Are great companies just lucky?

Are "Great" Companies Just Lucky? was the title of a recent article (not free) in the Harvard Business Review (HBR). It was based on a paper published by Deloitte, A Random Search for Excellence: Why “great company” research delivers fables and not facts. The authors, Raynor, Ahmed and Henderson essentially argue that the reasons for organisations' success are random and linked to the time frame within which it occurs. According to them:

"Many of the “great” companies cited are, in fact, nothing special; consequently, the researchers are simply imposing patterns on random data. That’s not science—it’s astrology."

They are particularly critical about the work of authors such as Tom Peters (In Search of Excellence) and Jim Collins (Built to Last and Good to Great). They point out that two recent and influential books, Hard facts, Dangerous Half-truths and Total Nonsense by Pfeffer & Sutton,and The Halo Effect and the Eight other Delusions that Deceive Managers by Rosenzweig, have each made similar points. Francis Wheen in his excellent How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World was also heavily critical of business gurus such as Peters, Collins and others.

See also a well received article on the same issue in the Boston Globe, Luck, Inc.

Tom Peters commented on the HBR article in his blog in posts entitled Say It Ain't So, Jim! and Questionable Assertions: Let's Take a Second Look.

Fads

Every teacher with a few years of teaching experience has experienced and was subjected to educational fads. These fads invariably lacked evidence for effectiveness, enriched consultants, created more work for teachers, failed in practice, but remained in place years after everyone know they were nonsense. Fads in everyday life are typically harmless (like pet rocks), but educational fads invariably are to the detriment of learners.

Teachers in South African will soon have to earn CPD (Continuing Professional Development) points. The signs are already there that the purveyors of educational bullshit are sharpening their teeth for what will be a lucrative market. It is now the time to identify pseudoscientific approaches that may eventually become fads. Looking at the characteristics of educational fads can help one spot looming fads.

Prof. Martin Kozloff (see in Rate My Professors what his students think of him), wrote an excellent article, Fad, Fraud and Folly in Education. He is a controversial figure, but his views on teaching and evidence are sound.

Kozloff named some of ideas that he regarded as educational fads:

" ... the history of innovations in education (ranging from questionable to destructive), such as additive-free diets, "gentle teaching," "sensory integration," "full inclusion," and "facilitated communication" for persons with autism and other developmental disabilities; whole language, invented spelling, inquiry learning, discovery learning, learning styles, multiple intelligences, "brain-based teaching," constructivist math, portfolio assessment, authentic assessment, "journaling," self-esteem raising, "learning centers," "sustained silent reading," "developmentally appropriate practices," and "student centered" education for more typical students."

His opinion of full inclusion is instructive (although I wonder whether he is exagerating - creating a straw man?):

"For one thing, ordinary fads are cheap and harmless. ... In contrast, pernicious innovations in education waste time, money, energy, hope, learning opportunities, and the chances for beneficent outcomes. Instead of being taught to feed himself, walk, point to things he wants, operate a tape player or computer, look at the faces of his parents, and turn the pages of books, the fully included 16 year old student with severe mental retardation sits strapped into a wheelchair in a high school history class. He learns nothing whatever; his teachers know it's a cruel hoax, but "inclusion specialists" are satisfied with "social progress" (increased tolerance and social justice) and have higher self-esteem for a job well done."

He summarized his views:

"There are two sorts of pernicious innovations in education: passing fads (e.g., "multiple intelligence") and chronic malignancies (whole language). Both waste time, money, energy, teachers' efforts and goodwill, and children's opportunities to master skills. Both forms of pernicious innovation rest on the emotional appeal of an empirically empty Romantic modernist critique of contemporary social institutions and values (primary folly) translated into progressivist education shibboleths and jargon (derivative folly) that are used to generate and then to sustain allegedly-novel (but rarely field tested and almost always worthless) "practices" (fraud) that provide prestige, tenure, privilege, publication, easy money, and power to their promoters. Fads, folly and fraud are to a great extent located in schools of education, and will continue as long as they are allowed."

Other online resources I found useful are by an anonymous writer who calls himself Prof. Plum. His useful articles Logical Fallacies in Edubabble and Logical Fallacies, look at logical fallacies contained in some educational fads and the marketing of these fads.

Enjoy your reading.

Cheating

I've been battling to find time for blogging for a while now. Rather than stopping, I've decided to abbreviate my blog posts and then expand them when I find the time.

This post is a brief commentary on Lewis Hamilton and McLaren's cheating at the Australian F1 Grand Prix. Under amateur codes the ideas of fair play and fair competition are held in high esteem, although it would be naive to believe that gaining an unfair advantage and even cheating do not happen. In professional sport such practices seem much more common, even if officially frowned upon. Hamilton and McLaren's blatent lying while seeing their opponent being punished unfairly, while at the same time facing almost certain exposure, seems particularly cold-blooded and at the same time stupidly irrational.


Image from Top F1 Galleries.

Dan Ariely has some interesting ideas on the psychology and behavioural economics of cheating. See his excellent talk an this issue on video here.

Hat tip to Vaughan from Mind Hacks for pointing me to the Ariely video.

Traumatized

On Sky News today, some obscure celebrity fashion designer gushed about how she is "traumatized" by global warming. "Traumatized" has become a fad word, overused and often meaningless. Parents have also picked up on this fad and I've had a number complain that their children had been traumatized by trivial incidents at school.

The first time parents complained to me that their child had been traumatized at school, I steeled myself to have to deal with molestation or physical assault, necessitating calling the police. It turned out that little Johny, sitting in my office trying to look suitably traumatized, fell over a school bag after he was shoved by little girl whom he was pestering - no medical certificate was produced and no bruises were visible. They were not impressed when I refused their demand for the girl to be suspended.

Since then I've had to deal with traumatized parents and children on a regular basis. Needles to say, more often than not, the events that led to the trauma were nothing more than common everyday niggles. Trying to explain to such parents that they're teaching their children to cry wolf and that the children may end up unable to deal with the vicissitudes of life, is often futile.