Leaders and managers need to be more critical
In a world of speed, busyness, and information overload, it is easy to accept the claims of 'experts' rather than thinking for ourselves.
Franz Anton Mesmer was big in France in the 1780s—very big. He believed that a single fluid in the universe flowed between all bodies, which he called animal magnetism. A blockage in this fluid's flow was the disease's source. The cure for the disease was for those most sensitive to the fluid’s flow and adept in its manipulation (people like himself and his disciples) to unblock the flow and thus cure illness. Mesmer had testimonials from patients from the upper levels of society attesting to the efficacy of his theory and his work, so it must be true.
However, Mesmer became a bit too 'big', so Louis XVI established a Royal Commission to assess the claims of animal magnetism. The two leading members of the panel were Benjamin Franklin and Antonie Lavoisier. These two were also leading advocates for applying the methods of experimental science to determine fact from superstition.
Franklin was an electricity experimenter, so examining Mesmer’s claims about invisible fluids was natural. Lavoisier was to become known as the ‘father of modern chemistry’.
Through a series of controlled experiments, the panel concluded that any benefit Mesmer's manipulations might have given his patients was most likely due to the power of suggestion rather than the flow of a universal fluid. [See Stephen J. Gould's essay, 'The Chain of Reason versus the Chain of Thumbs' for an easy read on the experiments conducted.]
My interest in this history is that Mesmerism was what we might term in modern language a fad. It was accepted uncritically. It was targeted against an outcome, "curing disease", with a tangled web of causes. Its primary source of evidence was testimonials (case studies) from the susceptible and, most importantly, the day's luminaries.
It seems that much of what passes for management knowledge and practice has, on occasion, similar features.
The widespread conversation about generational differences in the workplace fits this mold. I was recently drawn to a local news article titled ‘Forum helps bridge gap as employers shun shabby Gen Y workers’. It quoted an expert on ‘Gen Y’ and local employers and spoke to the poor dress standards of Gen Y, the way that Gen Y wants everything straight away, and that they don’t take the recruitment process seriously. The conclusion seemed to be that the workplace needs to be adjusted to accommodate the generational peculiarities of Gen Y.
This is but one of many articles of this sort that seem to appear regularly in the media and popular management literature. They are not just about Gen Y; for example, other gems include ‘Is Gen X past it?’ or ’10 ways Gen X is hosed’ (in this one, Gen X hate their jobs, racked up crazy debt, and have given up all hope). These articles seek to weave a compelling story from a few disparate claims. I am often left wondering whether there is actual evidence for these claims beyond anything of the sort that Mesmer might have asserted.
A good story, a couple of case studies, research from one ‘expert’, and support from a notable CEO are all required for truth. Indeed, beyond the claims of evidence, I wonder whether the negative effect of blithely accepting these assertions as fact is to skew our conversation about work and the workforce to the poles of the demographic at the expense of the vast majority that sits between them. Are we focusing our efforts on younger and older employees at the expense of the middle?
When I look for information on this middle group, they are referred to negatively. The contrast drawn between the old and young on the one hand and the middle-aged on the other is stark. An example is the recent raft of publications on the ‘disengagement of middle managers’. [In my view, the evidence for this claim is also slim.]
Disturbingly, the underlying evidence to support the various claims that younger workers are remarkably different from anybody else in the workforce is, at best, patchy. Yet, the claims of difference are often repeated and in ways designed around the process that Gordon Allport described many years ago in 'The Psychology of Rumor'.
First, there is an element of popularly held 'truth'; for example, ‘young people are disengaged'. [I should add here that this is a 'truth' that has existed since Aristotle wore short pants.] This levels the story so that all the messy detail is washed out. In particular, all that confusing stuff where there might be other explanations for the behaviour of Gen Y, or maybe, that they are no different from any group of people at that age in other generations. As I get older, I find that my rose-coloured glasses fit much more comfortably. So much so that it’s hard to take them off; however, it helps to recall the following quote attributed to a complaining Plato:
What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders; they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?
The problem of generational decay seems to have been with us for some time.
Second, the story is then sharpened. So, a call to action is required of the sort 'young people are our future and we need to reshape the workforce to accommodate them'. In doing so, we ignore and disenfranchise the vast bulk of the workforce between 40 and 60 years old.
Finally, the story is assimilated through transmission. It changes shape to carry more meaning in the telling and the listening. At this point, it lifts off into a world of its own where it receives compounding endorsement from those we see as successful or admire.
Somewhere, back at the start of this process, a bunch of researchers are quietly working to test the claims being made. They are testing hypotheses and isolating variables in their search for the truth. Their findings will not see the light of day before the bubble of the management fad bursts, and we will have all moved on to the next big thing ('big data’, for instance). But, the researchers will persist until they are sure.
So, what's the solution? Untested fads will continue to grab our imaginations, and good science takes time. How can we be better placed to ensure that scarce resources are not directed away from productive activity on a whim?
I think the answer lies in more skeptical leaders and managers. Leaders and managers are more intellectually critical of the evidence behind the theories and practices put before them.
More critical leaders and managers would have critically examined the assertions of differences between generations and assessed that this was a topic to watch, not act on. The best probably did. But the pervasiveness of the claims about generational differences is evident in the speed with which these assertions can enter management conversations—they want to 'save the world', they crave rapid advancement, they want boundaryless careers, or they are 'disengaged' at work. These claims falter under simple, direct questioning that seeks evidence instead of a story. That the theory was loose and untestable, the conclusions looser, and the evidence unavailable would have been easily discovered by some critical thinking and questioning. I have (probably unfairly) used generational differences here as an easy example, but the same is true of fads in strategy development, change management, leadership, or any other topic.
It seems that we have all sacrificed some skill in critical thinking at the altar of pragmatism and expediency. Like the French aristocracy of the 1780s, if a new idea seems to make sense, and we want to believe it, and if people we admire all believe in it, it must be right…right?
As the panel investigating animal magnetism concluded, fads will always be with us, and we seem predisposed to believing in them. The success of 'charlatans, sorcerers and alchemists' is most guaranteed when we stop thinking and questioning.
It may be that a lapsed skill in leadership and management is critical thinking. We need to sharpen our reasoning tools in order to uncover hidden premises, contradictions, and weaknesses in evidence. This takes effort and time, but I believe it is time and effort well spent.
In a world of speed, busyness, and information overload, it is easy to accept the claims of 'experts' rather than thinking for ourselves.
