The Year of Behavioural Science at Work.
This year, leaders should turn away from an intuitive approach to management and change and re-evaluate what they think they know with the rigour and curiosity of behavioural science.
“Scientific explanation stands in contrast to the wisdom of experience and common sense. Common sense once told us that the sun moves across the sky and that being out in the cold produced colds. But a scientific mind recognised that these intuitions were only hypotheses. They had to be tested.”
That’s an excerpt from Atul Gawande’s address at the California Institute of Technology, republished in The New Yorker under the title, The Mistrust of Science. The ‘wisdom’ of which Gawande speaks, that of 'experience and common sense', struck me as gospel in our business community. Our corporate rank is still defined by the size of our voice and the years under our belt. Our thought leaders remain proud of their instincts, embracing gut-feel and intuition as their core decision-making tools.
These shortcuts represent human thinking at its most natural and innate. They offer false confidence in the face of uncertainty, easy answers to complex problems and the ability to mould reality to our will. With the wind of 'gut feel' at our sails, our ideas can be turned to gold without the need for evidence or potential. They can be productised, commoditised and sold for profit; they can compel others to action on a whim and a prayer.
The allure of this illusory self-confidence offers stiff competition to the scientific approach. However, I also wonder how much we can continue to speak of a ‘revolution in the world of work’ without rebuilding from firmer foundations.
The spoils, I think, would be worth the effort. While many in the scientific community may squirm at the mention of ‘revolution’, a word too brash, too bombastic and too much a speculation, their quiet, systematic thinking brings that prospect within reach. We in the business of management and culture-change are, after all, much like the medical physicians of ancient Greece, Egypt and Mesopotamia. We swear faith in our healing interventions of 360-degree feedback, leadership development, performance management, employee engagement and generational theory. And for what? Because others have stories of miracles and magic? Because of a sign from our big thinkers; from our gods in the blue sky?
The objective ignorance (and misplaced confidence) of those ancient physicians did not simply pass over time. For over a thousand years it was not unusual for sick people to be made sicker by ‘treatments’ conjured up by intuition. It was only the acceptance of randomised controlled trials and statistical power that brought about a new era of progress in the 20th Century. These are the practices that have led to spectacular advancements in medicine in the last hundred years. Science, with its systematic and sceptical mind, brought about a revolution that saved and improved the quality of millions of lives. Gawande calls it 'arguably the most powerful collective enterprise in human history' - it’s a phrase that makes my hair stand on end.
Where are we in comparison? Can we say we’re better off and more productive because of the thousands of management initiatives we subject ourselves and our employees to daily? For the clear majority, we cannot. Now, that's not to say those initiatives aren’t effective - it’s possible that our wellbeing programmes lead to improved wellbeing or our leadership development initiatives to better leadership. But in most cases, we just don’t know either way. These intuitions are hypotheses. They have not been tested.
My hope for a turning tide in 2018 feels warranted. While academic interest in management theory is not new, its roots into management practice seem to be taking a firmer hold. In 2011, Laszlo Bock was reported as demanding at least a third of Google's People Ops team have advanced degrees in fields such as organisational psychology and physics. In 2014, their VP of People Analytics, Prasad Setty, gave 'one piece of advice’ to a conference that must have sent shivers down many a management consultant spine:
“Develop better relationships with academics than with consulting firms.”
If we want our working future to be able to separate what works from what doesn’t, we need a scientific approach to transition to day-to-day management reality. I could say that aim is purely about performance but I’m not sure that’s enough. If it’s just a quick buck we’re after we can stick with empty platitudes and save ourselves the hassle. This is also about those other things of which we talk so much: the wellbeing of our employees, the inclusivity of our workplaces, and rising to social challenges as broad and impactful as climate change and inequality.
Progress on these fronts needs a transformational shift in what we value in the workplace. One that turns us away from our uncritical obsession with the latest practices that may or may not hold value, and toward the way we evaluate those tools and ideas. It’s here that the scientific method - with its rigour, insatiable curiosity, and cooperative effort – can push us forward.
The beauty of science is in the baton that passes from one generation to the next. Fads will ebb and flow with fashion, but critical thought can be our collective legacy. Let's take that opportunity and put Gawande’s words to work.