• Replies 56 replies
  • Subscribers 3 subscribers
  • Views 19253 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

What’s the deal with ‘evidence-based practice’? Aren’t we all evidence based?

Jonny

To an extent, yes - we all use evidence. But as we argue in our positioning paper, In search of the best available evidence, there are two big things we tend to get wrong when using evidence to inform decisions.

First, we’re often not great at gauging the quality of evidence we’re looking at. There is a well-established hierarchy of scientific evidence on cause-and-effect relationships. The ‘gold standard’ is randomised controlled trials, which carry a good deal more weight than, say, simple before-and-after studies, and far more than surveys run at one point in time. If we can take note of this hierarchy in looking at evidence, we are well on the way to making more reliable, better decisions.

Second, we tend to cherry pick evidence that supports our pet theory. It feels great when you find a piece of research that confirms what you long suspected. But barring the ridiculous, the chances are you’ll be able to find research – even good quality research – to back your opinion whatever it is. To find out if a technique is really worth replicating, we should look at the wider body of evidence. So sitting above the hierarchy of single studies, we have a ‘platinum standard’ of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Evidence-based HR means being anti-fad and willing to face uncomfortable truths. But it’s hugely important. Relying on weak evidence can feel politically expedient (staying in line with what your boss expects to see) or compelling (in tune with the zeitgeist, intuitively right), yet at its worst it gives little more than a 50% chance of success, the equivalent of flipping a coin. If a decision is important, it’s worth testing the available evidence in this light: how much more scientific is it than a coin toss?

There are plenty of thorny questions in evidence-based HR but the basic principles are pretty simple and more importantly, worth striving for. Our hope is that this forum will help put people these principles to work and grapple with the challenges. Thoughts?

Parents
  • Part of the challenge is that it can be hard to find practitioner-focused evidence. A lot of academic research is aimed at other academics (rather than people managers) and adopts a language that many HR professionals find hard to understand. Also, the research often follows fads and fashions, so we don't necessarily get the evidence base in the right areas of people management.
  • in reply to Charles
    Yes I completely agree Charles. A lot of academic research is not practitioner-focused, and for good reasons. Similarly the language is not helpful - often not even to other academics! And fads and fashions are just as evident in academic research.

    On the other hand, academic research is just one source of evidence and like any source of evidence it needs to be judged for it's relevance and trustworthiness. And it's also about using the best available evidence. So even if the evidence isn't great it's still worth checking out.

    As you probably know, more and more academics are becoming concerned about scientific (mal)practices. There's a great summary here by John Antonakis where he discusses what he calls the five diseases of academic publishing:

    retractionwatch.com/.../
  • in reply to Jonny
    There's a great quote from Daniel Kahneman that I think goes some way to answering that question. He suggests evidenced based solutions will always struggle to land within the complexity of big business:

    "Experts who acknowledge the full extent of their ignorance may expect to be replaced by more confident competitors, who are better able to gain the trust of clients. An unbiased appreciation of uncertainty is a cornerstone of rationality--but it is not what people and organisations want."

    There's a difficult reality that follows for me - how much compromise (if any) should there be between progress and rigour/credibility? We can say none: we stick to the gold standard of RCT's and communicate with plainly presented objectivity. But we should recognise that the competition from non-evidence-based solutions is highly sophisticated and evolved to be 'sellable':

    Take the '10 questions' approach - the strength of non-EBHR is to answer them with everything we know people lean towards - certainty (this is the one answer that works), norms + loss aversion (everyone else is doing it, you're falling behind), messenger (this guru says it's right) etc etc. Understanding why it isn't easy to get traction with EBHR is partly about understanding why the alternative is so compelling...

    The question then evolves to 'how should we compete'? How can we be heard?' I imagine the subsequent debate to be in line with a respected academic writing a best-selling psychology book... what's the line?

    (Great thread btw!)
  • in reply to Jonny

    What aspects of people management are most problematic for your organisation?
    On what basis are these identified as issues?
    What evidence would help you progress on these issues?

    Excellent questions, Jonny... and a very helpful lens through which I can view many of the questions and challenges posed elsewhere on this Community by practitioners. Also a very useful mindset for HR professionals to have when considering some of their own work projects and professional objectives - e.g. see this thread.

    A key challenge for me (and others) is to try to 'unlock' and curate the collective experience of why a particular action/set of actions/route was 'successful' (and less successful)... and explore how this might translate to the many different work contexts that are out there.

  • in reply to Charles

    Perhaps we should ask the HR community what 10 pieces of evidence would be most useful for them and then pass this on to the research community?

    Now you've got me thinking...

  • in reply to Jonny
    There's a great quote from Daniel Kahneman that I think goes some way to answering that question. He suggests evidenced based solutions will always struggle to land within the complexity of big business:

    "Experts who acknowledge the full extent of their ignorance may expect to be replaced by more confident competitors, who are better able to gain the trust of clients. An unbiased appreciation of uncertainty is a cornerstone of rationality--but it is not what people and organisations want."

    There's a difficult reality that follows for me - how much compromise (if any) should there be between progress and rigour/credibility? We can say none: we stick to the gold standard of RCT's and communicate with plainly presented objectivity. But we should recognise that the competition from non-evidence-based solutions is highly sophisticated and evolved to be 'sellable':

    Take the '10 questions' approach - the strength of non-EBHR is to answer them with everything we know people lean towards - certainty (this is the one answer that works), norms + loss aversion (everyone else is doing it, you're falling behind), messenger (this guru says it's right) etc etc. Understanding why it isn't easy to get traction with EBHR is partly about understanding why the alternative is so compelling...

    The question then evolves to 'how should we compete'? How can we be heard?' I imagine the following debate to be similar to a respected academic writing a best-selling psychology book... where's the line?
  • in reply to James
    Thanks James - insightful points and I agree, it's not enough to trash woolly thinking; we need to understand why people look to quick and overconfident solutions. This is a great Ted talk from Stuart Firestein on 'the pursuit of ignorance', which speaks to one way we might seek to change our mindsets: www.ted.com/.../stuart_firestein_the_pursuit_of_ignorance

    At a more practical level, I think it will be important to understand how EBHR can be made appealing and do-able (e.g. what are the tools or resources needed?). This is something for which the views of practitioners will be invaluable.

    Like you r point on popular science books. In my mind, it's pretty clear that, while there are defined methods one can follow in evidence-based practice, it's also a continuum. We can stretch ourselves to be MORE discerning of evidence, especially when it comes to major decisions or conclusions. Don't know if you saw it, but Kahneman himself gave a mea culpa on parts of his bestseller Thinking Fast & Slow, admitting “I placed too much faith in underpowered studies”. Fantastic lesson in honesty & humility. retractionwatch.com/.../
  • in reply to Rob
    Feels like this is on a trajectory already Rob.
    I like the idea of seeking out the 10 most difficult problems or questions - maybe CIPD could survey members to determine.

    Another idea for helping EBP support HR, would be for the world of academia to lend their support and services directly to HR practitioners 'in the field' through knowledge transfer partnerships.
  • in reply to Jonny
    Thanks Jonny, I haven't seen the Ted Talk - one for the commute home. I had seen Kahneman's mea culpa (#mancrush). What a guy ;)

    I reckon you're spot on - appealing and do-able are great words (as are desirable and feasible from the Rubicon Model). I also reckon the tendency of evidence based peeps is to lean towards the latter (i.e tools and resources), and the tendency of less credible solutions is to lean towards the former (for obvious reasons).

    So, 'appealing'... how far do you go? Likening 'test, learn and adapt' methodology to the agility of startup cultures that big corporates so admire? Tie up with publications like HBR? Go full on with branding academic research like this from Francesa Gino... hbr.org/.../let-your-workers-rebel.

    I know this will make many academics squirm, but I also supsect that practioners subscribing to the continuum approach may sympathise. I saw a criticism of an IOPsych approach as 'old wine in new bottles' recently, and thought, 'if the old wine is good and the new bottles sell more of it, what's the problem?'

    So maybe the 10 questions will work, but maybe that offers an alternative answer. What are the solutions that EBHR are most confident about? Which will be easiest to land in a big organisation? How can we repackage those in the sweet spot to be attractive to a practioner audience?
  • in reply to James
    Another Kahneman fanboi, here. Great to see James raise (and Jonny acknowledge) his important contribution to this field, especially in commercial HR.

    I recently sat down with Jacques Quinio of Manpower Group who's an evangelist for EBHR and has some great insights on how organizations can make practical use of big data, but I challenged him a bit on how much harder it is for SMEs to acquire people data on the scales necessary to make really evidence-based decisions. Both in terms of the quantity of data we have available and the time we have within which decisions have to be taken, we don't have that luxury. HR practitioners in SMEs, with small teams, most of whose time is occupied with transactional pratice, have to straddle the line between data-led and instinct-led decision-making and Kahneman is our guru for this.

    Our instincts are fallible, but time spent considering the available evidence will inform and improve our instinctive decision-making.

    I'd take issue with Jonny's assertion that "it gives little more than a 50% chance of success". Not on the 50% figure (I'll take that), but on the idea that HR decision are fail/success binary options. We aren't financial market traders for whom the buy/sell decision is a straightforward win/lose binary state. Our decisions are far more nuanced. Do we hire X or hire Y? If we make the "wrong" decision, we still end up with a qualified, capable employee (most of the time) but just one who might not have been as good as the alternative.

    That's not to say that HR is incapable of making business-breaking decisions, but they are usually at the tail-end of a series of failures made at executive level (q.v. bhs).

    As a parting thought, if we assume that EBHR is the pathway to the most effective decision making, to what extent will it therefore be possible for even the most nuanced and sophisticated HR decisions to be automated, given sufficient data of the appropriate quality?
  • in reply to Robey

    Robey said:

    "...if we assume that EBHR is the pathway to the most effective decision making, to what extent will it therefore be possible for even the most nuanced and sophisticated HR decisions to be automated, given sufficient data of the appropriate quality?"

    That is a question, Robey.

    I recall having this exchange about 'empathy' with Peter Cheese and (deleted blog).

  • in reply to James
    So as we often argue when training and teaching is that EBP is definitely not about certainly but rather trying to reduce uncertainty. The more we find about something the more we realize (usually) that our we know less than we thought.

    I don't think there's any need for a compromise between progress and rigor - EBP is about using the best available evidence and being clear about the quality of that evidence. So you can still do stuff without much if any good quality evidence - but the point is you know that's what you're doing.

    And more generally, in relation to 'progress', clearly the more better quality evidence you have better-informed your analysis and action is likely to be and the more progress you'll make. What feels like progress may sometimes turn out to be going backwards.
Reply
  • in reply to James
    So as we often argue when training and teaching is that EBP is definitely not about certainly but rather trying to reduce uncertainty. The more we find about something the more we realize (usually) that our we know less than we thought.

    I don't think there's any need for a compromise between progress and rigor - EBP is about using the best available evidence and being clear about the quality of that evidence. So you can still do stuff without much if any good quality evidence - but the point is you know that's what you're doing.

    And more generally, in relation to 'progress', clearly the more better quality evidence you have better-informed your analysis and action is likely to be and the more progress you'll make. What feels like progress may sometimes turn out to be going backwards.
Children
  • in reply to Rob
    Totally agree with all.

    The better quality evidence you have the better informed your analysis and action is likely to be and the more progress you'll make.

    But how do you encourage practitioners to adopt that approach? By changing their minds? By giving them tools and resources? It's very 'System 2'...

    Should that great work be bolstered with the sorts of techniques management consultancies or national governments are using to sell us their ideas or change our behaviours? When we know these are more likely to have an effect?

    That's the compromise I'm referring to, and it's the bit I think will make academics nervous. Maybe rightly so, maybe not?
  • in reply to Rob
    I have a working example of 'reducing uncertainty'. I was recruited in part to progress our organisation's use of technology to support learning. The results of my initial research into its wider use by other organisations were highly inconclusive. There appears to be little reliable evidence to support the use of technology to enhance learning within organisations so I found myself drawing on reports from consultancies and literature from research on its use in academic contexts.
    This didn't stop us moving forward, it just meant my recommendation was to move forward with caution, namely to take small steps, gather data about it as we went and definitely not spend money on a bright new shiny LMS!
    After a year I've collected small amounts of data from a handful of experiments and other sources to identify what has worked well, and crucially what we could have reasonable success in trying to measure this year. From that I've made a proposal for how to progress over the next 12 months, which I'll do with a little (only a little) more certainty.
  • in reply to Liam
    What a great example. We often think a big question - like 'how do we improve learning in our organisation'? - needs a big answer - like 'a £1m LMS system'. There's a great book our by Owain Service from The BIT, that aims to debunk just that...

    www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/.../

    I bet there is plenty 'small steps' work out there that never gets captured or shared. Especially when competing with the glossy campaigns of big corporate HR and their consultancies.

    Perhaps you could outline one of your experiments, Liam? What approach did you take to measuring your interventions and their impact on learning? What were your results?

    Jonny/Rob - the salesman in me thinks that retelling and heroising some of these stories/examples alongside tools and resources might be impactful.
  • in reply to James

    James I find your arguments compelling - here and above ('how should we compete'? How can we be heard?'). I think part of the challenge is being evidence-based ourselves.

    Most of CEBMa resources, tools and trainings available are based on the hard science of how people learn and build skills https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260178378_The_Science_of_Training_and_Development_in_Organizations_What_Matters_in_Practice 

    So we may not sell evidence itself with overstatements, but can we sell the path to understand and use better quality evidence with confidence over specific outcomes? I think we could begin defining what outcomes we aim to achieve, and at what level of analysis - maybe beginning with individual-level?

  • in reply to James
    James I find your arguments compelling - here and above ('how should we compete'? How can we be heard?'). I think part of the challenge is being evidence-based ourselves.

    Most of CEBMa resources, tools and trainings available are based on the hard science of how people learn and build skills www.researchgate.net/.../260178378_The_Science_of_Training_and_Development_in_Organizations_What_Matters_in_Practice

    So we may not sell evidence itself with overstatements, but can we sell the path to understand and use better quality evidence with confidence over specific outcomes? I think we could begin defining what outcomes we aim to achieve, and at what level of analysis - maybe beginning with individual-level?
  • in reply to Liam
    Exactly. In the absence of strong or reliable evidence you can still proceed but, as you say, more cautiously than if that wasn't the case.
  • in reply to Pietro
    I agree with most but not the bit about defining outcomes. First you need evidence to define and identify problems (or opportunities)! In other words, I think that starting with 'outcomes' in mind (e.g., let's improve performance) can be very unhelpful and misleading. Clearly, those interested in evidence-based practice do not yet have compelling evidence that there is a 'problem' which EBP can help fix.
  • in reply to Pietro
    Thanks, Pietro – I’m pleased to hear that, I’ve been blown away by the work you and the team are doing at ScienceForWork.

    The paper on training and development is great. The area I’m most intrigued by is described as ‘individual differences’ - and in particular the components of self-efficacy, goal orientation and motivation. It’s an oversimplification, but I would position these as providing an intent to learn and practice EBHR. Until you have that, there’s little drive to use the tools and resources that are available.

    We know quite a lot about amplifying intent – take the messenger effect I mentioned above – we’re influenced by who communicates information; we’re more likely to act when that person or institution has authority, we trust them, and they're ‘like us’.

    There’s a problem with the latter. EBHR advocates will typically tick the first two boxes, but the approach feels very unfamiliar to an ‘everyday’ HR practitioner. The language is different and the expertise of an HR professional (and therefore their self-efficacy) may feel under threat or undermined (particularly when we spend so much time ‘debunking’ concepts that are so widely used in the community).

    Now debunking should of course continue, and the language of academia is here to stay. But how can you also make advocates of messengers like Liam, who are taking small, accessible steps in the field, and whom HR practitioners are able to relate to on a day-to-day basis…? How do you begin to hold early-adopter practitioners up as heroes? As pioneers, even?

    Just an example of course - and there’s far more than the messenger effect to take into account - but that’s where I’m going with the whole feasible and desirable thing. If we want to change the behaviour of HR professionals, we should use the science of behavioural change.
  • in reply to James
    Thanks James.

    In my view, one thing to consider is that, when you start working in this way at least, your methodology doesn't need to be solid you just need to be discerning in how you work with the data you get. You can then use what you learn to develop a more robust methodology.

    For example, one simple thing we did was to flag MOOCS in our monthly L&D mail out using bitly.com to track click through. It was quite rough and ready but we got a sense of topics people were curious about and that online learning was worth pursuing still. We also saw a significant increase in people proposing online learning as a solution to learning needs in their personal development plan (PDP) this year. That might be due to various things but combining that data with anecdotal evidence and the click through data created a better indication that people are keen to know more and we have a (slightly) better sense of the kinds of things to focus our time on sourcing, and that we should also trial providing support to help people research and work with these learning resources themselves on the other.
    The question of how to measure use of external resources is still a challenge but in the process of writing this I've realised we can evolve our PDP process this year into a L&D survey which should help with that - so thanks for asking your question!
  • in reply to Liam

    Just possibly to stir the pot by linking:

    www.aconventional.com/.../is-evidence-based-hr-another-fad.html

    Just musing that a lot (most?) of management - including but not 'just' HRM - involves motivation of human beings, and, whilst I'm all for this being based on (social-) scientific inquiry and evidence etc I think usually the relevant / available evidence will tend to conflict and / or be inconclusive or arguable - simply because there are only in the present state of our knowledge about human motivation, there exists only a motley body of conflicting theories and by no means any adequate scientific model. Even if one existed, applying it to particular, unique, situations would raise many judgement calls too?