Because it's called EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT whose ethos is the basis of HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT.
(also note: 'Evidence-based HR' is grammatically incorrect.)
EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT (EbM or EBMgt) has actually been around for some time and has its roots in Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and also Evaluation theory (for those who know their social sciences). Evidence-Based Management is also what VaLUENTiS and ISHCM are founded upon. And because our special interest is people and organisations it's why it's called HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT.
As Head of our Healthcare Management Practice at VaLUENTiS I am surrounded by tomes such as the 'Evidence-Based Practice Manual' (1000+ pages!) for example.
EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT is a growing movement (acceptance) that proposes that management (i.e. people management) requires far more use of 'evidence' - use of science around decision making and 'informed' organisation practice, for example. The use of data. fact, analytics, scientific rigour, critical evaluation, critically evaluated research/case studies, indeed evidence of this nature is what it is about.
It's about the combination of qualitative and quantitative intelligence to provide establish intelligence/knowledge to apply.
IT'S NOT about anecdote, stories, ephemeral mini-case studies, 'just add water' mentalities, single-loop learning, causes, one-person experience or indeed anything beloved of so much in the 'HR field' of supposed learning and application for practitioners.
And it's time the 'HR community' got this.
It's about the use of critically-evaluated models and frameworks and research. I'm often disappointed with UK research in people management and HR functional stuff for example because it is often long on citation but short on practical understanding.
This also goes for the plethora of 'market research' masquerading as research in HR. It's essentially done for PR purposes more than 'the science' which is the real value. And there's too much research done for research sake in HR rather than for scientific advancement. (Associates on the ISHCM HCMI course see this BIG.........)
So why is it new?
Well it's not really new as a concept but it is new in terms of application. Those of you who have read my previous blogs know that I have been scathing on the 'amateur' status that pervades through the HR/management community.
Now before we start yet another fad/bandwagon of HR terminology we should really use what's already there. So the next time somebody says 'Evidence based HR' just ask them where did it emanate from - you will be able to distinguish between the charlatan and the practitioner pretty quickly. It's also a case of HRM/HCM practitioners being up with the curve (rather than erroneously thinking they're ahead of it when they're actually behind it).
If you want to read more on this subject try:
'Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths & Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management' by Pfeffer and Sutton, Harvard Business School Press 2006
'The Halo Effect' by Phil Rosenzweig, Free Press 2007
You heard it here first......
