Evidence Based Management: A Review Misti Walker Evidence Based Management: A Review 1

If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. Sir Isaac Newton Evidence based medicine began receiving attention nearly a decade ago. Th e concept is simple enough. Practitioners should employ the most current, applic able research, or findings, in dealing with a patient's care. Since then, various fields including education and psychology have adopted this strategy, grounded i n scientific research(Rynes, 2007). Similarly, the business world has begun to a dopt its own version of this framework. Evidence based management (EBM) was larg ely introduced by Stanford University professors Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutt on in 2006, as a result of five years of research on the topic(Pfeffer, 2006). T he two men have also created a website devoted to the topic, www.evidence-basedm anagement.com. This management style encourages managers to make business decisi ons based on the most up-to-date, pertinent scientific research available. This framework seeks to align business practices with scientifically proven research. Although this idea is quite simple in theory, in practice it can prove troubles ome. Common roadblocks to an effective EBM strategy are: A reluctance to rely on scientific evidence over personal experience An effort to capitalize on one's str engths with little regard to evidence The tendency to cling to old ideals and do gmas The inability to escape hype and fads The inclination to merely copy compet itor best practices To illustrate, consider physicians make decisions based on evidence only 15% of the time. The remaining 85% of decisions are generally based on outdated knowled ge, previous experience, long-held but unproven views, and information gleaned f rom 2

vendors(Pfeffer, 2006). It is no wonder, then, that evidence based medicine is r apidly gaining ground in the medical field. Benefits and Limitations Less obviou s, however, is the reason why this concept has been so slow to catch on in busin ess. Pfeffer and Sutton (2006) claim that some of the reasons for the slow adopt ion are the inability to generalize results across industries and individual com panies, lack of consensus on who is truly an expert in the field, and research l imitations, namely, social sciences findings are less reliable than their scient ific counterparts. Another limitation is the lack of consensus on certain topics and the difficulty practitioners face in obtaining meaningful, timely research( Rynes, 2007). To illustrate, consider the research performed by Rynes, Giluk, an d Brown (2007) at the University of Iowa. The authors set out to determine what topics are being covered by scholarly and bridge journals and if the topics cove red were consistent with the best available research. In a systematic review of recent HR journals, the authors sought to explore the gap between research and p ractice in content areas such as personality in selection. The researchers found that some periodicals presented information in a wholly research-consistent way , but were limited in content and that some publications had both research-consi stent and research-inconsistent findings. Perhaps more troubling is the discover y that issues such as personality were not covered at all by some journals. The authors assert that the gap between what is being researched and reported also g oes the other way. In other words, issues that practitioners are interested in a re not being researched. 3

Learmonth (2006) goes further to add that because of the lack of consensus in th e field of management, practitioners that seek answers in journals are likely to be even more confused about the topic after reading conflicting viewpoints. Als o, any research that is done based on ideas not shared by everyone invariably be comes less reliable, the more it is expanded. Pretentious writing styles, common in scholarly journals, as well as the gap between what is being researched and what is being reported in the popular business press further compound the proble m. Not to mention, most scholarly journal articles are highly differentiated, fu rther exacerbating the problem of generalization. Some publishers of scholarly j ournals will not accept submissions that do not contribute something new, which leads to a greater reliance on niche subjects to satisfy these requirements. The authors (Rynes, 2007) suggest that the field of EBM could be advanced at a fast er rate if scholarly journals accepted succinct, wellcrafted articles that trans lated the often mundane, number intensive research. This disparity is directly l inked to the gap in managerial actions and scientific evidence. Perhaps a contri butor to the problem is that business schools rarely teach students to understan d or use evidence(Rousseau, 2007). It is no wonder, then, that these business sc hool graduates don't seek evidence on the job. Although EBM is not without its sha re of limitations, supporters would argue that the benefits greatly outweigh the costs. A discipline that is rooted in science and careful observation and has g arnered praise in fields such as medicine and education is bound to be beneficia l to business. EBM and Strategy Firms that embrace EBM make use of the extensive research that has been done on strategy what works and what doesn't. Also, EBM fi rms adopt and cultivate a 4

curious nature that encourages constant review of policy and strategy to see if they work and to search for improvements. In other words, companies that are ser ious about EBM should relentlessly seek new knowledge and insight from both insid e and outside their companies, to keep updating their assumptions, knowledge, an d skills (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006, p. 65). Leaders of firms adopting EBM should be prepared to lose a degree of power as research findings replace their own viewp oint, in some instances. The authors also warn of half-truths and misperceptions that pervade the business arena. For instance, the resouce based view of the fi rm maintains that first movers in an industry develop skills and practices over time that place new entrants at a distinct disadvantage. However, Pfeffer and Su tton (2006) point out that the empirical evidence purported to support these bel iefs is actually inconclusive and the success stories used to bolster the claim ar e often untrue. Best Practices In order for firms to reap the benefits of EBM, Pfeffer and Sutto n (2006) recommend the following: Demand evidence Examine logic Treat the organi zation as an unfinished prototype Embrace the attitude of wisdom 5

In other words, firms should rely on facts, not assumptions, always be open to n ew ideas and never forget that it is not what you know, it is what you don't know that matters. Works Cited Learmonth, M. (2006). Is There Such a Thing as Evidence-Based Management?: A C ommentary on Rousseaus 2005 Presidential Address. Academy of Management Review , 31 (4), 1089-1091. 6