By David Creelman

One of the risks of evidence-based management is that data bullies will start deriding people who have good ideas but are not so good at marshalling evidence. It is easy to imagine someone wanting to initiate a new type of marketing program, launch an HR initiative or rearrange equipment on the factory floor and being beaten up by sceptics who say “What evidence do you have that this will work?”

Now, I hope you feel a little uncomfortable with that opening paragraph because the question I’ve placed in the mouths of the data bullies is not really inappropriate. If someone wants to invest time and money in changing something then we are right to ask for evidence. However, as you are pondering how reasonable it is to ask for evidence, imagine a scene of harsh analysts squashing every new idea and creating endless hurdles where someone has to absolutely prove their idea will work before anything can be done.

That’s the point of contention: we need a culture that demands evidence-based decisions and yet one that does not become tediously bureaucratic and risk averse.

The Playfulness of Evidence-based Management
Dr. Denise Rousseau and I lead a community of practice on evidence based management and one observation is that, at its best, evidence-based management is playful. The notion “Prove it!” is contrary to the spirit of evidence-based management. Instead we live in a world of questions and hypotheses. We ask “What do we know about this?” and “How would we know if this is a good idea?” We form hypotheses like “Additional training of cashiers will reduce complaints”—and then we work to decide if the hypothesis is true or false.

It’s time to introduce an abbreviation: EBmgt = evidence-based management. It is not an acronym in common use outside the EBmgt community, but I suspect you are already tiring of reading the full phrase.  So, armed with the abbreviation I can say that EBmgt is a fun exercise of problem solving. Done correctly EBmgt is not about making a business case. It is about exploring ideas and figuring out which course of action the evidence supports.

Balance, Not Proof
If employees want time off to support a local charity can you prove that there is an ROI? That’s the wrong question. The right question is “What is the balance on evidence? Of the two options of allowing and disallowing the charitable work, which looks best?” Now, in the course of exploring the choice we will probably find other options; however let’s put that complication aside for a moment. The essential point is that we are not pleading a case, we are, with open minds, exploring options in the light of evidence.

An important, and easily overlooked, principle in EBmgt is this: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You may not have evidence that easy-to-open packaging improves sales, however you cannot make decisions based on lack of evidence. You have to make the choice between easy-to-open and hard-to-open packaging based on the balance of evidence for each option.

How do we deal with absence of evidence? Our community of practice members deal with this by digging around. They see what they can find in the academic literature, in their own data or from the experiences of others. They rely on logical arguments and back-of-the-envelope calculations. Where practical, they run pilots to gather data. They explore, they inquire, and they ask “Where does the balance of evidence lie?”

Wrapping Up
Every silver lining has a dark cloud. The dark cloud in EBmgt is people losing the spirit of playful inquiry. Do not let people use EBmgt to create bureaucracy, shut down new ideas, or punish people seeking fresh ways to do things. When it is done correctly EBmgt is fun, intellectually engaging and most of all collaborative. EBmgt is a relatively new idea; let’s be sure we do not let it go off track.

David Creelman is CEO of Creelman Research. In addition to research and writing he helps HR leaders with emerging issues in human-capital management. He works with a variety of academics, think tanks, consultancies and HR vendors in the Americas, Asia and Europe. Mr. Creelman can be reached at dcreelman@creelmanresearch.com