I disagree, insofar in that qualitative social science is ineffective.
It's effective. Nobody listens.
The fallacy of "general management" means that general managers, who have a background in finance and cost/benefit, are not receptive to the idea that deep knowledge is extremely involved in leadership and decision making.
> I disagree, insofar in that qualitative social science is ineffective.
> It's effective. Nobody listens.
This is exaggerated but in the right direction. Consider A/B testing. We know that works. We know how. It’s been a big deal for well over a decade. And it’s still not standard. There are large, profitable companies that sell direct to consumers that don’t do it who would reliably, predictably get a 10% bump in profits off of doing it.
But it does grow. Selling things on the internet isn’t as competitive as highly liquid, transparent financial markets but people do pick up $100 bills lying on the street eventually.
It's more of a case that bad science was made, rather than "this type of science is bad."
Toyota and GM have had widespread vehicle recalls in recent types. I wouldn't put that down to "4 wheeled transportation devices being intrinsically bad."
It depends how deep and far-reaching it is. Cars in the 60s caused smog and used leaded fuel, so they were all pretty bad at the same time. Perhaps the field needs a similar size of transition as the change to unleaded (too many "leading questions" perhaps).
It's effective. Nobody listens.
The fallacy of "general management" means that general managers, who have a background in finance and cost/benefit, are not receptive to the idea that deep knowledge is extremely involved in leadership and decision making.
Because then they'd be out of a job.