Evidence-Based Management: Three New Approaches to Teaching the Practice of Management
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•2,390 views
Presentation PDW, Academy of Management Annual, 2012 Eric Barends, Wendy Carroll, Blake Jelley, Denise Rousseau
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (12)
Ähnlich wie Evidence-Based Management: Three New Approaches to Teaching the Practice of Management
Ähnlich wie Evidence-Based Management: Three New Approaches to Teaching the Practice of Management (20)
Mehr von Center for Evidence-Based Management
Mehr von Center for Evidence-Based Management (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Evidence-Based Management: Three New Approaches to Teaching the Practice of Management
- 1. PDW, Annual AOM 2012, Boston Postgraduate Course Evidence-Based Management: Three New Approaches to Teaching the Practice of Management Denise Blake Wendy Eric Rousseau Jelley Carroll Barends
- 2. PDW, Annual AOM 2012, Boston Postgraduate Course 1.Denise Rousseau: Introduction 2.Wendy Carroll & Blake Jelley: Push Approach Subgroups 3. Eric Barends: Pull approach 4.Video (9 min) Subgroups 5.Denise Rousseau: Process Approach
- 3. Definition Postgraduate Course Evidence-based management means making decisions about the management of employees, teams or organizations through the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of four sources of information: 1. The best available scientific evidence 2. Organizational facts, metrics and characteristics 3. Stakeholders’ values and concerns 4. Practitioner expertise and judgment
- 5. Barends, Rousseau, Carroll, & Jelley 2012 Academy of Management PDW Evidence-Based Management: Three New Approaches to Teaching the Practice of Management Teaching EBMgt: The “Push” Approach R. Blake Jelley & Wendy R. Carroll
- 6. Overview • Our Perspectives and Context • Importance of the “Push” Approach • Principles and Resources
- 7. Our Perspectives and Context • Our backgrounds – Education – Applied experiences • Teaching in the UPEI School of Business – Undergraduate – EMBA (launched 2008) • Oxford Handbook of EBMgt chapter – Jelley, Carroll, & Rousseau (2012). Reflections on teaching evidence- based management. • Less about the “push” approach
- 8. Importance of the “Push” Approach • Bounded Rationality, Heuristics, Biases • Kahneman (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow – “System 1” (fast; automatic) – “System 2” (slow; deliberate) • See also Kahneman & Klein (2009). Conditions for Intuitive Expertise: A Failure to Disagree (2009, American Psychologist)
- 9. Importance of the “Push” Approach • A path toward the development of expertise in management? • Developing expert skill and intuition (see Kahneman & Klein, 2009; Kahneman, 2011) – A sufficiently regular, predictable environment – Opportunities to learn regularities through prolonged practice and feedback • The management domain is not highly favourable to skilled intuition – Intuition is an important consideration, not the final word – Managers need to avoid overconfidence in intuition
- 10. Importance of the “Push” Approach • System 1 will engage! • Expert intuition is not magic… – “You can feel [Herbert] Simon’s impatience with the mythologizing of expert intuition when he writes: ‘The situation has provided a cue; this cue has given the expert access to information stored in memory, and the information provides the answer. Intuition is nothing more and nothing less than recognition’” (Kahneman, 2011, p. 11).
- 11. Importance of the “Push” Approach • Making intuition more friendly to EBMgt. – “You do as much homework as possible beforehand so that the intuition is as informed as it can be” (Kahneman, In Kahneman & Klein, 2010, McKinsey Quarterly). – “It is easier to make good decisions quickly if managers are educated and evidence savvy” (John Zanardelli, 2012, p. 196; President & CEO, Ashbury Heights). – Program System 1 with evidence-based principles. • Think fast, well, and set triggers for System 2. • Bolster, not replace, more deliberate processing.
- 12. Importance of the “Push” Approach • Practitioners are not well-informed about management- related knowledge – E.g., Senior SHRM members = 57% correct (Rynes et al., 2002) • Are educators much better? • Various ways to “push” EB knowledge. – Management education as a key. • Also, ME can integrate push, pull, and process approaches
- 13. Principles and Resources • Use of Diagnostic Quizzes – Examples… • HRM (Rynes et al., 2002) • “100 things… & 50 more things you need to know” books • Advertising (Armstrong & Green’s adprin.com) – Discussion of dissemination vs. exposing students as uninformed – Links to critical thinking and the “pull” approach
- 14. Principles and Resources • Concerns about what and how we teach… and who does the teaching – Our body of knowledge • Benefits of systematic research • Volume of research • Focus on novelty over integration, etc. • Pluralism – Textbooks – Instructors – Teaching methods
- 15. Principles and Resources Other References: • Existing research syntheses; • Individual synthesis and translation articles – E.g., Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman (2010). Retaining Talent: Replacing Misconceptions with Evidence-based Strategies. AOM Perspectives [Best Paper] • SHRM Effective Practice Guidelines; • SHRM-SIOP’s new collaborative series.
- 16. Principles and Resources • Identify and teach the “core” management body of knowledge; less content, more practice • Focus on topics, theories, and principles that: – (a) Have a solid evidence-base – (b) Are practical to apply • Are role-relevant • Have implications for practice; address important practice issues • Involve procedural as well as declarative knowledge – (c) Are durable • Over time • Applicable in various situations (Miner, 2003; Rousseau & McCarthy, 2007)
- 17. Since we can’t teach everything, what are the most important evidence- based things we need to program into our students?
- 18. References Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64. Armstrong, J. S., & Green, K. C. (2012). Advertising principles: Evidence-based knowledge on persuasion through advertising. Retrieved from http://advertisingprinciples.com/ [see http://advertisingprinciples.com/en/try/test-your-advertising-iq] Charlier, S. D., Brown, K. G., & Rynes, S. L. (2011). Teaching evidence-based management in MBA programs: What evidence is there? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(2), 222-236. Eichinger, R. W., Lombardo, M. M., & Ulrich, D. (2004). 100 things you need to know: Best people practices for managers & HR (Vol. 1). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss, Giroux. Kahneman, D. & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515-526. Kahneman, D. & Klein, G. (2010). When can you trust your gut? McKinsey Quarterly, Issue 2, 58-67. Jelley, R. B., Carroll, W. R., & Rousseau, D. M. (2012). Reflections on teaching evidence-based management. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management (pp. 337-355). New York: Oxford University Press. Latham, G. P. (2009). Becoming the evidence-based manager: Making the science of management work for you. Boston: Davies- Black. Locke, E. A. (2009). Handbook of principles of organizational behavior: Indispensable knowledge for evidence-based management (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behavior theories: A quantitative review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 250-268. Pearce, J. L. (2009). Organizational behavior: Real research for real managers. Irvine, CA: Melvin & Leigh.
- 19. References Pearce, J. L. (2012). Creating evidence-based management textbooks. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence- Based Management (pp. 377-386). New York: Oxford University Press. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Rousseau, D. M. (Ed.) (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management. New York: Oxford University Press. Rousseau, D. M. (2012). Designing a better business school: Channelling Herbert Simon, addressing the critics, and developing actionable knowledge for professionalizing managers. Journal of Management Studies, 49(3), 600-618. Rousseau, D. M., & McCarthy, S. (2007). Educating managers from an evidence-based perspective. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 84–101. Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resource Management, 41(2), 149–174. Society for Human Resource Management Foundation (2012). Effective practice guidelines series. http://www.shrm.org/about/foundation/products/pages/default.aspx Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology & Society for Human Resource Management (2012). Publication and dissemination of science to practice: A research collaboration between the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP). http://www.siop.org/SIOP-SHRM%5Cdefault.aspx Ulrich, D., Eichinger, R., Kulas, J., & De Meuse, K. (2007). 50 more things you need to know: The science behind best people practices for managers & HR professionals (Vol. 2). Minneapolis, MN: Lominger. Zanardelli, J. (2012). At the intersection of the academy and practice at Ashbury Heights. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management (pp. 191-197). New York: Oxford University Press.
- 20. PDW, Annual AOM 2012, Boston Postgraduate Course Evidence-Based Management: Three New Approaches to Teaching the Practice of Management Part 2: The 5-step pull approach Eric Barends
- 21. Postgraduate Course Trust me, I’m a manager.
- 22. Push vs Pull Postgraduate Course Push: teaching management principles based upon a convergent body of research and telling students what to do. Pull: teaching students how to find, appraise and apply the outcome of research (evidence) by themselves
- 23. Postgraduate Course Why do we need a pull approach?
- 24. Problem I: too much ‘evidence’ Postgraduate Course HRM: 1,400 articles in 2011 (ABI/INFORM). For an HR manager to keep up this means reading 3 to 4 articles every day (for a ‘general’ manager more than 50!)
- 25. Problem II: false information Postgraduate Course Half of what you learn will be shown to be either dead wrong or out-of-date within 7 years of your graduation; the trouble is
- 26. Problem III: half time value Postgraduate Course 5 years? 7 years? 10 years?
- 27. Pull Postgraduate Course Pull: teaching students how to find, appraise and apply evidence by themselves
- 28. Starting point Postgraduate Course Start with a practical question, (not with an academic answer) Problem based Real live case Just in time
- 29. The 5 steps of ‘pull’ EBP Postgraduate Course 1. Formulate a focused question (Ask) 2. Search for the best available evidence (Acquire) 3. Critically appraise the evidence (Appraise) 4. Integrate the evidence with your managerial expertise and organisational concerns and apply (Apply) 5. Monitor the outcome (Assess)
- 30. Postgraduate Course 1. Formulate a focused question
- 31. Asking the right question? Postgraduate Course Does team-building work? Does the introduction of self-steering teams work? Does management development improve the performance of managers? Does employee participation prevent resistance to change? Is 360 degree feedback effective?
- 32. Focused question? Postgraduate Course Does team-building work? What is a ‘team’? What kind of team? In what contexts/ settings? What counts as ‘team-building’? What does ‘work’ mean? What outcomes are relevant? Over what time periods?
- 33. Answerable question: PICOC Postgraduate Course P = Population I = Intervention or success factor C = Comparison O = Outcome C = Context
- 34. Focused question: PICOC Postgraduate Course P = Population I = Intervention or successfactor C = Comparison Employee productivity? Job satisfaction? O = Outcome Return on investment? C = Context Market share? Organizational commitment?
- 35. Postgraduate Course 2. Finding the best available evidence
- 36. Searching evidence Postgraduate Course Where do we search?
- 37. Databases Postgraduate Course ABI/INFORM Business Source Elite PsycINFO Web of Knowledge ERIC Google Scholar
- 38. Searching evidence Postgraduate Course How do we search? Search Strategy
- 39. Search strategy Postgraduate Course Two types of search strategies Snowball method Building blocks method
- 40. Hands on instruction Postgraduate Course
- 41. Postgraduate Course 3. Critical appraisal of studies Making sense of evidence
- 42. Postgraduate Course The best available evidence = Studies with the highest internal validity (does it work?) Studies with the highest external validity (does it work for my employees / my organization?)
- 43. Research designs Postgraduate Course Which study for which question? The “best” evidence depends on the question type !
- 44. Which design for which question? Postgraduate Course Explanation
- 45. Postgraduate Course Best research design?
- 47. Critical appraisal Postgraduate Course 1. Is the study design appropriate to the stated aims? 2. Was a control group used? 3. Was a pretest used? 4. Are the measurements likely to be valid and reliable? 5. Could bias or confounding have occurred? 6. How large was the effect size?
- 48. Postgraduate Course Step 4: Turning evidence into practice
- 49. Organization concerns Postgraduate Course Always ask yourself to what extent the evidence is applicable in your situation: 1. Is your organization / population so different from those in the study that its results are difficult to apply? 2. How relevant is the study (or outcome) to what you are seeking to understand or decide? 3. What are your organization’s potential benefits and harms from the intervention? 4. Is the intervention feasible in your setting?
- 51. Feasible? Postgraduate Course organizational facts and characteristics cultural aspects stakeholders’ values and concerns political aspects financial aspects /cost-effectiveness / ROI priorities change readiness / resistance to change implementation capacity timing
- 52. Exercises / Assignments Postgraduate Course Popular management book / guided field trip Surfacing assumptions Needle & haystack assignment Myth busters, snake oil symposium Find the Flaws Persuasive paper / presentation CAT
- 53. CAT: Critically Appraised Topic Postgraduate Course
- 54. CAT: Critically Appraised Topic Postgraduate Course A critically appraised topic (CAT) is a structured, short (2 pages max) summary of evidence on a topic of interest, usually focused around a practical problem or question..
- 55. CAT: structure Postgraduate Course 1) Background / context 2) Question (PICOC) 3) Search strategy 4) Results / evidence summary 5) Findings 6) Limitations 7) Recommendation
- 57. CAT: example Postgraduate Course See: www.cebma.org/presentations (CAT Organizational Trust and Job Satisfaction)
- 58. Postgraduate Course What are the skills that are manifest in this video that are relevant to what you are trying to teach at your classes?
- 59. Denise M. Rousseau Barends, Rousseau, Carroll, & Jelley 2012 Academy of Management PDW Evidence-Based Management: Three New Approaches to Teaching the Practice of Management
- 60. Bounded Rationality Critical Thinking The Small Numbers Decision Supports Problem of Individual Experience Research • Large Ns > individual Prone to See Patterns experience Even in Random Data • Controls reduce bias The “Human” Problem Evidence-Based Practice
- 61. Bounded Rationality Critical Thinking The Small Numbers Decision Supports Problem of Individual Experience Research • Large Ns > individual Prone to See Patterns experience Even in Random Data • Controls reduce bias The “Human” Problem Evidence-Based Practice
- 62. Get critical “evidence” in advance • Prime your KSAs Make the right decision as fast as needed • Not necessarily “as fast as possible” Learn best (evidence-based) strategies for different decision types • Identify the type of decision you face • Then, engage the right decision strategy
- 63. Routine decisions for which there is a “best evidence-based way” to do things • Hiring call center workers, management trainees • Giving periodic performance feedback • Running a geographically distributed meeting Acquire science-based evidence and org facts to identify effective practices Develop standard operating procedures with users Gather org-evidence to evaluate SOP effects Modify as needed Put in user-friendly form (Checklist, Diagram)
- 64. Non-routine Decisions (# Stakeholders & Goals) • New facility start up • Solving space problem in existing building • Developing a company-wide performance management system Evidence-Based Pull Approach Yates’s Cardinal Rules Note: What is non-routine to one organization may be routine in another (e.g., new store start ups are routine in McDonald’s )
- 65. Beneficiary Interests/Values Other A Big Picture Decision Contributors Decision Processes: Cardinal Issue Resolution Preliminaries Core Aftermath 1—Need 4—Options 9—Acceptability 2—Mode 5—Possibilities 10—Implementation 3—Investment 6—Judgment 7—Value 8—Tradeoffs Resolution Contributors: E.g., Resources, Tools, Biology, Habits, “Natural” Experiences, Training, History, Culture
- 66. Hypercomplex Decision with High Risk and Many Unknowns (i.e. Black Swans) Use Sensemaking Weick and Sutcliffe’s Resilience Process • Gather information and check assumptions • Run experiments (in parallel if several alternatives are identified) • Multiple trials to learn by doing • Build on small wins • Continue to question assumptions
- 67. Routine Decisions • Atul Gawande Novel Decisions (due # Stakeholders & Goals) • Frank Yates Hypercomplex with Many Unknowns/Risky Decisions • Karl Weick & Kathleen Sutcliffe
- 68. What type of decision situation do you face? DIAGNOSIS: Appropriate decision strategy? Product of this is critical thinking that overtime helps you become more aware of assumptions and gaps in logic
- 69. Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Klayman, J. (1998) Cognitive repairs: How organizational practices can compensate for individual shortcomings. Review of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1–38. Gawande, A. (2009). Checklist manifesto: How to get things right. New York: Henry Holt. Larrick, R.K. (2009/) Broaden the decision frame to make effective decisions. In E.A. Locke (ed.), Handbook of principles of organizational behavior: Indispensable knowledge for evidence-based management . New York: Wiley (pp. 461-515). Taleb, N. N. (2010). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. (2 nd ed.) New York:: Penguin. Weick, K.E, & Sutcliffe, K. (2007). Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty. New York: Wiley. Yates, J. F. (2003). Decision management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Yates, J.F. & Potwoworski, G. (2012). Evidence-based decision management. In D,M, Rousseau (ed): Handbook of Evidence-Based Management: New York: Oxford University Press, this volume.
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Wendy…
- Wendy…
- Wendy…
- Wendy…
- In his 2011 book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”, Kahneman described his work with Gary Klein as his most productive and satisfying “adversarial collaboration.” Kahneman and Klein (2009) came together as though leaders of different intellectual camps concerned with decision-making. Kahneman represents the Heuristics and Biases approach. Klein’s camp of scholars and practitioners study how experts work in organizations – what they call Naturalistic Decision Making. Certainly, there are examples of experts’ intuitions working well in high pressure situations (e.g., fireground commanders). Both camps are also concerned with experts’ failures, albeit with approaches and emphasis. Nevertheless, Kaheman and Klien found common ground and have summarized some key considerations about developing expert skill and intuition. These are pertinent to the question of whether we can develop true expert-managers: (1) predictable environment & (2) opportunities to learn the regularities [see slide]. Managers operate in complex situations and don’t get clear, immediate feedback about the quality of their decisions. Thus, both the nature of the management context and managers’ opportunities to learn from practice seem to place limits on their ability to develop expertise. Thus, it makes sense for management educators to teach managers to be skeptical of their intuitions and alternatives to facilitate more deliberate processing, such as the pull and process approaches that Eric and Denise will discuss. Nevertheless… [next slide]
- System 1 will engage… it is automatic, quick, and involuntary. We don’t have a choice in that. Also, the need (or at least desire for) speed in managerial decision making cannot be ignored if we want to have impact. Thus, EBMgt can’t ONLY be about more deliberate decision-making (System 2), although that is crucial for overcoming key limitations of System 1. We also need to try to foster EBMgt at the level of fast, more intuitive decision-making. Understanding that expert intuition is not magic, but involves the recognition of cues in the environment and accessing information stored in memory is helpful in that regard [see quote on slide]. We can help managers develop valid mental models and cues to improve the quality of their intuitions. This is where the “push” approach to EBMgt teaching is key. [Could potentially mention Klein’s “recognition primed decision model” here or on the next slide as it combines Systems 1 & 2]
- We can use the “push” approach to make managers’ intuitions more friendly to EBMgt. In a McKinsey Quartlerly interview with Kahneman and Klein, “When can you trust your gut?” Kahneman recommended doing our homework to inform intuitions [see quote on slide]. He was referring to a specific decision scenario (i.e., an acquisition) and suggested postponing intuition as much as possible. We’re using his quote in a different context here, but think it supports the “push” approach to teaching EBMgt very well. We also find support for the “push” approach in some of the entries in the Oxford Handbook on Evidence-Based Management. In particular, it is noteworthy that an active, C-suite, evidence-based executive argued that [read Zanardelli’s quote on slide]. Sometimes one gets the impression that EBMgt is about slowing down decision-making to improve it… helping managers to locate and critically evaluate research relevant to practical problems or designing local investigations to get evidence. That’s all true and vital. BUT we’ve argued that we must also program managers’ “system 1s” with the best evidence-based principles to help them make good decisions quickly and trigger use of more deliberate processes where appropriate.
- Unfortunately, it does not appear that managers are well informed about management’s research findings. For example, Rynes and colleagues (2002) surveyed a s tratified random sample of SHRM members [N=959, 19.2% response rate]. These were people with titles ranging from HR managers to HR VPs and they had an average of 13.8 years of experience. The researchers gathered o pinions about established research findings (agree, disagree, or no opinion with various statements). The research-based HRM quiz in many respects modeled a related HR certification exam. Nevertheless, the average score was 57% correct, although there were better results for respondents (a) at higher organizational levels, (b) who had SPHR certification, or (c) read the academic literature. [Source: Source: Rynes, S. L., Colbert, A. E., & Brown, K. G. (2002). HR professionals' beliefs about effective human resource practices: Correspondence between research and practice. Human Resources Management , 41 (2), 149-174.] Educators – Not aware of specific studies like Rynes et al with instructors, but not overly optimistic… Fragmentation, volume of information, & course loads, for example, make it difficult for educators to keep up to date (Rousseau & McCarthy, 2007); ~ making sense of evidence to inform teaching and practice is not part of most scholars’ job descriptions (Rousseau, 2012); non-intellectual adjuncts who are more concerned with their own stories than with what can be learned and taught from systematic research (various sources e.g., see Charlier et al., 2011; Rousseau, 2012); [not exactly dealing with what instructors know the following point is tangentially relevant: although instructors with PhDs are much more likely than non-PhDs to design EBMgt-consistent course syllabi, such courses are in the minority even among PhDs (Charlier et al., 2011)] There are various ways we could discuss to better inform managers of practice-relevant research findings which may come up during our discussion – e.g., writing knowledge-translation books or articles in practitioner-oriented publications; media interviews; web-based multimedia presentations. We want to focus on the role of management education in our undergraduate, MBA, executive, and outreach programs. Management education programs can be used to deliver sound evidence-based content and also help students learn the tools to update their knowledge and challenge assumptions – integrating the various approaches we’ll describe in this PDW.
- One approach we’ve used to highlight that there are gaps in practitioners’ and students’ management knowledge is to use a quiz like the Rynes et al. HRM knowledge quiz when introducing EBMgt or in substantive courses (e.g., EMBA Orientation Session; HRM undergraduate course) note the difference I’ve noticed in the discussion times between those groups, albeit with small numbers. There are similar diagnostic quizzes available online such as Cialdini’s and Armstrong’s [refer to slide] We also get occasional questions and challenges about the scoring key. Management students, especially experienced ones, typically come in with previously formed opinions about our content. Thus, teaching EBMgt content requires not only making students aware of research findings, but often involves unlearning previous misconceptions. That can be challenging and a source of resistance, but challenging assumptions is part of thinking like an evidence-based manager. Use of the Rynes et al HRM knowledge quiz was discussed online among members of the EBMgt Collaborative and we (Jelley, Carroll, & Rousseau, 2012) discussed some cautions in our chapter. Specifically, taking various experiences together seems to point to the importance of discussing the knowledge gap as a translation and dissemination problem. We try to avoid making students feel uninformed, stupid, etc, while also using it as an opportunity to promote critical thinking. Students challenges are opportunities to promote critical thinking about the research basis to date, explore potential contingency ideas, think about what has and what could be done to further develop understanding. Rynes et al. provide a summary of research and rationale for each item. BUT it’s also important to emphasize with students the need to think critically about our own experiences, etc. – the things that led to suspicion about the scoring key in the first place. Overall, challenges about the scoring key can help integrate the push approach with the pull approach, which will be discussed later.
- There have been concerns raised by numerous authors about what we teach, how we teach it, and who does the teaching. What specifically should we be teaching in an EBMgt curriculum? This one of the questions we want to discuss in this workshop. In terms of our body of knowledge, we recognize the benefits of systematic research to mitigate alternative ways of knowing, especially learning only from our own limited and perceptually distorted experiences. Moreover, there is a vast amount of knowledge available and thousands of new articles published each year in hundreds of journals devoted to management scholarship. That’s both a blessing and a curse as scholars tend to be rewarded for and focus on what’s new rather than integrating what we know… It can be confusing for educators and even more so for managers to find and integrate so much information. Also, management is a diverse discipline in terms of methodologies and ontological approaches. Thus, one key recommendation stemming from the EBMgt Collaborative is for more systematic reviews pertinent to practical questions, which can include but not be limited to quantitative meta-analyses. Good, systematic integration of existing evidence would better define our body of knowledge and be a useful resource for educators, researchers, and textbook authors… as well as for managers. Pearce (2012) is among the scholars who’ve outlined concerns about textbooks as a source of evidence-based knowledge. She points out inconsistencies in textbook content with the research base… you may have had similar experiences. She argues in more detail than I can summarize here various reasons, including pressures from instructors for publishers to include a very large number of topics. [As mentioned before?...] Chalier et al. (2011) examined a representative sample of US management course syllabi from MBA programs and found that instructors without PhDs were less likely to use EBMgt language when describing their courses. In terms of who does the teaching, it can be beneficial to have practitioner experience, but we need people who take an intellectual approach that incorporates research evidence, not only their personal experiences (e.g., Rousseau, 2012). Also, Goodman and O’Brien’s (2012) Handbook of EBMgt chapter discusses evidence-based principles of teaching and learning that we can use to improve our teaching… sometimes just making adjustments to how we use certain techniques (e.g., cases). The what and how we teach are interrelated, since we may need to spend more time and better teaching methods “focusing on principles where the science is clear (Rousseau & McCarthy, 2007).
- Highlight various sources that try to summarize and translate important parts of our body of knowledge. Discuss a bit about their structures, etc. Important to note that they do not necessarily converge in their interpretations of given topics or practices. Nevertheless, these seem to be useful sources for instructors to consider and compare. [For reference: “2010 Academy of Management Perspectives Best Paper Award The Academy of Management Perspectives Award for Best Paper of 2010 was presented to David G. Allen, Phillip C. Bryant and James M. Vardaman for “ Retaining Talent: Replacing Misconceptions With Evidence-Based Strategies ” at this year ’ s Annual Meeting in San Antonio, Texas. The Academy of Management Perspectives Best Paper Award is given on a yearly basis to the best paper published during the previous year. Finalists for the AMP Best Paper Award were selected by committee members, Hugh O’Neil (Chair), Igor Filatotchev, and Donald Siegel, based on the following criteria: the paper represents an impressive summary and integration of an important set of research finding, is written in a style and with a degree of accessibility that will make it a foundational article for management teaching for many years, provides a model for other authors with respect to how a set of academic ideas and research findings can be framed and communicated in an appealing and compelling manner, and advances our understanding of issues that are relevant to managers and executives alike.”] Allen also contributed to the SHRM effective practice guidelines series.
- Since we can’t teach everything, what are the most important evidence-based things we need to program into our students’ System 1 or managerial intuitions? [review slide with respect to the criteria we think should be considered when deciding on that list] [Independent reflection and listing; potentially compare in small group; plenary discussion want people to walk away with a list from which to work; and perhaps ask for submission of ideas]
- Since we can’t teach everything, what are the most important evidence-based things we need to program into our students’ System 1 or managerial intuitions? [review slide with respect to the criteria we think should be considered when deciding on that list] [Independent reflection and listing; potentially compare in small group; plenary discussion want people to walk away with a list from which to work; and perhaps ask for submission of ideas]
- Building on the Push and Pull Approaches, we come to where the rubber meets the road, making managerial decisions.
- Just because the decision is novel, does not mean that there isn’t relevant scientific evidence. But the evidence may be more about the appropriate processes to use in making the decision, rather than the content of the decision. Sometimes scientific evidence may still be useful in parts of the decision (e.g., how different office designs affect communication; the kinds of performance management systems that work best for reducing errors or increasing staff development)
- One approach we’ve used to highlight that there are gaps in practitioners’ and students’ management knowledge is to use a quiz like the Rynes et al. HRM knowledge quiz when introducing EBMgt or in substantive courses (e.g., EMBA Orientation Session; HRM undergraduate course) note the difference I’ve noticed in the discussion times between those groups, albeit with small numbers. There are similar diagnostic quizzes available online such as Cialdini’s and Armstrong’s [refer to slide] Use of the Rynes et al HRM knowledge quiz was discussed online among members of the EBMgt Collaborative and we (Jelley, Carroll, & Rousseau, 2012) discussed some cautions in our chapter. Specifically, taking various experiences together seems to point to the importance of discussing the knowledge gap as a translation and dissemination problem. We try to avoid making students feel uninformed, stupid, etc. We also get ocassional questions and challenges about the scoring key. These are opportunities to promote critical thinking about the research basis to date, explore potential contingency ideas, think about what has and what could be done to further develop understanding. Rynes et al. provide a summary of research and rationale for each item. BUT it’s also important to emphasize the need to think critically about our own experiences, etc. – the things that led to suspicion about the scoring key in the first place. Overall, challenges about the scoring key can help integrate the push approach with the pull approach, which will be discussed later.