The social science bias in management research

Abstract

W hY do behavioral scientists study job enrichment or enlargement rather than find ways for employees to better tolerate boredom? Why don ' t behavioral scientists flock to non-union plants to discover and order up into useful management theory how n o t to have a union? Why are the demotivational effects of employees' persistent gross overestimation of profit rates not the subject of behavioral science research? And why are there no theoretical models for managing change which are not some form of power sharing, delegation, or participation? The answer to these reasonable questions, which come from practicing managers, is simply that the ideology of most behavioral scientists prohibits such research. Behavioral scientists' values have been noted to be considerably different from those of practicing managers. Yet no careful inventory has been taken of the consequences of these differences and how they affect prescriptions for management behavior and management theory development. The most serious of these consequences is that behavioral scientists determine which theories and hypotheses shall not be put forward and tested; the list of such prescriptions, theories, and hypotheses appears to be growing longer every year. Ahnost as serious, of course, are the many programs sold to management which are based upon theories developed to fit behavioral scientists' ideologies. I propose to review the central values of the behavioral scientist and show how these values govern the choices of theories and topics to be researched. Further, I will list the kinds of theories and hypotheses going unresearched simply because positive support of them would not be consistent with most behavioral scientists' values. Finally, I will suggest ways by which practicing managers can get