evidence and advice to a thoughtful manager, but it appears that many of its ideas fall on death ears. “Hard Facts” is ranked in the 4000 range on Amazon.com, well below many books on leadership that discuss how a hero (a brilliant CEO, a lone genius) is solely responsible for organizations’ success.

Why does scientific evidence-based approach discussed in the book remains less popular than the traditional way? It turns out that the scientific evidence collected on many discussed management practices goes against deep-rooted human instincts. Heroes have been part of the culture for thousands of years, and the competition spirit runs a lot deeper than the atmosphere of cooperation. Most goals are formulated as a zero-sum game, promoting the competition and the hero who wins it.

Although life is not a zero-sum gain, and cooperation has been proven to benefit all involved, people still prefer to strive for individual recognition and rewards, and continue to worship heroes. Although most people say that they are not motivated by money, those same people think that most everybody else is.

It takes serious time and effort to overcome instincts. The physical example is learning to swim or to downhill ski – going into the water or sliding down the hill goes against the basic bodily safety instincts. Questioning the deep-seated ideas based on evidence is even harder, but well worth it. Unfortunately, the book presents little discussion on how hard it is to challenge one’s traditional way of thinking, or to promote evidence-based approach.