Evidence-Based Management to Management-Based Evidence: Mobilizing Evidence Through Managerial Work (original) (raw)
Related papers
Believing is Seeing: The Impact of Beliefs on Evidence-Based Management Practices
leadwellcoaching.com
Managing in today's public institutions can be a very complex affair. In this complex environment, it is a conceit, we believe, to expect that by simply considering more data and obtaining more information about evidence-based management (EBM) practices, including allegedly best practices, managers somehow will effect wiser or more successful management practices. In this chapter, we consider EBM from the perspective of scholar-practitioners, and outline several concerns from both the theoretical and practical domains. Additionally, we detail a practical approach that managers can take to pursue the worthy aims of EBM that takes a holistic, and we believe realistic, view of the complexity and challenges of managing in modern public organizations.
Evidence based' management is a popular contemporary account of the relationship between research and practice in management studies. This paper critically examines the implications of this account from the perspective of Formalism: a narratological approach to critique that focuses on how narratives are made compelling, and hence powerful. Compelling narratives deploy devices that establish (i) credibility and (ii) defamiliarization. Using this approach the paper identifies and examines different ideological strands in the nascent literature on evidence based management: pragmatism, progress, systematization, technique, accumulation. These are the means by which advocates of evidence based approaches construct a compelling story about the value of this approach. Prior criticism of the evidence based approach has centred on epistemological and technical issues. The aim here is to use an aesthetic mode of criticism to highlight political and moral implications. These are important given the relationship between claims to knowledge and the use of power; and the interaction between management research, and management as practice.
Rethinking Evidence-Based Management
Philosophy of Management, 2023
Evidence-based management (EBMgt) is a relatively recent approach to management, developed by Denise Rousseau in a series of articles and in a book that she co-uthored with Eric Barends (Barends & Rousseau 2018). It is based on the idea that good-quality management decisions require both critical thinking and use of the best available evi- dence. In this paper we want to contribute to the scholarship on evidence-based management by showing how its central concept – evidence – can and should be defined more strictly. Barends and Rousseau define evidence as a two-place relation between information and a claim that is at stake. Starting from insights from the methodology of the social sciences we argue that evidence is a three-place relation between a method, information and a claim. We offer a guiding principle for adequately characterising what counts as evidence (the inclusion of a procedural component which describes how the information should be collected and reported) and apply it to Barends and Rousseau’s concepts of (i) evidence from practitioners, (ii) evidence from the organization and (iii) evidence from stakeholders. We think that by treating evidence as a three-place relation we can develop an improved account (which we call EBMgt+) of what evidence-based management can and should be.
Evidence-informed managerial decision-making – what evidence counts?”
Objective: Using evidence to inform decision-making processes has the potential to overcome problems within health service sectors. Previous studies have argued that evidence should be viewed broadly to include both research and non-research evidence. However, overseas studies have confirmed a general lack of use of evidence in managerial decision-making. In order to encourage the practice of evidence-informed health service management among middle and senior health service managers in the Australian context, understanding of how managers perceive evidence as well as their current practice is the first step. This paper will report some of the relevant findings from recently completed research in the State of Victoria, Australia that will address these two questions. Design and Setting: With Fellows and Associate Fellows of the Victorian branch of the Australasian College of Health Service Management as the study population, the methods consisted of three key elements: a questionnaire and two focus group discussions. The discussions before and after the survey were recorded and subjected to content analysis. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were the rating of the usefulness of evidence types, the rating of importance of evidence types, the frequency of evidence use, the use of evidence types in the last three months and the ranking of evidence types used by participants for various management decision types. Results: 116 out of 411 participants provided enough useful data to be included in the final analysis resulting in an effective response rate of 28.2%. Managers view evidence broadly and acknowledge its importance. They routinely use evidence to guide the managerial decision-making processes. However, both qualitative and quantitative research evidence is rarely used. In contrast, 'internal data' generated within their organisation was the form of evidence most preferred by managers, followed by examples of external practice and personal experience. Further investigation of the level of validity and reliability of 'internally developed data' to guide management decision-making is proposed.
The Narrative of ‘Evidence Based’ Management: A Polemic
Journal of Management Studies, 2008
Evidence based' management is a popular contemporary account of the relationship between research and practice in management studies. This paper critically examines the implications of this account from the perspective of Formalism: a narratological approach to critique that focuses on how narratives are made compelling, and hence powerful. Compelling narratives deploy devices that establish (i) credibility and (ii) defamiliarization. Using this approach the paper identifies and examines different ideological strands in the nascent literature on evidence based management: pragmatism, progress, systematization, technique, accumulation. These are the means by which advocates of evidence based approaches construct a compelling story about the value of this approach. Prior criticism of the evidence based approach has centred on epistemological and technical issues. The aim here is to use an aesthetic mode of criticism to highlight political and moral implications. These are important given the relationship between claims to knowledge and the use of power; and the interaction between management research, and management as practice.
Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, 2015
Recent years have witnessed a surge of interest in what has been described as Evidence Based Management (henceforth, EBM). Its proponents assert that management practice should be based on a better appreciation of 'what works', as determined by the research evidence. This has attracted a varied critique, which suggests that the evidence base on most management issues is uncertain, and constrained by the interests of powerful organizational actors. EBM is depicted as an effort to marginalize more critical perspectives within the field. This article adopts a different approach. Drawing on a critical realist epistemology, it suggests that while research evidence is rarely conclusive it can aspire towards the progressive displacement of ignorance by knowledge. While some advocates of EBM would accept this, it is argued that such acceptance is more rhetorical than substantive, and is undermined by a standpoint which systematically downplays the power saturated organizational contexts in which evidence is assembled and employed in decision making. The key tenets of critical realism as applied to EBM are therefore considered. Critical realism acknowledges epistemological relativism, yet also accepts the need to construct robust causal explanations for social phenomena. Recognizing that organizations are co-created and co-defined by multiple actors, rather than only by managers, it is argued that we should replace the concept of 'Evidence Based Management' with the notion of 'Evidence Oriented Organizing'. Keywords critical realism, evidence based management (EBM), evidence oriented organizing (EOO) EBM has been defined by its key proponents as the systematic use of the best available evidence to improve management practice (e.g.
Putting evidence in its place: A means not an end
Industrial and …, 2011
We agree with Briner and Rousseau (2011) that industrial-organizational (I-O) practice should use the best possible evidence and that empirical research findings should be more readily available. However, these claims do not address what for us are the real issues the authors raise: (a) What counts as ''evidence''? (b) what does it mean to say that practice is ''evidence-based''? and (c) what beyond evidence is needed? First, we applaud their expanded view of what should count as evidence, but the authors' proposed evidence-based practice seems unrealistic. Throughout their article is the assumption that evidence dictates practice. If we knew the research, they seem to say, and if we judiciously incorporated with it evidence drawn from the other three quadrants in their model, we would have the evidence and we would know what to do. They describe a practice where decisions follow necessarily from the evidence, with the task of the practitioner ultimately reduced to finding the evidence and following its dictates. In short, the authors describe good evidence as if it were both a necessary and sufficient condition of good practice. We agree that good evidence is necessary for good practice but disagree that it Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Wayne A. Baughman.
Evidence-Based Management in “Macro” Areas: The Case of Strategic Management
Oxford Handbooks Online, 2012
Despite its intuitive appeal, evidence−based management (EBMgt) faces unique challenges in "macro" areas such as Organization Theory and Strategy Management, which emphasize actions by organizations, and business and corporate leaders. The inherent focus on complex, multi−level and unique problems present serious challenges. EBMgt will nurture the establishment of a new model of research that is not only cumulative in its knowledge−building but also promotes engaged scholarship. Further, the uncertainty and conflict that characterize "macro" decision contexts heighten the need for EBMgt. We put forward four recommendations to advance EBMgt: (1) using more sophisticated meta−analyses; (2) providing syntheses that go beyond quantitative summaries; (3) engaging in a disciplined conversation about our implicit "levels of evidence" frameworks; and (4) developing decision supports.
Diversifying Evidence in Evidence-Based Management (Draft)
Evidence-based Management (EBMgt) and Evidence-Based Management+ (EBMgt+) are two approaches to management according to which managerial decisions should be based on the best available evidence, as this increases the likelihood of their effectiveness. In these approaches, four types of evidence are considered: evidence from the scientific literature, from practitioners, from the organisation and from stakeholders. In EBMgt+, evidence is characterised as a three-place relation between information, a claim and a method. In many circumstances, probability sampling methods (PSMs) are the best methods to gather the abovementioned types of evidence. We present a case study concerning harassment in the workplace to illustrate a circumstance in which fact-finding methods, rather than PSMs, are the best methods to gather evidence. We argue that information thus gathered should count as evidence in the spirit of EBMgt+. However, while part of the evidence needed in the case study comes from the stakeholders, it does not fit the characterisations of 'evidence from stakeholders' considered in EBMgt and EBMgt+. Therefore, we disentangle sources and types of evidence which, in turn, enables us to characterise a new type of evidence-testimonial evidence-that should be included in the theory of evidence-based management. Differentiating between sources and types has the potential to bring theory and practice closer together, whereas including testimonial evidence has the potential to make the theory of evidence-based management applicable in a wider range of circumstances, such as trade secret theft and conflicts of interest.
Evidence in Management Research
International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations, 2017
Scholars point out a fundamental difference between research in disciplines of management and natural sciences. Using stakeholder framework, in this paper, the authors first define domain of management research from practitioners' perspective. Then, they highlight contextual nature of management and argue that practitioners and researchers differ in terms of extent of generalisation they are interested in. The authors present a framework which links management research to practice and identify conceptual issue related to reliability and validity. Statistical techniques generally try to decipher a pattern. But innovation by definition amounts to breaking free from the pattern. A formula which led to success of one organisation at one point of time can be intentionally disrupted by managers in competing organisations. This is possible because human beings are endowed with three unique characteristics of cognition, judgment and intention. This explains limitations of management res...