BUSI7280 · Managing In A Global Context
Evidence-Based Management
Why do smart managers keep making bad calls? Evidence-based management (EBMgt) is the course's answer: a mind-set that replaces conventional wisdom and “dangerous half-truths” with a commitment to seek the best available evidence from multiple sources — practised best, in Pfeffer & Sutton's phrase, “by managers who profoundly appreciate how much they do not know.” EBMgt solves two problems: the research–practice gap (Rynes & Bartunek — research is contradictory and hard to use) and mindless imitation of “best practices” (Pfeffer & Sutton). Bad practice has four causes (obsolete knowledge, personal experience alone, ideology, casual benchmarking); the cure draws on four sources of evidence (scientific literature, organisational data, practitioner expertise, stakeholder values) run through the 6 A's: Ask → Acquire → Appraise → Aggregate → Apply → Assess. This theme spans the quiz and the exam — the 6 A's are prime MCQ fodder and the EBMgt critique is a stock application question.
What this chapter covers
- 012.1 What EBMgt is — and the two problems it solves
- 02EBMgt is a mind-set, not a tool or a dataset
- 03The four causes of bad practice (Pfeffer & Sutton)
- 04Casual benchmarking and the four benchmarking questions
- 05Four sources of evidence + the 6 A's, in order
- 06Why managers ignore evidence — and how to practise it
- 07A worked EBMgt critique (the stock exam question)
Worked example: critique an EBMgt failure
- +1(a) This is Cause 4: casual benchmarking — copying a top performer's practice without asking whether it actually caused their success or whether the two firms are similar enough.
- +1(b) The four benchmarking questions go unasked: does the tech firm's success stem from open-plan (probably not)? Is confidential underwriting work like collaborative coding (no)? How did it help? What are the downsides?
- +1(b) Sources ignored: organisational internal data (the firm's own work patterns) and the scientific literature (mixed-to-negative evidence on open-plan for concentration work).
- +1(b) A-steps skipped: he never Asked an answerable question, never Acquired or Appraised evidence — he jumped straight to Apply, firm-wide.
- +1Evaluate: even good EBMgt couldn't guarantee the “right” layout (the evidence is mixed and stakeholder values matter), but the process was indefensible — a reversible pilot would have surfaced the error.
- +1(c) Recommend the loop: Ask the real question, Acquire internal + literature + underwriter input, Appraise and Aggregate, Apply via a small reversible pilot in one office, then Assess against error and retention metrics before scaling.
Key terms
- Evidence-based management (EBMgt)
- A discipline of inquiry in which managers seek the best available evidence from four sources to choose effective ways to manage people and structure organisations. It is a mind-set, not a database — and it includes staying humble about what you don't know. Reducing it to “be data-driven” misses the point.
- Casual benchmarking
- Uncritically copying a top performer's practice — the headline EBMgt anti-pattern (Pfeffer & Sutton's Cause 4). The cure is the four benchmarking questions: does success clearly stem from this practice? Are our strategy, model and workforce similar enough? How exactly did it make a difference? What are the downsides? Skip these and “the best you can be is a perfect imitation.”
- The four sources of evidence
- EBMgt triangulates across scientific literature (peer-reviewed studies), organisational internal data (your firm's metrics), practitioner expertise (professional judgement) and stakeholder values (the concerns of those affected). No single source is enough — science may not fit your context, data lacks a counterfactual, expertise can be biased, and values aren't facts.
- The 6 A's
- The EBMgt process, in order: Ask (frame an answerable question), Acquire (search and retrieve evidence), Appraise (judge trustworthiness and relevance), Aggregate (weigh and pull together), Apply (incorporate into the decision), Assess (evaluate the outcome and feed it back). It is a loop, not a line — Assess feeds the next Ask.
- The research–practice gap
- Rynes & Bartunek's name for why practitioners struggle to use management research: it is often contradictory, jargon-laden and hard to translate into a decision, so managers fall back on intuition or fashion. EBMgt is the bridge across that gap.
Evidence-Based Management FAQ
Isn't EBMgt just “use data and analytics”?
No — that framing is far too narrow and is a deliberate exam trap. EBMgt is a commitment to gather and critically appraise evidence from four sources, including soft ones like practitioner expertise and stakeholder values, and to stay humble about what you don't know. An answer that reduces it to “be data-driven” caps low.
What's the difference between Appraise and Aggregate (and Apply and Assess)?
These are the A's that get swapped. Appraise judges each piece of evidence individually (is it trustworthy and relevant?); Aggregate combines the appraised pieces (what do they say together?). Apply is using the evidence to decide; Assess is checking the result afterwards. Reciting them out of order is the commonest MCQ slip.
Is the first-mover advantage real?
Treat “move first and you'll dominate” as a textbook ideology / sticky belief (Cause 3), not an evidence-based law — late movers often win by free-riding on the pioneer's R&D and avoiding its mistakes. On the quiz, “first-mover advantage is always real” is a distractor: it is a contestable belief, not a guarantee.
How do I get marks on an EBMgt critique question?
Be specific, not generic. Don't just say “he didn't use evidence.” Name which of the four causes the manager fell for, which source was ignored, which A-step was skipped, and what the four benchmarking questions would have exposed — then recommend the full loop with a reversible pilot. And earn the evaluation marks by acknowledging EBMgt's own limits (evidence is rarely conclusive, the sources can conflict, values still matter, rigorous appraisal is slow).
Exam move
Learn the four causes of bad practice as a set you can recognise an example of each, and memorise the 6 A's in order (Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Aggregate, Apply, Assess) with the two swap-traps locked: Appraise judges each piece, Aggregate combines them; Apply decides, Assess checks the result. The stock exam question hands you a manager who copied a “best practice” or trusted a hunch — run NAER, and inside Apply pin down the exact source ignored and the exact A-step skipped, then prescribe the loop with a pilot. Bank the evaluation marks by naming EBMgt's limits. Remember the synthesis hook: institutions (later in the course) explain why best practices spread for legitimacy rather than fit — the same trap casual benchmarking warns about.
