In a recent comment, Malcolm McLelland pondered:
You say somewhere on your website that philosophy of science continues to be important in what you do; maybe the problem is that accountants don’t have a good grip on philosophy of science, epistemology, etc. Most accountants I know would look at that last sentence, call me an arrogant academic asshole, and say that they live in the real world and, therefore, don’t need to know anything about such things. I’m pretty sure they’re wrong: We all need to know how we know what we Know.
In email, I drew Malcolm’s attention to the more libertarian education system enjoyed in the UK. He then kindly pointed me to philosopher cum retired management consultant Matthew Stewart’s article published in June’s Atlantic Monthly (subscription required.) It’s some measure of my attention that Nick Carr discussed this back in May. Oh well.
I remain an unrepentant, unreconstructed Popperian. I love the idea of blog discourse as a way of learning yet retain a healthy scepticism of the way in which Wittgenstein’s thinking around language has been perverted in the ‘stuff’ written by some of the more populist bloggers. Matthew’s article (which takes some reading and re-reading) is interesting at several levels, not least because we are entering a new era of ‘social’ in management thinking – or so some bloggers would have us believe. Among other things, Matthew says:
At its best, management theory is part of the democratic promise of America. It aims to replace the despotism of the old bosses with the rule of scientific law. It offers economic power to all who have the talent and energy to attain it…But, insofar as it pretends to a kind of esoteric certitude to which it is not entitled, management theory betrays the ideals on which it was founded.
To contextualise, Matthew argues that modern management practice is bunk, having its roots in an interpretation of Fred Taylor’s undocumented but influential time and motion ‘studies.’ The difference, he says, is that we’ve become more scientific in appearance when it comes to applying fudge factors and in spreading drivel dressed up for companies in trouble:
In fact, we [management consultants] kind of liked failing businesses: there was usually plenty of money to be made in propping them up before they finally went under. After Enron, true enough, Arthur Andersen sank. But what happened to such stalwarts as McKinsey, which generated millions in fees from Enron and supplied it with its CEO? The Enron story wasn’t just about bad deeds or false accounts; it was about confusing sound business practices with faddish management ideas, celebrated with gusto by the leading lights of the management world all the way to the end of the party.
That’s an illuminating passage. Yet consultants rule the world. I recall one assignment in the late 1970s where we were engaged to create a new costing system. There was no point. The company was failing. We had no remit to deal with the problems we could see but our masters had little trouble in billing huge amounts for something that had no value. But boy, did our system look good!
Today, there is much criticism of EDS and others for failure in UK public service IT but is it all down to them? I sense that where Matthew’s argument falters is in its assumption that consultants have the sole burden of responsibility. Clients should always question what they’re paying for. They frequently don’t on the assumption the consultant knows best. I can assure anyone reading this that 80% of what I advise upon is little more than telling clients how to tell the time on their own clocks. I tell them that, yet they still pay. I’m no different to any other consultant I know. It seems to be a necessary part of the assumed remit. I’m not sure it’s right though I do know clients feel a sense of comfort in confirming they’re on ‘the right track’ so perhaps that does have value.
Where I disagree is in Matthew demonizing case studies. As an empirical research tool, I agree they’re useless. But as a way of gaining insight into delivered reality, they’re invaluable. Provided you are able to contextualise the client experience.
Where Matthew strikes a real chord with me is in discussing the ‘social’ aspects of management education and how I see its application in blog theories:
…all economic organizations involve at least some degree of power, and power always pisses people off. That is the human condition. At the end of the day, it isn’t a new world order that the management theorists are after; it’s the sensation of the revolutionary moment.
I perceive that implied politicizing in a number of blog writings. That is despite the flaw of failing to recognise the reality of where companies are at. Simply asserting for example that we’re on the edge of some sort of egalitarian Utopia where everything is ‘social’ is arrant nonsense. These ideas are built upon assumptions that have neither been tested nor subject to any real scientific analysis other than rolling out the same tired ‘case studies’ – like Kryptonite.
At best, this medium is an experiment whose outcome remains unknown. If anything, some of the more extreme ideas about ‘inclusion’ are little more than thinly disguised political pressure dressed up as social fact. In this, they are as flawed as Taylor’s ‘science.’ And as unacceptable.
The problem is that clients have real problems figuring fact from fiction. It’s hardly surprising when, as Matthew points out:
On the whole, however, management education has been less than a boon for those who value free and meaningful speech. M.B.A.s have taken obfuscatory jargon—otherwise known as bullshit—to a level that would have made even the Scholastics blanch.
What we need is an end to the strife that exists between science and humanist discourse. We need to blend the two in ways that retain the rigour implied by the scientific method with the enrichment that comes from discourse. That, in my view, is where the real intersection or value of blogging lies. How we achieve that is another matter. But whatever we do, let’s not end up pretending that dogmatism=passion. It doesn’t.
Technorati Tags: blog infliuence, blogging accountant
