One of the things I’ve been thinking about recently is the null hypothesis for RO. There would have to be one that’s pretty clearly testable. Some thoughts:
- A StrX person can create a StrX+1 organization. This is a weird one that you just won’t test, since why would you try something that you think will fail? Maybe a historical analysis.
- Persons at StrX will fill fulfilled at work under a StrX manager. That should be testable.
- The person that a group will choose as its leader will not be the one with the highest CIP. I’d actually like to see this tested. It’s a relatively easy experiment: you get a group of people, variety of ages, who don’t know each other, and have them work on solving a problem together. Unfortunately, there are several intervening variables here. But if Jaques was right they shouldn’t matter. I’d like to see it.
There may be something interesting in that people may only follow those who can adequately set context for them, someone at MyStratum+1 or MyStratum+2. MyStratum+3 will not add much value to me and so I will probably not turn to them for context setting. Interesting thought.
I’m sure that someone else has had better (or more recent) training in methodology and can put a better null hypothesis set together.
It has bothered me that Human Capability doesn’t seem to have null hypothesis testing. Maybe I missed it in reading. But it’s always dangerous to believe something on supporting evidence. You can find supporting evidence for any belief that you want. You can’t be certain of anything in science, of course. You can only say that something has been supported and the null hypotheses have not been supported. Sometimes you get support for both in the same experiment, which tells you something was wrong with your formulation, since your null hypothesis wasn’t testing against the hypothesis. Or something.
I’d love to hear other people’s take on this, so drop me a line.