• Replies 56 replies
  • Subscribers 3 subscribers
  • Views 19224 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?

  • in reply to Charles
    Interesting idea - I think even more useful would be to ask HR practitioners what are the 10 most difficult problems or questions they face in their everyday work. I think then an analysis of the nature of these problems might indicate what types of evidence might be most relevant or useful for these common practice problems/questions.

    I've been thinking about doing this for, er, only around 15 years or more I reckon. Maybe it's nearly time to get around to it with help from a large professional HR body perhaps?
  • in reply to Rob
    I hope we'll hear both in this forum. The challenges people are grappling with is an ideal starting point, but definitely good for practitioners to be talking about evidence too.
    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?
  • in reply to Rob

    Rob, to your point of doing this for 15 years, you've clearly had a lot of influence, so don't underestimate that. But clearly it's not easy to get traction with evidence-based practice. I think we have to reflect on this & ask why it's the case. For example:
    1. EBP can feel like a technical point of methodology and I think many people are happy leaving that to the experts. The line of thought of: surely you've got to at least trust the scientists.
    2. Practitioners need to feel they are central to the solution of EBHR, not just consumers of research. So as you suggest, to ask: what problems do you grapple with? But also: what would help HR in your org be more discerning of evidence, or make better use of it? And: what tools would you like to see to help?

  • 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?
  • 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.