As described by Aristotle
My idea for this essay comes from the original column of Roger Martin, a better blueprint for studying economics.
Social interactions are inherently messy
You can't learn business in school, nor do you need anyone’s permission. You can of course learn interesting stuff that can be useful, but you shouldn't let it bog you down in regards to things that are truly important. Most of the complexity introduced by deeper research out there isn't worth it, because we humans are weird. Our social interactions and other constructs are inherently messy and irrational as described by Aristotle in his scientific method.
Aristotle's words are misunderstood in modern business schools in terms of ignoring his critical boundary condition which has continued watering down during the past centuries. For a minute, let's dive back into this great philosopher's original thoughts.
The scientific method
Aristotle was a proponent of his scientific logic, and in the best scientific tradition, he established boundary conditions for his theory. It was for the part of the world in which things could not be other than they are. An oak tree is an oak tree and cannot be something else. A piece of granite is a piece of granite and can’t be something else. For this world, Aristotle laid out the seminal scientific method and argued that it was the optimal way for understanding that part of the world.
As Aristotle laid out his scientific method for the part of the world that cannot be other than it is, he also cautioned that there is another part of the world that can be other than it is, and there was another method that needed to be used to understand it. Here the scientific method would be wholly inappropriate.
That part of the world consists of people – of relationships, of interactions, of exchanges. In this part of the world, relationships can be good, bad or indifferent; close, distant or sporadic. They change – they can be other than they currently are. For this part of the world, Aristotle said that the method used to develop our understanding and to shape this world is rhetoric; dialogue between parties that builds understanding and actually shapes and alters this part of the world.
Due to historical events, the thinking in business schools may have eventually embraced Aristotle’s science, but ignored his boundary condition. They pushed the scientific method past the limits for which it was designed. It was as if they adopted Aristotle’s tool and then ignored his user manual.
Complexity for the sake of teaching
Most of things you study at the university are more complex than it is useful to learn about in too much detail. Real life is messier. Don’t worry or overthink if you don’t understand every detail of some theory or somebody's research results. Grades are likewise the least thing to worry about at a graduate stage. Perhaps a more worthwile goal could be to learn about asking the right questions? Then you can use all the bells and whistles you learned about to investigate them.
Studying business or social sciences, you aren't likely to become a doctor or a lawyer, not speaking of becoming a neurosurgeon. Nobody will be jailed or end up dying because of a false decision in your early career. Instead, what you need is a general and a perpetual ability to solve problems. So embrace the greatness of doing business.
Study it less and be useful more, I guess that's what it is mostly about.