The undying myths in OD...

We are all entitled to our myths, they make us who we are. I remember as a child, I held a myth, that studying at night would impair my memory. I would avoid studying after dinner. It took me ten years to realise that I was wrong. In fact, research has found that night time studying is better because sleep actually helps with memory; counter-intuitive, but true.

Being an OD professional means dealing with one's own myths and that of others, day in and day out. Myths can be so strongly entrenched that they produce the same threat response in our minds as in case of physical danger. Often OD professionals and others, especially in management, use the word theory to justify these beliefs, myths. But theories are not science, they are just an element of it; a starting point. Working with theory alone is like starting your meal with soup and finishing there without the main course.

I have put together three very well known myths that have been accepted to be real and which I come across in my interactions with fellow OD practitioners. They are so well entrenched that they have cult following; for some, they are religions.

Left Brain-Right Brain:

No, analytical and empathetic parts of your brain are not differentiated laterally. And, no, people do not have a dominant side of the brain. This pseudoscience is so strongly prevalent that there are books and tests written around them. Most neuroscientists have rebuffed this theory decades back but psychologists and OD practitioners still swear by it. Both parts of our brain work together, yes they do work slightly differently, but at very basic levels and they have nothing to do with personality. E.g. one part of the brain gets activated more with metaphors and the other for grammar. But they are almost always activated together and the process remains the same for all individuals with healthy brain.

Emotional Intelligence:

Emotional Intelligence is not an intelligence and rarely predicts anything, consistently, across studies. But more importantly, Emotional Intelligence is a mix of different constructs, general intelligence, personality and surprisingly, gender. In fact, research shows that it does not measure anything that cannot be explained by these factors. It has been rumored to predict performance better than general intelligence which is not true. It predicts performance better in groups where there is homogeneity in intelligence levels. Also, in many jobs emotional intelligence leads to poorer performance, just like any other personality trait. Clinical and cognitive psychologists call it pop science. For the most part of it, EI is a detailed propaganda which has lasted over 2 long decades now and why would it not; it was championed by eminent professors from Harvard. But most clinical psychologists and neuroscientists do not find any evidence to suggest that there is any such ability as emotional intelligence. If these are skills or competencies, we must name them more specifically as emotional control, empathy etc. Can any word conjoined with intelligence make for a good management fad? One can only wonder.

Learning Styles:

Although very popularly used and taught in the management circles, there is no evidence to suggest that people learn things differently. In fact, adult learning requires great learning context rather than learning style consideration. There is extensive research on interests though, which is often confused as learning style. People with differing interests like to learn different things and not things in a different way. No learning advantage was found in studies accommodating an individual's learning styles. However, in some studies using multiple ways to address a learning objective led to better reinforcement. So maybe we should use different methods to reinforce learning rather than changing training methods for a specific individual depending on their 'learning styles'. Kolb's learning cycle is a great way to understand a complete learning experience rather than classifying them as leadership styles.

It's easy to believe in a myth when a lot of people, sometimes even authorities in their areas, subscribe to these myths. But human brilliance has always been in its appetite for scientific inquiry. If you believe management is a science, having theories just doesn't cut it. We need to ask, how do we know this to be true. Another reason which could explain this is that the truly scientific papers are rarely understood or accessible by practitioners. While HBR is popular, one can't say the same about American Psychologist. Nonetheless as practitioners, we can't claim innocence in ignorance. Search for truth(s) must start with theories and end with evidence and predictions. Anything less is incomplete knowledge.