There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
I think that scientific complexity is no cure for the limitations of the current management / business disciplines, because:
- Management is inherently unstructured. It is only (perhaps) 25% about scientific methods and related techniques (whether “linear” or not), while the other 75% is about persuasion, communication, intuition, empathy, leadership, unstructured knowledge, empirism, luck. This soft fabric is hard to teach and the related talents are typically acquired via experience: mostly, they cannot be conveyed via software or formal models and languages.
- The management community has an insufficient command of the 25% part which is “scientific”, i.e. controlled, verifiable, repeatable and quickly teachable. For example, less than 5% of managers participating in manufacturing ecosystems master statistics or linear programming, the basic tools of the trade, and have to rely entirely on specialized consultants to manage the relevant software. As another example: bankers or CFOs do not understand the technicalities of the debate concerning the math models of creative finance. And so on.
At business, I contend, the problem is not that the world be «unknowable» and/or «unpredictable»: the problem is that too many people ignore even that very small part of it which is controllable.
I do see the risk of «illusion of control», «scientism» and «mechanism» that the management literature talks about: however I do not view these excesses as the fault of the approach, of the underlying “science”, but rather as the result of limited comprehension of said approach.
I therefore do not see how getting involved in abstruse nonlinear concepts and related machinery could in any way bring help; as much as I do not believe that driving lessons should take place at Monza on Formula One cars…
Hence my view of “complexity” subjects as sexy diversions from the actual challenges.