The seduction of Methodolitry

I’m old enough to remember a world only divided by ideology which huddled into three main camps – the Soviet led Communist camp, the American led Democracies camp, and the utterly unled neutrals camp. These groups included failed states, totalitarian dictatorships, and bizarre social experiments. These camps were not really fixed, and Nations flirted and drifted between these poles of influence. I mention this because Francis Fukuyama author of ‘The end of history the last man 1992’ has recently been revising his position on if indeed history has actually ended with the end of this model. I suspect he is wise to do this because I see traits of the same disturbing irrationality in our own industry as were witnessed in the darkest Stalinist Soviet era.

A long-forgotten story from that era slipped into my mind. You may know it as ‘Lysenkoism’ – for those who don’t know Trofim Lysenko was a Soviet mid 20th?Century biologist. Through a campaign of deft political sponsorship, he convinced key leaders that the natural selection and genetic paradigms were wrong and that his alternative theories were right… with me so far. At the core of his argument was his certainty that the environment is the only driver for selection. Genetics is – in effect fake news. Well, his campaign gathered pace because it suited the thinking of the Soviet leadership who understandably were none too keen on heredity. They preferred his model and when he was permitted to follow this course of action and proved he was right, the outcomes would be seen as politically and socially acceptable. He set about forcing seeds to germinate at different times of the year by soaking them in freezing cold water, the fact that this did not work did not convince him that he was mistaken, more that he was betrayed by fascist and bourgeois seed behaviour. He was of course wrong. Many biologists and other scientists pointed this out and began to express concern that this would lead to severe issues in food production. Lysenko took this to be a betrayal of both himself and the marxist model demanding repression of these wrong thinking saboteurs to 'new biology.' Over 3000 were imprisoned, lost their jobs, some their lives in what became the Soviet’s great scientific suppression. The entire structure of academic biology was dismantled, and the Soviet Genetic programme removed entirely. Whole research fields were banned in the establishment and enforcement of ‘new biology’. This dogma was exported to China and indeed across the Soviet hegemony. The outcome being that despite huge increases in the creation of farmland during the period (reportedly 160%) – food production dropped. The Famines of the period claimed an estimated 7 million in Russia alone and in China even more devastating loss of life. It can’t all be placed at the door of Lysenko, but he certainly was a significant cause especially in prolonging the crisis.

Why mention this I hear you say….how does all this relate to OCM in the 21st Century? Well, currently I’m being bombarded by people asking me about certification for OCM. There are a number of smooth companies with large marketing budgets who are convincing the industry that a 3-day course in their product = the industry standard for competence in OCM. I hear this from potential customers, from colleagues outside of OCM, from those wanting to enter the industry and now, most depressingly, from highly experienced consultants. I don’t hire consultants who just have a certificate and absolutely nor should you. You wouldn’t want your pilot or your surgeon to say, “Don’t worry Madam I fully completed my 3-day course a few months ago – now the manual says I need call a focus group to discuss your neurosurgery…….”

I have never believed that there are single magic bullet solutions for training that fully replace years of hands-on experience. Training is good – applying it is better – adapting to experience is real learning – and the ability to assess and understand actual needs against a portfolio of tools is competence. Anyone saying anything else is, in my experience, is selling snake oil.

Methodology is a toolbox. When you go to topflight consulting organisations you are paying for the understanding of multiple approaches and methodologies. You want them to understand your business, know what to use, when to use it and how to use it. Until recently I was always able to explain that any organisation that trumpets the number of their certifications to a particular product in the OCM space is treading a dangerous path because it does not confirm competence and may actually indicate the opposite. However, as I watch the behaviours, driven by those who do not understand that dealing with complex human ecosystems is not paint by numbers – I am becoming deeply concerned that we are entering a period of ‘Methodolitry’ where the love and adherence to a single approach dominates all conversation and thinking. Something that would have been well recognised by Lysenko and his cohorts.?

This is not a call to arms – to man/woman the barricades, nor is it an attack on some perfectly reasonable approaches that people find effective. It is a warning from history about allowing a single simple version of truth to dominate all thinking in a complex sophisticated environment. It is perhaps a polite request to resist the seduction and counsel your Clients and colleagues to do the same.

“My intention is not to replace one set of general rules by another such set: my intention is, rather, to convince the reader that all methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits.”

Paul Fayerabend