What managers can learn from social science

The abilities that mattered most in the 20th century workforce were left brain hemisphere activities. For instance logical reasoning, linear programming and other rule based skills like accounting abilities, computer programming, etc. However, these skills are still very important and necessary today, but not sufficient. If you want to survive in the 21th century business environment, you'll need skills which are hard to outsource. Like artistry, creativity, empathy, big picture thinking, inventiveness,etc. Typical right brain hemisphere activities.

A way to test this is the so-called Duncker candle problem. Subjects are posed with three objects, sitting on a table next to a cardboard wall: A candle, a box of matches, and a box of tacks. From those, they had to make a candle holder that wouldn't drip wax. Most people fumble with the tacks and the candle, but the correct solution is to empty the box of tacks, attach it on the wall, and make an ad-hoc sconce. The problem has been considered a classic test of creativity because it requires seeing objects as being useful in ways never intended.

The essence of 20th century motivational tools (in HR) is work harder or faster and gain more rewards (the famous carrots and sticks types of rewards). Arguably, these tools work in a narrow band of circumstances. But, applied to present day jobs, where creative thinking, art, innovation and design are the key skills, these tools are counter-productive. This is not just an opinion, it has been thoroughly researched. Over and over and over again. However, managers don't seem to care.



Daniel Pink works as an individual business consultant, writer for the New York Times and Wired and now presents himself as a career analyst. In 2008 he delivered a TED presentation on the surprising science of motivation. One of the key points, in my opinion, is the notion that business still doesn't do what (social) science already knows. There is evidence based management for you. However, managers choose to ignore it. You might want to reconsider the impact of this behaviour if you read (again) about the global financial crises.

Do we learn something from this? Well, maybe. On the bright side, there is evidence on management from which we can all benefit. On the dark side, there is still an enormous gap to bridge. Why is that? Is there something flawed in the design of MBA programs? Maybe Henry Minzberg was right. In his book Managers Not MBAs, he challenges the validity of the perennially popular MBA program: a program that top-tier companies continue to rely on as essential to the creation of successful corporate leaders. As one of the great iconoclasts of management theory, Mintzberg emphasizes the need to re-examine and drastically change our traditional form of management education. As Mintzberg boldly asserts: MBAs do not managers make.