Weekly Readings
Article: “Evidence Based Management” by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton
“Evidence based management is conducted best not by know-it-alls but by managers who profoundly appreciate how much they do not know.”
I was puzzled by the authors’ comparison of physicians and managers. Due to the authors’ own choice to associate the decision practices of physicians and managers. After reading the article, and taking a step back, I could somewhat see the correlation. However, I still don’t know that it was the “right fit”.
The authors’ main decision was to indicate that both parties should practice their craft by best logic and evidence. The authors believe that the managers, who already use this practice, have a competitive advantage.
People assume that businesses, who have been in the industry the longest, are the most successful. But, this is not always the case. For the most part, new ideas and innovation are what create a successful business. The most seasoned manager may overlook a new and great idea for a traditional and comfortable practice. I think Apple is a great example of a company who has taken over its market (without being the first in its industry). Without creating new ideas and practice within your company, the best you can do is mimic what has already been done. To me, that doesn’t sound like a company looking to love upward.
The article gave four examples to start an evidence-based approach. First, get the facts. This is important for a number of reason, but most importantly to gather reliable information and using that information to see what is still needed. Also, facts are important to support decision-making. Secondly, examine logic. As a manager, it’s your duty to evaluate the information given to you. You shouldn’t rely on others to tell you something is fact when you, yourself have not seen the evidence. The author states, that when staff watches senior executives look for answers, they start to see the company in a new perspective. Third, look at your company as being in a product phase. When thinking of your product as a sample, you will search for ways to improve it. Never think of the company as a finished product or you may overlook much needed improvements. Lastly, open up to new ideas. Managers who set aside their egos are more apt to learning and applying new techniques. New and efficient techniques are what give companies a competitive edge.
From my perspective, I think the article touched on a lot of key factors to support evidence-based management. I particularly thought the third example was key. If you look at your company as a prototype, you will most certainly search for ways to enhance the product and never get comfortable with it.
Article: INDEPTH: IRAQ
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: report on pre-Iraq war intelligence.
The article is about the intelligence-gathering efforts in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. For the betterment, it’s really about the lack of evidence gathered and what the article refers to as, “collective group think”.
The article references a report that bashes CIA director George Tenet for not personally reviewing Bush’s 2003 state of the union address, which contained important references for decision-making.
The above reference, reminds me of the article I just read, “Evidence- Based Management” and its recommendation to demand evidence. The CIA director and intelligence should have sought evidence and researched its facts before making a decision. They should not have relied on information that was given to be facts.
Group think can be devastating to companies and groups looking to grow respect. The whole group suffers if people are slacking and relying on others to give them the answers. Everyone should search out the truth. The only facts you can rely on are the facts you discover. When you rely on others to hand you the answer, you are setting yourself up for error.
Article: Good to Great, or Just Good?
I loved this article! I haven’t read Good to Great by Jim Collins, but I could only imagine what my reaction to this article would have been, if I had read it. First, I would like to point out, that the information I have (on the mentioned book) is solely based from the article Good to Great, or Just Good by Bruce Niendorf and Kristine Beck.
It’s noteworthy that Collins tried to reinvent the wheel, by creating a theory from the ground up. I think this theory, once examined, illustrated great trial and error. However, it seems GTG was on the best-sellers list. I can only imagine this is due to the creativity of the theory and language of the book.
Once the theory was actually examined, by Neiendorf and Beck, the two found discrepancies in Collins theory. The two sought out the truth and found it wasn’t represented in this theory. The main reason is because not all the information was based form hard evidence, but rather by comparison.
The above reference, illustrates individuals who went against the “group think” and questioned what everyone around them was accepting to be true. The individuals examined the evidence and found their own truths. Unfortunately for Collins, a lot of his data was based from association, not actual studies. His interesting system caused scrutiny.
Luckily, there were individuals who examined the data and pointed out errors with the system. Before making the same mistake, this is important for “copy-cats” to read.
