Last Updated on December 21, 2022
Need the basics of an online graduate degree in evidence-based management? The Online Graduate Degree in Evidence Based Management provides the basics and fundamental informational needs for an easy learning experience. Detailed and comprehensive with touches of fun, it makes an easy journey for information. I bring you the latest information on this Collegelearners site where you can obtain all this information.
Need the basics on Online Graduate Degree in Evidence Based Management? The Online Graduate Degree in Evidence Based Management provides the basics and fundamentals informational needs for an easy learning experience. Detailed and comprehensive with touches of fun, it makes an easy journey for information. I bring you the latest information on this Collegelearners site where you can obtain all this in.
Start your online Graduate Degree in Evidence Based Management and complete your master’s degree in Australian National University Campus in just one semester
Save time and money. Grab the opportunity to enroll for one of the world cheapest online postgraduate degrees from one of the best universities in the world through online learning. Earn an Australian National University online degree in Evidence Based Management with just $1,500 and save $50,000 which is the amount required to complete the on campus equivalent.
Start a journey that will change your life forever. Earn an internationally recognized masters certificate through online learning and enjoy the same benefits and certificate accorded to on campus students.
Target Group for The Evidence Based Management Course
The ANUx Evidence Based Management course is suitable for the following group of individuals
- Anyone interested in Management
- university students who wish to receive one semester transferable credit in management
- Admission seekers who wish to earn some university credit before enrolling for a masters degree
- Bachelor degree holders who wish to cover up for course and grade deficiency in their previous degree
Price of the One Semester Course
Complete Price: $1,500 or Installment payment of $150 per course.
After the completion of the course you will receive a MicroMasters Certificate from the Austrian National University
University Offering The Course
This course is offered by Austrian National University, Login below to gain complete information about the university offering the course and how to enroll for the course
About The Australian National University Online Degree in Evidence Based Management
Bias and error often contaminate perceptions and judgments, which guide and inform action and decision-making. Evidence-based management (EBM) involves the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of research evidence to inform decision-making.
The Evidence-Based Management MicroMasters Program will equip learners with a solid foundation of, knowledge and skills in evidence-based decision making, and provide applications to use this critical thinking in the areas of management, marketing, international business, technology and project management.
This MicroMasters in Evidence Based Management Program is for those who want to enter a range of analyst roles and will also provide a pathway into a broad range of general and specialized coursework in Master’s programs in business and management offered by ANU.
- Exciting career opportunities as a consultant, business analyst, intelligence and policy analyst, management and organizational analyst, and more!
- By November 2019, the number of job openings for each of these positions is expected to average between 10,001 and 50,000 in Australia alone. (source: http://joboutlook.gov.au)
- Median salary for careers in this field range from $80,000 – 95,000 per year. (source: http://joboutlook.gov.au)
What You’ll Learn:
- Evaluate and reflect on evidence to inform decision making.
- Explore opportunities and novel solutions to challenges.
- Work effectively with others to resolve challenges.
- Adapt to complex and uncertain situations.
- Engage, inform and influence stakeholders.
- Incorporate the influence of a changing global environment.
- Demonstrate ethical behaviour and make principled decisions.
Who is this MicroMasters Program intended for?
The ANUx Evidence-Based Management MicroMasters Program is a graduate level program. It is recommended that students have completed a Bachelor’s degree and have a basic understanding of business statistics.
What credit will be given for undertaking the ANUx Evidence-Based Management MicroMasters Program?
Qualifying students will be given 24 units or one semester worth of credit within one of the ANU on-campus programs offered by the Research School of Management.
MicroMasters Program Details
How To Earn The MicroMasters Credential
Successfully complete and earn a Verified Certificate in all seven evidence-based management courses.
Take Your Credential To The Next Level
Students who successfully complete the ANUx Evidence-Based Management MicroMasters Program with a score of at least 70% in the final capstone exam will receive advance standing for the following on campus ANU programs:
- Master of Management
- Master of International Management
- Master of Marketing Management
- Master of Leadership
- Master of Entrepreneurship & Innovation
- Master of Project Management
- Master of Business Information Systems
Students achieving a mark of 70% in the capstone exam will also be considered for entry to the ANU MBA if they also meet the experience requirement (5 years work experience including 3 years of documented management experience).
Students who are accepted into these programs will receive 24 units of credit. This is equivalent to one semester course work and 50% of the total credit required to complete a degree in management.
Evidence based management certification
A bold new way of thinking has taken the medical establishment by storm in the past decade: the idea that decisions in medical care should be based on the latest and best knowledge of what actually works. Dr. David Sackett, the individual most associated with evidence-based medicine, defines it as “the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” Sackett, his colleagues at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, and the growing number of physicians joining the movement are committed to identifying, disseminating, and, most importantly, applying research that is soundly conducted and clinically relevant.
If all this sounds laughable to you—after all, what else besides evidence would guide medical decisions?—then you are woefully naive about how doctors have traditionally plied their trade. Yes, the research is out there—thousands of studies are conducted on medical practices and products every year. Unfortunately, physicians don’t use much of it. Recent studies show that only about 15% of their decisions are evidence based. For the most part, here’s what doctors rely on instead: obsolete knowledge gained in school, long-standing but never proven traditions, patterns gleaned from experience, the methods they believe in and are most skilled in applying, and information from hordes of vendors with products and services to sell.
The same behavior holds true for managers looking to cure their organizational ills. Indeed, we would argue, managers are actually much more ignorant than doctors about which prescriptions are reliable—and they’re less eager to find out. If doctors practiced medicine like many companies practice management, there would be more unnecessarily sick or dead patients and many more doctors in jail or suffering other penalties for malpractice.
It’s time to start an evidence-based movement in the ranks of managers. Admittedly, in some ways, the challenge is greater here than in medicine. (See the sidebar “What Makes It Hard to Be Evidence Based?”) The evidence is weaker; almost anyone can (and often does) claim to be a management expert; and a bewildering array of sources—Shakespeare, Billy Graham, Jack Welch, Tony Soprano, fighter pilots, Santa Claus, Attila the Hun—are used to generate management advice. Managers seeking the best evidence also face a more vexing problem than physicians do: Because companies vary so wildly in size, form, and age, compared with human beings, it is far more risky in business to presume that a proven “cure” developed in one place will be effective elsewhere.
Still, it makes sense that when managers act on better logic and evidence, their companies will trump the competition. That is why we’ve spent our entire research careers, especially the last five years, working to develop and surface the best evidence on how companies ought to be managed and teaching managers the right mind-set and methods for practicing evidence-based management. As with medicine, management is and will likely always be a craft that can be learned only through practice and experience. Yet we believe that managers (like doctors) can practice their craft more effectively if they are routinely guided by the best logic and evidence—and if they relentlessly seek new knowledge and insight, from both inside and outside their companies, to keep updating their assumptions, knowledge, and skills. We aren’t there yet, but we are getting closer. The managers and companies that come closest already enjoy a pronounced competitive advantage.
What Passes for Wisdom
If a doctor or a manager makes a decision that is not based on the current best evidence of what may work, then what is to blame? It may be tempting to think the worst. Stupidity. Laziness. Downright deceit. But the real answer is more benign. Seasoned practitioners sometimes neglect to seek out new evidence because they trust their own clinical experience more than they trust research. Most of them would admit problems with the small sample size that characterizes personal observation, but nonetheless, information acquired firsthand often feels richer and closer to real knowledge than do words and data in a journal article. Lots of managers, likewise, get their companies into trouble by importing, without sufficient thought, performance management and measurement practices from their past experience. We saw this at a small software company, where the chair of the compensation committee, a successful and smart executive, recommended the compensation policies he had employed at his last firm. The fact that the two companies were dramatically different in size, sold different kinds of software, used different distribution methods, and targeted different markets and customers didn’t seem to faze him or many of his fellow committee members.
Another alternative to using evidence is making decisions that capitalize on the practitioner’s own strengths. This is particularly a problem with specialists, who default to the treatments with which they have the most experience and skill. Surgeons are notorious for it. (One doctor and author, Melvin Konner, cites a common joke amongst his peers: “If you want to have an operation, ask a surgeon if you need one.”) Similarly, if your business needs to drum up leads, your event planner is likely to recommend an event, and your direct marketers will probably suggest a mailing. The old saying “To a hammer, everything looks like a nail” often explains what gets done.
Hype and marketing, of course, also play a role in what information reaches the busy practitioner. Doctors face an endless supply of vendors, who muddy the waters by exaggerating the benefits and downplaying the risks of using their drugs and other products. Meanwhile, some truly efficacious solutions have no particularly interested advocates behind them. For years, general physicians have referred patients with plantar warts on their feet to specialists for expensive and painful surgical procedures. Only recently has word got out that duct tape does the trick just as well.
Numerous other decisions are driven by dogma and belief. When people are overly influenced by ideology, they often fail to question whether a practice will work—it fits so well with what they “know” about what makes people and organizations tick. In business, the use and defense of stock options as a compensation strategy seems to be just such a case of cherished belief trumping evidence, to the detriment of organizations. Many executives maintain that options produce an ownership culture that encourages 80-hour workweeks, frugality with the company’s money, and a host of personal sacrifices in the interest of value creation. T.J. Rodgers, chief executive of Cypress Semiconductor, typifies this mind-set. He told the San Francisco Chronicle that without options, “I would no longer have employee shareholders, I would just have employees.” There is, in fact, little evidence that equity incentives of any kind, including stock options, enhance organizational performance. A recent review of more than 220 studies compiled by Indiana University’s Dan R. Dalton and colleagues concluded that equity ownership had no consistent effects on financial performance.
Ideology is also to blame for the persistence of the first-mover-advantage myth. Research by Wharton’s Lisa Bolton demonstrates that most people—whether experienced in business or naive about it—believe that the first company to enter an industry or market will have a big advantage over competitors. Yet empirical evidence is actually quite mixed as to whether such an advantage exists, and many “success stories” purported to support the first-mover advantage turn out to be false. (Amazon.com, for instance, was not the first company to start selling books online.) In Western culture, people believe that the early bird gets the worm, yet this is a half-truth. As futurist Paul Saffo puts it, the whole truth is that the second (or third or fourth) mouse often gets the cheese. Unfortunately, beliefs in the power of being first and fastest in everything we do are so ingrained that giving people contradictory evidence does not cause them to abandon their faith in the first-mover advantage. Beliefs rooted in ideology or in cultural values are quite “sticky,” resist disconfirmation, and persist in affecting judgments and choice, regardless of whether they are true.
Finally, there is the problem of uncritical emulation and its business equivalent: casual benchmarking. Both doctors and managers look to perceived high performers in their field and try to mimic those top dogs’ moves. We aren’t damning benchmarking in general—it can be a powerful and cost-efficient tool. (See the sidebar “Can Benchmarking Produce Evidence?”) Yet it is important to remember that if you only copy what other people or companies do, the best you can be is a perfect imitation. So the most you can hope to have are practices as good as, but no better than, those of top performers—and by the time you mimic them, they’ve moved on. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as you can save time and money by learning from the experience of others inside and outside your industry. And if you consistently implement best practices better than your rivals, you will beat the competition.
Benchmarking is most hazardous to organizational health, however, when used in its “casual” form, in which the logic behind what works for top performers, why it works, and what will work elsewhere is barely unraveled. Consider a quick example. When United Airlines decided in 1994 to try to compete with Southwest in the California market, it tried to imitate Southwest. United created a new service, Shuttle by United, with separate crews and planes (all of them Boeing 737s). The gate staff and flight attendants wore casual clothes. Passengers weren’t served food. Seeking to emulate Southwest’s legendary quick turnarounds and enhanced productivity, Shuttle by United increased the frequency of its flights and reduced the scheduled time planes would be on the ground. None of this, however, reproduced the essence of Southwest’s advantage—the company’s culture and management philosophy, and the priority placed on employees. Southwest wound up with an even higher market share in California after United had launched its new service. The Shuttle is now shuttered.
We’ve just suggested no less than six substitutes that managers, like doctors, often use for the best evidence—obsolete knowledge, personal experience, specialist skills, hype, dogma, and mindless mimicry of top performers—so perhaps it’s apparent why evidence-based decision making is so rare. At the same time, it should be clear that relying on any of these six is not the best way to think about or decide among alternative practices. We’ll soon describe how evidence-based management takes shape in the companies we’ve seen practice it. First, though, it is useful to get an example on the table of the type of issue that companies can address with better evidence.
An Example: Should We Adopt Forced Ranking?
The decision-making process used at Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine starts with a crucial first step—the situation confronting the practitioner must be framed as an answerable question. That makes it clear how to compile relevant evidence. And so we do that here, raising a question that many companies have faced in recent years: Should we adopt forced ranking of our employees? The question refers to what General Electric more formally calls a forced-curve performance-ranking system. It’s a talent management approach in which the performance levels of individuals are plotted along a bell curve. Depending on their position on the curve, employees fall into groups, with perhaps the top 20%, the so-called A players, being given outsize rewards; the middle 70% or so, the B players, being targeted for development; and the lowly bottom 10%, the C players, being counseled or thrown out of their jobs.
Without a doubt, this question arose for many companies as they engaged in benchmarking. General Electric has enjoyed great financial success and seems well stocked with star employees. GE alums have gone on to serve as CEOs at many other companies, including 3M, Boeing, Intuit, Honeywell, and the Home Depot. Systems that give the bulk of rewards to star employees have also been thoroughly hyped in business publications—for instance, in the McKinsey-authored book The War for Talent. But it’s far from clear that the practice is worth emulating. It isn’t just the infamous Enron—much praised in The War for Talent—that makes us say this. A couple of years ago, one of us gave a speech at a renowned but declining high-technology firm that used forced ranking (there, it was called a “stacking system”). A senior executive told us about an anonymous poll conducted among the firm’s top 100 or so executives to discover which company practices made it difficult to turn knowledge into action. The stacking system was voted the worst culprit.
Would evidence-based management have kept that company from adopting this deeply unpopular program? We think so. First, managers would have immediately questioned whether their company was similar enough to GE in various respects that a practice cribbed from it could be expected to play out in the same way. Then, they would have been compelled to take a harder look at the data presumably supporting forced ranking—the claim that this style of talent management actually has caused adherents to be more successful. So, for example, they might have noticed a key flaw in The War for Talent’s research method: The authors report in the appendix that companies were first rated as high or average performers, based on return to shareholders during the prior three to ten years; then interviews and surveys were conducted to measure how these firms were fighting the talent wars. So, for the 77 companies (of 141 studied), management practices assessed in 1997 were treated as the “cause” of firm performance between 1987 and 1997. The study therefore violates a fundamental condition of causality: The proposed cause needs to occur before the proposed effect.
Next, management would have assembled more evidence and weighed the negative against the positive. In doing so, it would have found plenty of evidence that performance improves with team continuity and time in position—two reasons to avoid the churn of what’s been called the “rank and yank” approach. Think of the U.S. Women’s National Soccer Team, which has won numerous championships, including two of the four Women’s World Cups and two of the three Olympic women’s tournaments held to date. The team certainly has had enormously talented players, such as Mia Hamm, Brandi Chastain, Julie Foudy, Kristine Lilly, and Joy Fawcett. Yet all these players will tell you that the most important factor in their success was the communication, mutual understanding and respect, and ability to work together that developed during the 13 or so years that the stable core group played together. The power of such joint experience has been established in every setting examined, from string quartets to surgical teams, to top management teams, to airplane cockpit crews.
If managers at the technology firm had reviewed the best evidence, they would have also found that in work that requires cooperation (as nearly all the work in their company did), performance suffers when there is a big spread between the worst- and best-paid people—even though giving the lion’s share of rewards to top performers is a hallmark of forced-ranking systems. In a Haas School of Business study of 102 business units, Douglas Cowherd and David Levine found that the greater the gap between top management’s pay and that of other employees, the lower the product quality. Similar negative effects of dispersed pay have been found in longitudinal studies of top management teams, universities, and a sample of nearly 500 public companies. And in a recent Novations Group survey of more than 200 human resource professionals from companies with more than 2,500 employees, even though over half of the companies used forced ranking, the respondents reported that this approach resulted in lower productivity, inequity, skepticism, decreased employee engagement, reduced collaboration, damage to morale, and mistrust in leadership. We can find plenty of consultants and gurus who praise the power of dispersed pay, but we can’t find a careful study that supports its value in settings where cooperation, coordination, and information sharing are crucial to performance.
Centre for evidence based practice
The Center for Evidence-based Practice is Penn Medicine’s
premier resource for rigorous assessment, synthesis, and translation of evidence
Lead the integration of the best available evidence into institutional decision-making, in order to strengthen the quality, safety and value of care for patients and populations
To accomplish this mission, CEP performs;
Rapid systematic reviews to inform institutional decision-making
Translates evidence into practice through clinical decision support interventions and clinical pathways
Provides education in evidence-based practice to trainees, staff, and faculty