What's the Evidence on Evidence-Based Management?

Abstract

In this article, we respond to recent calls for increased use of evidence-based management (EBMgt) by conducting a systematic review of the literature to answer the following questions: (1) Is there a substantial literature concerning the concept of evidence-based management? (2) What is the quality of evidence (where it exists) regarding evidence-based management? and (3) Is there evidence that employing evidence-based management will improve organizational performance? We applied an assessment rubric based on ranking systems developed in evidence-based medicine to evaluate the strength of evidence. We found that a large number of articles are published on the topic, but most provide encouragement to adopt EBMgt based on opinion and anecdotal information. We call for increased research to generate stronger evidence related to the impact of EBMgt on organizational performance.

The Role of Evidence in General Managers' Decision-Making

“…but even this implies cognition rather than instinct, intuition and sub-conscious and this more 'reflex-based' decision-taking. This finding therefore supports comments in the EBM literature suggesting less importance was being given in the EBM debate to other aspects of managerial decision-making, such as instinct, intuition and experience (Harrison, 1998;Marks, 2002;Learmonth and Harding, 2006;Rousseau, 2006;Arndt and Bigelow, 2007;Morrell, 2008;Reay et al, 2009;Hovmand and Gillespie, 2010) and supports the suggestions in the decision-making literature of the importance of intuition for strategic managers (Hodgkinson, et al, 2009).…”

“…However, given its specific inclusion of individuals who were currently studying for an MBA, this study might suggest that it is not necessarily the 'lacking of shared scientific knowledge' that is the reason, but simply that preference is given to intuition and peer collaboration. The finding that intuition was the most ('currently studying sample'), or second-most ('general sample') form of evidence again provides support for the literature that claims that instinct, intuition and experience are (wrongly) given less importance than the more positivist, quantitative types of research evidence in the EBM literature (Harrison, 1998;Marks, 2002;Learmonth and Harding, 2006;Rousseau, 2006;Arndt and Bigelow: 2007;Morrell, 2008;Reay et al, 2009;Hovmand and Gillespie, 2010) and that the more recent, broader conceptualisation of EBM (Briner et al, 2009) is more appropriate. The findings from this study also suggest that the Briner framework might usefully be extended to include 'peer expertise and judgement' and 'personal values'.…”

“…As well as a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of EBM there is a similar lack of evidence showing the extent to which evidence-based management is or is not actually practised (Reay et al 2009). Despite Rousseau's (2006: p. 257) suggestions that ' .…”

“…Thus, despite an increasingly vocal EBM movement, there is still the need for more direct evidence of both its benefits, the kind of evidence that is used in practice and the role of educational engagement and attainment in this. A number of writers also propose that EBM results in an 'evidential hierarchy' that not only favours certain kinds of 'research evidence' (randomised control trials and positivist, quantitative research paradigms), but which also results in less importance being given to other aspects of managerial decision-making, such as instinct, intuition and experience (Harrison, 1998;Marks, 2002;Learmonth and Harding, 2006;Rousseau, 2006;Arndt and Bigelow, 2007;Morrell, 2008;Reay et al, 2009;Hovmand and Gillespie, 2010). However, a more recent conceptualisation of EBM broadens the 'evidence base' from the originally narrower views of the more academic type of evidence sources to those including expertise and judgment, local context data, stakeholder opinion and ethical considerations:…”

Bridging the divide in work and organizational psychology: evidence from practice

“…Rynes, Giluk, and Brown (2007) showed that HR practitioner and "bridge" journals failed to report some of the most significant HR research reported in peer-reviewed academic journals and, where they did, studies were often misrepresented. A study by Reay, Berta, and Kohn (2009) which sought to locate "the evidence" for evidence-based management concluded that "the literature has yet to move much beyond . .…”