Where to Find the Cutting Edge

 

Any discussion of the cutting edge of management science must, by definition, turn on its modernity. The threat here, though, is that novelty will be perceived as an appropriate stand-in for validity. Much of the management-themed content I peruse takes the opposite approach, that of attempting to portray as new or fresh ideas that are anything but. No matter how brain-gellingly dull these management trade magazines are, they seem to never tire of printing as astonishing or useful insight ideas that have been around for some time. One particularly insipid device used is the tack of re-introducing old techniques under new phraseology, much as “Life Cycle Estimating” was trotted back onto the business discussion pages in the 1990’s. How many articles have we been subjected to that had, at their core, some blindingly obvious re-hash of an idea that hasn’t been considered “cutting edge” since In Search of Excellence was big?

With the possible exception of Agile/Scrum, there has been a dearth of new ideas in project management. I even came across a book review of a tome that had in its title a reference to new ideas in project management. The review complained of the lack of new ideas! Harkening back to Gantthead’s August theme, Harvard Business Review actually ran a piece recently on how “green” procurement is highly virtuous. The author didn’t even bother to fake a claim of cutting-edge insight – he was happy tapping into a trendy subject, and tenuously cross-connecting a management science angle.

As long as I’m complaining about the venues that are nominally responsible for introducing cutting-edge managerial ideas into the marketplace, I may as well continue picking on Harvard Business Review. If you go to their website (although, as Gantthead readers, I can’t imagine why you would want to), they refer to themselves as publishing “(b)reakthrough ideas for business leaders and professionals….” From their guidance for article submissions, we see

Proposals for articles demonstrating fresh thinking that advances previous knowledgewhose (sic) practical application has been thought through in clear, jargon-free languageare (sic) those most likely to meet our readers' needs. When evaluating an idea, our editors often look for two things (sic) firstwhat (sic) they call the aha!How (sic) compelling is the insight?and (sic) the so what?How (sic) much does this idea benefit managers in practice?

Sorry about all the sics, but I didn’t want my editors thinking that I would publish something so obviously un-reviewed by proofreaders. Perhaps it was a “breakthrough” idea to forgo merit as a basis for hiring and retaining the website’s editorial staff, and focus instead on being “green,” or “diverse.”

So, they want “fresh thinking,” do they? Then how to explain this gem, just a few sentences later?

5. On what previous work (either of your own or of others) does this idea build?

6. What is the source of your authority? What academic, professional, or personal experience will you draw on?

In other words, they can either reject your article proposal either because it’s innovative, or because it’s not.

At another location of HBR’s website, they have at the top of their “recommended” article list – I swear I am not making this up – the title “Sex and the Working Mom.” The gist of this piece appears to be that managers must be aware of and make accommodations for the demands of their female employees’ libido, a concept I thought had lost favor immediately after the Clinton administration. Another recommended title: “Politicians Who Deny Climate Change Cannot Be Pro-Business.” In it, one Andrew Winston supports his “argument” exclusively through the syllogism of Begging the Question, where one asserts as truth evidence that has not been verified as fact, nor agreed to by the participants. (As an aside to any of my readers who may have skipped Classical Logic at the university level – any conclusion reached via a syllogism is automatically considered invalid.) Mr. Winston’s ultimate point appears to be that, if the bureaucratic goons who are shutting down little Suzie’s lemonade stand show up in a Nissan Leaf, it’s somehow good for “business.”

Which returns me to last week’s blog, and Thomas Kuhn. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn points out that, when a true advance in science occurs, it is virtually never quickly adapted by the majority of the practitioners in whatever field is being advanced. In short, any genuinely “cutting edge” idea in management science is almost guaranteed to never make it past HBR’s staff. It’s far more likely to show up in, oh, I don’t know, my recently-released must-have book, Game Theory in Management (http://www.ashgate.com/default.aspx?page=641&calctitle=1&pageSubject=1966&pagecount=0&title_id=11616&edition_id=11979), or on Gantthead’s blog pages.