Scientific Self-Management: A Critical Systems Response to Organisational Development Failure

1. Introduction

Organisational Development (OD) methodologies—such as Total Quality Management (TQM), Business Process Re-engineering (BPR), Lean and Six Sigma—have long promised to transform organisations through structured improvement and participatory learning. Yet, despite their technical sophistication and widespread adoption, reported failure rates remain high [1,2]. In practice, these methodologies are often applied in a pointless manner rather than as vehicles for learning. As a result, OD work frequently risks becoming what Graeber [3] has called “bullshit jobs”: elaborate exercises in process formalisation that generate little real improvement and even less meaning for those who perform them.

This paper takes a step back to ask why OD so often fails. It argues that the problem lies not in the methodologies themselves, but in how they are embedded in organisational cultures that are bereft of scientific curiosity and reflective practice. To explore this, the study turns to Scientific Self-Management (SCSM) [4], a framework developed as an extension of classical scientific management. SCSM reinterprets Taylor’s early vision—not as a doctrine of control, but as a method of self-directed inquiry that integrates systems thinking with personal and professional development. Where Taylor [5] declared that “in the past, man has been first; in the future, the system must be first,” SCSM proposes that the two can be reconciled: the system provides the discipline of method, while the individual provides the capacity for reflection and learning.

The case study examined in this paper investigates the application of SCSM in a public-sector organisation, focussing on how the approach functioned under conditions of weak managerial support and limited collective engagement. By analysing the intervention through the four principles of SCSM and the associated bottom-up bootstrap algorithm (BA) [6], the study assesses whether the method worked and what it reveals about the dynamics of learning and power in bureaucratic settings.

In doing so, the paper contributes to current debates within Critical Systems Thinking (CST) and Community Operational Research (COR). Both traditions aim to democratise systems practice, yet they often depend on conditions—such as management endorsement or collective solidarity—that are absent in many real-world contexts. The findings suggest that SCSM may provide a viable alternative in such settings by enabling reflective action from below, where top-down or collective initiatives are not feasible.

The paper proceeds as follows. We begin with a literature review that gives a select overview of OD methodologies and their promises, CST and COR as approaches that attempt to overcome common shortcomings while also having challenges of their own, and SCSM as an expected remedy. Next there is a methodology section on how to explore the SCSM hypothesis in a given public sector organisation. The case study is then presented, followed by a discussion of the SCSM outcome. Finally, we return to the central theme of how OD failure lies not in the methodologies themselves, but in how they are implemented in organisational cultures where they are unlikely to work.

2. Literature Review

We begin the literature review by focussing on OD methodologies and their promises. We then examine CST and COR as influential approaches that attempt to overcome common shortcomings, although acknowledging that these also have some challenges. Finally, we introduce SCSM and position it as a potential remedy.

2.1. Organisational Development and Its Persistent Dilemmas

Organisational Development (OD) methodologies have long been promoted as systematic approaches for improving organisational performance, culture, and adaptability. Emerging from behavioural science traditions in the mid-twentieth century, OD initially emphasised humanistic values such as participation, collaboration, and learning [7,8]. Over time, however, the field has expanded to encompass a wide array of methodologies, many of which are packaged as prescriptive solutions to specific organisational challenges. These range from large-scale structural redesigns to participatory approaches centred on dialogue and reflection.

At their core, OD methodologies share several promises. First, they claim to offer structured ways of dealing with complexity and uncertainty, reducing the risk of ad hoc or reactive management. Second, they present themselves as universally applicable frameworks that can be adapted across sectors, industries, and cultures. Third, they promise measurable improvements, whether in efficiency, quality, employee satisfaction, or organisational learning. In effect, OD methodologies advertise themselves much like consumer products: reliable, repeatable, and transferable solutions to persistent organisational problems.

Within this broad landscape, structural methodologies have occupied a prominent position, particularly from the 1980s onwards. Total Quality Management (TQM), for example, promised organisations a systematic way of embedding continuous improvement through statistical process control, customer focus, and employee involvement [9,10]. Business Process Reengineering (BPR) offered a more radical vision, advocating fundamental redesign of processes to achieve dramatic gains in cost, quality, and speed [11]. Later waves of Lean and Six Sigma methodologies continued this structural orientation, combining rigorous process analysis with the promise of eliminating waste and variation [12,13].

The appeal of such methodologies lay not only in their rational, step-by-step logic but also in their promise of objectivity: by focussing on structures, processes, and measurable outcomes, they appeared to provide managers with a technical toolkit for delivering guaranteed improvements. This rationalist orientation aligned well with managerial demands for efficiency, accountability, and demonstrable return on investment. As a result, structural methodologies gained widespread popularity in both private and public sectors, often adopted through large-scale change programmes.

However, the promises of structural OD methodologies have frequently been called into question. Critics argue that while TQM and BPR offered compelling narratives of transformation, empirical evidence of their sustained success is mixed at best [14,15]. Many initiatives faltered due to lack of cultural alignment, insufficient managerial commitment, or unrealistic expectations [1]. Furthermore, the rhetoric of universality masked the reality that such methodologies are deeply context-dependent: what works in one organisation or sector may prove counterproductive in another. In practice, structural OD methodologies often failed to deliver the sweeping improvements advertised on the “tin,” raising doubts about their credibility and long-term value.

2.2. How CST and COR May Overcome Common Shortcomings

The shortcomings of structural OD methodologies highlight the need for approaches that move beyond prescriptive solutions and engage more deeply with the social, cultural, and political contexts of organisations [16,17].

Critical Systems Thinking (CST) represents one such development. Emerging in the 1980s and early 1990s [18,19,20,21], CST builds on earlier traditions in systems theory but seeks explicitly to address the ethical and political dimensions of organisational intervention. One of its central contributions lies in advocating methodological pluralism — the idea that no single method can adequately capture the complexity of organisational life. Instead, CST encourages practitioners to draw on multiple systems methodologies, selecting and combining them according to contextual demands. Importantly, CST also emphasises critical reflection on the assumptions underlying methodologies, urging practitioners to be aware of power relations, boundary choices, and stakeholder voices that may otherwise be marginalized.

Through its associated intervention methods — such as Total Systems Intervention (TSI) [22], Systemic Intervention [23] and Critical Systems Practice (CSP) [24] — CST offers managers and practitioners a framework for navigating complexity without falling into the trap of “one best way” thinking. By legitimising methodological mixing and foregrounding issues of inclusion, CST addresses many of the failings of structural OD approaches, particularly their tendency to impose rigid solutions without regard for cultural or political realities.

Complementing CST, the field of Community Operational Research (COR) offers a more practice-oriented response to similar concerns. Originating in the 1980s, COR sought to extend operational research (OR) methods beyond their traditional applications in industry and government, bringing them to bear on community issues such as housing, health, and local development [25,26,27]. Like CST, COR emphasises participation and inclusion, but it goes further in embedding methodological practice within specific communities. COR practitioners have developed approaches that combine technical OR methods with facilitation, dialogue, and collaborative learning, aiming to make methodologies meaningful and empowering for participants who might otherwise be excluded from decision-making.

Taken together, CST and COR represent significant attempts to overcome the common shortcomings of structural OD methodologies. They both recognise that organisational and societal improvement cannot be achieved through technical fixes alone, and they provide frameworks for incorporating multiple perspectives, values, and forms of knowledge. However, despite these advances, they are not immune to difficulty. CST requires a high degree of methodological competence and critical awareness, which may not be available in all organisational settings [28]. COR, while grounded in community engagement, can struggle with issues of scalability and institutional resistance [29]. As such, both traditions, while valuable, highlight the ongoing tension in OD between methodological promise and practical delivery — a tension that motivates the search for new ways of working.

2.3. The Concept of Scientific Self-Management (SCSM)

One way to address this tension is by revisiting the origins of scientific management and reconsidering the systems thinking and systems practice embedded within Frederick Taylor’s [5] work. Although scientific management is often treated as the antithesis of contemporary participatory and critical approaches, its historical legacy is more complex than is sometimes assumed.

Scientific management is most commonly associated with mechanistic control of labour, the fragmentation of work into routinised tasks, and the concentration of planning and decision-making within management [30,31,32]. The four principles that Taylor used to define scientific management are often interpreted in this way ([5], p. 27, paraphrased):

• Develop a science for each job: Replace old “rule of thumb” methods with standardised, scientific methods.
• Scientifically select and train workers: Choose the right people for the job and provide them with the correct training to improve their efficiency.
• Cooperate with workers: Ensure harmony between management and employees to carry out tasks according to the standardised, scientific methods.
• Divide work and responsibility: Management should handle the planning and design of work, while employees should focus on carrying out their tasks.

Likewise, Taylor’s well-known declaration that “In the past, man has been first; in the future, the system must be first” ([5], p. ix) is frequently interpreted as placing systems, efficiency, and managerial control above human needs.

However, such readings are not the only way to understand Taylor’s work. Scholars such as Nelson [33] and Kelly [34] have argued that Taylor viewed scientific management as a route to mutual benefit—enhancing productivity while also enabling workers to develop skills, take pride in their contributions, and engage in work as a process of disciplined self-improvement. Kanigel’s [35] account of Taylor applying his own principles to improve his tennis and golf performance illustrates this aspect particularly well. From this perspective, scientific management can be reinterpreted not merely as an instrument of managerial control, but as an early expression of the idea that structured methods can support learning, development, and satisfaction at the level of the individual.

This interpretation resonates with Rosenhead’s [36] discussion of self-management within Community Operational Research. Rosenhead argued that COR should not only confront structural inequalities in decision-making but also empower individuals and groups to develop their own capacities for problem-solving and collective organisation. In this sense, self-management is both a political and a practical strategy: it creates conditions in which individuals can take initiative, learn, and derive meaning from improvement processes rather than depending solely on externally imposed methodologies.

Building on these insights, we have previously argued that Scientific Self-Management (SCSM) can serve as a natural foundation for CST-driven implementation of Total Quality Management (Critical Total Quality Management, CTQM) [4,37]. SCSM is based on the same four principles as scientific management, but interprets each as follows:

• Develop a science for each job: Apply the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle for improving each and every process [38,39,40].
• Scientifically select and train workers: Apply Integrated Systems Pedagogy (ISP) for teaching of systems thinking and systems practice in formal education and on-the-job training [41].
• Cooperate with workers: Apply servant-leadership to turn the organisational pyramid upside-down; meet the needs of those doing the work [42].
• Divide work and responsibility: Divide practice and theory in accordance with the observation that “there is nothing as practical as a good theory” (Lewin [43], p. 288).

Taken together, these interpretations position SCSM as a framework that encourages individual exploration and adaptation of tools, frameworks, and methods as a form of continuous learning and personal development. The first two principles reflect lessons from the early history of systems thinking in relation to scientific method and competence; the third invites reflection on leadership as service to those engaged in production and customer interaction; and the fourth underscores the need to distinguish between thinking and doing within action research.

Regarding this final point, it is worth noting that Lewin “was sympathetic to the application of scientific methods for improving industrial management. However, his intuition told him that advocates of [scientific management] were not taking adequate account of important factors—namely, the needs of the workers” ([44], pp. 295–296). In other words, Lewin did not question the scientific basis of Taylor’s methodology but the ideology of those who applied it in a ruthless and unscientific way [37].

As a leadership philosophy—and as a potential vehicle for implementing Critical Systems Leadership (CSL) [24]—SCSM allows Taylor’s statement about “man and system” to be reinterpreted as: “In the past, the individual leader has been first; in the future, the group must be first.” This aligns with Haslam et al. [45], who argue that identity is meaningful only within a group and that leadership cannot be understood without followership. Unlike many formal OD methodologies, SCSM does not regard management commitment as a critical success factor. On the contrary, its central premise is that leadership need not depend on formal authority. Leadership in SCSM arises when individuals apply its principles to themselves, in collaboration with colleagues, and in service of the group as a whole.

By transforming the workplace into a laboratory in which everyone conducts scientific experiments, SCSM enables practitioners to cultivate meaning, agency, and even joy in their work—regardless of whether the wider organisation is receptive. It frames OD tools as resources for self-directed experimentation rather than rigid recipes for success, thereby complementing the systemic orientation of CST and the participatory ethos of COR, while offering a pragmatic response to the cultural barriers that often undermine OD initiatives.

In practical terms, SCSM involves turning oneself into a “factory of one” [46] and applying methods such as Time and Motion Studies (TMS)—now familiar as Lean Six Sigma—to refine one’s own work practice. The process resembles practising golf to enhance enjoyment of the game, or rehearsing a musical instrument as part of a jazz ensemble. Using the latter metaphor, traditional work might be compared to following the conductor’s score, while SCSM encourages the spirit of a jazz orchestra in which every musician is a soloist: no one needs to be in charge so long as everyone knows the tune and can follow the rhythm.

3. Methodology

There are various ways that can be used for investigating the practice of SCSM in a “bullshit job” environment. The approach used here follows the ideas of Whitehead [47] in how to frame a social experiment as a personal experiment, avoiding ethical dilemmas of social research by turning it into an N=1 study, or what is sometimes called self-improvement research.

3.1. Self-Improvement for Change Agents

Coghlan and Brannick ([48], pp. 42-48) identify three different kinds of action research by looking at whether the aim of the research is to change the system or the actor. When doing field experiments on the development of expertise, like how to master the violin, the focus tends to be on the acting performer and not the environmental system [49]. When researching how to implement information systems, the problem tends to be on the system and not the change agent [50]. However, it is also possible to combine self-improvement research with systems development research.

Whitehead prescribes a list of five steps for carrying out self-improvement action research for change agents, such as teachers, managers and political activists. If the problem remains unsolved at the final stage, or the study has not been able to produce sufficient validity and reliability, the final step can lead into a new cycle by returning to the first step for doing one or more loops.

• The researcher experiences problems when his values are negated in practice.
• He imagines ways of overcoming his problems.
• He acts on a chosen solution.
• He evaluates the outcomes of his actions.
• He modifies his problems, ideas and actions in light of his evaluations.

As seen from this sequence of steps, the research strategy assumes that the self-improvement researcher is involved in a situation where he is experiencing a conflict between his declaration of values and how the values are manifested in practice. In the case of trying to use SCSM for transforming a “bullshit job” environment into a meaningful environment, the values come from how CST, COR and SCSM commit to critical awareness, emancipation and multimethodology, which may be challenged in a culture where the powerless are expected to be blindly loyal to those in power.

3.2. Clarifying the Problem and Articulating Possible Solutions

In the case study, where one of the authors did 42 months of action research, the five-step method was implemented in an explorative manner, starting with the first bullet point and the initial feeling of being like a living contradiction, trying to aid the implementation of Lean ISO 9001 in public administration through commitment to the CST values while working for a manager whose understanding of OD differed substantially from the assumptions underlying CST and SCSM [51]. This was followed by the second bullet point, which consisted of keeping distance from the manager by becoming part of a Lean Forum within the organisation, hoping that the forum could function as a lecture hall for teaching systems thinking for professional practice [52].

3.3. Taking Action

The third bullet point in the five-step method consists of taking action. Starting in the spring of 2019, regular participation in the Lean Forum made it possible to get in dialogue with those responsible for implementing Lean across the organisation, intensifying the interaction by gradually developing dialogue-based teaching of systems thinking, as it became more evident what practical problems people were struggling with [51,52].

Due to the internal orientation of the research, focussing on the contrast between personal belief in CST against opposing values held by powerful actors within the organisation, the action account is given a subjective shape. As the purpose of the account is to describe the internal response to what is happening in the external world, the events in the external world have been anonymised and individuals are systematically described as “he”, regardless of gender. The purpose is not to characterise the environment where action research takes place, in public administration, but to characterise the thoughts and actions of the action researcher as he interacts with the environment.

3.4. Evaluation and Modification

In the five-step method, the two final bullet points are concerned with evaluation and reflection. As long as the action researcher is able to maintain a feeling of influencing professional practice, the SCSM process is seen to be working as expected. If there is no sign of influence, the process is not working properly, which provides input for reflection. Additionally, to prevent the action researcher from getting trapped in his own confusion during stages of evaluation, McNiff and Whitehead [53] recommend having conversations with a critical friend. In this study, the researcher had monthly meetings with a colleague from a different department who looked at the organisation from a similar perspective.

4. Results

The results are presented by giving an account of trying to aid in the process of structural OD by using frameworks, methods and tools associated with TQM, ISO 9001 and Lean Six Sigma.

4.1. January to March, 2019: Trying to Understand the Culture

The researcher was not unaware of the organisational culture when starting his action research. Since 1999, he had been engaged with short-term and long-term action research projects, so his research proposal Implementing Lean in Public Administration ([51], pp. 213-221) focussed on concepts like organisational hypocrisy [54] that are useful for describing how and why organisations say one thing but do something completely different, like claiming to have values, structures and processes in support of effective OD, yet in reality having values, structures and processes that make OD almost impossible.

In one paper from the study, the researcher mentions how people within the organisation talked about the OD initiative ([55], pp. 225-226):

“Shortly before the summer holidays of 2019, I had an interesting conversation with one of my new colleagues in the quality department. He¹ told me something similar [to what the CIO had said]. Rather than keeping people on social security, he said, it was better to employ them to implement TQM in public administration.[…]Another colleague recommended reading about pseudo-work known as “bullshit jobs” (Nørmark & Jensen, 2018; Alvesson & Spicer, 2016; Graeber, 2018).”

What the quote shows is that some of the OD people were familiar with Graeber’s concept of “bullshit jobs” and identified with the situations described by Graeber and similar researchers [3,56,57], but there were two groups of people within the TQM-driven OD community. One group consisted of OD workers who were frustrated with what they described as incompetent TQM leadership, making it impossible to use the OD tools in a meaningful way. The other group, which was the dominant one, consisted of OD workers who realised that they were trapped and could either try to find work elsewhere (if possible) or play along with the meaningless rituals.

Regardless of whether people were frustrated and ready to leave or had decided to make the best of the situation, the key issue was that they possessed powerful OD tools that could have benefited both the organisation and themselves—if only they had been allowed to use them intelligently.

4.2. April to December, 2019: Iterative Development of a Plan

Before having properly understood the culture, the researcher was asked by the quality manager whether he would be interested in taking responsibility for developing the internal control (IC) strategy document. However, as he believed he could serve the organisation better by supporting different tasks and responsibilities rather than being siloed into one particular domain—which was obviously a “bullshit job”—he declined. What he did instead was to follow the bootstrap algorithm (BA) [58] of finding people who would appreciate and benefit from him working with them in a SCSM-manner, and then gradually expand the network until reaching critical mass within the local OD community by having people explore and improve different OD tools in ways that would have measurable consequences for organisational improvement.

To control the OD group in a split-and-conquer fashion, the quality manager and his assistant had divided the group into ten areas of responsibility. Although the purpose of the BA was to enrol them all into the same SCSM network, the best approach at the beginning seemed to be to start with the archive manager, because he had formally committed himself to make the Management System for Record (MSR) compliant with the ISO 30301 standard. To achieve this, he realised that he would benefit from somebody with experience in ISO 9001 auditing within the context of OD. As the purpose of ISO 30301 is to create continuous improvement within all aspects of the MSR, where the MSR is totally integrated with the overall organisational management system and all its aspects, it would also be important to support those in charge of the Lean Forum, as this was where all the OD tools for PDCA-driven continuous improvement were located.

The SCSM plan thus became a very simple one. The idea was to aid in the ISO 30301 auditing of the MSR through the process of Lean Auditing [59] while sharing the experience with the Lean Forum, more or less like providing on-the-job training for Lean-oriented OD practitioners who were thus presented with both theoretical ideas and practical examples as input for discussion in the monthly meetings [52].

4.3. January 2020 to June 2022: Executing the SCSM Plan

The Lean ISO 30301 experiment unfolded very much in alignment with what the BA predicted [60]. The archive manager was happy with the support, especially since the ISO 30301 auditing process was designed in a manner to start with small issues that would help him increase influence and efficiency, and gradually escalate until he would become the de facto quality manager in the sense of taking responsibility for creating continuous improvement along all departments, processes and aspects of the organisation. Hopefully this would happen without causing conflict with the existing quality manager and his assistant. Since the archive manager was reporting to these people, perhaps it would be possible to make it look like they were responsible for the success and thus avoid being perceived as a threat.

When working with the archive manager, all kinds of Lean-oriented OD tools were used, such as the EFQM framework, the whole family of ISO standards and all types of Lean Six Sigma methods, including the application of statistical process control (SPC) for controlling costs, lead time and cycle time of the audits, making it possible to share examples with the Lean Forum on how most OD tools function as promised when being used in an environment that makes correct use possible.

To improve conversations with the OD practitioners within the Lean Forum, it was useful to focus on the fifteen Lean Tools defined by the forum and used within the organisation as a whole. The first tool was the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle from TQM, and the fourteen others were categories along the PDCA scheme, in the sense that there were eleven tools for planning (including 5S, force field analysis, interest analysis, priority matrix, Pareto analysis, process mapping, waste categories and root cause analysis), two for action (brainstorming and whiteboard meetings), one for evaluation and one for correction.

In order to stimulate debate and mutual learning between how he was using OD tools and how the rest of the community were using such tools, the researcher did a questionnaire study in June 2021. There were 15 responses (47%) showing that the three most popular tools were root cause analysis (5-why & fishbone), the PDCA process itself and process mapping. That root cause analysis and PDCA got such a high score was surprising to the researcher, as he had never seen anybody apart from himself use these tools in the organisation, but it seemed like the lean coordinators enjoyed teaching them, so they were popular as theory while having little or no impact in reality. Process mapping, on the other hand, was clearly something many enjoyed doing, so here the questionnaire study confirmed what had been observed by less systematic means.

While the Lean ISO 30301 made the MSR work better and better, the associated lectures on different OD tools at the Lean Forum got more and more popular, and it opened ways of starting collaborations with the HR department and others. Some of the lectures were also given in other forums by request of forum attendants who had found them useful. A particularly interesting lecture took place in May 2022, which was about continuous improvement of the process used for reporting and handling defects, something that had been investigated through an MSR audit related to clause 10.1 of ISO 30301.

This particular case was interesting because it revealed a complete organisational ignorance of all Lean Principles, including no monitoring of lead time and cycle time, which actually seemed to be getting worse and worse with each year (Figure 1), so for parts of the audience, including one of those who had working on the process, this was highly interesting and useful. However, for the leader of the Lean Forum it was apparently seen as a threat, so the action researcher was soon told by the quality manager that the action research project was now terminated.

4.4. Evaluation and Reflection

From the viewpoint of the researcher, the 42 months of action research had been a stressful but interesting period. The experience suggested that the SCSM strategy worked largely as expected when implemented through the Bootstrap Algorithm (BA). Individuals who engaged in SCSM processes were able to transform organisational improvement into self-improvement projects, developing competence, agency, and a stronger sense of meaning in their work. The Lean ISO 30301 initiative, the associated learning activities, and the growing network of collaborators all indicated that SCSM could create positive change even within an organisational environment that many participants experienced as a “bullshit job” culture.

At the same time, the intervention revealed clear limitations. Although local improvements emerged slowly but steadily, they proved difficult to sustain once they attracted the attention of those in positions of authority. As with previous attempts to use the BA [58,61,62], the process ended abruptly when the emerging network was perceived as a potential challenge to existing power structures. The result was that many participants who had begun to experience their work as meaningful were drawn back into routines centred on producing process maps that nobody would use or documents that nobody would read.

In retrospect, the researcher regarded his decision to decline responsibility for the internal control framework in the spring of 2019 as a significant strategic error. Had the organisation lived according to its espoused values of empowerment, shared knowledge, and willingness to take risks, it might have been sufficient to occupy a supporting role while helping others through SCSM. However, the organisation functioned more as a command-and-control culture in which people were siloed into separate areas of responsibility and closely managed. Under such conditions, influence depended not only on competence and relationships but also on formal responsibility.

At the same time, it is unclear whether accepting responsibility for the internal control strategy would ultimately have changed the outcome. If SCSM had come to be recognised as a method for empowering those with competence but limited formal authority, it could still have been perceived as a threat by those whose position depended more on authority than expertise. No organisational development approach is free from such risks. The deeper question therefore became whether to remain within the organisation and accept a “bullshit job” as the price of career and organisational success, or to leave in pursuit of more meaningful work, despite the uncertainty such a choice might entail.

5. Discussion

The discussion is structured into two parts. The first part reflects on evidence supporting and questioning the SCSM hypothesis. The second part discusses the overall outcome in relation to theory and related research.

5.1. Evidence Supporting and Questioning the SCSM Hypothesis

The mixed outcome of the intervention is best understood by analysing it through the four principles of Scientific Self-Management (SCSM). Each principle provides a lens for assessing whether it was followed in practice and to what extent it generated the intended results.

5.1.1. Develop a Science for Each Job

The first principle, which emphasises the application of the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle to each process, was followed consistently at the level of individual practitioners. The archive manager’s ISO 30301 work illustrates how small-scale experimentation and feedback cycles produced measurable improvements in documentation, lead time and internal control. These results indicate that OD tools “work as advertised” when used scientifically and reflectively. However, the surrounding culture—geared towards internal politics rather than inquiry—prevented the wider organisation from institutionalising the same learning dynamic. The “science for each job” thus remained personal rather than systemic: effective as craftsmanship but not embedded as organisational learning.

5.1.2. Scientifically Select and Train Workers

The second principle, centred on Integrated Systems Pedagogy (ISP) and the scientific training of practitioners, was partially achieved through the Lean Forum’s collaborative lectures and mentoring activities. These sessions stimulated curiosity and competence in using OD tools, and showed that self-directed learning can thrive even in problematic environments. Yet, such training remained voluntary and fragile. The experience confirmed the validity of the principle while demonstrating that sustainable competence development depends on institutional support for systems thinking and reflective practice.

5.1.3. Cooperate with Workers

The third principle, inspired by servant leadership, aimed to reverse the traditional hierarchy by serving the needs of those performing the work. Within local peer networks this approach fostered trust, openness, and mutual support, suggesting that servant leadership can flourish from below even without formal authority. Nevertheless, once collaboration was seen as a challenge to control, it was dealt with. Cooperation succeeded where autonomy was tolerated but was penalised when it was seen as a potential threat to managerial dominance. In this sense, SCSM fulfilled the cooperative spirit of Taylor’s [5] principle but could not overcome the cultural resistance of a command-and-control system.

5.1.4. Divide Work and Responsibility

The fourth principle, derived from Lewin’s [43] dictum that “there is nothing as practical as a good theory,” was realised in the reflective stance of the researcher, who continuously connected theory and practice through self-improvement cycles. However, the decision to decline formal responsibility for the internal-control framework limited the capacity to translate theory into organisational redesign. While this choice was consistent with SCSM’s bottom-up ethos, it also exposed the initiative to political vulnerability.

5.1.5. The Bottom-Up Bootstrap Strategy

The four principles were operationalised through the bootstrap algorithm (BA), a strategy for expanding SCSM practice organically by linking motivated individuals into self-reinforcing learning networks. Initially, the BA functioned as intended—creating visible improvements, enthusiasm, and cross-departmental collaboration. Yet, as the network gained traction and visibility, it encountered hierarchical resistance and was abruptly terminated. The BA thus demonstrated both its power and its fragility: effective for cultivating local meaning and improvement, but unable to sustain momentum without protective legitimacy from higher levels of authority.

5.2. Reflections on the Outcome

The case study demonstrates that Scientific Self-Management (SCSM) can offer a powerful response to the conditions that turn Organisational Development (OD) work into what Graeber [3] describes as “bullshit jobs.” In environments marked by bureaucratic control and low psychological safety, methodologies such as Critical Systems Thinking (CST) and Community Operational Research (COR) are constrained by the absence of managerial commitment or collective solidarity. The present case confirms that under such circumstances, top-down CST interventions are rendered symbolic, while COR’s participatory ethos struggles to gain traction. SCSM, by contrast, creates space for bottom-up action where neither hierarchy nor community can be relied upon.

Through the four principles of SCSM—scientific inquiry into one’s own work, systematic learning, servant leadership, and reflective separation of theory and practice—the researcher and collaborators were able to generate genuine, if localised, improvements. The application of PDCA cycles within ISO 30301 audits, the teaching of Lean tools through peer dialogue, and the mentoring of colleagues exemplified how SCSM turns compliance routines into opportunities for inquiry and growth. Even in a culture of organised hypocrisy [54], these activities reintroduced meaning, competence, and satisfaction. In that sense, the case confirms that SCSM “works” in exactly the kind of environment where formal OD programmes fail—it transforms alienated labour into personal experimentation.

Yet the same case also reveals SCSM’s fragility. Once the local improvements threatened existing hierarchies, the initiative was abruptly terminated. This outcome underscores that self-management, while emancipatory at the individual level, remains politically vulnerable when unsupported by wider alliances. Here, the experience resonates with Saul Alinsky’s [62] pragmatic insights into community organising. Alinsky argued that meaningful change in resistant systems requires both the cultivation of local leadership and the deliberate building of relationships that gradually extend influence outward. Change agents, he observed, must “start where the world is, not where they would like it to be,” entering dialogue with others and expanding their base of support step by step.

From this perspective, the challenge in the present case was not a flaw in the theory of SCSM but in its implementation. SCSM already contains, through the Bootstrap Algorithm (BA), a mechanism for scaling individual learning into collective dialogue and coordinated action. The BA explicitly describes how practitioners can connect with like-minded colleagues, create shared learning processes, and build legitimacy from below. However, in this case the BA was applied too much as a technical diffusion process and too little as an organising strategy. Although the implementation tried to draw on Alinsky’s principles—beginning with small wins, strengthening alliances, and framing improvements in terms meaningful to local power holders—it failed due to insufficient political astuteness.

This interpretation strengthens rather than weakens the argument for SCSM. The case confirms that SCSM can reintroduce meaning and professional agency into work that would otherwise be experienced as empty or coercive. It also suggests that its full potential lies not merely in individual self-management but in how individuals use that self-directed inquiry to engage others in dialogue and collective learning. SCSM thus functions as both a personal and an organisational development strategy: it begins with the individual, but—when implemented in the spirit of Alinsky’s relational organising—naturally extends toward the group.

5.3. Limitations

This study is based on a single action-research case in which one of the authors was both practitioner and researcher. The findings should therefore be interpreted as analytical insights rather than evidence of general effectiveness. In addition, the analysis relies heavily on reflective interpretation and primarily represents the perspective of the change agent; alternative accounts might have emerged from other organisational actors. Furthermore, because the researcher was also the co-originator of the SCSM framework, the study carries an inherent risk of interpretive bias. Further research in different organisational settings is needed to explore the conditions under which SCSM succeeds, fails, or produces unintended consequences.

6. Conclusions

The questions posed in this paper have guided an inquiry that moves between history and practice, between Taylor’s early principles of scientific management and the contemporary realities of “bullshit jobs.” Our findings suggest that the problem does not lie in the idea of OD method itself, but in the way methodologies are used—or, more often, misused—within organisational cultures that have lost their sense of purpose and curiosity.

Taylor’s famous assertion that “in the past, man has been first; in the future, the system must be first” has often been read as an endorsement of control, efficiency, and mechanisation. Yet, as this paper has argued, when reinterpreted through Scientific Self-Management (SCSM), the slogan can be understood in a more emancipatory way. The “system” here is not a machine imposed from above, but a disciplined method of inquiry—a science for each job—that individuals can apply to improve both their work and themselves. In this sense, SCSM restores the original spirit of Taylor’s scientific ideal: systematic experimentation in the service of human growth.

The case study demonstrates that even when formal organisational development initiatives falter, SCSM can revive meaning and agency by turning routine tasks into opportunities for self-directed learning. Through its four principles and bottom-up bootstrap strategy, SCSM reconnects the individual practitioner to the wider system—not through hierarchy, but through dialogue, reflection, and shared inquiry. It shows that when top-down implementation of CST cannot gain traction, the future of systems thinking may well depend on reawakening this capacity for scientific self-management at the individual level.