See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267759064

From the Guest Editors: Change the World: Teach Evidence-Based Practice

Article in Academy of Management Learning and Education · September 2014

DOI: 10.5465/amle.2014.0203

CITATIONS READS
36 277

3 authors:

Sara L. Rynes Denise M. Rousseau

University of Iowa Carnegie Mellon University
101 PUBLICATIONS 19,636 CITATIONS 94 PUBLICATIONS 16,807 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eric Barends
Center for Evidence-Based Management
18 PUBLICATIONS 390 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Evidence-based Management View project

Trajectories of attitudinal and behavioral reactions in the aftermath of psychological contract breach and violation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eric Barends on 05 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

姝 Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2014, Vol. 13, No. 3, 305–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amle.2014.0203

........................................................................................................................................................................

From the Guest Editors:

Change the World:
Teach Evidence-Based Practice!
“What I take from this article is the true Foremost among the challenges of systemati-
career- and life-changing value of training in cally using evidence in one’s professional practice
evidence-based practice, which is fostering is that people need to acquire the content, knowl-
an inquiring mind that appreciates the differ- edge, and skills in research and critical thinking to
ence between trustworthy and less trustwor- do so. EBP in management, as in medicine, begins
thy evidence and is committed to making the with education and training. In fostering this train-
world a better place.” ing, management educators will be challenged to
—Anonymous reviewer (Barends & Briner’s structure instructional experiences and develop
interview of Guyatt & Burls, this issue) new materials. This special issue provides in-
sights into how to organize and structure learning
This AMLE special issue is dedicated to furthering experiences consistent with both research-based
the practice of evidence-based management, and principles of human learning (Goodman & O’Brien,
does so by focusing on the how’s, what’s, and 2012) and practical teaching experience (e.g., Erez
wherefores of teaching it. Evidence-based man- & Grant, 2014; Walshe & Briner, this issue).
agement (EBMgt) is a professional form of mana- Teaching EBP has been described as having two
gerial practice. It is about making decisions sides—push and pull. “Push” refers to courses,
through the conscientious, explicit, and judicious textbooks, and other educational media and expe-
use of the best available evidence from multiple riences that help learners acquire research-based
sources to help managers choose effective ways to
content knowledge in substantive areas such as
manage people and structure organizations (Bri-
organizational behavior (OB) or strategic manage-
ner, Denyer, & Rousseau, 2009). EBMgt has grown
ment. In this special issue, Steve Charlier’s inter-
out of the movement across many professions to-
view of Gary Latham, Robert Dipboye’s review of
ward the uptake of evidence-based practice and
Pearce’s (2013) textbook, and Tamara Giluk’s of
away from reliance on tradition and unchallenged
Latham’s (2009) all provide insights into the push
authority. Fittingly, the evidence-based movement
side of teaching EBP.
first began in the field of medicine as a teaching
method led by Gordon Guyatt and colleagues The “pull” side of teaching EBP, in contrast,
(Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, 1992). helps students and managers access and interpret
In Guyatt’s words, “[T]here was no question that research findings on their own. In a sense, the
what we were doing was challenging authority, distinction between push and pull is one of content
challenging paradigms, challenging educational versus process. While the push side is used primar-
approaches, challenging what you had to know, ily to bring research evidence into the teaching of
challenging how you do practice ultimately” a particular content area, the pull side helps learn-
(this issue). ers acquire skills they can use, whatever the topic,
Since its origins in medicine over 2 decades ago, to access practice-related research and principles
the systematic use of scientific evidence—along over the course of their careers. Most articles in
with evidence from other sources—is on its way to this special issue focus on the pull side of teaching
becoming an interdisciplinary professional stan- EBP (e.g., Gamble & Jelley; Goodman, Gary, &
dard. At the 2003 EBHC International Joint Confer- Wood; Trank; and Walshe & Briner). Another article
ence, the term EB medicine was dropped in favor of (see Dietz, Antonakis, Hoffrage, Krings, Marewski,
evidence-based practice (EBP), emphasizing the & Zender), also exemplifies the pull side, but fo-
fact that from medicine to policing, nursing, man- cuses on helping students and practitioners pro-
agement and other professions, the basic princi- duce their own research evidence (what Rousseau,
ples of EB practice are shared (Dawes et al., 2005). 2006, termed “local” or “little e” evidence) rather
At the same time, so are many of the challenges. than the more common approach of teaching how
305
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
306 Academy of Management Learning & Education September

to locate already-existing (“Big E”) research principles from evidence-based teaching (Good-
evidence. man & O’Brien, 2012). The product is a set of action-
Other articles in this special issue address nei- able instructional strategies for teaching biblio-
ther push nor pull issues in EBP teaching, but in- graphic search.
stead focus on different matters. For example, Goodman and colleagues provide a wealth of
Glaub, Frese, Fischer, and Hoppe describe how information useful not only to instructors in EBMgt,
they systematically applied research and theory but also to any academic researcher who seeks to
on personal initiative to design and undertake a improve bibliographic search methods. First, the
practice-oriented intervention that yielded impor- authors motivate the reader by providing evidence
tant effects on the business success of Ugandan that trained searchers are more effective than un-
entrepreneurs. Kepes, Bennett, and McDaniel out- trained ones, with the latter tending to generate
line how the prevailing bias in academic journals too few or far too many references (they explain,
toward publishing studies with positive (rather e.g., why simply plugging a few key words into
than null or negative) results sometimes motivates Google Scholar is likely to produce an ineffective
researchers to pursue ethically questionable prac- search with far too many irrelevant references).
tices and set overly optimistic expectations of Second, they provide structure to conceptualizing
successfully applying research findings among the bibliographic search process in terms of its
practitioners. Trank uses rhetorical analysis (par- depth, breadth, and sequencing (Debowski, Wood,
ticularly reader response theory) and examples & Bandura, 2001). These dimensions are useful
from her experiences in teaching EBP to take a both for describing training strategies and assess-
critical look at academic management texts and ing search success. Third, they illustrate how dra-
ways in which evidence-based language (such as matically search results can differ depending on
the “what works” movement in education) can un- the search engine chosen (e.g., ProQuest ABI/
justifiably privilege certain forms of research over INFORM vs. Google Scholar) and the mode of
other valuable types of studies. We now introduce search used. Using a specific research question—
the articles, followed by a summary of the emerg- “What effect does job satisfaction have on creativ-
ing themes and implications they suggest for EBP ity and innovation?”—they report that one of their
educators. search methods yielded only 33 records, while an-
other yielded 588,000! Fourth, they describe research
suggesting that experienced, professionally trained
THE ARTICLES librarians tend to search in different ways than do
novices and to be more effective and efficient in their
Research & Reviews
searches. The same may well be true for profession-
This special issue includes two Research & Re- ally trained evidence-based managers.
views articles. The first is a review-plus-pilot ex- Goodman and her colleagues then turn to the
periment regarding the characteristics and effects important questions of whether, and what kinds of,
of bibliographic search training, and the other, a training improves bibliographic search outcomes.
field test of an “action guide” (i.e., a protocol to Based on a review of the literature, they conclude
guide practice that is derived from basic and ap- that search training is generally effective for med-
plied research) for applying (1) research based on ical students and residents, as well as for under-
the linkages between proactive personality and graduate business students. Their preliminary re-
entrepreneurial business success, and (2) research sults suggest that certain aspects of training may
findings more generally. be responsible for its positive results. Guided ex-
In “Bibliographic Search Training for Evidence- ploration appears to be particularly important,
Based Management Education: A Review of Rele- where students work through practice searches us-
vant Literature,” Jodi Goodman, M. Shayne Gary, ing prescribed steps for effective search, with the
and Robert Wood drill down into one of the critical trainer stopping them and modeling correct behav-
steps in the “pull” side of teaching (and practicing) iors when they make errors. Other actions that
EBMgt—searching the scholarly literature for the contribute to positive outcomes are giving learners
best available scientific evidence (Jelley, Carroll, feedback regarding the strategy they used and
& Rousseau, 2012). The authors combine a review providing an exemplary solution.
of the research on electronic search, mainly in the They conclude with recommendations for teach-
context of evidence-based medicine (EBMed), with ing search skills. These include addressing learn-
2014 Rynes, Rousseau, and Barends 307

ers’ misconceptions, using group learning, setting can keep people from acting on the knowledge
nonspecific goals, spacing student practice, and they possess. Thus an effective action guide needs
providing already-worked examples and multiple, to address how individuals can overcome obsta-
varied practice experiences. They also recommend cles and manage the environment in ways that put
designing guided exploration, feedback interven- their knowledge to work.
tions, and other instructional supports that offer Action guides once developed need to be evalu-
the minimum guidance necessary, leaving learn- ated. Using a randomized controlled trial design
ers with the primary responsibility for information (RCT), Glaub and colleagues recruited local Ugan-
processing and task exploration. dan business owners into the training program.
In “Increasing Personal Initiative in Small Busi- Several classes of randomly assigned participants
ness Managers or Owners Leads to Entrepreneur- were created to allow the comparison of trained
ial Success: A Theory-Based Controlled Randomized participants’ business success with that of ran-
Field Intervention for Evidence-Based Management,” domly assigned but not-yet-trained counterparts.
Matthias Glaub, Michael Frese, Sebastian Fischer, Findings revealed large differences between the
and Maria Hoppe exemplify the innovation that two groups in both manifest personal initiative
great thinkers on scholarship and education from behaviors and objective measures of business suc-
Dewey (1958) to Boyer (1990) have called for— con- cess. The resultant validation of the evidence-
ceiving of scholarship, education, and practice as based guidelines provides a much-needed exem-
a continuum to be spanned. Glaub and colleagues plar for turning research findings into actionable
take up this societally important task by systemat- evidence. In doing so, Glaub and colleagues offer
ically building a bridge from theory and research a positive reply to Reay, Berta, and Kohn’s (2009)
on the concept of personal initiative to the practice provocative question, “What’s the evidence for
of successful entrepreneurship. They showcase a evidence-based management?”
systematic method for taking well-supported re-
search findings and transforming them into a
Essays
practice-oriented intervention that yields impor-
tant real-world results. This special issue includes four essays, two of
Glaub and colleagues begin by detailing the which exemplify the “pull” side of teaching EBMgt,
basic tenets, supported by years of research and where students learn to obtain and make sense of
meta-analyses, of the dynamics underlying per- research findings for themselves. The first, by Jörg
sonal initiative (Frese & Fay, 2001). These tenets Dietz, John Antonakis, Ulrich Hoffrage, Franciska
include formulating actionable goals, trying new Krings, Julian Marewski, and Christian Zender em-
behaviors, and overcoming obstacles. These key phasizes helping students to create their own local
behaviors are recognized in entrepreneurship re- evidence and the reasons why this is a valuable
search as critical to starting and sustaining a new activity. The second essay, by Neil Walshe and
business (Frese, 2009). Based on the convergence of Rob Briner, focuses on teaching students to per-
the bodies of evidence on proactivity and entrepre- form an abbreviated version of a systematic re-
neurship, Glaub and colleagues develop evidence- view—that is, a rapid evidence assessment (REA).
based guidelines for training and developing The third essay moves outside the management
entrepreneurs. These guidelines, termed “action curriculum to one of the most important cocurricu-
guides,” form the basis of the training program lar activities— case competitions. Specifically, Ed-
these researchers implemented in the developing ward Gamble and Blake Jelley propose general
country of Uganda. principles for developing EBMgt case competitions
Equally important, in addition to developing an which offer the advantages of (1) integrating the
action guide for training entrepreneurs, Glaub and case study method with research findings and
colleagues also built a parallel and more general EBMgt principles, (2) updating case competition
framework for constructing action guides based on protocols to more closely simulate real problem-
evidence regarding how cognitions translate into solving (e.g., allowing access to the Internet and
behavior. Action regulation theory and research research databases), and (3) changing case evalu-
directly address the psychological processes ation criteria to elevate the use of evidence over
through which the knowledge individuals possess more traditional criteria such as use of conven-
translates into actual behavior. Cognitions do not tional strategy tools and selling solutions. The
always lead to action. Barriers real or imagined fourth essay, by Sven Kepes, Andrew Bennett, and
308 Academy of Management Learning & Education September

Michael McDaniel, elevates the discussion to the (1) define the business problem, (2) locate and eval-
“management field” level of analysis by raising uate existing evidence in terms of causal interpret-
the following important questions: (1) How trust- ability and likely local relevance, (3) design and
worthy are the main sources of research evidence execute experimental tests of proposed solutions,
in management, (2) What are the implications of and (4) evaluate results and make recommenda-
untrustworthy evidence, (3) How can we teach stu- tions. Project results are presented on the last day
dents and managers to critically appraise re- of class.
search evidence, and (4) What field-level changes The course is broken into two sections: an intro-
are needed to make research evidence more ductory phase that lays the foundations for EBMgt,
trustworthy? and a main segment that involves practicing each
In “Teaching Evidence-Based Management With step of the EBMgt problem-solving cycle by way of
a Focus on Producing Local Evidence,” Dietz and cases. At the end of the course, students have
colleagues present a problem-based teaching ap- worked on 10 business cases, thus developing
proach to EBMgt that emphasizes generating local EGMgt schema through repeated practice. Two
evidence, that is, “causally interpretable data, col- cases (The Bicycle Messenger Case and the Towel
lected on-site in companies to address a specific. . . Reuse Case) are detailed in the essay to demon-
problem” (this issue). This approach to generating strate how students apply the problem-solving cy-
organizational data is a variant of problem-based cle to case analysis. By using this cycle to analyze
learning in which students learn to apply the sci- cases, Dietz and colleagues’ approach avoids the
entific method to ill-defined and ill-structured usual separation (or even opposition) of classroom
business problems. Focusing on the challenging case analysis and academic research (e.g., Mesny,
task of producing causally interpretable evidence 2013; Shugan, 2006).
in the context of solving a business problem helps In “From Passively Received Wisdom to Actively
to make the “intricate craft” of EBMgt more tangi- Constructed Knowledge: Teaching Systematic Re-
ble and increases students’ intrinsic motivation. view Skills as a Foundation of Evidence-Based
An additional bonus is that in the process of learn- Management,” Walshe and Briner focus on the role
ing how to produce causally relevant evidence, of systematic reviews in EBMgt and describe a
students also learn how to evaluate the quality of course designed to teach master’s students how to
research done by others. This article by Dietz and conduct rapid systematic reviews. This course can
colleagues is the first systematic treatment we be transformative in that it “begin[s] to move stu-
know of for developing student skills in gathering dents from being relatively passive recipients of
and interpreting local organizational evidence in received management wisdom to becoming active
the context of EBMgt practice. and critical users of research evidence” (this is-
The production of local evidence is especially sue).
helpful in cases where decision makers are uncer- They begin by defining systematic reviews as “a
tain whether general research findings can be ap- replicable, scientific and transparent process, in
plied locally, or where skeptics insist that generic other words, a detailed technology that aims to
evidence-based results “won’t work here.” For ex- minimize bias through exhaustive literature
ample, when Google wanted to “sell” its engineers searches . . . and by providing an audit trail of the
on the value of management, they collected local reviewers’ decisions, procedures, and conclusions”
evidence on managerial behaviors and subse- (Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003: 209). Walshe and
quent employee outcomes such as satisfaction Briner contrast the systematic review process with
with career development, work–family balance, that of traditional narrative reviews, for which re-
and turnover. Given the uniqueness of Google’s searchers typically “do not adopt anything ap-
culture and its extraordinary level of success, local proaching the same level of methodological rigor
evidence had a much better chance of being ac- they use to conduct primary research” (this issue).
cepted “because it was based on Google data. The Also in contrast, systematic reviews seek to an-
attributes were about us, by us, and for us” swer specific practice questions, while traditional
(Garvin, 2013: 77). literature reviews tend to be less clearly targeted,
Dietz and colleagues’ approach uses business attempting instead to review a “body” of literature
cases and a local evidence-generating course proj- with less transparent search methods.
ect to teach students a four-stage evidence-based The bulk of Walshe and Briner’s article focuses
problem-solving cycle. Using this cycle, students on describing a course designed to teach how to
2014 Rynes, Rousseau, and Barends 309

conduct REAs, which are an abbreviated form of In “The Case for Competition: Learning About
systematic review more appropriate to the short Evidence-Based Management Through Case Com-
periods of time typical of formal courses. Although petition,” Gamble and Jelley make an intriguing
the authors have taught systematic review courses case for hastening the spread of EBP by supple-
to a wide variety of audiences, in this article they menting evidence-based classroom instruction
focus on one particular course. Walshe developed with case competitions whose case selection, team
that course for students with little work experi- preparation processes, and judging rubrics are all
ence, as part of a 1-year full-time master’s program designed to reinforce the principles of EBMgt.
in Human Resource Management and Consulting. In building their argument for EBMgt case com-
The four main skills the course developed are crit- petitions, Gamble and Jelley note that the ubiqui-
ical thinking and reasoning; identifying and gath- tous “case method” as typically taught in business
ering the best available evidence; performing crit- schools is generally at odds with several of the
ical appraisal of different forms of evidence, and most important principles of EBMgt (see also Dietz
applying evidence of different types to decision et al., this issue). For example, although EBMgt
making. focuses on the usefulness of evidence-supported
Because the course objectives are broader than general principles and both local and general em-
simply learning how to conduct systematic re- pirical evidence, typical case instruction in man-
views, the first four sessions focus on a broad in- agement programs portrays “management as a
troduction to EBMgt, covering its main concepts, complex, multifaceted practice that is highly de-
why it is needed, and its use of other forms of pendent on context, which cannot be reduced to
evidence besides the results of formal research. general principles or theories, and which is unre-
servedly value-laden and subjective” (Mesny, 2013:
The next session introduces the principles and
64). However, Gamble and Jelley point out that
logic behind systematic reviews, followed by five
although the case method is also widely used in
sessions during which students work on their se-
legal and medical education, those professions
lected REA, consult with the instructor, and receive
routinely apply cases as an opportunity for stu-
minitutorials on various topics related to REAs. In
dents to make use of library resources (such as
the final session, students prepare short presenta-
research results and legal precedents) in conduct-
tions outlining their research questions and why
ing their analyses (see also Goodman et al., this
they were chosen, what types of studies were con-
issue). Gamble and Jelley advocate that manage-
sidered relevant and why, what search strategy
ment educators make a similar shift to adopt
was used and why, the preliminary results, and evidence-focused case instruction. Further, they
problems or pleasant surprises uncovered to date. argue that the likelihood that management stu-
The authors describe the role of the teacher in dents will become evidence-based practitioners
this course as one of adviser rather than lecturer or upon graduation can be further escalated
teacher. Various analogies are used to help stu- through the implementation of EBMgt-based
dents absorb the essence of EBMgt, such as the case competitions.
analogy that while traditional courses give stu- The EBMgt case competitions Gamble and Jelley
dents “fish” (i.e., knowledge) for a day, EBMgt propose would differ from traditional case compe-
teaches them how to fish for knowledge over a titions in a variety of ways. First, the purpose of
lifetime. The teacher also has to deal with various EBMgt case competitions would be to encourage
typical student reactions to the course, such as students to (1) ask relevant managerial questions,
surprise that EBMgt isn’t already happening, (2) search for the best available evidence, (3) criti-
agreement with course principles but doubts about cally appraise the acquired information, and (4)
EBMgt’s feasibility, and disquiet as students find apply relevant information to case issues. In con-
out that their professors and textbooks may not be trast, typical case competitions isolate students in
as objective, neutral, and well-founded as they preparation rooms and do not allow access to li-
believed. In general, the authors conclude that braries, databases, or the Internet. Second, case
teachers of EBMgt have to be more neutral than content and context would change. For example,
they generally are in content-oriented classes case protagonists would reflect on local and gen-
(such as motivation or organizational change), and eral research evidence while pondering their di-
more humble about what is—and is not— known lemmas, might summarize their previous manage-
about various topics. rial experience or prior local experiments with the
310 Academy of Management Learning & Education September

problem in question, and would consider ethical positive results contributes to overpromising what
issues and multiple stakeholder views. Third, management interventions can do. The conse-
judging and evaluation rubrics would change. quence is faddishness in management and the risk
Current case competitions generally reward the of disappointing results in practice.
use of well-known tools, whether evidence-based In addition to creating problems with practice,
or not (e.g., SWOT analysis, Porter’s Five Forces, cf. Kepes and colleagues argue that lack of research
ten Have & Stevens, 2003) and the “selling” of so- trustworthiness also poses problems for teaching.
lutions. In contrast, in keeping with principles of Given the problems they identify with manage-
EBMgt (Briner et al., 2009), the evaluation rubric for ment research, the authors argue, “teaching from
EBMgt case competitions would emphasize “ethics an evidence-based perspective requires being
and stakeholder concerns, practitioner judgment honest and transparent about the shortcomings of
and expertise, local data and experimentation, use our research and the threats to its trustworthiness”
of evidence-based decision practices, and princi- (this issue). Beyond that, they recommend adopting
ples derived through formal research.” In addition, EBMed’s five-step “Ask, Acquire, Appraise, Apply,
judges would be carefully trained according to the and Analyze/Adjust” sequence (e.g., Jelley et al.,
rubric in order to enhance interrater reliability and 2012), placing particular emphasis on the “ap-
ensure the provision of EBMgt-consistent feedback praisal” stage. Applying a pull rather than push
to competing teams. Finally, the authors recom- method, the authors suggest that students perform
mend a careful sequencing of the competition, as a critically appraised topic (CAT). A CAT is a re-
well as a precompetition training phase. duced version of an REA—a concise summary of
We believe that Gamble and Jelley’s observa- the critically appraised best available evidence on
tions and recommendations will be useful not only
a problem with very short, bottom-line recommen-
to anyone wishing to start an EBMgt case compe-
dations. In helping students to critically appraise
tition, but also to educators wishing to start or
the evidence, the authors suggest using a hierar-
modify case competitions in various substantive
chy of evidence (such as the one provided in their
areas (e.g., sustainability, social entrepreneurship,
Figure 1), as well as a summary of some of the key
or strategy). Applying EBMgt principles to case
points from formal standards for research such
competitions in specific substantive areas will
as meta-analyses and primary studies (e.g., the
have the joint benefits of making case competi-
American Psychological Association’s Meta-
tions more similar to actual management problem
Analysis Reporting Standards, or general best-
solving (e.g., where managers have access to the
Internet) and increasing the likelihood of transfer- practice research synthesis recommendations;
ring both substantive content and EBMgt skills to see their Table 1).
practice. Finally, Kepes and colleagues suggest some
In “Evidence-Based Management and the Trust- fairly dramatic changes to journal reviewing pro-
worthiness of Our Cumulative Scientific Knowl- cesses, with the goal of reducing publication biases
edge Implications for Teaching, Research, and against replications and nonsignificant results and
Practice:” Kepes, Bennett, and McDaniel focus on a preventing practices such as “hypothesizing after
matter mentioned by several other contributors the results are known” (i.e., HARKing). One sugges-
(e.g., Barends & Briner; Trank, and Walshe & Bri- tion is to require authors to report power analyses
ner) as well: the fact that sometimes the “best and conduct more robustness checks. A more dra-
available evidence” in management (or medicine) matic recommendation is to separate the journal
is not very strong. Although most commentators on review process into two stages, such that the first
this topic tend to discuss it in terms of certain stage— encompassing the Introduction, Theory,
research topics being better researched than oth- and Methods sections—would be submitted before
ers, Kepes and colleagues focus at a higher level of knowledge (at least on the part of reviewers) of the
analysis, arguing that the whole body of manage- study’s results. Then, if the manuscript survives
ment evidence (as well as evidence in a variety of the first stage, it is resubmitted with the Results
other fields, including medicine and psychology) is and Discussion sections, and evaluated on only
biased in favor of statistically significant, new, three aspects: Did the author carry out the research
and “interesting” findings, and against replica- process in the manner promised during the first
tions and small or nonsignificant results. They ar- submission, are the results described accurately,
gue that this bias toward presenting mostly new or and are the conclusions in the Discussion section
2014 Rynes, Rousseau, and Barends 311

actionable and accurate?1 An even more dramatic perience various frustrations in trying to find use-
departure would be a multistage review process ful research related to their chosen problems.
where, after initial screening by an editor, submit- These frustrations include paucity of relevant stud-
ted manuscripts are posted on-line as discussion ies, missing statistics, weak designs, and multi-
papers for general comment. After several weeks, plicity of constructs that seem to measure the same
the paper then goes through a rather traditional thing but make commensurability difficult.
review process. The authors hypothesize that such The second set of reactions concerns students’
a process would lead to faster dissemination of a responses to an article’s aesthetics (Burke, 1950). In
manuscript’s results and higher perceived trust- Trank’s experience, certain articles—particularly
worthiness because of the extra transparency such qualitative and mixed-method readings that in-
a review process creates. clude contextual information and are linked to
meaningful theories—tend to generate excitement,
enthusiasm, positive moods, and lively discussion.
Exemplary Contribution
Other readings, however, such as those that focus
In the special issue’s Exemplary Contribution, mainly on methodological issues or the size of
“Reading Evidence-Based Management: The Pos- relationships between constructs with little con-
sibilities of Interpretation,” Christine Quinn Trank textual background, do not. Readings that were
proposes that “if, as researchers and teachers, we aesthetically pleasing “seemed to satisfy a need in
are interested in connecting our work to practice the students to express their own competence and
we should more deliberately study the reading of creativity,” and were perceived as having “mean-
academic texts so that we can better understand ingful unity among parts.” They also combined
their use as well as their effects” (this issue). Using data about “what happened” with theoretical ex-
rhetorical criticism, Trank discusses how her stu- planations of why it may have happened. These
dents (some of whom are very experienced profes- aesthetic reactions tend to corroborate the idea
sionals) react to the academic research that is ei- that the most influential and persuasive texts in-
ther assigned in her classes, or located by students volve elements of storytelling (Brown, 2005).
during the process of doing their semester-long The third set of reactions stemmed from stu-
EBP (evidence-based practice) projects. dents’ perceptions that academic research is fre-
Trank starts from the dual assumptions that (1) quently condescending and disparaging with re-
all scholarship is inherently rhetorical and values- spect to practitioners: In Trank’s words, “the
based, and (2) readers do not necessarily interpret implicit and explicit construction of the practitio-
academic texts in the same way that authors (or ner inscribed in these readings clearly was felt as
other readers, or themselves at other times, for that dismissing the practitioner—it was felt as hierar-
matter) do. As such, it becomes very important to chical” (this issue). The result was that students
understand how practitioners and students inter- often identified with practitioners and against ac-
pret academic texts because that interpretation de- ademics—an identification that was frequently as-
termines whether, and how, research will be used. sociated with rejection of academic arguments.
Trank applies reader response theory to exam- This is almost certainly not the reaction academics
ine the reactions of students to academic readings have in mind as they are writing up their research.
in her various EBP courses. She has observed three A related issue Trank raises is her concern that
main types of reactions. One set occurs when stu- the evidence-based movement may produce “neu-
dents are engaged in efferent reading—that is, tral technical experts” no longer committed to “val-
reading for the purpose of finding needed informa- ues transcending the immediate and the practical”
tion for their semester-long projects. Consistent (Freidson, 2001: 209). At least in theory, this
with the observations of Walshe and Briner, these should not happen because EBP visualizes practi-
reactions are frequently negative, as students ex- tioners as professionals who use personal experi-
ence, knowledge of the local context, and stake-
holder preferences—in addition to research
1
On May 5, 2014, the Journal of Business and Psychology an- findings—in making decisions. However, in prac-
nounced that it will begin a 1-year trial initiative whereby
tice, incorporating these other factors may be dif-
authors can submit manuscripts using either the traditional
process, or a process very similar to what Kepes et al. suggest. ficult. Citing Morrell (2008), Trank notes that ethics
http://www.springer.com/psychology/personality⫹%26⫹ and judgment are not readily codified or quanti-
social⫹psychology/journal/10869. fied, making their status uncertain among the mul-
312 Academy of Management Learning & Education September

tiple considerations managers are supposed to “why do some people who smoke and have high-
weigh in EBP. She also argues that the words stress jobs live to a ripe old age while others
“evidence-based” and “what works” are used in don’t?” to introduce the concept of moderator vari-
public policy as a “rhetorical buffer” (Morrell, 2012: ables. He tells students that they are going to
13), hiding politicians’ involvement in “the inter- “love” theory because theories are going to help
pretation and construction of evidence” to reflect them “predict, explain, and influence the behavior
their ideologies and biases. Trank proposes in- of others” (this issue). He encourages students to
creased rhetorical inquiry and dialogue about re- “try out” new theories or evidence-based princi-
search texts (e.g., journal articles, textbooks) to ples at work or home, and then report back on how
make their underlying assumptions more transpar- it worked. Extra time is dedicated to discussing
ent and debatable. failures in an attempt to figure out why something
failed.
In contrast to most teaching-related articles in
Interviews
this special issue, Professor Latham focuses on the
In “Incorporating Evidence-Based Management “push” side of teaching EBMgt. This is because he
into Management Curricula: A Conversation With is describing how he uses, and teaches, research
Gary Latham,” Steve Charlier extracts pearls of methods and results in substantive courses such
wisdom about teaching EBMgt from a winner of the as Organizational Behavior and Human Resource
Academy of Management’s Scholar-Practitioner Management, rather than stand-alone courses in
Lifetime Achievement Award and the only recipi- EBMgt. Still, like Dietz and colleagues, he uses
ent of both the Distinguished Contributions to Sci- real-world examples to teach research principles
ence and the Distinguished Contributions to Prac- and sometimes generates “local evidence” to re-
tice awards from the Society for Industrial and solve student questions and debates (see, e.g.,
Organizational Psychology. Latham has long been Latham & Brown, 2006; Latham & Seijts, 1997).
known for his ability to explain scientific findings In closing, Latham says that he feels there is a
and research principles in engaging, interactive, danger in trying to put too much structure on “the
and humorous ways. He credits this ability to a way” of teaching EBMgt, when doing so may not be
number of early mentors: his father; a manager at necessary: “From my perspective, I think that the
Weyerhauser who urged him to communicate in a whole evidence-based idea is taking tried-and-
more conversational style; an excellent doctoral true concepts and explaining them in words that
instructor, Ken Wexley, who insisted his graduate people can relate to. And then getting managers
students engage in “plain speaking” while trying and MBA students to continually think about how
to explain each week’s doctoral readings to a very they can apply these principles in their personal
confused “Vice President Wexley from B.F. Goo- lives and on the job” (this issue). Latham clearly
drich”; and Ed Lawler, whose model of holding does a great job of this and provides many ideas
Academy audiences in thrall by having conversa- for us to emulate.
tions with them made a deep impression on In “Teaching Evidence-Based Practice: Lessons
Latham’s own teaching style. From the Pioneers,” Eric Barends and Rob Briner
To Latham, the essence of teaching EBMgt is interview two founders of evidence-based medi-
thinking about your audience and engaging them cine—Gordon Guyatt and Amanda Burls—to learn
so that they are ready and motivated to think in what lessons EBMed might hold for EBMgt. In 1992,
terms of evidence-based principles. He gets stu- Guyatt, along with 30 other members of the Evidence-
dents involved by raising familiar topics from their Based Medicine Working Group (EBMWG), pub-
work or personal lives to introduce theories and lished the transformative paper, “Evidence-Based
evidence-based principles. He thrives on the use of Medicine: A New Approach to Teaching the Prac-
analogies and metaphors to make his points, anal- tice of Medicine” in the Journal of the American
ogizing cooking recipes to the “research methods” Medical Association (EBMWG, 1992). Guyatt coined
of academic studies, drawing on metaphors from the term “evidence-based medicine” and devel-
medicine and medical research, and explicitly in- oped methods to teach it in his role as head of
troducing “bilingualism” (of English and Research the residency program at McMaster University.
Methods) to class discussions. He uses graphs and Amanda Burls has been a senior fellow of the Cen-
pictures rather than complicated equations to tre for Evidence-Based Medicine since 1996 and is
show research findings, and raises questions like currently the director of Postgraduate Programs in
2014 Rynes, Rousseau, and Barends 313

Evidence-Based Healthcare at the University of ners of any profession may hold more attitudes in
Oxford. common with other EB practitioners than with col-
Guyatt and Burls describe the history of EBMed leagues in their own profession who do not em-
as it evolved from an initial attempt to teach how brace EBP. In a memorable illustration, Burls talks
to critically appraise medical research evidence in about one of her EB health care student-
the classroom to an approach that moved the as- practitioners who “was having a conversation with
sessment of evidence directly into clinical practice her spouse . . . who’s a conservationist, and she
at the patient’s bedside. The first label that Guyatt was asking, ’How can you not be using these tech-
attached to this movement was “scientific medi- niques?’ So the next thing, they sent a bunch of
cine,” but that term generated vehement resis- conservationists to our course, and they set up the
tance because it implied that then-practicing aca- Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation” (this
demic doctors weren’t scientific. So Guyatt went issue).
back to the drawing board and came up with Guyatt and Burls also explain how they “sell”
“evidence-based medicine,” which somehow man- EBP practice and why they think health care pro-
aged to stick. One thing Guyatt believes operated fessionals accept it. Guyatt says, “You sell it by
in favor of the acceptance of EBMed was that there showing how people have made grievous er-
was a general readiness in the medical community rors. . . . I used to get this, ’What is the evidence
at that time to shift its thinking. Another factor was behind evidence-based medicine?’ So now I tell
that there was a whole cadre of people who three stories of people screwing up and I don’t get
were not only philosophically behind the move- the questions anymore. To sell it to your manage-
ment, but also willing and able to teach it. ment students you’ll need to find similar stories”
Once Guyatt and the rest of the EBMWG had
(this issue). Burls adds, “But you can borrow exam-
developed methods for teaching EBMed in clinical
ples; borrow examples from medicine” (this issue;
practice, they then had to push to get it adopted in
for excellent examples of applying both pieces of
medical curricula. Curriculum coverage increased
advice, see Charlier’s interview with Latham, this
when medical board exams began to include tests
issue). Guyatt also indicates that professionals ac-
of physicians’ critical appraisal skills and when
cept EBP because it deals directly with the issues
accreditation programs began to require EBMed
they are facing and helps them address their con-
instruction. Given that management (unlike medi-
cerns: “Everybody has anxieties; everyone has
cine) does not require managers or graduating
questions about what they’re doing. . . . Even if you
MBAs to pass standardized exams, the medical
experience suggests that the most practical ways find out, ‘Actually, we don’t know the answer to
of increasing the coverage of EBMgt in business this,’ that’s a huge relief. You’re agonizing over
schools may be to (1) build a larger cadre of in- whether it should be X or Y, but lo and behold, we
structors willing and able to teach it (a goal of this don’t know whether it should be X or Y. And that’s
special issue), and (2) push for its inclusion in ac- a huge relief” (this issue).
creditation criteria. When asked about the future of EBMed, Guyatt
Guyatt and Burls explain that over time the em- and Burls see more emphasis on pushing pre-
phasis in EBMed has shifted, first from critical ap- screened evidence to practitioners, and less on
praisal to EBMed, and then from EBMed to EB having doctors search for (pull) and critique the
health care, or even just EB practice (EBP). The first evidence themselves. In addition, they see in-
shift—from critical appraisal to EBMed— hap- creased emphasis on providing guidelines for how
pened when instructors realized that simply hav- to apply evidence in practice. Guyatt says, “[f]rom
ing research appraisal skills did not automatically the very beginning, when we started teaching crit-
translate into knowing how to use research. So ical appraisal, we realized ‘Who’s got the time for
over time, EBMed materials shifted from being pri- this?’ It is very demanding . . . so now we are de-
marily readers’ guides to being users’ guides, with veloping what we call ‘push services,’ where as a
a greater focus on understanding and applying clinician you sign up and define your area of in-
research results. In Guyatt’s words, “[A] big part of terest” (this issue). From there, services are in de-
it . . . is that whether it’s good or not so good, if it’s velopment to send out a small number of important
the best available evidence you’ve got to use it” articles in your area that have been prescreened
(this issue). The second shift—from EBMed to EB and critically appraised, resulting in a dramatic
health care or EBP— emphasizes that EB practitio- reduction in research “noise.”
314 Academy of Management Learning & Education September

Guyatt and Burls’ closing thoughts remind us of while teaching EBMgt. It includes detailed descrip-
Latham’s. In the same way that Latham does not tions of two approaches to teaching EBMgt: the
obsess over putting a lot of structure on how he course approach (at Carnegie Mellon University)
teaches EBMgt, Guyatt emphasizes that his main and the integrated program approach (the Execu-
objective is to “Inspire them and teach them an tive MBA at the University of Prince Edward Island;
attitude. And the way you teach them an attitude is UPEI). At Carnegie Mellon, students take an elec-
to tell them stories and tell them how to appraise tive class that focuses on gathering evidence, mak-
things. Get them to have an idea of the basic prin- ing decisions in different contexts, and converting
ciples” (this issue). Adds Burls, “I discovered that evidence into action plans. In the integrated ap-
what we are doing is transformative learning, proach at UPEI, students are introduced to the
which means that it is not just about changing a broad principles of EBMgt during orientation and
person’s skills and knowledge, it’s giving them a then guided in applying these principles to work-
totally different perspective on the world.” place problems from the first course onward. The
program includes an early research methods
course that builds skills needed for subsequent
Book & Resource Reviews
courses, as well as a “signature project” in the form
This section begins with Barbara Rau’s review of of a business plan, applied research project, or
four chapters on teaching evidence-based man- systematic review that is required of each student.
agement from The Oxford Handbook of Evidence- The chapter includes many examples of engaging
Based Management (Rousseau, 2012). She begins ways to build basic awareness of EBMgt, formulate
with Jodi Goodman and James O’Brien’s chapter on good questions, search for evidence, and build
how to teach using evidence-based principles. In EBMgt into decisions.
other words, Goodman and O’Brien focus on prin- In the third chapter, Paul Salipante and Ann
ciples of “evidence-based teaching,” as opposed to Kowal Smith focus on increasing EBMgt through
“teaching evidence-based management.” doctoral programs for managers (as opposed to
Goodman and O’Brien begin their review with aspiring academics). They argue that managers
an overview of cognitive load theory, as well as and other practitioners are skeptical of traditional
research on expert performance, adaptive exper- doctoral programs, “fearing that (their) theoretical
tise, and advanced learning. They then discuss focus supplants practical, demonstrably usable
common teaching methods and how they stack up suggestions in a world too fast-paced for debate”
relative to learning research. Goodman and (356). As a remedy, they suggest providing alterna-
O’Brien’s approach is not to talk about “best ways” tive programs that provide doctoral education to
of teaching, but rather to help the reader under- practitioner-scholars—an idea also proposed by
stand when various techniques are likely to be Grant (2014). The rest of their chapter provides a
most appropriate. They also focus quite a bit on case study of such a program (the doctor of man-
cases and provide examples that are well suited to agement, or DM) at Case Western Reserve Univer-
applying evidence-based teaching and learning sity’s Weatherhead School of Management.
principles. In contrast to “traditional” doctoral programs,
Rau applauds the authors for their succinct sum- the Weatherhead DM is a 3-year, multidisciplinary
maries of key concepts that might be missed by program (although the focus appears to be mostly
teachers not familiar with research linking teach- on management) that educates students to conduct
ing methods and learning outcomes. She also ap- qualitative and quantitative research that will
preciates that they wrap up the chapter with a help solve a work-related problem of their own
“nifty little present in the form of an 8-page Appen- choosing. In this sense, much of Salipante and
dix summarizing instructional strategies; describ- Smith’s chapter is reminiscent of the discussions
ing the mechanisms by which they should work by Dietz and colleagues (this issue) and Latham
(based on evidence) and ideas for successfully im- (this issue) regarding producing local evidence.
plementing each. This table is a great resource for Although Rau believes that some distinctions the
those looking to incorporate new teaching tech- authors draw between traditional and alternative
niques or refresh old ones” (this issue). doctoral programs are overblown, particularly
The second chapter, by Jelley, Carroll, and Rous- with respect to applied fields such as human re-
seau, discusses the hands-on application of source management and marketing, she does “ap-
evidence-based teaching and learning principles preciate the description of philosophy and training
2014 Rynes, Rousseau, and Barends 315

at the Doctorate of Management program” (this managers hold—the chapters all focus on specific
issue). She also believes that many ideas offered managerial tasks. These include how to hire, mak-
in the chapter (such as conceptual reductionism, ing sense of feelings at work, managing perfor-
interdisciplinary research integration, and synthe- mance, managing incentives, understanding cul-
sizing concepts near and far) can be fruitfully ap- ture, mastering power, leading others, and how to
plied in any doctoral program. fire and retain.
Finally, Rau reviews Pearce’s (2012) chapter on Dipboye’s only reservation (which he offers in
the weak state of most organizational behavior the spirit of “tough love”) concerns his feeling that
(OB) textbooks with respect to how well their the book falls short of always providing the “best
claims are supported (or not) by research findings. and most recent scholarship” on certain topics (this
Pearce argues that most OB textbooks suffer from a issue). By way of illustration, he discusses three
number of evidence-based deficiencies, such as issues—the usefulness of selection interviews, the
presenting claims that are not backed by research relationship between need for achievement and
findings, misinterpreting or failing to include rel- managerial performance, and the effectiveness of
evant research, and continuing to include theories individual pay incentives—where the cited evi-
that have been long discredited (similar problems dence is more than 25 years old and where more
have been noted in strategic management texts; recent evidence (often in the form of meta-
Stambaugh & Trank, 2010). These deficiencies led analyses) suggests different conclusions. Never-
Pearce to develop and self-publish her own OB theless, he concludes, “Despite these three exam-
textbook; now in its third edition (Pearce, 2006, ples, I agree with most of the author’s conclusions
2013). Rau indicates that the larger message of in this text, but the substantiation in the footnotes
Pearce’s chapter is that the field of management is somewhat thin even for those assertions that I
needs to elevate its research standards for endorse” (this issue).
textbooks. Dipboye ends his review by pondering the
Apropos this theme, the next two articles review broader question of whether academic researchers
textbooks that are explicitly marketed as evidence- and textbook writers should be aiming to “bridge
based. In the first of these, Robert Dipboye reviews the gap” between theory or research and practice,
Pearce’s above-mentioned text, Organizational Be- or whether a new metaphor might be more useful.
havior: Real Research for Real Managers (2013, 3rd Dipboye’s view is that practice-based and
ed.). He finds much to admire about the book. First, research-based knowledge not only are distinct,
channeling the Aristotelian principles of theoria, but also are unbridgeable. He says, “In attempting
praxis, and poiesis, he argues that Pearce (2013) to use (research) knowledge, the manager will en-
does three things highly useful to helping manag- counter paradox, dilemma, and change. In the face
ers develop EBPs. First, she shakes managers’ con- of complexity the successful application of science
fidence in their personal theories by presenting requires something more than bridging the
them with boxed questions or statements that can gap. . . . In the attempt to deal with paradox and
be answered as “true–false” or “yes–no,” and then provide integrative solutions, scientific reasoning
summarizes research evidence that often dis- may fall short compared to dialectical thinking”
agrees with managers’ commonsense notions. Sec- (this issue).
ond, she communicates in practice-relevant lan- In place of bridging the gap, Dipboye offers the
guage: “The practicing or aspiring manager will metaphor of “mapping a journey through an unex-
appreciate the short, simple descriptions of re- plored and dangerous land” (cf. Andriessen & Van
search and theory and the definitive recommenda- Den Bloom, 2009). In this metaphor, the text be-
tions for managerial practice” (this issue). Third, comes a map for the manager, “but like any map, a
she provides tools (in the form of application textbook is an abstraction that can never com-
boxes) in which she suggests specific tactics for pletely match the reality of personal experience. In
applying principles and research relevant to each short, the gap between manager and scientist is
chapter’s contents. Dipboye also compliments the never completely bridged . . . . the construction and
fact that after the first two introductory chapters— modification of these maps will require not just a
“Why OB?” which focuses on the importance of conduit for the funneling of science to the man-
people to organizational success, and “Why Man- ager, but instead a dialectic among managers,
agers?” which focuses on the nature of managerial among organizational scientists, and between
work and some of the erroneous preconceptions managers and organizational scientists. This dia-
316 Academy of Management Learning & Education September

lectic (e.g., conversation) will allow managers to At the same time, she notes areas where she
use what science has produced to develop and would have liked to see more balanced coverage
refined their personal theories” (this issue). This (e.g., the importance of intelligence as well as di-
view aligns with Briner and colleagues’ (2009: 19) versity in selection); and topics where she would
definition of EBMgt as consisting not only of using have liked additional research-based citations
research evidence, but also “practitioner expertise (e.g., use of affective [emotionally rousing] vision
and judgment, evidence from the local context, and statements and the ineffectiveness of unstructured
the perspectives of those people who might be interviews as selection devices). Also, as a former
affected by the decision.” It is also in sync with HR manager, she mentions two areas where she
other recent discussions of academic–practice re- believes Latham’s advice might prove risky in the
lationships as being characterized by tensions, di- United States court system (asking employees
alectics, and paradoxes that cannot be reconciled, whether there are any personal or medical reasons
but rather that benefit from actively engaging and for a particular behavior when acting as a coach,
exploring them (e.g., Bartunek & Rynes, 2014; and not documenting every coaching session).
Trank, this issue). Despite these concerns, Giluk concludes that
In the next article, Tamara Giluk reviews Gary Latham’s book “is an excellent primer for funda-
Latham’s (2009) The Evidence-Based Manager: mental management practices” and that Latham
Making the Science of Management Work for You. “does an admirable job of presenting research-
The book contains six key evidence-supported consistent recommendations and providing ade-
management lessons designed to promote job per- quate evidence to support them” (this issue).
formance and satisfaction: using the right tools to In the final Book & Resource Review, Angeline
Lim, Dong Chen Jia Qian, and Alison Eyring de-
hire high-performing employees; inspiring em-
scribe the current state of on-line evidence-based
ployees to effectively execute strategy; developing
management resources. Of the websites devoted
and training employees to create high-performing
either primarily or secondarily to EBMgt, Lim
teams; motivating employees to become high per-
and colleagues identify the Center for Evidence-
formers; instilling resiliency in the face of set-
Based Management’s (CEBMa) website (www.
backs, and coaching employees to become high
cebma.org) as the most up-to-date and informative
performers.
for both educators and practitioners. This site in-
Giluk, a former human resources manager, is
cludes a large repository of articles and book chap-
highly complimentary about the book’s accessibil-
ters on EBMgt, YouTube videos, and links to EBMgt
ity and usefulness: “Latham presents the material sites and evidence-based materials in other disci-
in an engaging manner, offering myriad examples plines such as health care and education. For ed-
to illustrate his recommendations, including two ucators, the site provides sample course outlines,
cases of evidence-based managers in action” (one exercises, questionnaires, presentation slides, and
in a logging operation in the United States and the references. Another recommended site is Pfeffer
other in a technology development center in the and Sutton’s www.evidence-basedmanagement.
Middle East; this issue). She notes that Latham com, which functions primarily as a conduit to
clearly defines terms that might be unfamiliar to other relevant resources such as cases, books, ar-
managers and provides concrete implementation ticle summaries, EBMgt quotes, EBP news stories,
tools (e.g., 10-step guides). guest columns by academics and practitioners,
As with Dipboye’s review of Pearce’s (2013) book, and RSS feeds from Pfeffer and Sutton’s blogs. Lim
Giluk also spends considerable time talking about and colleagues also briefly review the major on-
Latham’s (2009) use of evidence. In many ways, she line EBMgt communities or forums, open access
finds it to be admirable. For example, approxi- resources, and Twitter accounts.
mately one third of the 225 studies he cites are from In terms of evaluating the current state of web
2000 onward, and many of the topics addressed are resources, Lim and colleagues conclude that EBMgt
buttressed with either meta-analytic evidence or lags considerably behind EBMed and EBEduc. They
multiple primary studies. She also cites a number argue that the field needs a centralized website
of areas where she believes Latham does a good such as the Cochrane Collaboration in medicine
job of discussing conflicting researcher views (e.g., (www.cochrane.org) or The Campbell Collabora-
the usefulness of personality indicators as predic- tion (www.campbellcollaboration.org) in educa-
tors of performance. tion. Relative to these two sites, current EBMgt
2014 Rynes, Rousseau, and Barends 317

websites tend to provide summaries of individual students just picking an answer, but justify-
research articles rather than systematic reviews ing their answers.
(which are generally regarded as more useful to
both academics and practitioners); lack in-depth A second theme concerns the two complementary
coverage of management subfields such as HR, sides—push and pull— of teaching EBP. Although
entrepreneurship, or leadership; and do not have EB medicine began by pushing research evidence
transparent criteria for deciding what articles will to medical students and teaching them to critically
or will not be posted or summarized. However, EBP appraise it, the pull side emerged shortly thereaf-
in management is less mature than in medicine or ter when EBMed moved from the classroom to the
education, and CEBMa is currently in the process patient’s bedside. This same trend has been mir-
of constructing a free access, on-line database of rored in management, where the earliest writings
evidence summaries that will include meta- tended to push research findings in particular ar-
analyses, systematic reviews, CATs, and REAs. eas, (e.g., Latham, 2009; Pearce, 2006; Pfeffer & Sut-
ton, 2006), but where the articles in this special
issue (as well as those in The Oxford Handbook of
COMMON THEMES AND IMPLICATIONS
Evidence-Based Management, Rousseau, 2012) are
One theme that emerges from the papers in this a mix of push, pull, and both at the same time.
special issue is the shift in thinking from a narrow Moreover, teaching on the pull side in this issue
focus on evidence-based disciplines (e.g., medi- includes both looking for already-existing evi-
cine, health care, education, or management) to a dence as well as creating local evidence (Rous-
broader focus on evidence-based practice across seau, 2006).
disciplines. This shift, mentioned in the articles by Looking toward the future, Guyatt believes that
Barends and Briner, Lim and colleagues, and more emphasis will be placed on the push side.
Trank and noted earlier in other disciplines (e.g., He says:
Clegg, 2005; Dawes et al., 2005), recognizes that the
basic principles of EBP are fairly generalizable What we now recognize much more is that
across disciplines—so much so that evidence- practitioners need pre-appraised evidence . . .
based practitioners from different disciplines often from the very beginning, when we started
have more in common with one another than do teaching critical appraisal, we realized,
evidence-based and nonevidence-based practitio- “Who’s got the time for this?” It is very de-
ners in the same discipline. The extent to which manding, so people like Brian Haynes started
evidence-based thinking is taking hold across dis- developing evidence-based resources for peo-
ciplines is perhaps best exemplified by the incor- ple . . . now we are developing what we call
poration of evidence-based logic into the construc- “push services,” where as a clinician you sign
tion and scoring of the recently revamped up and define your areas of interest. So when
Scholastic Aptitude Test, the second-most widely I’m a specialist in internal medicine, I get
used college entrance exam in the United States what’s new in internal medicine appearing
(Balfmarch, 2014): on my e-mail or my smartphone. . . . We have
estimated that most physicians don’t need
Whenever a question really matters in col- more than 20 articles per year, which is a
lege or career, it is not enough just to give an 99.96% noise reduction (Guyatt, this issue).
answer, Coleman2 said. The crucial next step
is to support your answer with evidence, This is the type of service that, with time and
which allows insight into what the student additional resources, might be provided in the fu-
actually knows. And this change (to the SAT) ture by CEBMa for managers. In addition, we can
means a lot for the work students do to pre- probably expect to see future teaching articles ad-
pare for the exam. No longer will it be good dressing not only Big E and little e, but also locat-
enough to focus on tricks and trying to elimi- ing or producing “Big D” (i.e., big data).
nate answer choices. We are not interested in A third theme noted in several of the articles
here is that when students or practitioners look to
the research base to answer practical questions,
2
David Coleman, CEO of the College Board, the nonprofit or- they often find that much of our research evidence
ganization that administers the SAT. isn’t all that impressive. According to accounts by
318 Academy of Management Learning & Education September

Guyatt and Burls, Trank, and Walshe and Briner, ample, traditional hierarchies of research quality
students in their classes often find that there is in medicine tend to place randomized controlled
little research relevant to their chosen problem (experimental) trials (RCTs) at the top of the hier-
and that the evidence that does exist is weak (e.g., archy (Berwick, 2008). However, top scholars in
inadequate sample sizes, missing statistics, evidence-based health care argue that the appro-
causal ambiguity, and questionable construct va- priate hierarchy of evidence depends on the type of
lidity). One implication is that when teaching EBP question being asked (Berwick, 2008; Pawson &
from the pull (vs. push) side, instructors must be Tilley, 1997; Petticrew & Roberts, 2003). For exam-
prepared to be more circumspect about our re- ple, while RCTs are superior for evaluating clini-
search base: cal evidence (e.g., which of two medicines is more
effective for a particular ailment), they are inferior
[I]n content-based courses, we typically em- for evaluating complex, multicomponent, nonlin-
phasize how much management researchers ear social change processes such as the deploy-
know and communicate narratives of unstop- ment of rapid response teams in hospitals. In such
pable scientific progress and steady knowl- situations, Berwick (2008: 1183) argues:
edge accumulation. When, as is quite often
the case, students are surprised by the lim- Any assessment techniques developed in en-
ited quantity, quality, and relevance of the gineering and used in quality improvement—
research they find, it is easy to become some- statistical process control, time series analy-
what defensive rather than acknowledge sis, simulations, and factorial experiments—
that, in many instances, we do not have par- have more power to inform about mechanisms
ticularly good evidence to answer their ques- and contexts than do RCTs, as do ethnography,
tions and a lot of published research may be anthropology, and other qualitative methods.
of poor quality (Walshe & Briner, this issue). For these specific applications, these methods
are not compromises in learning how to im-
In addition to these fairly obvious research defi- prove; they are superior.
ciencies, articles in this special issue also high-
light some less obvious ones. For example, Kepes Similar arguments have been made in EB educa-
and colleagues discuss how biases toward studies tion (Biesta, 2007; Clegg, 2005), as well as by soci-
with positive findings in journal review processes ologists and critical management scholars with
lead to questionable ethical practices on the respect to the presumed superiority of meta-
part of researchers (see also O’Boyle, Banks, & analysis and other forms of systematic review (e.g.,
Gonzalez-Mule, in press) and possible disappoint- Morrell, 2008; Pawson, 2006).
ment on the part of practitioners who implement Another theme that emerges is that academics
practices that meta-analyses and other systematic who choose to describe their work (or the work of
reviews suggest “should” work, but don’t always. others) as “evidence-based” should be prepared to
Trank shows how the tone of academic writing defend the basis for that claim. For example, re-
sometimes causes students and practitioners to viewers for this special issue were appropriately
categorize researchers as “other” and reject their critical about how EBMgt textbook writers use ev-
messages—an outcome that is probably not what idence, raising questions about the recency and
most researchers envisage when they are writing comprehensiveness of the evidence presented in
up their findings. Drawing on critical studies in the two textbooks reviewed here (Latham, 2009,
education, sociology, and management, Trank also and Pearce, 2013). Similarly, reviewers of the arti-
argues that the term “evidence-based” is often cle on electronic search methods (by Goodman et
used to shut down (rather than encourage) discus- al.) also pushed the authors to make the criteria for
sions of research by privileging some types of re- article inclusion in their review more systematic
search over others, and efficiency concerns over and transparent. We expect that this “raising the
ethical or moral ones. bar” in terms of systematic reviews, rhetorical
These criticisms bring up an issue that is not analysis, and bias-reducing strategies will con-
much discussed in the articles in this special issue tinue and most likely accelerate.
(with the exception of Trank’s), but widely dis- Authors in this special issue also reinforced re-
cussed elsewhere: epistemological conflicts over cent conclusions by Erez and Grant (2014) that,
so-called hierarchies of research quality. For ex- contrary to many educators’ fears, incorporating
2014 Rynes, Rousseau, and Barends 319

research into management classes often has a pos- The advancement of EBP in management will be
itive, energizing, and even transformative effect on supported by greater development and sharing of
students.3 In addition, the types of philosophies, summaries of research evidence on questions of
strategies, and tactics used to teach EBMgt con- importance to practitioners. As in medicine
tinue to become clearer. For example, teachers of (Guyatt, 1991), the accumulation of rigorously con-
EBP frequently (1) begin their classes with some ducted evidence summaries starts with small
sort of exercise that causes students to question steps. At present, CEBMa is in the process of build-
their current assumptions and “open them up” for a ing a searchable database of critically appraised
research-based approach (e.g., Guyatt and Burns; meta-analyses and systematic reviews on man-
Latham; Pearce); (2) use analogies and examples agement questions. New and updated summaries
from medicine (for which management students are critical as research in management continues
generally have a high degree of respect and about to expand. Also important are increased communi-
which they rarely consider themselves experts; cations between academics and practitioners as
Erez & Grant; Latham); (3) use cases, but in a way well as among “camps” of academics with differ-
that deviates from the traditional case method by ent epistemological and ideological views (Bar-
incorporating research evidence or the search for tunek & Rynes, 2014; Gulati, 2007; Trank, this issue).
evidence (Dietz et al.; Gamble & Jelley); (4) invite The authors, reviewers, and editors of this spe-
research librarians to help students improve their cial issue have pursued the aspiration of EBP—
Internet search capabilities (e.g., Goodman et al.; that is, to provide useful knowledge to educators
Trank), and (5) encourage dialectic and dialogic and, through them, to their students. This special
pedagogies. However, authors (and textbook writ- issue extends an invitation to its readers to help
ers) in this special issue were divided on the use of better realize these aims. To this end, we draw
technical research-based terminology, with Guyatt attention to the words of Amanda Burls and Gor-
and Burls, Latham, and Pearce deemphasizing it, don Guyatt, two of the pioneers who started this
while Kepes and colleagues and Trank did not. movement now taken up by so many professional
disciplines: Teaching EBP “is not just about chang-
ing a person’s skills and knowledge, it’s giving
CONCLUSION
them a totally different perspective on the
This special issue appears at a time of growing world . . . . It’s . . . an activist thing. . . . We want
emphasis on EBP in management education from them to get out of our classroom and change the
the undergraduate to the executive doctorate level world” (this issue).
(Erez & Grant, 2014; Salipante & Smith, 2012). As the Decisions made by managers have a profound
attention to and demand for evidence-based man- impact on the lives and wellbeing of people all
agement education expands, we must approach over the world. As Mintzberg (1990: 17) said, “No job
teaching with due humility in recognition of the is more vital to our society than that of a manager.
poor quality of a good deal of organizational re- It is the manager who determines whether our
search evidence. We must grapple as educators social institutions serve us well or whether they
and students with how little we really know in squander our talents and resources.” By ignoring
many areas of important management and em- evidence, billions of dollars are spent on ineffec-
ployee concerns, as well as with biases and power tive management practices, to the detriment of em-
dynamics that may cause us to think we know ployees and their families, communities, and the
more than we do or to use inappropriate research society at large (Rousseau, 2006). As teachers of the
methods for the question at hand (Kepes et al.; next generation of managers, we have a moral
Trank; Walshe & Briner, this issue). obligation to change this situation. We can do this
by helping future managers acquire content
knowledge based upon a solid and extensive body
3
This outcome is not universal, of course. For example, one of of research, teaching them how to find the best
our colleagues who generally has had great success in teach- available evidence and then critically appraise its
ing EBMgt classes recently confessed via e-mail to having “a trustworthiness, and encouraging critical thinking
very challenging group of students, most of whom do not seem
and dialogue about academic (and other) texts and
to know why they’re here and have very limited interest in the
course material. I’ve been having to do a lot of classroom their underlying assumptions. So, let’s go into the
emotional labor to (hopefully) disguise my irritation and disap- classroom and make a change in the world by
pointment, which is SO tiring.” teaching EBP.
320 Academy of Management Learning & Education September

REFERENCES R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, Vol

23: 133–187. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
Andriessen, D., & Van Den Boom, M. 2009. In search of alterna-
Garvin, D. A. 2013. How Google sold its engineers on manage-
tive metaphors for knowledge: Inspiration from symbolism.
ment. Harvard Business Review, 91: 74 – 82.
Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 7: 397– 404.
Goodman, J. S., & O’Brien, J. 2012. Teaching and learning using
Balfmarch, T. March 6, 2014. The story behind the SAT overhaul.
evidence-based principles. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/magazine/the-story-
Oxford handbook of evidence-based management: pp. 309 –
behind-the-sat-overhaul.html?ref⫽magazine&_r⫽0. Accessed
336. New York: Oxford University Press.
04/21/2014.
Grant, A. M. April 8 2014. The most valuable business degree
Bartunek, J. M., & Rynes, S. L. 2014. Academics and practitioners
doesn’t exist. https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/
are alike and unlike: The paradoxes of academic–
20140408114220-69244073-the-most-valuable-business-
practitioner relationships. Journal of Management, 40:
degree-doesn-t-exist?trk⫽mp-reader-card.
1181–1201.
Guyatt, G. H. 1991. Evidence-based medicine. ACP Journal Club:
Berwick, D. M. 2008. The science of improvement. JAMA: The
A-16 (supplement 12 to Annals of Internal Medicine).
Journal of the American Medical Association, 299: 1182–1184.
Jelley, R. B., Carroll, W. R., & Rousseau, D. M. 2012. Reflections
Biesta, G. 2007. Why “what works” won’t work: Evidence-based
on teaching evidence-based management. In D. M. Rous-
practice and the democratic deficit in educational research.
seau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence-based man-
Education Theory, 57: 1–22.
agement: pp. 337–355. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boyer, E. L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the pro-
Latham, G. P. 2009. Becoming the evidence-based manager:
fessoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
How to put the science of management to work for you.
of Teaching.
Boston: Davies-Black.
Briner, R. B., Denyer, D., & Rousseau, D. M. 2009. Evidence-based
Latham, G. P., & Brown, T. C. 2006. The effect of learning versus
management: Concept cleanup time? Academy of Manage-
outcome goals on self-efficacy, satisfaction, and perfor-
ment Perspectives, 23: 19 –32.
mance in an MBA program. Applied Psychology: An Inter-
Brown, J. S. 2005. Storytelling in organizations: Why storytelling national Review, 55: 606 – 623.
is transforming 21st century organizations and manage-
Latham, G. P., & Seijts, G. H. 1997. The effect of appraisal
ment. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
instrument on managerial perceptions of fairness and sat-
Burke, K. 1950. A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley CA: University of isfaction with appraisals from their peers. Canadian Jour-
California Press. nal of Behavioural Science, 29: 275–282.
Clegg, S. 2005. Evidence-based practice in educational re- Mesny, A. 2013. Taking stock of the century-long utilization of
search: A critical realist critique of systematic review. Brit- the case method in management education. Canadian Jour-
ish Journal of Sociology of Education, 26: 415– 428. nal of Administrative Sciences, 30: 56 – 66.
Dawes, M., Summerskill, W., Glasziou, P., Cartabellotta, A., Martin, Mintzberg, H. 1990. The manager’s job: Folklore and fact. Har-
J., Hopayian, K., Porzsolt, F., Burls, A., & Osborne, J. Second vard Business Review, 53: 12–20.
International Conference of Evidence-Based Health Care
Morrell, K. 2008. The narrative of “evidence-based” manage-
Teachers and Developers. 2005. Sicily statement on evidence-
ment: A polemic. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 613–
based practice. BMC Medical Education, 5: 1.
634.
Debowski, S., Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. 2001. Impact of guided
Morrell, K. 2012. Evidence-based dialectics. Organization, 19:
exploration and enactive exploration on self-regulatory
461– 479.
mechanisms and information acquisition through elec-
tronic search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1129 –1141. O’Boyle, E. H., Banks, G. C., & Gonzalez-Mule, E. in press. The
chrysalis effect: How ugly initial results metamorphosize
Dewey, J. 1958. Experience and nature (2nd ed.). Mineola, NY:
into beautiful articles. Journal of Management.
Dover.
Pawson, R. 2006. Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective.
Erez, A., & Grant, A. M. 2014. Separating data from intuition:
London: Sage.
Bringing evidence into the management classroom. Acad-
emy of Management Learning and Education, 13: 104 –119. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. 1997. Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. 1992. Evidence- Pearce, J. L. 2006. Organizational behavior: Real research for
based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of real managers. Irvine, CA: Melvin & Leigh.
medicine. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical As- Pearce, J. L. 2012. Creating evidence-based management text-
sociation, 268: 2420 –2425. books. In D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of
Freidson, E. 2001. Professionalism: The third logic. Chicago, IL: evidence-based management: Companies, classrooms, and
University of Chicago Press. research: pp. 377–386. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frese, M. 2009. Towards a psychology of entrepreneurship: An Pearce, J. L. 2013. Organizational behavior: Real research for
action theory perspective. Foundations and Trends in En- real managers (3rd ed.). Irvine, CA: Melvin & Leigh.
trepreneurship, 5: 435– 494. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. 2003. Evidence, hierarchies, and
Frese, M., & Fay, D. 2001. Personal initiative (PI): An active perfor- typologies: Horses for courses. Journal of Epidemiology and
mance concept for work in the 21st century. In B. M. Staw and Community Health, 57: 527–529.
2014 Rynes, Rousseau, and Barends 321

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. 2006. Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, Stambaugh, J. M., & Trank, C. Q. 2010. Not so simple: Integrating
and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based manage- new research into textbooks. Academy of Management
ment. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Learning and Education, 9: 663– 681.
Reay, T., Berta, W., & Kohn, M. K. 2009. What’s the evidence on ten Have, W., & Stevens, F. 2003. Key management models: The
evidence-based management? Academy of Management management tools and practices that will improve your
Perspectives, 23: 5–18. business. London: Pearson Education.
Rousseau, D. M. 2006. Is there such a thing as “evidence-based Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a method-
management”? Academy of Management Review, 31: 256 – ology for developing evidence-informed management
269. knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal
of Management, 14: 207–222.
Rousseau, D. M. 2012. The Oxford handbook of evidence-based
management: Companies, classrooms, and research. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press. Sara L. Rynes
Salipante, P., & Smith, A. K. 2012. From the 3 Rs to the 4 Rs: Tippie College of Business, University of Iowa
Toward doctoral education that encourages evidence- Denise M. Rousseau
based management through problem-focused research. In
D. M. Rousseau (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of evidence- Tepper School of Business & Heinz College of
based management. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
Shugan, S. M. 2006. Editorial: Save research—Abandon the case Eric Barends
method of teaching. Marketing Science, 25: 109 –115. Center for Evidence-Based Management

Sara L. Rynes is the John F. Murray Professor of Management & Organizations in the Univer-
sity of Iowa’s Tippie College of Business. Rynes’ research interests are academic–practitioner
relationships, management education, recruitment, and compensation. She received her PhD
in Industrial Relations from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Denise M. Rousseau is H. J. Heinz II University Professor at Heinz College and Tepper School
of Business, Carnegie Mellon University. In 2007, Rousseau founded the Evidence-Based
Management Collaborative, a network of scholars, consultants, and managers to promote
evidence-informed organizational practices and decision making, operating today as the
Center for Evidence-Based Management (www.cebma.org).

Eric Barends is the managing director of the Center for Evidence-Based Management. He
has 20 years of management experience, 15 years at the senior management level,
including 5 years as an executive. Barends advises management teams and boards of
directors of large- and medium-sized companies and nonprofit organizations on evidence-
based management and the development of managers. In addition, he frequently runs
training courses on this topic and serves as a visiting lecturer at several universities and
business schools.

View publication stats