[Surfactant7]

> Allen described his work as a consultant when he goes into a new organisation:

> - First he observes

> - Then he would try to identify the biggest problem

> - Then he would try change it (i.e. run an experiment)

> - Then if that works, run another experiment

> - If it doesn’t work, go back

It's probably no accident, but this is pretty close to the scientific method.

[chii]

> - Then if that works, run another experiment > - If it doesn’t work, go back

The problem is that if it doesn't work for a couple times, you get fired, or at least seen as incompetent.

Management want magic rituals that fixes everything, not the scientific method.

[smcleod]

I agree this happens at places with a toxic management culture (one could argue that almost all management culture is toxic).

This can however work in places that are (truly) leadership focused where you A) fail fast and B) clearly outline your intention to accept failure as part of the process of improvement.

[pjc50]

> if it doesn't work for a couple times, you get fired

That is .. not a reliable description of the outcomes for management consultants, who can inflict spectacular disasters sometimes and still come out ahead. Largely because they deliver the right magic ritual.

[hef19898]

As long as it can be perceived it worked, all is good.

[baobabKoodaa]

Management consultants run powerpoint decks, not scientific experiments.

[tgv]

It's common building/engineering sense. It's no accident that (part of) the scientific method looks like that: it's the outcome of this precise process. It may not be optimal, but it delivers.