Evidence based consultancy, the next step?

The discussing about evidence based management is very much alive today. In the Dutch management journal M&O magazine, three scholars take things one step further. They wonder in their article if evidence based consultancy is within the realm of possibilities. They describe evidence based consultancy as a service innovation in consultancy, where interventions are supported by scientific evidence and/or repeatedly proven positive practices. They are aware of the huge gap between theory and practice. In their article they refer to the evidence based medicine practice as a way of working in the medical profession and see potential for evidence based consultancy. In order to achieve this, a few basics need to be warranted:

• compliance with professional codes of conduct for consultants
• interventions backed up by scientific evidence and/or information on best practices
  
• systematic integration of the context (the client's organization)

The last point prevents rationalization and standardization of the evidence based consultancy practice. It should actually strengthen the link between theory and practice.

Non Dutch speakers are advised to use Google translate to upload the file and translate Dutch to English to read the full article.

Source: M&O Magazine, january 2009, dr. J.M.J. Baaijens, prof. dr. P.N. Kenis, prof. dr. M.T.H. Meeus

There are a few problems with evidence based consulting. The first basic is the professional code of conduct. Consultancy is a free (and commercial) enterprise. A small percentage of consultants are members of a professional organization (check the ICMCI for your local branch). Of this small percentage even a smaller number are 'certified consultants'. An additional problem is legislation. A certified management consultant (CMC) is not a recognized 'title' like for instance a registered accountant (CPA) or a member of the bar association (lawyers and judges). The second problem is contributing to a body of knowledge. Contrary to scientific research, this is not (always) the case for consultants. They prefer to 'share' knowledge in order to reach customers (look how smart I am, hire me). Also clients never give consultants 'carte blanche'. Most of the times, the 'best intervention' is not necessarily the solution the client is looking for (f.i. personal agendas, politics or affirmation of radical plans). But, maybe I'm wrong.

Suggestions or examples are welcome.

Three questions about evidence based management

The last few days, I have had pleasant email exchanges with Dennis Tourish (University of Kent) and Mark Learmonth (University of Nottingham). Dennis will join in the EBM debate later and Mark still defends his arguments against the emerging evidence based management movement. He also sent me a few articles. Since he published his short paper in ORGANIZATION, he has become a little milder. I've invited him to respond on the blog and share his current views with the rest of the readers.

After reading several publications, there are actually three questions which fascinate me about the evidence based management movement. Please share your thoughts in the comments or write your own posting.

1. What is the core idea and purpose of EBM? What would be the benefit for organizations and society as a whole if management would be based more on evidence?
2. What progress has the EBM movement currently been making? Is there evidence of evidence based management getting a foothold in organizations?
3. What is future for EBM in (research and practice)?

Readers who have written articles on evidence based management (published in academic journals or still in the process or otherwise), please share them with me. I'd like to make a repository with interesting articles on evidence based management.

Asking the right question: a tribute to Howard Moskowitz

This is a classic on the internet, but still worth paying attention to. Malcolm Gladwell, the best selling author of the tipping point, Blink! and Outliers was invited to give a TED talk in 2004. He started out by saying he thought of talking about his latest book, but instead choose to talk about his personal hero. An that is dr.Howard Moskowitz. Moskowitz claim to fame came when he reinvented spaghetti sauce. ...Actually, he discovered a major flaw in thinking about product development and the first product in which he successfully fixed the flaw was spaghetti sauce. What happened? In the late 70 Pepsi came to his office asking him to determine the sweetspot ( the right amount of aspartame, an artificial sweetener) for their new product Pepsi Cola.

After extensive testing, by asking thousands of people to test samples, the results were a mess. No nice bell curve, but the dots were scattered across the board. For years and years, he tried to figure out what went wrong. Where was the flaw? Finally, he figured out that Pepsi had asked him the wrong question. The question was : develop the right Pepsi (single) and it should have been : develop the right Pepsi's (plural). Just watch and learn from this beautiful lecture. Everything starts with asking the right question(s).

Is business management a profession?

In an earlier post I pointed out that the science (or art) of management is still in the middle ages, where the alchemist still tell us they can change lead into gold. The underlying problem is that management is not yet perceived as a profession. But what is the definition of a profession? This morning I was searching for papers on this subject and found an interesting publication dealing with the same question (Khurana, Nohria, and Penrice; 2005). In order to establish if management is a profession and compare it to professions like law and medicine, these authors choose four criteria;

1. a common body of knowledge resting on a well-developed, widely accepted theoretical base;
2. a system for certifying that individuals possess such knowledge before being licensed or otherwise allowed to practice;
3. a commitment to use specialized knowledge for the public good, and a renunciation of the goal of profit maximization, in return for professional autonomy and monopoly power;
4. a code of ethics, with provisions for monitoring individual compliance with the code and a system of sanctions for enforcing it.

I'm not going to run down the list, it is merely a nice framework. The authors note that the study of management is very young compared to law, medicine and theology. During the time that the first business schools were being constituted, at the beginning of the twentieth century, "scientific management" was in the air, as Frederick Taylor's application of scientific methods to the study of physical labor had begun to be extended to the organization of industry as well as to spheres such as higher education and government.

Management differs from medicine, law, and other recognized professions in having neither a formal educational requirement nor a system of examination and licensing for aspiring members. Although the MBA has been the fastest-growing graduate degree for the past twenty years, it is not a requirement for becoming a manager.

You can argue, that management is struggling for recognition. Big cataclysmic events, like to global melt down of the financial system fuel the discussion on professionalism (the blessing in disguise). Still, judgement, context and personal experience are always part of the equation. No matter how many codes of ethics, bodies of knowledge and permanent education become mandatory for a management position. Decision making is not the same as solving a puzzle.

On thing where I see the first improvement in the road toward professionalism is permanent eduction. This could bridge the gap between science and practice. On the other hand, management science should explore the field more and test their hypotheses. This partially validates Mark Learmonth's argument for pluralistic research methods. Most articles in A rated journals have no connection to the real world. It is just a political game for tenure. An observation which was made earlier by Howard Johnson. We still have a long road ahead of us.

Food for thought: Mark Learmonth's view on evidence based management

In my exploratory search for the state of the art of the evidence based management movement, I stumbled on this short paper by dr. Mark Learmonth, Associate Professor in Organization Theory at the University of Nottingham. This is a must read for all the evidence based management enthusiasts. Maybe not always what you want to hear or read, but definitely food for thought on the freedom of conducting research and the politics which are involved in securing research grants and the pursuit of a academic career. Although, criticizing the EBM proponents by challenging their intellectual credibility does not make his case stronger. In the abstract of his contribution which is called Evidence-Based Management: A Backlash Against Pluralism in Organizational Studies?, he states:

The rise of ‘evidence-based management’ (EBM) is read as the latest form of resistance to pluralism—one that might prove particularly hard to refuse given the popularity of many other forms of evidence-based practices. So I explore the prospects for EBM within organization studies and some of its implications for those who value the continuation of pluralistic forms of analysis in organizational research. 

In 1993 Jeffrey Pfeffer bemoaned the proliferation of theoretical perspectives in the field of organizational studies. He advocates the paradigmatic unity which was enforced by a group of scholars who imposed their views in the field of economics. This was a good thing, because it enabled coherent research and more advancements in the field of economics. Organization studies could benefit in the same way. His appeal fell on deaf ears and it seemed that the pluralists of methodology in social sciene had won the battle. Learmonth is still not convinced. He worries that the evidence based management movement is a political project and that the emergence of the evidence based practice will lead to methodological fundamentalism. In social science, he says, evidence is never just there for the researcher to find it, it is always necessary to construct the evidence in some way, a process that is inherently ideological and always contestable.

Update: I reread the short paper and distilled the main arguments made by Mark.

• Evidence based management limits (what counts as) legitimate research methodologies (leads to fundamentalism).
  
• What works tends to assume elite definitions of effectiveness.
• Evidence based management has a top management bias.
• Evidence is not objective or neutral.This leads to philosophical discussions on science.
• Evidence based management is a political project.
• Evidence based management threatens funding for independent research.

I wonder if he still feels so strongly about the points he's made. Maybe he'll respond.

The EvidenceSoup take on evidence based management

Immediately after my post on well being of the evidence based management movement, Tracy Altman responded on her blog EvidenceSoup. She also thinks that without a collaborative effort, evidence based management is heading for failure. Her blog focuses on the large variety (like law, medicine, dentistry, business, education, etc.) of evidence based practices.

Here's her quick take on things:

The Evidence Soup Guide to Keeping the Evidence-Based Movement Alive.

Part I. How to kill the EBM movement. If people do these things, we'll be writing an obituary:

1. Frown on new evidence. Develop an environment where people are discouraged from challenging tradition, scrutinizing old habits, or asking tough questions.
2. Oversimplify things that are tremendously complicated. Insist on clearly delineating which decisions are evidence-based, and which are not. Doggedly pursue a set of formal rules for determining precisely whose actions are evidence-based, and whose are not.
3. Make evidence exclusive. Behave as if certain insiders (or groups) are the keepers of the evidence, and the rest of us (outsiders) had better sit up straight and pay attention.

Part II. How to pump more life into the EBM movement. Here's how we can nudge EBM into the mainstream:

1. Avoid painting all fuzzy stuff with the same brush. Resist the urge to divide the world into two distinct hemispheres: One where all things are evidence-based, and one where people are just plain wrong. It's not that simple, and we should know better.
2. Accept that we often lack good evidence. It's better to openly acknowledge where solid evidence is missing than to pretend. It sends the wrong message when we try to force-fit or stretch uninteresting evidence where there is none.
3. Set a good example. Encourage people to do things that are evidence-guided (or evidence-informed) every day, to the best of their ability. Create a corporate culture where its okay to ask intelligent questions that challenge authority, myth, and tradition.
4. Use smarter technology. Find better ways to distribute more good evidence to more people. Make evidence easier to interpret so people can appreciate its value and apply it more easily.