The first concept that I learned this week was
evidence-based management. According to
Pfeffer and Sutton’s book Hard Facts
Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense/Profiting From Evidence Based-
Management, they defined evidence-based management as something that
proceeds from the premise that uses better, deeper logic and employee facts to
the extent possible permits leaders to
do a better job (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006).
Evidence-based management is based on the belief that faces hard facts about
what works and what does not work.
Including, understanding the dangerous half-truths that constitute
against using conventional wisdom during management, and rejecting the total
non-sense that too often passes for sound evidence will help organizations
perform better (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006).
As often discussed, the medical field have been using evidence-based
management for decades. Usually, most
patients would not let a doctor preform a mysterious surgery to hypnotically
cure their diagnosis. On page 13 of Hard Facts Dangerous Half-Truths & Total
Nonsense, the section entitled Evidence-Based
Medicine: A Model for Evidence Based Management explains the research
behind the reasoning why doctors practice evidence-based management. Dr. David Sackett was described as the
founder of the modern evidence-based management movement (Pfeffer & Sutton
2006, p 13). As a result of using this
technique to practice medicines, all doctors have come to the conclusion of
what works for one patient is not guaranteed to work for the next patient. Needless to say, before any patient goes
under the knife, they will question their doctors about the facts of their
diagnosis, not the doctor’s assumptions or opinions. It makes sense to use evidence-based management
in your place of business. Using numbers
and collective data to further decision making to yield a higher rate of
success is a good way of thinking. Unfortunately
there are large amounts of false facts, and unreliable information for the business
industry. Deciphering between the junk
and truth could potentially become a little tricky. Setting aside personal egos for the greater
good of the company will potentially propel the company to their total profits
desire. Gary Loveman stepped in leadership role as chief of operating in
Harrah, and lead with facts to better the company. Setting aside the concepts behind
conventional wisdom, Loveman was able to lead his company to profitable
revenues (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006).
Another
concept that was discussed in Hard Facts
Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense was casual bench marking and
doing what seemed to have worked in the past.
Casual benchmarking was defined as using other companies’ performances
and experiences to set standards for your own company (Pfeffer & Sutton
2006). Relying on your own personal
experiences comes in handy in the appropriate time and correct setting. In doing so, your experiences that worked in
your last company might do more harm than help in your new company. It is easy to stay in your comfort zone while
in a managing position, but realizing comfort does not yield profit is a new
take away bonus. Prfeffer and Sutton
describes bench marking as being to “causal” (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006,p6 ). Depending on other companies past experiences
is often time quick, easy, and a convenient but has proven to be wrong. Instead of trying to adopt a company’s
technique, companies should adopt the philosophies behind the company’s
technique. For example, better
employment will reduce the turner- over of employees and produce better
customer care. When companies provide
their employees with the proper training and tools to do their job sufficiently,
this will lead to an overall employee improvement in the company. The case study that was completed on United
Airlines and Southwest Airlines (Pfeffer & Sutton 2006) proves this concept. Southwest Airlines focused predominantly on
the treatment of their employees while American Airlines tried to compete with
their sales instead of researching ideas that would better fit their
company. On page 7 Prfeffer and Sutton
used the quote: “Instead of copying what other’s do we ought to copy how they
think” (Prfeffer & Sutton 2006, p7).
Coming up with your own set of strategies and models for your own
companies and testing them out by using controlled groups, surveys, and data
analysis will better your company in future endeavors.
Preoccupation
Trust the Evidence Not Your Instincts by Jeffery Pfeffer and Robert Sutton
This article
examines the facts of using evidence-based management and the false pretenses
that follow shortly behind. Pfeffer and
Sutton makes it abruptly clear that evidence-based management has to be proven
to work in the medical field, but has not been utilized efficiently in the
workplace. In the education system, many
educators receive incentive pay that justifies them doing their job
correctly. The authors argue that
providing educators with incentive pay does not solve any problems in the
school systems. These failures have been documented accordingly. Throwing incentives or any form of bonuses
will not fix a problem in a school system or place of business. All of the examples provided in the article
has been the results of the lack of using evidence-based management. The authors explains the importance of
evaluating manger’s hiring and work placement skills. Both of these skills are crucial for mangers
to have. The principles behind the
arguments that were presented could be implemented in a place of business at
any given time. At every workplace, one
can fine incentives being handed out incorrectly and unequipped coworkers
grouped together to perform a task. I
would like to see more intensive studies completed on mangers and their
decision making behind hiring employees and work force placement.
The principles behind evidence
based-management makes complete sense from a logical standpoint. It is really easy to read about the correct
methods to use while managing organizations, but applying those techniques are
another thing. From my own personal
experiences, from working in restaurants, evidence-management is often times
not used. Several decisions in
restaurants are made on the fly. For
example, in my last restaurant we would often times run out of certain food
items. I never really understood why
that was even an option because all the ordering sous chef had to do was to
look at the previous ordering sheet and calculate the correct amount of
food. Using previous order sheet to
determine an effective outcome is a form of evidence-based management. So does evidence-based management work better
in certain business settings than others?
Several times, the sous chef made decisions off impulse because a
decision had to be made quickly. I
completely understand making quick decisions because I have experienced
situations where I was put on the spot to make quick decisions. Once again, does evidence-management have a
place in quick decision making? Is
making decisions off a hunch or impulsive necessarily bad? I hope to understand
in the next sessions: the balance between evidence management and impulse
decisions, if there is one. 