I frequently hear people talking about skepticism and evidence-based management in the same conversation. Makes sense. Today I ran across Voodoo science and evidence based management. Richard Puyt (@richardpuyt on Twitter) interviewed Michael Shermer on ManagementSite.com, and it's worthwhile reading. Among other things, Shermer is a professor at Claremont and a founder of the Skeptics Society. Here's a brief excerpt from the interview:
Richard: The emerging evidence based management movement... is based on the same sort of thinking and discipline that has improved the practice of medicine... in terms of the rigor of thought and analysis. What are your views...?
Michael: Management is a broad spectrum. But, I like the principle. Where I think it might trip up is anecdotal evidence to support claims and confirmation bias. That’s why I like the wiki’s. You have constant interaction and improvements. This probably doesn’t work in all fields off course.... Open and peer reviewed theories are the best, because they get constantly challenged....
Richard: In science there is much debate about the level of evidence. The dominant way of conducting science is the way physicists and mathematicians gather scientific proof.... Social scientists argue that this is not the preferred way to conduct research. Especially when researching management. What is in your view the preferred way to conduct research in science...?
Michael: There are two types of scientific research: experimental and comparative. In the social sciences, especially in economics and business, we cannot run controlled experiments and manipulate variables like we can in laboratory experiments. Instead, we have to wait and see what happens in natural experiments that are run by people trying different techniques...."
Comments