Evidence-Based Decision Making
If doctors can do it... administrators can do it?
NVZD Voorjaarscongres – 4 Juni 2015 - Nyenrode
Exercise
Think about a decision you have been involved in making. This decision should be one which: Was reasonably important for your organizationInvolved spending significant resourcesInvolved several or more peopleWas made over a period of time (ie. weeks or months)Did not have an easy ‘answer’
Exercise
Discuss with your neighbor (1 min)
What exactly was the problem (or opportunity)?
How many alternative decision options were considered?
How much evidence was used, and from which sources (scientific, organizational, experience, crystal ball?)
Was any attempt made to explicitly evaluate its quality or trustworthiness?
Evidence-based decision making
Central Premise:
Decisions should be based on a
combination of critical thinking and
the ‘best available evidence‘.
Evidence?
outcome of scientific research,
organizational facts & figures,
benchmarking, best practices,
personal experience
But…many managers and
leaders pay little or no
attention to the quality of the
evidence they base their
decisions on
Teach managers/leaders
how to critically evaluate the
validity, and generalizability of
the evidence and help them
find ‘the best available’
evidence
Evidence based decision
Professional experience and
judgment
Organizational data, facts and figures
Stakeholders’ values and concerns
Scientific research
outcomes
AskAcquire
AppraiseAggregate
ApplyAssess
diagnosis intervention
1. Ask: translate a practical issue into an answerable question
2. Acquire: systematically search for and retrieve the evidence
3. Appraise: critically judge the trustworthiness of the evidence
4. Apply: incorporate the evidence into the decision-making process
5. Assess: evaluate the outcome of the decision taken
5 steps of EBmed
Evidence-Based Practice
1991Medicine
1998Education
2000Social care, public policy
Nursing, Criminal justice,
Policing, Architecture, Conservation
2010Management
Evidence-based decision-making =
the use of evidence from multiple sources to increase the likelihood of a
favourable outcome
Focus on the decision making processThink in terms of probability
1. Incompetent people benefit more from feedback than
highly competent people.
2. Task conflict improves work group performance while
relational conflict harms it.
3. Encouraging employees to participate in decision
making is more effective for improving organizational
performance than setting performance goals.
True or false?
How evidence-based is your HR director?
959 (US) + 626 (Dutch) HR professionals
35 statements, based on an extensive body of
evidence
true / false / uncertain
HR Professionals' beliefs about effective human resource practices: correspondence between research and practice, (Rynes et al, 2002, Sanders et al 2008)
Evidence-based decision making
Professional experience and
judgment
Organizational data, facts and figures
Stakeholders’ values and concerns
Scientific research
outcomes
AskAcquire
AppraiseAggregate
ApplyAssess
Discuss with your neighbor (1 min)
Why is a physician’s clinical experience,
as a rule, more trustworthy than
a manager’s professional experience?
Developing expertise
1. A sufficiently regular, predictable environment
2. Opportunities to learn regularities through prolonged
practice and feedback
The management domain is not highly favorable to expertise!
Bounded rationality / prospect theory
System 1
Fast Intuitive, associative heuristics & biases
System 2
Slow (lazy) Deliberate, Reasoning Rational
Seeing order in randomness Overconfidence bias Halo effect False consensus effect Group think Self serving attribution bias Sunk cost fallacy Cognitive dissonance reduction
System 1: cognitive errors
Confirmation bias Authority bias Small numbers fallacy In-group bias Recall bias Anchoring bias Availability bias
We are predisposed to see order, pattern and causal relations in the world.
Patternicity: The tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise.
Error 1: pattern recognition
A Type I error or a false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not (finding a non existent pattern)
A Type II error or a false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is (not recognizing a real pattern)
Dr. Michael Shermer (Director of the Skeptics Society)
Error 1: pattern recognition
A Type I error or a false positive: believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (low cost)
Error 1: pattern recognition
A Type II error or a false negative: believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (high cost)
Error 1: pattern recognition
A Type I error or a false positive: believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (low cost)
A Type II error or a false negative: believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (high cost)
DEFAULT
Error 1: pattern recognition
superstitious rituals
superstitious rituals
more stress = more prone to type 1 errors
Error 1: pattern recognition
We are predisposed to selectively
search for or interpret information in
ways that confirms our existing beliefs,
expectations and assumptions, and
ignore information to the contrary.
In other words, we “see what we want to see”
2. Confirmation bias
Example
You may believe that astrology actually
works. As a result of confirmation bias
you’ll remember only those instances
when when the prediction in the astrology
column came true and forget the majority
of the cases when the prediction was very
wrong. As a result you will continue to
believe astrology has some base in reality
2. Confirmation bias
Groupthink:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an incorrect or irrational decision
Error 3: Groupthink
Lean Management / Lean Six Sigma
Self steering / autonomous teams
Agile working / New World of Working
Value based management / health care
Talent management
Employee engagement
Group think?
“I’ve been studying judgment for 45 years, and I’m no better than when I started. I make extreme predictions. I’m over-
confident. I fall for every one of the biases.”
Bounded rationality
Evidence based decision
Professional experience and
judgment
Organizational data, facts and figures
Stakeholders’ values and concerns
Scientific research
outcomes
AskAcquire
AppraiseAggregate
ApplyAssess
diagnosis intervention
Evidence-based decision making
Professional experience and
judgment
Stakeholders’ values and concerns
Scientific research
outcomes
AskAcquire
AppraiseAggregate
ApplyAssess
Organizational data, facts and figures
People operate with beliefs &
biases. To the extent you can
reduce both and replace them
with data, you gain a clear
competitive advantage
Laszlo Bock (CHRO Google)
Organizational data
1. financial data (cash flow, solvability)
2. business outcomes (ROI, market share)
3. customer/client impact (customer satisfaction)
4. performance indicators (occupancy rate, failure frequency)
5. HR metrics (absenteeism, employee engagement)
6. marketing intelligence (brand awareness, customer feedback)
7. ‘soft’ data (organizational culture, trust in senior management, leadership style, commitment)
8. data from benchmarking
Types organizational evidence
Can your organization correlate/regress
level of education
years of experience
productivity
customer satisfaction
failure frequency
employee satisfaction
employee turnover
absenteeism
+
“Where the evidence is strong, we should act on it.
Where the evidence is suggestive, we should consider it.
Where the evidence is weak, we should build the
knowledge to support better decisions in the future.”
Jeffrey Zients, acting director of the Office of Management and Budget and President Obama’s Economic Advisor