MGMT2100 Chap.2 Critical Thinking and Evidence-Based Management
Critical Thinking and Evidence-Based Management
Week 1 sets two habits of mind beside communication theory, and both shape how every later answer is marked. Critical thinking weighs viewpoints and evaluates evidence and the conclusions drawn from it. Evidence-based management, in Pfeffer and Sutton's definition, means deciding through the careful, explicit and well-judged use of the best evidence available.
The chapter teaches the practical tools behind those definitions: spotting unstated assumptions, separating correlation from causation, applying the three conditions for a causal claim, recognising reverse causality and rival explanations, and the reading's advice to demand evidence, examine logic, run small experiments and hold knowledge with an attitude of wisdom.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Critical thinking as evaluation of evidence and conclusions
- 02
Pfeffer and Sutton's definition of evidence-based management
- 03
Assumptions: hidden, taken for granted, influential
- 04
Correlation versus causality
- 05
Three conditions for establishing causality
- 06
Reverse causality and rival explanations
- 07
Casual benchmarking and the attitude of wisdom
Worked example · free
Test a causal claim about a training program
- 1State the three conditions: the cause must covary with the effect, come before it, and there must be no plausible alternative explanation.
- 1Covariation is shown: trained branches have fewer complaints, so an association exists.
- 1Temporal precedence is not shown: the report does not compare each branch's complaints before and after the course.
- 2Rival explanations remain: managers may have sent their best-run branches first, which is also possible reverse causality.
- 1Recommend comparing complaint rates before and after training in matched branches, or rolling the course out to randomly chosen branches first.
Key terms
- Critical thinking
- Considering possible viewpoints and evaluating evidence and the conclusions inferred from it.
- Assumption
- A belief left unstated that props up the visible reasoning of an argument.
- Reverse causality
- A situation in which the supposed effect actually produces the supposed cause.
- Casual benchmarking
- Copying another firm's visible practices without evidence of why they worked or whether they will transfer.
- Temporal precedence
- The requirement that a proposed cause occurs before the effect it is said to produce.
Critical Thinking and Evidence-Based Management FAQ
What is the difference between correlation and causality?
Correlation is an association between two variables that move together. Causality means one variable produces a change in the other. The course requires three conditions before a causal claim: covariation, the cause preceding the effect, and no plausible alternative explanation for what was observed.
Why do assumptions matter in a case answer?
Assumptions are usually hidden, taken for granted and influential in reaching a conclusion, and they can be deceptive, as Browne and Keeley describe. Naming the premise a character relies on and testing it against the case is a compact way to show the evaluation critical thinking requires.
What does the Pfeffer and Sutton reading add to the definition?
It turns evidence-based management into habits: demand evidence, examine the logic behind it, treat the organisation as an unfinished prototype by running pilots, use stories only to illustrate, stay neutral toward ideologies, and act on the best knowledge while questioning it, which the authors call the attitude of wisdom.
Why is reverse causality so easy to miss?
Because the data look the same whichever way the arrow runs. If successful branches were the ones chosen for a new program, the success came first and the program second. Asking which came first, and how cases were selected, is the quickest test, and a before-and-after comparison usually settles it.
Exam move
Learn the three causality conditions as an ordered checklist and practise running claims through it: advertisements, news headlines and workplace memos all supply material. For each claim, write the association, ask what came first, and list two rival explanations. Practise rewriting overclaims with safer verbs such as 'is associated with'.
From the reading, memorise the named practices rather than its examples, and prepare one sentence on why casual benchmarking fails. In longer answers, add a line beginning 'this recommendation assumes that' and test the premise. Markers in this course look for evaluation, and these moves supply it quickly and visibly in a handwritten answer.
Working through Critical Thinking and Evidence-Based Management in MGMT2100? Sia is AskSia’s AI Management tutor — ask any MGMT2100 Critical Thinking and Evidence-Based Management question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how MGMT2100 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.