Common nonsense: Disdain for theory
TQM, Lean and Agile: The big movements for progressive organizing of the last decades were characterized by a strong bias against theory. That has come at a cost
Here’s how to spot that someone who has a disdain for theory, at least to some degree: Such people will passionately argue that learning and advancement must by all means come from practice or experimentation, from observation, empiricism and trial-and-error. Such individuals or groups will proudly describe their own approach to learning and advancement as evidence-based or scientific. Look closer, though, and you will notice that such folks (or groups of people) deal in a particular kind of evidence, and in certain types of science only. Weirdly, they usually value their own experience or those of specific people above everybody else’s.
So why does all of this matter? The reason is simple. For managers, for organizational developers, for the lean or agile practitioner, and for consultants, a disdain for theory is what a flour allergy is to the baker: If you have it, you just can’t get the job done.
We might call those with a disdain for theory the practice versus theory folks, as they tend to believe that practice and theory are detached from each other. They also tend to believe that theory cannot be trusted, but practice can. Problem is: By and large, practice versus theory folks actively oppose serious, or truly scientific approaches to advancement. They usually ignore or reject much existing scientific insight that has existed for a century, only to justify their experience. They also reject referencing the scientific insight they themselves deploy, to then label the ideas they promote as “new” or innovative. Following this rationale, you can see that disdain for theory folks are by no means entirely benevolent, and that the consequences of their deviation from actual scientific insight can retard, and even kill otherwise noble undertakings.
Disdain for theory is rampant in Agile
Take the Agile movement. It started out enthusiastically enough, with a bunch of folks creating practical approaches to better, more straightforward and more impactful software development - approaches such as Extreme Programming, DevOps, Pair Programming, then Scrum. But instead of moving on to mine other sciences for insight around how to make these promising techniques stick, and how to make them more effective by combining them with management techniques, and organizational development, the Agile movement retrieved to reinventing the wheel: Until this day, hardly any outside knowledge, or conceptual insight, has been assimilated into agile. Within the movement, disdain for theory has become common sense: existing “outsider” theory is rejected on the bizarre grounds that, supposedly, “all models are wrong, but some are useful”, leading to an extreme form of the not-invented-here syndrome.
What got lost in translation is that the “all models are wrong, but some are useful” quote is borrowed from British statistician George Box (1919-2013), who in his quote referred to mathematical or statistical models, and thus to phenomena in the exact sciences, specifically. Not the humanities, in which software development or “agile work” is happening. To generalize Mr. Box’s quote and apply it to the humanities is the same as to say: I despise theory, and I will believe only what suits me best.
One might say that the posture of the “all models are wrong” moniker has blindsided the agile movement: It was turned into a stubborn commitment to collective resistance against (most) scientific insight. A crucial difference between the exact sciences and the humanities is outlined by management thinker Sumantra Ghoshal. Ghoshal notes that in the exact sciences, our theories approximate reality, while in the humanities, the theories we hold have the power to change the world. Think of theories around race or gender, for example: The theories we hold will change our behaviors towards ourselves and others, and will thus shape our realities. Just because we believe in them.
In the humanities, in short, not all theories are equal, and every theory we choose to accept as truth will have impact.
Back to Agile, though. Some years ago, I talked to my friend, organizational development (OD) pioneer Paul Tolchinsky, about my involvement with the Agile movement. I asked him what he thought of the Agile crowd and their impetus to change the world of work. Paul replied: “Folks in the agile movement clearly have the best intentions – but they have no clue about how organizational change works!” Sadly, this is true until this day. Instead of mining fields like Organizational Development, systems theory, business sciences, contemporary social psychology and constructivism for practical theory, agilists have tried to come up with their own , falling for profoundly flawed concepts like “cynefin”, or betting on bizarrely misguided tools around organizational intervention, in the shape of agile scaling frameworks, or “team topologies”, to just name two fads of recent years.
Paul Tolchinsky’s statement above echoes sound advice by W. Edwards Deming (1900-1993) from decades earlier: “Sure we want best efforts, but best efforts must be guided by theory and knowledge. Those who only give us best efforts – let them stay at home, in bed, and sleep late. We would all be better off. They only tamper and make things worse. When these approaches [quick fixes] are used without the benefit of profound knowledge, they are counter-productive.” In his later years, starting in the 1980s, Deming fervently argued that in order to improve organizations and societies, we needed “profound knowledge.” around three areas: systems, psychology and statistics. In other words: We needed scientific theory. It is remarkable that, by and large, Deming seems to have avoided the term theory in his writing, coining it profound knowledge. This is possibly an indication that disdain for theory has a somewhat longer tradition.
The Lean movement: Crippled by a disdain for theory
The Lean movement can serve as another example for organized disdain for theory. Lean icons like Jim Womack, co-author of the 1990s bestseller The Machine that Changed the World, go so far as to postulate that experimentation is the heart of lean, and the only way to generate new insight. According to Womack, “only management by science through constant experimentation to answer questions” can produce advancement. Which is like saying that you should not look for solutions beyond the factory floor (the gemba, in Lean lingo), or, god forbid, in other fields or sciences. Little wonder that mainstream Lean has advanced little since 1990, at least not beyond a somewhat better understanding of Toyota’s way of doing Lean. In fact, profound over-accentuation of case examples is one of the common denominators of those with a certain disdain for theory.
Today, all major voices in Lean stubbornly proclaim and indeed preach that advancement must come from experimentation, from trial and error, or case observation, but certainly from within the agile scene. Collectively, Lean thought leaders have become remarkably narrow-minded: Symptoms of this are ever-stricter focus on particular, Toyota-rooted tools in recent decades. Enthusiasm for A3 and Hoshin Kanri in Lean circles may serve as examples. While it is hard to tell whether diverging and more broadly interested voices in Lean were driven out of the movement or somehow silenced, it is clear that Lean thinking has become highly incestuous. On the other hand, Lean thought leaders consistently marvel at the fact that application of Lean doesn’t stick in most companies, that adoption of Lean concepts beyond the factory is rare, and that the movement is generating less and less interest from business owners, executives and managers, overall.
There can be little doubt today that the Lean movement is stuck in a double bind situation, for which it only has itself to blame. To overcome its self-inflicted crisis, overcoming its disdain for theory could be an excellent starting-point.
Remembering the highly impactful management movement that valued theory and proper science
Such evidence from Agile and Lean might have us believe that a disdain for theory has always been dominant within progressive management movements. But such a conclusion would be mistaken. There once was a time when the world’s most influential management movement was deeply immersed into theory, into connecting scientific insights from a wide range of fields – ferociously deriving theory from practice and vice versa. I am talking about the decades from the early 1950s to the 1980s; the movement I am referring to was the Socio-Technical Systems (STS) movement.
STS was initiated at Britain’s Tavistock Institute of Human Relations by a group around Erik Trist (1909-1993) and Fred Emery (1925-1997) that built upon the groundbreaking work of Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) and his peers. Notable figures from the movement, apart from Trist and Emery, included Russell Ackoff (1919-2009), Calvin Pava (1952-1986), Merrelyn Emery and Bill Pasmore. Douglas McGregor (pictured above) was also loosely associated with STS and referenced its work systematically. The socio-technical movement succeeded for several decades to combine relentless inquiry, academically solid research, consulting and teaching. But don’t believe what I am saying. You don’t have to, as the combined research from four decades of STS was eventually combined into a remarkable, three-volume Tavistock Anthology, which was published between 1990 and 1997. You do not even have to purchase the books with over 600 pages each: an online version of the book trilogy is freely available here.
STS interconnected many branches of science – covering social psychology, sociology, systems theory, economics, and the political sciences. It spawned foundational research into topics as varied as work/life quality and organizational democracy (in Scandinavia, most notably), and the development of organizational concepts like job enrichment and job rotation that are considered classics today. At the end of the 1990s, the STS movement found a successor, or continuation, in the Beyond Budgeting Round Table BBRT. Then, in 2008, the BetaCodex movement took the quest for transformation to overcome command-and-control organizing to yet another level.
Theory for practice – not theory or practice
Returning to our own time, it is clear that a disdain for theory is part of our era’s zeitgeist. In a time of abundant fake news, and social media that’s crammed with content that’s oblivious to practical theory (a.k.a. obvious nonsense), it requires some mental discipline to connect the dots between observation, perception, narrative and theory. But I assume that any time has felt like this to the people who lived through it. So, regardless of fads, political turmoil and pollution in the public space, it is upon each of us, in every moment, to distinguish nonsense and reason,
The trouble starts not when nonsense is advocated as truth, but when practice is advocated as opposed to theory, as this means the deconstruction of available profound knowledge (in Deming’s words). When this occurs, then we are usually witnessing blatant self-referencing and ignorance. It can also hint at a naive understanding of theory: Theory is not “just some made-up models” that are detached from reality, but it is the result of concept-building that has stood the test of reality. It is not opinion, but empirical insight condensed into profound knowledge, as W. Edwards Deming called it.
And remember: Not all theory is equal. All good theory works in practice, as Kurt Lewin argued. Or, put differently:
Theory is either practical, or it is gobbledygook.
If we wish not to be condemned to dabbling for eternity, we’s better ask ourselves what theories we are using, and what better theory might exist to make our lives, our organizations and societies better.
Cluelessness is not a hard-earned distinction
A person’s disdain for theory can have a thousand different roots – many of which can be understood and sympathized with. A disdain for theory is not a hard-earned distinction, though. To reject theory amounts to a disregard for facts, in lieu of personal opinion, experience and prejudice. This matters. But individual’s theory-aversion itself is not a big problem. The trouble starts when disdain for theory and thinking is used to depreciate people, to divide groups and to exercise power over others.
Personally, when I think of people with a disdain for theory, it makes me think of that scene in the 1999 movie The Sixth Sense, in which the boy who can engage with the dead talks about the deceased, commenting: “They only see what they wanna see.”
This article’s has a fun section. It starts here
At this point of the article, dear reader, I feel compelled to provide you with a bit of practical fun. I figure I owe you that much. So here is a list of things that people with a disdain for theory say. Enjoy!
Things people with a disdain for theory say
“That doesn’t help us with our problem. It’s just theory. ”
“I am more of a practical person, you know?”
“I have my own toolbox – I combine those things in every situation I am facing.”
“Can’t we just get to a decision now?”
“Let’s not over-think this.”
“Let’s do a pilot first.”
“I prefer to see things for myself.”
(When confronted with substantiated theory)
“But there is something between black and white.”
Or: “My experience tells me differently.”
“Theory is just for people who have no clue of practice.”
“We do not read books here.”
How to reign in the disdain for theory
Academics are by no means free of a disdain for theory. I once heard an academic vigorously declare that she “wouldn’t buy into any concept that a single human being had developed.” I replied that I had never met an academic who had managed to reject the notions of evolution, relativity theory and gravitation with a single sentence.
In the humanities, in fact, the opposite of love for theory appears to be common. As an example, let’s take the field of science I studied at university: business administration. It’s a field that shut itself off from other scientific fields a long time ago, with dramatic consequences. Since the 1970s at least, the business sciences have been oddly isolated from psychology, social psychology, sociology and philosophy, and boundary-crossing is not just frowned upon: It would be a breach of ethos. Look at the published academic research the field produces, and it becomes impossible not to perceive its irrelevance, which is also widely acknowledged within the field itself. By and large, academics in business, or management studies, appear to be largely un-interested in practice, too (even if they claim the opposite), alienated of theory-building and for theory from domains other than their narrowly defined speciality.
In short: Today, disdain for theory can be found nearly everywhere. It infests media, it cripples progressive movements, it is rampant among so-called thought leaders as well as in academia. One might ask: For the sake of what? It appears like classic lose-lose situation, if you look closer. A disdain for theory may promote the power of the few, but it strangles advancement. Promoting a disdain for theory tears us all down. We can do better than that. And overcoming disdain for theory is relatively easy: It is up to you to overcome it and to stop it from happening in your sphere of influence. It is up to each of us to think critically, and to oppose disdain for theory where we meet it. We can honor, promote and create great theory. The future of human advancement is in our hands.
Recommended reading
If this article left you wondering what the heck theory is, then I recommend the following three articles around theory in the organizational sciences: Bad management theories are destroying good management practices by Sumantra Ghoshal, What theory is not by Robert Sutton/Barry Staw, and, somewhat lighter, Techniques to match our values by Marvin Weisbord.
Disclaimer: No "A.I.” was used in the process of writing this article - except for the purpose of translation, research of sources and photo coloring.