Truth and the Science of Management: Does the “Emperor” Still Have Any Clothes?

Abstract

Scholars have increasingly argued for the merits of advocacy-based research versus research considered from the pursuit of objective truth. In this essay, I seek to extend Tsang's Journal of Management Inquiry essay (2022) and suggest that political advocacy has replaced the pursuit of objective truth in management research. Through the use of example, I suggest that this focus on politically based advocacy will be detrimental to the continued professional development of the management discipline.

In art, truth is a means to an end;

in science, it is the only end.

William Whewell, Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences [1847].

Roughly 50 years ago, Davis (1971) published the highly influential and widely cited “That's interesting! Toward a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology” in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. Now influencing multiple generations of management scholars, the primary thesis for Davis and his legion of advocates is that for theories to have an impact, they must be interesting. In order to be interesting, they must be novel. In his article in the Journal of Management Inquiry, Tsang (2022) proposes that Davis' core argument is seriously flawed and has resulted in what Tsang terms as a misguided research advocacy approach to conducting management research. Tsang makes a well-reasoned case that the focus on research advocacy is highly detrimental to the continued professional development of management as a social science discipline. Certainly, William Whewell would agree with Eric W.K. Tsang.

On a personal note, my interest in the role of empirical research in examining necessary truths goes back to my decision to pursue a PhD in organizational behavior and industrial relations at UC Berkeley. When I informed my father (with whom I would later publish four articles) of my decision, he gifted me two books. The first was authored by Clarence W. Brown and Edwin E. Ghiselli and entitled Scientific Method and Psychology (1955). From Brown and Ghiselli, I learned that the most general aim of science is to both discover and better understand objective truth. A better understanding of this truth enables us to both minimize bias and achieve a high degree of objectivity (p. 1). The second book by Benton J. Underwood is entitled Psychological Research (1957). A pioneer in the study of verbal learning and memory, Underwood never allowed his theoretical development to deviate from the actual data. To that end, Underwood sought to use the scientist's search for a better understanding of objective truth to address what he saw as a then widening schism between the facts or truth of science and the often misrepresentation of these facts by all too many practitioners. I think Tsang and I would categorize many of Underwood's practitioners as advocates. For an advocate, the pursuit of truth is at best secondary to their pursuit of a cause or belief. Along with guidance and insights from my father, Vincent P. Wright, and my dissertation committee members, Raymond E. Miles, Barry M. Staw, and Sheldon Zedeck, these two books helped form the initial foundation in my search for organizational truths. Over the years, this search involved such topics as how one copes with stress, employee psychological well-being (PWB), research methodology, and strengths of character.

William Whewell and Necessary Truth

William Whewell (1794–1866) was truly a man for the ages, writing extensively on many topics, including geology, astronomy, political economy, educational reform, and the philosophy of science. A true Renaissance man, among his many accomplishments, Whewell coined the English word “scientist” (Snyder, 2021). Germane to our current discussion was Whewell's claim that empirical science has the capacity to research necessary truths. In fact, for Whewell, the pursuit of necessary truths constituted the “ultimate problem” of philosophy (Morrison, 1997). So, what is a necessary truth? A necessary truth involves a truth that can be known a priori. Necessary truths can be known in this manner because they themselves are necessary consequences of ideas which are themselves known a priori (Snyder, 2021). Unlike a posteriori knowledge which is based solely on experience, observation or emotion, a priori knowledge is reason-based, emanating from self-evident truth. Perhaps the most well-known manifestation of a priori knowledge or self-evident truth is found in America's July 4, 1776, Declaration of Independence, stating, “… We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal ….” In other words, a necessary truth is a proposition that is true in every possible scenario; a necessary truth is one that could not possibly be false. Another common example of a necessary truth is 2 + 2 = 4. By knowing the meaning of “2” and of “addition (+),” we see that it necessarily follows that “2 + 2 = 4” (see Whewell, 1847 for a further discussion).

The assumption that necessary truths exist and therefore can be “discovered” has been especially foundational to my research on employee character (Wright & Goodstein, 2007; Wright & Huang, 2008). Unlike such terms as “values,” “personality,” and “general lifestyle,” character as historically considered requires the conviction that truth does exist. For Aristotle, the essence of this perspective on character is that there are objective standards against which one's actual behavior can, and should be, assessed. Extending Aristotle, for the Danish existentialist philosopher Soren Kierkegaard, character is best considered as being deeply etched in our very essence and deemed to be sacred in nature. Alternatively, the tool of advocacy, values, involves the reduction of truth to mere utility or simply personal benefit (Wright & Emich, 2021). Thus, someone can have whatever values they see fit because, unlike one's strength of character, there is no underlying truth suggesting a “best” set of values. Further highlighting this distinction, Hunter (2000) succinctly observed that strength of character is to one's conviction as one's values are to mere preference. In sum, advocacy is values-driven, and the primary focus of an advocate is not typically the pursuit of truth but rather to support or promote the preferences of a particular individual or cause.

In this essay, I seek to meaningfully extend Tsang's argument and suggest that advocacy, specifically, politically based advocacy, is increasingly replacing the pursuit of objective truth in much academic research. So, what is politically based advocacy? A politically based advocate focuses on lobbying, litigation, and messaging tactics and techniques to influence change in public policy and fiscal budgets. While initially entrenched in such disciplines as Black and gender studies, English, political science, and sociology, political advocacy in academia has made its way to applied psychology and business schools, the STEM disciplines and even academic professional associations.

Recently, my quest for objective truth has been challenged. I have long been a proud member, then a fellow, of the American Psychological Association (APA). Unfortunately, the APA has chosen political advocacy over science in their quest to debunk over 100 years of Individual Differences scholarship (see Murray, 2020; Plomin et al., 1990, for an in-depth discussion of this research area). According to the APA (2021, p. 3) “… race is a social construct with no (emphasis added) underlying genetic or biological basis ….” Similar claims include gender, with the APA further affirming and advocating that different groups should not be hierarchically ranked on the basis of physical characteristics. What comes next? Will academics interested in this line of research be censured in the future for being perceived as racist or sexist? How many other professional associations will follow the APA's lead? If so, then so much for the legitimate search for objective truth regarding individual differences research. Sadly, I can no longer maintain my membership in the APA.

Incorporating lessons learned through other interesting and provocative examples selected to stimulate discussion, I propose that this focus on politically-based advocacy has adversely affected the ability of many scholars (and their students) to think critically. A critical thinker is one who is not only willing but also able to objectively explore dissimilar topics from diverse and varied perspectives (Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Smith et al., 2011). In addition, a critical thinker does not leap to hasty conclusions and is not easily influenced by the opinions of others or their own emotions (Wright et al., 2017). Nowhere is this inability to critically think more manifest in academics than in what has been termed the “cancel culture” advocacy agenda.

Cancel Culture in Action

The last few years have seen a dramatic increase in attempts to limit or cancel controversial speech on college campuses. Of course, what is “controversial” is often in the eyes of the beholder. Consider the case of social commentator Heather Mac Donald. Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, disagrees strongly with the prevailing attacks on the law enforcement community (Mac Donald, 2016, 2018). Among her other academic adventures, Mac Donald has been shouted down at UCLA and physically disrupted at Claremont McKenna College. Her crime was to question (with both experimental and data-based research) whether police especially target Black men for arrest when one controls for crime rates. For example, Mac Donald (2018, p. 106) reported that Black males committed 42% of police killings over a 10-year period, even though they comprised only 6% of the national population. She also provided compelling evidence regarding just who commits street crime in America.

A resident of New York City (NYC), Mac Donald (2018, p. 105) provided evidence that Blacks and Hispanics committed 98% of all NYC shootings in 2016. Whites, while then comprising roughly 34% of NYC's population committed less than 2% of all shootings. These violent crime NYC disparities by race are not inconsistent with crime statistics from other major U.S. cities. In Chicago, Illinois, 79 police officers were shot at in 2020 alone. These crime statistics take on added relevance when one considers that forensic studies have established that a suspect can draw and fire a handgun from their waistband in a mere 0.8 seconds! This is faster than the typical police officer response time (Mihalek, 2016). There are very few jobs where literally one's life (and the lives of others) hinges on these types of split-second decisions. However, even within this potential life-and-death context, James et al. (2016) found that Spokane, Washington police officers were slower to shoot armed Black suspects than armed White suspects in deadly force simulator experiments. They also found that officers were less likely to shoot unarmed Black suspects than unarmed White suspects.

While James et al. found evidence of possible implicit bias against black suspects, this bias might be based in part on the fact that police officers perceive greater danger (neurological threat response) in interactions with Black suspects (the “fight or flight” response). In today's highly contentious political advocacy arena, Mac Donald's primary “sin” appears to be that she is trying to address a highly charged and complex topic with scientific data. While acknowledging that America “… has an appalling history of racism and brutal subjugation …” (p. 107), Mac Donald (2018, p. 105) suggests, based on actual data, that Blacks are also “… objectively more associated with crime.” No matter one's preconception, the initial question that a legitimate scholar seeking the objective truth must ask is whether these data are factual and accurate? For example, are James et al.'s findings generalizable across cities and police departments? Are Blacks still “objectively more associated with crime” when one controls for parental upbringing and whether a strong father figure was present? Irrespective of the source of these societal situations, finding effective solutions must begin with accurate, fact-based assessments of the highly charged issue of race and crime. Unfortunately, the pursuit of objective truth is not typically the first step for a political, agenda-driven advocate. Consider the ongoing plight of Professor Amy Wax.

Amy Wax, a distinguished University of Pennsylvania law professor was targeted for culture canceling for publishing a coauthored OP-ED (with University of San Diego law professor Larry Alexander) entitled, “Paying the Price for Breakdown of the Country's Bourgeois Culture.” Echoing the insights of such proponents of character development as Plato (1992), Franklin (1961), and Emerson (1896), their advice included the following admonitions:

… Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid course language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime ….

Amazingly, among many other efforts to censor Professors Wax and Alexander, an open letter by 33 of Wax's Penn Law colleagues condemned what she said. They further asked that students report any instances of her bias or stereotypical behavior. A petition to fire Wax was circulated, garnering thousands of signatures. The Penn Law School Dean embarrassed her publicly by removing her from teaching a mandatory, high-profile course. Other attempts to sanction her, which could result in Wax's suspension or firing, are ongoing. To combat these sanction efforts, in July 2022 Wax launched a GoFundMe campaign to raise $300,000 for her legal defense.

How is being gainfully employed considered a “promotion of white supremacy” by many Penn students and faculty (Zimmerman, 2017)? After all, her suggestions closely mirror those made by the famous civil rights proponent, Booker T. Washington, in his classic book entitled Character Building (1903/2002). Washington's highly inspiring book contains chapters on the importance of being reliable, not being easily discouraged, cultivating stable habits and taking individual responsibility, to name a few. Once again, the key question is what constitutes the factual basis for this type of negative response by so many of Wax's colleagues? What specifically is wrong with working hard and avoiding idleness? Does a scholar's openness to finding the truth become untenable when the necessary truth is inconvenient or uncomfortable?

A Personal Classroom Example

The following personal example further highlights the importance of developing student critical thinking. The mere mention of such words as “bias,” “prejudice,” and “stereotype” led to the inability of many students in my classes to think critically. I had a section in my Management classes for many years titled, “Attitudes, Opinions, and Beliefs.” Here I would ask students to define and give an example of many concepts including “bias,” “prejudice,” and “stereotype.” To make it interesting for the students, I would give the historical backdrop for these concepts. For example, I would note that Bias was a Greek sage from the 6th Century BC widely admired for his profound wisdom. It was typically well-received and generated engaged discussion. However, over time, I noticed that no student would volunteer to even attempt to define these terms. My classroom had literally gone silent! I finally asked an obviously distressed student in one of these classes what was the problem. She hesitantly replied that these terms were racist and that she and her classmates were told in other class venues that by refusing to discuss racist terms they were demonstrating advocacy for an antiracist society. No one in the class initially rebutted her opinion. Can students learn if they are prohibited from discussing certain topics?

After recovering from my initial shock, I realized that this was a very important teaching moment for both the students and me. I had an outlet to assist in developing critical thinking skills (Wright, 2022). To that end, I was able to lead discussions in which students themselves were able to see that these words by themselves were not indicative of a racist mindset, they were just words, and that the prevailing orthodoxy of labeling something, as in this case being racist, does not necessarily make it so.

Lesson Learned #1: In your search for the truth, no orthodoxy should be considered immune from challenge (for a further discussion of the Lesson Learned concept, see Wright, 2015).

Running afoul of the prevailing orthodoxy in social media and academia to not investigate possible racial and gender differences, the distinguished sociologist, Charles Murray, received even worse treatment than Professor Wax when he went to Middlebury College as an invited speaker in 2017. Murray and his colleague—Middlebury Professor Alison Stanger—were physically attacked as they left the lecture hall at the conclusion of his talk. Stanger went to the hospital for treatment of injuries sustained. Why did this happen? It seems that Murray's major sin was publishing The Bell Curve—with Richard Julius Herrnstein—many years earlier) (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). Considered by some to be an original and brilliant book, it attempted to address such potentially controversial topics as the basis for poverty, issues of parenting, civility and citizenship. However, it gained everlasting notoriety when Herrnstein and Murray also attempted to professionally tackle the topic of ethnic differences in cognitive ability.

While intelligence tests have been highly criticized since their debut (Cronbach, 1975; Haney, 1981; Snyderman & Rothman, 1987), the level of negativity escalated with the publication of The Bell Curve in September 1994. In short order, the level of anger and vitriol became so extreme among social media and academic advocates that a group of 52 leading scholars with interests in intelligence testing published an opinion piece drafted by APA fellow Linda Gottfredson in the Wall Street Journal (December 13, 1994) to address “… the crescendo of misinformation on intelligence” that misstated scientific evidence regarding intelligence testing (Gottfredson, 1997, p. 17). Among the signatories were such prominent applied psychologists and management scholars as Richard D. Arvey, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., Marvin Dunnette, Edwin A. Fleishman, Robert Hogan, and Frank L. Schmidt.

Advocacy, and not merely advocacy, but political advocacy primarily fueled by emotion, has largely replaced scientific analysis in our colleges. It was enough for the Middlebury students to simply state Murray was “wrong” based on their feelings. As a result, in their view, he had no right to publish his opinions, let alone even hold these opinions. Even though Professor Stanger went to the hospital, apparently no students were suspended or expelled from Middlebury (Mac Donald, 2018). The guilty students suffered no serious consequences for their reprehensible, violent actions. This failure to hold guilty parties accountable appears to have become a consistent signal across many college campuses (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). In his review on the book jacket of The Bell Curve, eminent scholar Thomas Sowell well characterized the difference between a scholarly search for the truth approach and one merely of political advocacy in noting, “This (The Bell Curve) is one of the most sober, responsible, thorough and thoughtful books to be published in years. I don’t happen to agree with everything in it, but that is beside the point.”

Travel Bans and the Academy of Management

Let us next consider the scenario surrounding the Academy of Management's (AOM) revision of a longstanding policy that prohibited it from taking political stands. I always thought this was a prudent policy. This changed when then-President Trump issued Executive Order (EO) 13769 on January 27, 2017. This EO banned immigration and travel to the United States by citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries. A group of vocal AOM members (a minority in number) demanded the AOM should publicly condemn the Executive Order. Angry and threatening messages were posted on Facebook and other social media and sent to members of the AOM Executive Committee demanding action. Many on the AOM executive committee wanted to be advocates and changes reflecting this advocacy were adopted. What about the AOM members who did not support advocacy? Should their voice also be heard?

In a curated essay published in the Journal of Management Inquiry (Davis et al., 2019), I opined that EO 13769 was not a grave threat to the AOM's purpose, nor was it vehemently anti-Muslim to the extent proposed by some AOM members. First, the seven listed countries composed well less than 15% of the world Muslim population. If it was designed to be anti-Muslim, why only include less than 15% of the world Muslim population? For those interested, as of January 2022, six of the seven banned countries still had zero AOM members, while the seventh, Iran, had two. These facts are inconsistent with the highly charged, emotional rhetoric from the AOM Executive Committee which framed this as an impending crisis for the AOM. The AOM membership was informed after the fact that the Executive Committee had been in contact with an immigration law firm and with multiple universities to offer “safe harbors” for all the scholars from these seven countries who were directly affected.

Certainly, the question of why to ban these seven countries is well worth addressing. In fact, if one can get past the emotional advocacy rhetoric and dig deeper, a primary reason for inclusion on the list can be found in the State Sponsors of Terrorism designation. The U.S. State Department initiated this designation during Jimmy Carter's term as President back in the late 1970s. The list initially was made up of Iraq, Libya, South Yemen, and Syria. Later, Iran and Sudan were added. In Somalia, al-Shabaab terrorists continue to target converts to Christianity with violence, even death. Should the AOM become involved? Tsang's opinion, like mine, is that the AOM should refrain from political advocacy. With that stated, I strongly encourage all AOM members to utilize their right to peacefully advocate their heartfelt opinions as individuals.

Lesson Learned #2: In your search for the truth, assume ownership and take individual responsibility for specific initiatives.

Diversity Management and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

Diversity management was introduced as a topic area in the late 1990s to help further define and expand upon the constructs of corporate social responsibility and affirmative action (Carroll, 1999; Gilbert et al., 1999). To that end, Kelly and Dobbin (1998) incorporated a business model perspective suggesting the capability to manage a diverse workforce was the key to business success. On a more micro level, if you are currently looking for a tenure-track job in the management department of a business school, you will undoubtedly be asked to provide a written diversity, equity, and inclusion statement. For example, diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging are stated core values at many schools, including UC Berkeley. In order to be a “successful” job applicant at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, candidates are instructed that they need to demonstrate evidence of a strong commitment to advancing equity, inclusion, and belonging. At Cal State University schools such as Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, while job applicants are instructed that they should (emphasis added) include a cover letter and current vita, all job applicants are required to submit a diversity statement. Thus, it is not surprising that advice on how to write diversity statements has become a money-making business. The firm BeMo Academic Consulting advertises on their website (as of June 2023) that they have helped over 59,000 students get into the graduate school program of their choice. The question becomes one of whether clients are helped in the preparation of their most favorable, as opposed to most accurate, contribution to diversity statement.

From a science-based perspective, the question becomes one of how are these diversity statements evaluated? I contacted a number of colleagues in leadership positions at schools that require diversity statements. Surprisingly, at many of these schools, statements are not formally evaluated. When they are evaluated, they are evaluated based on such nebulous criteria as the level of “passion” used to describe the various “lived experiences” of the applicants. I have been told that it is not uncommon for all job candidates to receive the same evaluation. Without adequate criteria, the job selection process is ineffective and ceases to be science-based (Blum & Naylor, 1968). However well-intentioned might this advocacy be for the use of mandatory diversity statements in job selection and placement, in its present form it goes against over 100 years of science (Munsterberg, 1913; Scott, 1911).

The Pursuit of Science Does Matter

Tsang (2022) poignantly describes the gradual disillusionment of two of his doctoral students after having their scholarship repeatedly rejected by conferences and journals simply because it was not judged as being interesting or novel enough. The soul-searching process Tsang's students went through deeply touched me and brought back some vivid memories. In my case, I went through a similar process 30-odd years ago when numerous submissions of mine on worker health and well-being topics were also rejected for not being perceived as interesting or novel enough. After one particularly harsh rejection (something to the effect of “While very well written, this is not interesting, everybody knows employee psychological well-being is related to employee performance”), I sought the advice of my father, Vincent P. Wright. He first asked me what did I hope would be the two primary contributions of this particular paper? I replied that this study would be the first research to relate PWB with objective, supervisory ratings of performance. All previously published research had relied solely on various self-report ratings of performance. I considered this “first” finding worthy of publication.

Regarding the second contribution, I noted that since I was studying aspects of employee physiological health (i.e., blood pressure) and PWB, it would be beneficial for the actual research participants if I provided each of them with an accurate, evidence-based written overview of the potentially harmful consequences of various “at-risk” behaviors. For example, I found that individuals who coped with stress using strategies emphasizing avoidance and minimization of threat techniques experienced elevated diastolic blood pressure readings. While not advocating any particular strategies, I simply provided my research participants with written information on various alternative strategies for coping with stress. The goal was for participants to have the ability to make informed decisions (Wright & Wright, 2002).

My father and I had lengthy discussions regarding whether, and why, I had this obligation to directly share potentially harmful consequences of my research findings, in this case, high blood pressure, with those participants deemed at-risk. After all, it was much more work for me! However, a number of participants in multiple studies were exhibiting at-risk well-being behaviors. For example, one participant with consistently elevated blood pressure suffered a fatal seizure and literally crashed his car into his place of work. Alternatively, consistently elevated blood pressure readings taken on the job from another participant helped to convince him to take an early retirement. As a thank you, he invited me to his catered retirement party. His wife told me that his early retirement probably saved his life as his job-related stress had become overwhelming. These types of direct contact, people-focused interactions convinced me that my research endeavors had meaning and relevance beyond just me getting a refereed publication (Wright & Wright, 2002).

Concluding Thoughts

Tsang (2022) is accurate in his appraisal that Davis's article has influenced multiple generations of management scholars. Just how influential can be seen when we contrast Davis with the introductory editorial focus of the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ). Paul M. Douten Jr. was the initial AMJ editor from 1958 to 1960. Under his stewardship, the initial expectations regarding theoretical contribution for accepted AMJ articles included fostering “the search for the truth” and advancing knowledge “through free discussion” (see Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007 for a further discussion of changing AMJ publication expectations over time). Highly inconsistent with William Whewell's search for necessary truths and what I learned from my father, Brown and Ghiselli (1955), Underwood (1957) and my dissertation mentors, the search for necessary or objective truth has been increasingly supplanted by the quest for the novel and interesting (Tihanyi, 2020). As a result, and as noted by Tsang, we find our research fueled more by emotion and feeling than by scientific consideration.

After his term as AMJ editor, Dauten (1965) and business professor Bernard Sarachek (1965a, 1965b) engaged in an entertaining exchange in the Journal of Business Communication on the role of truth, honesty, and emotion, among other topics, in management communication. While Dauten (1965, p. 25) still considered the quest for objective truth to be relevant, Sarachek's position was consistent in many ways with that of Murray Davis. That is, the motivating potential for “effective” business communication can be fostered by restricting or distorting its content or playing to the emotions of the reader. More recently, Bell et al. (2021) proposed that the focus on being “objective” in our research pursuits is not only outdated, but is highly detrimental to Black academics. They further noted the need for White people to not only listen to Black people, but also to believe without question what Black people say about their lived experiences. This latter request clearly highlights the distinction between a scholar seeking to determine what is the necessary or objective truth from a politically based advocate approach to subjective meaning. So there is no misunderstanding, of course, one's voice must be heard, one's perspective must be listened to and one's experiences must be considered. However, if one's personal truth must always be believed, we have lost the dialogue.

For all too many today, from all across the political spectrum, within or outside of academics, one's supposed character is now considered as merely composed of a hodgepodge of personal characteristics, such as one's personal values, cult of personality persona, or manner of general lifestyle. As I have written elsewhere (Wright, 2022; Wright & Emich, 2021), one's character as traditionally assessed requires the conviction that necessary or objective truth does exist and can be considered as sacrosanct. Alternatively, the only conviction that a political advocate has is to win. The end (to win) justifies the means. However, when considered from this narrow perspective, when someone wins, someone else must lose. We are seeing the negative consequences of this approach every day. I agree with Tsang (2022) that academics and academic organizations such as the APA and AOM should refrain from political advocacy. I agree with William Whewell that truth must be the end goal for our scientific pursuits.

Lesson Learned #3: In your search for the truth, be prepared to pay a price for doing the right thing.