Management Folklore and Management Science – on Portfolio Planning, Escalation Bias, and Such Research on Management Folklore

Management folklore sometimes leads to unprofitable decision making. Thus, studies of the value of such folklore should be of interest to managers, especially when they identify unprofitable procedures. I reviewed empirical research on scientific publishing and concluded that studies supporting management folklore are likely to be favorably reviewed for publication and to be cited. However, researchers who obtain findings that refute folklore are likely to encounter resistance in publication and are less likely to be cited. My experience with papers on portfolio planning methods and escalation bias illustrates the problem. To encourage the publication of papers that challenge management folklore, editors should use results-blind reviews and, in some cases, constrain, reduce, or eliminate peer review. Management contains folklore. By folklore, I mean techniques and concepts that managers adopt without any formal evaluation of their effectiveness simply because others are using them. Sometimes the folklore proves useful. Often however it is not useful, and sometimes it is harmful. Folklore seems to have a long life, even when useless or harmful. Management folklore probably arises as a way of recognizing what seems obvious. Often this folklore is adopted by academics in their teaching, and it appears in textbooks. This anointment by academics may contribute to the credibility and popularity of the folklore. Lee [1980] examined popular management techniques from texts and papers; he concluded that many