I’ve been delighted with how much response there has
been to Lovaglia’s
Law, and how thoughtful many of the comments have been made on this blog
and elsewhere.  I want to add something
about the difference between “evidence-based management” and what might be
called “slogan-based management” or “faith-based management.”  Michael Lovaglia makes a strong argument that
the law holds and, as I wrote, there are also sound psychological reasons – the
increased public attention, pressure for accountability, and stress – why important
decisions are less likely to be evidence-based than unimportant ones. BUT even
though Michael calls this a law, remember, it really is just a hypothesis –
sort of a well-argued and
strong opinion that is weakly held.  Michael is designing some studies to test the
law. Perhaps other academics will test it as well (Or perhaps it has already
been tested, at least partially, in studies I don’t know about).  This means that, as charming and compelling
as the law is, if the research shows that the law doesn’t hold, Michael – and I
– will kiss this pretty idea good-bye. This commitment to facing the facts and
to discarding dearly held beliefs is a hallmark, perhaps the hallmark of
evidence-based management.

That is the difference between an evidence-based approach
and so much of the snake oil that is sold out there. Note:

1. The law is treated as something
that might be true, not as a proven fact.

2. The law is being subjected to
empirical test.

3. The stronger the evidence uncovered
to support the law, the greater the faith in it will be, and the weaker the
evidence, the weaker the faith will be.

These are, of course, very simple tests. But it
astounds me how often they are not applied.  Exhibit 1, as I’ve written here before, is corporate
mergers, but the list goes on and on.