Content provided in partnership with

Business Services Industry

Legal and Logical Limitations in Applying Social Science to Business

International Journal of Business, Winter 2007 by Barrett, Gerald V

ABSTRACT

Management theories such as Maslow's Hierarchy of needs and concepts such as age, race, sex, and unconscious stereotypes, emotional intelligence, practical intelligence, competencies, and stereotype threat are reviewed. They are identified as folk theories which have been widely accepted but have limited or no scientific foundation. Regretfully, these politically correct ideas have influenced both business and legal areas. It is widely believed that concepts such as emotional intelligence and stereotypes are related to actual behavior in the workplace. In fact, these popular constructs have never been operationally measured and related to actual performance at work. Most of the studies reviewed involved college students making judgments about paper-people performing artificial tasks far removed from the workplace. Most of the folk theories have a façade of social science, but have not been subjected to the rigor of peer-reviewed scientific practice.

Most Popular Articles in Business: Research and Markets : Tesco Plc - SWOT Framework Analysis; Do Us a Flavor - Ben & Jerry's Issues a Call for Euphoric New Flavors; eBay made easy: ready to start an eBay business? These 5 simple steps will ...; Katrina's lawsuit surge: a legal battle to force insurers to pay for flood ...; Wal-Mart's newest distribution center opened last month near the southwest ...; More »

JEL Classification: J71, K41

Keywords: Stereotype; Discrimination; Folk theories

I. INTRODUCTION

The development of modern society and its political, legal, and social institutions has been unsteady over the past 2,500 years with which we are most familiar. In his Open Society and Its Enemies (1945/2003), scientist, methodologist, and social historian Sir Karl Popper describes an open society that seems to suit our liberal and democratic aspirations (Athens at its best) versus a closed society that does not (Sparta and its Athenian promoters, maybe Socrates and probably the mature Plato)-which in recent lifetimes has been represented by Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler's Germany, by some of our current adversaries whom we term "Islamo-fascists," and in earlier centuries even by advocates of particular Christian closed societies, especially from the Crusades to the Thirty Years War (see Stone, 1988; Popper, 1945/2003; Wright, 2006; Johnson, 1976: parts 4 and 5; and Brecht, 1955/1991). Even in our modern times, even among educated people in democratic and stable nations such as the United States, there are tendencies to close off information that is uncomfortable, dissonant, or just complex. Unfortunately for those of us who teach, consult, and research in order to improve the practice of business, in any society there arise social and legal obstacles to using the theories of modern science, which are scientific and practicable only by virtue of being expressed in "falsifiable" terms and then being tested for validity and applicability (see Popper, 1935/2002; Barrett, 1972).

First among the obstacles is misidentification of what is scientifically grounded. A second obstacle is popular preference for easy, commonsense, or comfortable (politically correct) concepts, especially if they support the viewpoints of attractive or powerful clients (as encountered in work of a business or political consultant). A third obstacle is unwillingness to engage in the hard work of science and to read and digest complex information that does not have a preconceived simple thrust. Some examples follow.

Over more than two hundred years, the word "science" has been invoked to lend credibility to many psychological concepts, constructs, ideas, and speculations which in fact have no scientific basis. Despite almost total lack of empirical support for various doctrines, some have had major impact on public and private organizations, the legal system, public policy, and business (Barrett, 1972; Barrett et al., 2004). Media have helped some scientifically unsupported doctrines become "folk theories" which are believed by the general public. Unfortunately, some of these folk theories have become foundations for corporate policies, training programs, and court decisions-bearing substantial economic and emotional costs.

Establishment of folk doctrines occurred through advocates' failures to follow principles that are well understood in the sciences. For example, phrenology (evaluation of the scalp surface) was an early 1800s doctrine based on theory, but without scientific validation. Ironically, doctrine proponents including consultants and other advocates of "business innovations" often wrap themselves in the mantle of science, while ignoring all principles of the sciences: Constructs often are not reliably measured and, even if there are measurements, there usually are no analyses of validity (Barrett, 1992). Even if there is empirical research, it often uses extremely small samples, and there never is adequate replication. Such "studies" directed to the general public and to businesspersons generally did not surface in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Instead, they appeared in technical reports or trade books that are not professionally edited and critiqued. If one requests that an advocate provide supporting evidence for reanalysis, data turn out almost always to be "unavailable." Models proposed by advocates are asserted to be valid, but there is no empirical evidence to support theory validity or efficacy beyond the "creativity" of the advocate.

Business Services Industry

Legal and Logical Limitations in Applying Social Science to Business

International Journal of Business, Winter 2007 by Barrett, Gerald V

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: News

Most Popular Articles in Business

Most Popular Publications in Business