Harney, Brian

English

Irish Universities

Book review and commentary on evidence-based management

Name not available

Book Review and Commentaryon Evidence-Based ManagementHard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense:Profiting from Evidence-Based ManagementBy Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. SuttonBoston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●B R I A N H A R N E Y *If doctors practiced medicine the way many companies practicemanagement, there would be far more sick and dead patients, andmany more doctors would be in jail.Pfeffer and Sutton (2006: 5)The above quote helps capture the central thesis underpinningPfeffer and Sutton’s most recent contribution to the stockpileof practitioner-focused texts. Pfeffer and Sutton argue that toooften managerial decisions are determined by hope and fear, imita-tion, deeply held ideologies and path dependencies. Instead,drawing on the concept of evidence-based management, Pfefferand Sutton advocate that leaders should ‘face hard facts and act on* Brian Harney is a Ph.D. candidate at the Judge BusinessSchool, University of Cambridge and Centre for Innovation andStructural Change, National University of Ireland, Galway.Article-07.qxd  7/22/2008  6:20 PM  Page 137the best scientific evidence’ (p. 237), thereby promoting healthyscepticism about what is currently being flaunted as ‘best manage-rial practice’. Given its roots in clinical medicine, utilising thevehicle of evidence-based management is perhaps particularlyappropriate to cure the ‘ills’ of current managerial practice.Moreover, the ideas of evidence-based management have alreadypenetrated into education and policy-making (e.g. Campbell,2002). There has been a clarion call for a similar intervention inmanagement; Cummings has recently stressed the imperative of‘scientific knowledge as the basis for managerial policy and deci-sion making’ (2007: 356). This logic suggests that practitionersmight do well to heed the advice of Sherlock Holmes, who high-lighted the importance of using hard data to inform theories; thealternative being that ‘insensibly one begins to twist facts to suittheories, instead of theories to suit facts’ (Conan Doyle, 1891:163). So how well does Pfeffer and Sutton’s contribution advancethe argument for evidence-based management?The book is neatly structured in three parts. The first part, ‘settingthe stage’, contains two chapters: the first chapter sets the rationalefor why organisations need evidence-based management and thesecond chapter indicates how to practice it. In building the ration-ale, Pfeffer and Sutton highlight the existing flaws in managerialdecision-making. Three flaws in particular stand out for criticism:simply benchmarking what others have done, assuming the futurewill be like the past and following ‘deeply held yet unexamined ide-ologies’ (p. 10). While well argued, there is nothing novel here;however, Pfeffer and Sutton provide a way of moving beyond theseissues by introducing the mindset of evidence-based management.This involves the dual criteria of ‘putting aside belief and conven-tional wisdom’ and ‘committing to gather facts and information tomake more informed decisions’ (p. 14). It follows that a number ofquestions should be asked before introducing a new business idea:e.g. its underlying assumptions, whether these assumptions intu-itively make sense and/or can be tested, and whether alternativesolutions exist (p. 22).The second chapter begins with Pfeffer’s law: ‘Instead of beinginterested in what is new, we ought to be interested in what is true’.While perhaps a little bit corny, the argument of the chapter serves138 Book Review and CommentaryArticle-07.qxd  7/22/2008  6:20 PM  Page 138to exemplify this ‘law’ in action. Here it becomes apparent that thisis not simply another addition to the jungle of prescriptive texts. Forexample, the table on p. 34 humorously compares the competingadvice evident in the titles of leading business books (e.g. Charismavs Leading Quietly, Built to Last vs Corporate Failure by Design)and sets the tone that at least this contribution is going to be criti-cally engaging. The second half of this chapter lives up to thispromise by presenting ‘six standards for generating, evaluating,selling and applying business knowledge’ (p. 41). Among theseinclude ‘treating old ideas like old ideas’, ‘being suspicious ofbreakthroughs’, ‘emphasising virtues and drawbacks of researchand proposed practices’ and ‘taking a neutral and dispassionateapproach to ideologies and theories’. Arguably, some of the sixstandards may overlap (e.g. the first two above); nonetheless, theyoffer a promising template to take forward the evidence-basedmanagement agenda.The second part of the book puts the flesh on the bones of theseideas by challenging ‘six dangerous half-truths’ about managingpeople and organisations. In this section there are six chapters thatcover a range of issues, each framed by a question. At the more indi-vidual level they ask sequentially, ‘is work fundamentally differentfrom the rest of life and should it be?’, ‘do the best organisationshave the best people?’ and ‘do financial incentives drive companyperformance?’. In each chapter the response involves a depiction of‘common convention’ before this is debunked by a range of evi-dence and the virtue of alternatives presented. For example, interms of the ‘best people question’ Pfeffer and Sutton are scepticalof the ‘talent war’ as individual talent is hard to predict, and per-formance can be extremely variable. Instead, they contend thatwhile the best organisations may not have the best people, they cer-tainly have the best performing people. In their terminology, ‘thelaw of crappy systems trumps the law of crappy people’ (p. 101).Moving to a more organisational level the next three chapters posethe following queries: ‘strategy is destiny?’, ‘change or die?’ and‘are leaders in control of their companies?’. The chapter on strategyis particularly interesting as it suggests that strategy is not the greatdeterminant of performance that is typically depicted; indeed, strat-egy can lead to narrow focus, while detracting from the how ofT H E I R I S H J O U R N A L O F M A N A G E M E N T 139Article-07.qxd  7/22/2008  6:20 PM  Page 139implementation and requirements for adaptability. There is someirony (acknowledged by the authors) that the malaise of businessschools is used to illustrate this point! Clearly, the centrepiece of thebook, this section, may have benefited from a more rigorous andstructured application of the six standards that were set out inChapter 2, but nonetheless makes a stimulating read.The final part of the book, ‘evidence to action’, points to thefuture by providing nine principles to facilitate organisations inprofiting from evidence-based management. Among these are,‘treating your organisation as unfinished prototype’ and ‘examiningyour organisation from the perspective of an “outsider”’. Pfefferand Sutton are clearly advocates of learning organisations anddouble-loop learning, best evidenced in their closing advice toleaders: ‘leaders need to have the humility to be students and theconfidence to be teachers’ (p. 234).Overall, this book is provocative and refreshing in its inquisi-tive tone. Drawing attention to the flaws of best practice and thekey assumptions underpinning business ideas is a worthwhileproject which will no doubt facilitate successful execution ofstrategy. Further, Pfeffer and Sutton use an armoury of anecdotes,cases and quotes which blend neatly together to make the textextremely readable and interesting. Yet here also lies the crux ofthe criticism that might be directed at this book. While the keymessage is one of critical reflection and a wealth of evidence(ranging from personal correspondence and experience to studentcases, experiences of peers, academic journals and policy reports)is brought to bear upon each argument, one wonders if Pfefferand Sutton’s own examples would stand up to the rigorousscrutiny they prescribe. Quite simply, how does one decide whatconstitutes ‘the best evidence available’? We cannot assumethat diagnosis is as straightforward as in medical practice.Organisations are inherently political, and there is a multitude ofperspectives impinging on every decision that is made, whileinformation is very rarely freely available and consistent in thefirst place. The six standards suggested to evaluate knowledgeand practices remain quite vague (e.g. take a neutral, dispassion-ate approach to ideologies and theories) and so are likely to becontested.140 Book Review and CommentaryArticle-07.qxd  7/22/2008  6:20 PM  Page 140Further, an evidence-based management approach leaves littlescope for the roles of intuition, chance, risk-taking and craftsman-ship. The risk is that the art of strategy once again gets trapped inthe straightjacket of science. It may also prove difficult to combinerigorous and time-consuming analysis with the adaptability neces-sary for competitive success. Moreover, even a series of trivialchoices can generate unexpected consequences, while even in sci-ence the process of discovery can be characterised by accidents anddeterminism as much as by rational choice (for example, seeDe Rond and Thietart’s account of the discovery of Viagra, 2007:537–538). Evidence-based management also seems to privilegequantitative data at the expense of more qualitative and process-based understanding, while Pfeffer and Sutton’s account is largelyUS-centric in both orientation and in the examples provided. Ofequal concern is that a precondition for making business studies ascience is often the explicit denial of any role for moral or ethicalconsiderations in the practice of management (Ghoshal, 2005: 79).Pfeffer and Sutton acknowledge that although managers actuallytry to act on the best evidence this is often impeded by certainobstacles which managerial enlightenment through evidence-basedmanagement can redress. Yet the late Sumantra Ghoshal (2005)argued forcefully that some of the problems might lie with the pro-ducers of education. Indeed, Pfeffer notes elsewhere, ‘we ought tobe both more explicit and more thoughtful about the values we areimparting by what we teach and how we teach it’ (2005: 99). Thusthe critical reflection that Pfeffer and Sutton so passionately pro-mote is equally applicable to both the diffusers and the users ofmanagerial ideas. At the same time, one must caution againstaccounts that depict managers as lemmings, continuously jumpingonto one panacea after another. Institutional and political analysismight shed light on the ‘managerial utility’ provided best practiceprescriptions.In sum, Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsensemust be welcomed for the critical, reflective and innovative think-ing that it prompts. While largely aimed at practitioners, this bookwould be a welcome addition to any postgraduate or MBA courseoutline. There is no doubt that both academics and practitionersshould devote more attention to making sure the knowledge theyT H E I R I S H J O U R N A L O F M A N A G E M E N T 141Article-07.qxd  7/22/2008  6:20 PM  Page 141use is more relevant and accurate. Pfeffer and Sutton frequentlysuggest that one fruitful avenue is exploring ‘companies that failand why they fail, not just those that succeed’ (p. 37). Another isencouraging more active engagement and collaboration betweenacademics and practitioners (Brannick and Coghlan, 2006). In thiscontribution, Pfeffer and Sutton have done much to advance the evi-dence-based management paradigm, but a number of questionsremain. Nonetheless, Pfeffer and Sutton’s quest for wisdom in man-agement practice is a noble and timely one. The overall logic oftheir argument finds support in the words of Nobel Laurette, AndreGide:Believe those who search for truth. Doubt those who claim tohave found it.REFERENCESBrannick, T. and Coghlan, D. (2006) ‘To Know and to Do:Academics’ and Practitioners’ Approaches to ManagementResearch’, Irish Journal of Management, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 1–22.Campbell, H. (2002) ‘“Evidence-Based Policy”: The ContinuingSearch for Effective Policy Processes’, Planning Theory andPractice, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 89–90.Conan Doyle, A. (1891) ‘A Scandal in Bohemia’, reprinted inConan Doyle (2001) The Complete Adventures and Memoirs ofSherlock Holmes, London: Random House.Cummings, T.G. (2007) ‘2006 Presidential Address: Quest for anEngaged Academy’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32,No. 3, pp. 355–360.De Rond, M. and Thietart, R.-A. (2007) ‘Choice, Chance andInevitability in Strategy’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28,No. 5, pp. 535–551.Ghoshal, S. (2005) ‘Bad Management Theories Are DestroyingGood Management Practices’, Academy of Management Learningand Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 75–91.Pfeffer, J. (2005) ‘Why Do Bad Management Theories Persist?A Comment on Ghoshal’, Academy of Management Learningand Education, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 96–100.142 Book Review and CommentaryArticle-07.qxd  7/22/2008  6:20 PM  Page 142

DCU Online Research Access Service

A Scandal in Bohemia’, reprinted in Conan Doyle

Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices’,

Choice, Chance and Inevitability in

Evidence-Based Policy”: The Continuing Search for Effective Policy Processes’, Planning Theory and Practice,

Presidential Address: Quest for an Engaged Academy’,

To Know and to Do: Academics’ and Practitioners’ Approaches to Management Research’,

Why Do Bad Management Theories Persist? A Comment on Ghoshal’,

http://doras.dcu.ie/14938/1/IJM_29_1_Article7.pdf

Book review and commentary on evidence-based management

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Irish Universities

Name not available

DCU Online Research Access Service