This is a time-tested approach. A famous example is Einstein’s theory of relativity, which has been subjected to testing ever since its conception. This approach is at least in part if not in large part unencumbered by the realities of the universe, which may be the case in some management books. Many wonderful points of view, theories and models have been created. Some have advocated rationally engineering the workplace to create the perfectly operating machine (Weber, 1947 and Jaques, 1990). Others have pointed out that science and engineering overlook the fact that human nature is also a dominant influence in the workplace, at least for now (Baum, 1987; Czander, 1993; Diamond, 1993; Kets de Vries, 1984 and Schwartz, 1990).

These theories and models offer the reader many thought-provoking perspectives on what makes the workplace tick. And it is certainly the case there are a great many points of view that focus on but one or a few aspects of the workplace (Allcorn, 1997; Diamond, 1984; Kernberg, 1979 and Schein, 1985). Almost any kind of theory can be ingeniously adapted to the workplace to explain how it works or some of its parts operate. The uppermost question is, however, does the theory seem to fit the reality of the workplace? It is certainly the case that some do and some don’t and some fit to some extent some of the time. As a creator of a few of these perspectives I am always humbled by the problem of trying to determine the efficacy of the approach advocated. I am equally taxed to avoid introducing observer bias that creates self-fulfilling prophecies where magically the theoretical perspective is observed to be at work regardless of data to the contrary.