The classroom is a contrived environment to teach most things. Nevertheless, it exists and it can be a useful forum for transmitting ideas, principles, and practices. And that takes on much greater value for students when what is being taught is rooted in the “real world” rather than in theory.
Another thing that higher education is useful for is teaching both argument and counterargument. It is a solemn responsibility of professors to teach both arguments in subjects where they exist, such as leadership and management. Unfortunately, few processors do this, particularly in business schools. Their remit is to glorify (if not deify) and dignify business, and imbue business preconceptions and values to their students. As such it is impossible to think of business schools as scientific endeavors compared to, for example, science or engineering schools.
For almost 20 years I taught Lean management using other people’s books. It was a decidedly pro-Lean perspective — the argument for Lean. Soon after The Triumph of Classical Management Over Lean Management was published, I began to use that book as well as Better Thinking, Better Results. The reason why I made the change is because I could now credibly teach both the argument and counterargument — the pro-Lean view and the anti-Lean view. And it allows the professor to guide students through the critical thinking and creative process of analysis.
Teaching the anti-Lean counterargument is important for two reasons:
- It reflects reality: Most CEOs have little or no interest in Lean management. Students should know why that is, what causes it, and what are the consequences.
- The business of selling Lean management has never shown any serious interest in addressing the anti-Lean argument that pervades executive suites. That fact helps explain why top business leaders’ interest in Lean has long been so weak.
After The Triumph of Classical Management Over Lean Management was published, I felt that it would not be responsible of me to teach only the pro-Lean perspective. Students had to engage with the anti-Lean counterargument because they would almost surely experience that in their current or future workplace, and knowing the counterargument would help them make sense of their situation. It would also help them make better informed career choices.
The business of selling Lean presents only the argument for Lean. The counterargument against Lean is toxic to the business interests of the organizations and consultants who promote Lean, despite long being aware that most business leaders resist, reject, or ignore Lean management. However, their code of ethics allows them to completely avoid the anti-Lean counterargument. They have no reluctance in ignoring reality and ensuring that their clients are not fully informed. After all, it’s just business.
But it is a different story for teachers, especially college and university professors. They have an ethical obligation to present all the facts to students. If you are a professor, do you do that? If not, why not?