Why Science Gets No Look-in In Business

“Business is not an exact science” is a phrase often heard in corporate corridors and meeting rooms. It’s a near universal assumption, but one which is not supported by the scientific evidence.

A deeper understanding of this phrase highlights a rather intriguing aspect – the inherent need for those in charge, the decision-makers, to want it to be so.

In an exact science, laws and theories remain constant. The predictability they provide allows for clear, unambiguous paths to solutions. If business were recognised as an exact science, decision-making would be deterministic. However, this undermines the role of leaders, reducing them to mere implementers of pre-defined formulas. Leaders and their lackeys claim their art lies in making decisions amidst uncertainty, demonstrating the ability to take calculated risks, and applying intuition and experience where data falls short (a.k.a. HiPPO – highest paid person’s opinion). To maintain this dynamic, those in charge need business to remain neither a science nor exact.

A parallel is observed when we talk about “dealing with people.” This phrase encompasses a broad spectrum of situations, from human resources to customer relations, from team building to conflict resolution. People, with their diverse backgrounds, perspectives, emotions, and motivations, are incredibly complex. If dealing with people were accepted as an exact science, every interaction would follow a more or less predictable pattern. But again, those in charge need it to be seen as different from that.

If dealing with people were reduced to an exact science, leaders fear their highly rewarded personal touch, empathy, and agency would lose its kudos – and premium.

In definitive terms, leaders actively choose to uphold the notion of business and dealing with people as non-exact sciences to preserve their role as highly rewarded key decision-makers. Their profiles are enhanced by the unpredictability and intricacies of these domains. If every business decision or human interaction could be distilled down to a precise formula, leadership would lose its gloss.

Furthermore, this narrative is conspiratorialy upheld by consultants, analysts, and other business intermediaries. Their existence and remunerations rely heavily on the continued perception of business and human interaction as art forms that demand expert insights, not exact science.

Implicitly, they understand that their sponsors, primarily composed of business leaders, favor the preservation of this “non-exact” paradigm. Consequently, they conspire in maintaining the fiction, weaving it into their advice, thereby safeguarding their relevance and demand.