Is there any particular reason why I should assign more credibility to Moral Mazes / Robert Jackall than I would to the work of any other sociologist?
(My prior on sociologists is that they sometimes produce useful frameworks, but generally rely on subjective hard-to-verify and especially theory-laden methodology, and are very often straightforwardly ideologically motivated.)
I imagine that someone else could write a different book, based on the same kind of anthropological research, that highlights different features of the corporate world, to tell the opposite story.
And that's without anyone trying to be deceptive. There's just a fundamental problem of case studies that they don't tell you what's typical, only give you examples.
I can totally imagine that Jackall landed on this narrative somehow, found that it held together and just confirmation biased for the rest of his carrer.
Once his basic thesis was well-known, and associated with his name, it seems hard for something like that NOT to happen.
Once his basic thesis was well-known, and associated with his name, it seems hard for something like that NOT to happen.
And this leaves me unsure what to do with the data of Moral Mazes. Should I default assume that Jackall's characterization is a good description of the corporate world?
Or should I throw this out as a useless set of examples confirmation biased together?
Or something else?
Or should I throw this out as a useless set of examples confirmation biased together?
Or something else?
It seems like the question of "is the most of the world dominated by Moral Mazes?" is an extremely important one. But also, its seems to me that it's not operationalized enough to have a meaningful answer.
At best, it seems like this is a thing that happens sometimes.
At best, it seems like this is a thing that happens sometimes.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
