Why Management Theory Rarely Fits Reality ⚠️
Organisations & Complexity #3
Mainstream management thinking still clings stubbornly to an inappropriate mindset. Its theories, often branded as "scientific" or certain paths to better workplaces, are really just working hypotheses, relevant only in specific contexts. At their core, most management approaches rest on assumptions of order, predictability, and stable cause-and-effect relationships—classic hallmarks of linear thinking, and likely the reason so many hit an organisational development dead end.
Linear recipes promising one-size-fits-all solutions to complex challenges should come with a warning label: reality is severely allergic to them!
So why do we keep falling head over heels for these false promises? Because misguided guarantees of plain sailing are simply tantalising! As a result, it’s commonplace for organisations to publicly align themselves with this or that management theory—whether in search of something better than the status quo, to create a sense of internal purpose, or simply to impress the outside world. Regardless of the rationale, this allegiance often proves to be only skin-deep.
Take Agile, for instance. While it's celebrated as the gold standard of organisational development, the 'Agile wars' (yawn) playing out on LinkedIn show just how fragmented the community is over what Agile really means and how it should be implemented. From debates over Scrum and Kanban to arguments about Extreme Programming (XP) versus SAFe, each flavour of Agile comes with its own champions and critics.
Similarly, self-management isn’t one-size-fits-all either. Models range from Holacracy and Sociocracy to less structured approaches like Teal organisations, each with its own set of practices and fervent advocates. In practice, Scrum or Holacracy, or any other flavour of Agile or self-management, varies wildly across organisations—and even from team to team within an organisation. And despite their promises of decentralisation, they often end up doing a pretty good impression of top-down management!
In practice, mixed or hybrid models are far more common than the glossy brochures would have us believe. Companies often present their management approach—whether Agile, self-management, or another model—as a perfectly implemented, standalone system. But the reality is more nuanced. In most organizations, you’ll find a mix of methods adapted to suit different teams or situations. The truth is that no single model is universally effective, so organisations naturally adopt blended approaches to stay flexible and respond to changing challenges. This flexibility isn’t a sign of failure; it's a practical way to handle the complexity of the real world.
Yet countless consultancies are built solely to sell them standalone systems of working, and for them, the survival of their pet management theory is life or death. Whether it’s top-down hierarchies, Agile frameworks, or self-managed structures, these ways of working endure not because they’re perfect or universally effective but because they continually evolve to survive (and be sold). This evolution is the hallmark of nonlinear, adaptive change.
So, the next time you come across a shiny new management model, ask yourself: is it truly revolutionary, or just the latest iteration in an endless cycle of adaptation? Ultimately, reality is allergic to linear thinking and standalone systems of working, especially when unexpected events turn our neatly drawn plans upside down. And that’s where our theories collide with the real world.
So, the next time you come across a shiny new management model, ask yourself: is it truly revolutionary, or just another iteration in an endless cycle of adaptation? Reality rarely aligns with linear thinking or rigid systems, especially when unexpected events turn our neatly drawn plans upside down. That’s precisely where our theories collide with the complexities of the real world.
When Theories & Events Collide 💥
A theory is a structured attempt to distinguish rules from special or incidental circumstances. Yet management theorists, it seems, overlooked a fundamental question: can a theory reliably capture workplace phenomena marked by immense diversity and constantly shifting, often inexplicable events? And here lies the core issue. Many management theorists (and pushers!) operate within a mindset that assumes order, predictability, and stable cause-and-effect relationships as givens. Unwittingly, they’re chasing what we now recognise as linear phenomena.
But organisations are rarely as orderly as, say, the motion of objects governed by gravity. Instead, they behave more like nonlinear phenomena, defying models of prediction and control. Consider how businesses routinely struggle to implement strategic plans even under stable conditions, let alone when confronted by sudden market disruptions (oh hey, Covid) or unanticipated technological breakthroughs (hi there, AI)—circumstances that no linear model can hope to predict neatly. For instance, remember the dramatic pivots companies had to make during the COVID-19 pandemic, when supply chains collapsed, and remote work became the norm almost overnight.
Little wonder, then, that management theorists and cheerleaders of all persuasions find themselves endlessly chasing their tails, desperately trying to apply rigid frameworks to an inherently unpredictable world.
Perhaps it’s time to rethink our misguided demands for predictability and, instead, embrace the complexity and uncertainty that define real-world organisations.
All this said, and as unpredictable as reality is, it doesn’t mean theories are doomed to irrelevance. Instead, they must evolve and be applied with flexibility and pragmatism—or, as history has shown, morph drastically into something new.
Course Corrections & Crossovers 🔄
Theories are notoriously unreliable. The earth was once indisputably flat, and challenging that "fact" was considered either bonkers or downright dangerous—just ask Galileo. Even our best boffins routinely struggle to predict or explain events across various contexts. Over time, radical course corrections are inevitable, often leading to crossover theories that undermine the core tenets of the originals. Classical economists like Adam Smith and David Ricardo embodied the rational spirit of Newton’s scientific age. Yet, real-world phenomena like market failures cast serious doubt on the practical applicability of these classical theories, forcing a re-evaluation. Once again, reality had other ideas for our theoretical ideals.
The quest for “better” theories was on, sparking intense debate and an explosion of competing viewpoints. Keynesian economics, for instance, emerged as a response to the limits of classical economic thought, advocating for government intervention to manage the unpredictable dynamics of economic downturns. This evolution carries on today, as economic theories adapt to address challenges like globalisation, climate change, and technological disruption. While theorists continue their elusive search for universal formulas and ideologues nitpick each other’s arguments, real decision-makers (hopefully) make pragmatic choices based on local contexts and, as Harold MacMillan famously put it, “events, dear boy, events.” And unpredictable events at that. Problems crop up when models, hastily repackaged as scientific theories, become the flavour of the month and are imposed willy-nilly.
As linear theories repeatedly face the test of fast-changing, real-world events, they must be revised constantly to account for unforeseen complexities. Well-meaning leaders, eager to make a positive impact, too often take these theories at face value, leading us all down a garden path paved with rigid assumptions about order, predictability, and cause and effect.
Constant revisions remind us that rigid theories seldom capture the fluid, unpredictable nature of reality—and management theories are no exception.
While most theories adapt and transform, not all structures share this flexibility. One model in particular has stubbornly withstood the tides of change: hierarchy. It’s a framework that has proven remarkably resilient, embedding itself so deeply in human society that even the most progressive ideas struggle to dislodge it.
Elites & Hierarchies: An Enduring Model 🏛️
Despite centuries of evolving knowledge and groundbreaking discoveries, hierarchies have remained firmly rooted throughout human history. In this age-old structure, an elite class monopolises power and wealth at the top, while those below continue to strive for fairness and justice.
Hierarchies have been woven into civilisations from ancient India’s rigid caste systems to medieval Europe’s feudal lords and vassals. Even among hunter-gatherer societies, leadership roles would emerge based on age, strength, or wisdom. This implies a deeply rooted human tendency to form hierarchical structures—a tendency that may have been crucial for group survival, creating order and enabling decisive leadership during crises.
Over the centuries, various ideologies have sprung up to justify the elite's position and to keep the masses hopeful. Religion, for instance, played a key role in legitimising power: monarchs ruled by “divine right,” and social hierarchies were viewed as part of a divine order. As societies modernised, secular ideologies like capitalism and meritocracy took over, promising that anyone could ascend the social ladder with enough hard work and talent (hmmm…). As the justifications evolved, the core structure of centralised power and hierarchy stayed remarkably intact.
Today, organisations continue to mirror these age-old hierarchies, with CEOs and executives wielding disproportionate power and influence. Even those that claim to be egalitarian often see decision-making gravitate upward.
Businesses may advertise so-called “flat” structures, but when theory meets reality, key decisions typically still come from the top. The enduring model of hierarchy isn’t an organisational relic; it shapes the very power dynamics we see today, echoing struggles that have played out throughout history.
Power Dynamics Through the Ages 👑
Mainstream theories today present an array of so-called scientific explanations for the uneven distribution of power. The justifications may differ, but the outcome is generally the same: when people come together, authority is wielded by a select few. And this authority, unsurprisingly, often goes hand in hand with wealth accumulation.
Dissatisfaction with this reality is a recurring theme throughout history. Across ages and cultures, there has been a persistent struggle between the powerful and those seeking equity—whether in global power structures, the workplace, or within the smallest village hierarchies. Elites have historically sought to maintain a firm grip on power and wealth, adapting their methods as communities became more assertive. While some rulers relied on brute force or divine mandates, others developed subtler means of retaining control. Allowing the populace a modest degree of freedom and opportunity, as long as they upheld the status quo, often proved effective. This pragmatic approach was evident even in ancient Mesopotamia, where slave owners allowed slaves to run small businesses, provided they paid taxes on their profits.
Early on, elites realised that offering people the chance to lead relatively free lives and profit from trade created a stable society—so long as it sustained the elite’s position. This same principle is evident in today’s workplaces.
Modern organisations may promote a sense of employee empowerment and flexibility, but true authority often remains concentrated at the top. Titles like “manager” or “director” signify where decision-making power lies, even in companies that claim to have flat structures.
The facade of equality can serve to stabilise the workforce while preserving the hierarchy. Yet, even as these power dynamics persist, the theories we craft to navigate them can’t afford to be static. They must bend and adapt to fit the complexities of real life.
Theory in Practice: A Flexible Tool 🤸
Management theories may seem rigid at first glance, but in practice, they are far more flexible than they appear. At their core, they are simplifications designed to make sense of a complex world, functioning best as adaptable frameworks rather than absolute truths. Throughout history, theories and ideologies have often coexisted, overlapping and evolving to accommodate changing circumstances. We are mistaken to assume that they are mutually exclusive.
Take self-management principles, for example. These ideas aren’t as modern as they might seem; they actually predate bureaucratic structures, harking back to early organisational methods where small communities managed themselves through informal rules and mutual agreements. Similarly, hierarchical structures—featuring a privileged elite at the top and discontent brewing among those below—are not recent inventions. These patterns are deeply embedded in human society, shaped by both our psychological and cultural evolution and by practical necessity. Often, both self-management and hierarchical approaches coexist within the same office, although organisations rarely admit to such a contradiction.
For theories and ideologies to survive, they must adapt and exhibit flexibility. When rigid theories collide with the complexities of the real world, they either evolve or perish. Consider economic theories: Keynesian economics arose to address the unpredictable nature of market fluctuations, directly challenging the classical view that markets are self-correcting. In this way, theories adapt to incorporate new insights, yet they remain, at best, imperfect reflections of reality.
And so, it becomes clear: the value of a theory lies not in its rigidity but in its pragmatism. To thrive, we must treat them as flexible tools rather than dogmatic prescriptions.
Pragmatic not Dogmatic 🧭
Theories and ideologies are in constant interaction, blending and borrowing from each other to survive. There’s nothing sacred about top-down, Agile, or self-management ideologies; they are best treated as supportive tools, not rigid guiding principles. For instance, a company may publicly identify with a “flat” structure yet still fall back on a hierarchical leadership model when swift, critical decisions are needed. And there is nothing wrong with that. This blending illustrates that ideologies, models, and theories are often pragmatic rather than dogmatic.
Outside the linear, predictable realm, any attempt to transform theories and ideologies into universally applicable scientific formulas is destined to fail. These efforts rest on shaky assumptions of certainty that rarely hold up in the complex realities of organisations. As societies and organisations evolve, frameworks will need to continue adapting, showing that in complex settings, flexibility trumps rigid adherence. The key lies in recognising which realm we are operating in (i.e., linear or complex), understanding when to treat a framework as Gospel, and knowing when to accept that there is no “one right way” or absolute certainty.
👉 Join my online course - New Ways of Working Course: Navigating Collaboration, Complexity & Culture - to explore the patterns found in progressive organisations.
If you missed the earlier instalments in this series, here they are:
And if you found this helpful, please help me by sharing this newsletter with your colleagues. 🙏
