Some human-resource management "experts" are still not showing us the evidence.

Browsing through the Evidence-BasedManagement.com site, I ran across the article Is HRM evidence-based and does it matter? by Rob Briner, published March 2007 in IES Opinion, a publication of the Institute of Employment Studies [7-page pdf here]. While Briner offers some insights into uses of current, best evidence for human resource management, he's off base in certain areas, and sometimes fails to produce evidence supporting his conclusions.

How well do HRM practitioners use evidence? Briner uses Sackett's description of evidence-based practice as integrating expertise with "the best available external evidence from systematic research" [page 3]. Then he distinguishes the "quick fix" from evidence-based practice: He complains we sometimes hurriedly adopt new management strategies that "do not bear too much analysis and so, like any fashion or fad, tend to focus on style and presentation rather than content or process. They are usually not evaluated, are unlikely to actually fix the problem and so are followed by another (usually quick) fix" [page 2]. I'm expecting some evidence that this is indeed true -- but Briner provides no research, citations, or examples to back up his statement about quick fixes. Yet he laments that "HR practitioners, like many others, are prepared to make judgements about what’s going on without, apparently, any systematic evidence" [page 4].

No relevant evidence outside peer-reviewed journals? I think Briner is also off base when he says "Getting hold of relevant evidence is also very difficult as it is rarely, if ever, found in books but, rather, in academic journals. Even if you can get hold of journal articles they are pretty impenetrable to anyone except other researchers" [page 6]. As noted earlier, he's defining evidence narrowly, as "external evidence from systematic research" [page 2].

Discounting the "little e" evidence in the middle. I bet folks like Dave Ulrich would be surprised to hear there's no relevant evidence in management books. Briner acknowledges the role of practitioner expertise, but limits "evidence" to systematic-review, meta-analysis types of knowledge, what Denise Rousseau calls Big E evidence, "generalizable knowledge regarding cause-effect connections (e.g., specific goals promote higher attainment than general or vague goals)." I believe he's making a serious mistake by disregarding little e evidence ("local or organization specific") -- this type of information can be collected systematically as part of a mature management process, so it can play a key role in evidence-based practice, supplementing Big E evidence and individual experience. This is particularly true in HRM and other social science areas, where qualitative inquiry and intangibles are highly relevant.

In conclusion. Briner concludes that "While HR has made great progress in starting to engage with evidence it still has some way to go, as a profession and practice, before it can truly claim to be evidence-based or even strongly evidence-informed." The same can be said for the articles being published about HRM.

Pop quiz. Briner has also developed an evidence-based practitioner quiz (2-page pdf), available at Evidence-BasedManagement.com. Some of the items are specifically about how people use evidence. But quiz item #11 says "We spend time identifying and exploring a wide range of possible solutions to the problems we face: [Answer] Not at all accurate, Quite accurate, or Very accurate." This sounds like creative problem-solving, but I'm not sure how it measures the likelihood of applying current, best evidence -- unless evidence is being collected systematically and used consistently to assess each alternative.

Comments

[Mike Kennedy]

It would have been nice to see Briner take a stronger stance for the use of evidence-based practices in HR. His comment that “evidence based practice is not easy” [p.6] is a cop out, in my opinion. Often there are gold mines of evidence sitting right under the feet of practioners in the form of primary corporate data. Very relevant data that can directly address the HR issue at hand. Not the “sketchy” [p.5] evidence that he suggests practioners use when better evidence is not available. Case in point being the study he cites [p.4] where data related to employee absenteeism and stress could have been collected and measured relatively easily. Actually, evidence-based HR practices can be easy. Any HR practioner can be off and running with a basic understanding of scientific methodology and a little elbow grease.

[case study lover]

IBSCDC has a wide collection of case studies on Business Management and Business Strategies that facilitate the understanding of certain concepts of Business Management such as HRM, Marketing Strategies and Brand Building to the MBA students. So once you visit http://www.ibscdc.org , I hope you may get benfit from that site.