Глава 1
When Business Myths Collide with Hard Evidence
Ever wonder why so many smart companies make disastrous decisions? Picture this: Two tech companies merge with comparable revenue to Cisco Systems, yet their union spectacularly fails. Meanwhile, Cisco successfully acquires dozens of companies without a hitch. The difference isn't luck-it's evidence-based management. In "Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense," Stanford professors Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton challenge conventional business wisdom with rigorous research. The book has become required reading at companies like Intel and Google, where executives credit it with transforming their decision-making processes. Warren Buffett reportedly keeps a copy on his desk, calling it "a necessary antidote to management fads." Beyond boardrooms, the book has influenced public policy debates about education, healthcare, and government administration by demanding that leaders base decisions on evidence rather than ideology.
Глава 2
The Evidence-Based Management Revolution
Most business decisions are based on hope, fear, imitation, past experiences, or ideology rather than facts. If doctors practiced medicine the way many companies practice management, there would be far more casualties. The good news is that evidence-based management isn't difficult and can produce superior results while generating sustainable competitive advantage.
When Gary Loveman became Harrah's COO in 1998, he brought an academic's commitment to rigorous analysis, famously declaring three ways to get fired: stealing, harassing women, or implementing programs without experimental testing. By systematically challenging industry dogma through data analysis and controlled experiments, Harrah's discovered numerous profitable insights: direct mail outperformed media advertising; local retirees were more profitable than high-rollers; $60 in free chips generated more revenue than $125 packages with rooms and meals; families with children weren't profitable targets; investing in employee selection and retention reduced turnover by nearly 50%; and slot machine "holds" could be varied by location without affecting play.
The Oakland Athletics baseball team provides another powerful example of using facts to overcome market forces. While conventional wisdom suggests team payroll should directly correlate with performance, the relationship is surprisingly weak. By rejecting baseball truisms-they avoid sacrifice bunts and steals, don't chase big-name stars who are often older and injury-prone, and instead use statistical analysis to identify undervalued players on the rise-the A's have consistently outperformed teams with much higher payrolls.
Companies practicing evidence-based management are relentless in gathering and evaluating both quantitative and qualitative data. Enterprise Rent-A-Car measures customer satisfaction by focusing on just one critical metric: the percentage of customers who are "completely satisfied." Their research shows these customers are three times more likely to rent again. Managers scoring below average on this metric can't get promoted. Enterprise ensures data integrity by hiring third-party surveyors to randomly poll 150,000 customers monthly rather than letting employees distribute surveys.
Yahoo! excels at rapid experimentation, running about 20 tests simultaneously on its website. With millions of hourly visitors, they can randomly assign hundreds of thousands to experimental groups and get results within minutes. One experiment showed that moving the search box from the side to center of the homepage would generate $20 million in additional annual revenue.
Even without robust data systems, companies can still practice evidence-based management by carefully examining underlying assumptions. Before implementing any management practice, leaders should "unpack" the logic by listing assumptions and evaluating them against experience. A thoughtful analysis of assumptions often yields insights comparable to extensive empirical research.
Глава 3
Separating Truth from Fiction in Business Knowledge
The business knowledge marketplace presents overwhelming and contradictory information. With hundreds of business publications, 30,000+ books in print, and 3,500 new business books published annually, managers face information overload. This advice is rarely integrated coherently, as exemplified by encyclopedic business resources that offer disconnected recommendations without evidence of their effectiveness.
Business advice is remarkably inconsistent, with popular books offering contradictory guidance: hire charismatic CEOs versus modest ones; embrace complexity versus strive for simplicity; focus on strategy versus avoid strategic planning. The marketplace incentivizes consultants to sell ideas rather than ensure their effectiveness-they're rewarded for getting work, sometimes for doing good work, but rarely for whether their advice actually improves performance.
Consulting firms rarely provide evidence that their advice works. Darrell Rigby of Bain began the only known survey on management technique persistence, noting the irony that you can get data on toothpaste effectiveness but not on million-dollar business interventions.
Beyond learning analytical logic, managers must address the deeply flawed standards currently used to assess management knowledge. Six proposed standards for evaluating business knowledge directly challenge current practices:
1. Treat old ideas as old ideas, not as new discoveries. The management industry's obsession with novelty resembles laundry detergent marketing-always pushing what's "new and improved"-but this pursuit of novelty damages management practice. Ford Motor Company's experience illustrates this problem perfectly. After implementing quality management principles in the 1980s, Ford transformed from $3 billion in losses to becoming America's most profitable automaker. Yet once implemented, quality management became "yesterday's news," and Ford abandoned its quality focus to pursue innovation, only to face the same problems two decades later.
2. Be suspicious of breakthrough ideas and studies. The obsession with finding revolutionary ideas rarely produces actual results. Even in physical sciences, supposed breakthroughs typically represent incremental work finally recognized as significant. In one large bank, the intellectually curious CEO constantly introduced new management techniques, creating a "flavor of the month" culture where veteran managers learned to simply wait out each initiative.
3. Celebrate collective brilliance, not lone geniuses. Knowledge isn't generated by lone geniuses with brilliant ideas but through communities of researchers working together. More importantly, implementing organizational change requires coordinated action from many people who feel ownership of ideas.
4. Emphasize both virtues and drawbacks of management practices. Unlike medicine where practitioners are ethically obligated to disclose risks, business practices are typically sold as flawless universal solutions. Yet every management practice has both strengths and weaknesses.
5. Use success stories as illustrations, not as valid research. Human memory is notoriously unreliable, especially when influenced by knowledge of outcomes. Better approaches include studying behavior in real time rather than relying on memories.
6. Take a neutral approach to ideologies and theories. People routinely ignore evidence contradicting their political convictions or personal experiences. Simon and Garfunkel captured it perfectly: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."
The most crucial element for evidence-based management is an attitude of wisdom-knowing what you know and knowing what you don't know. This attitude enables people to act on current knowledge while continuously learning.
Глава 4
The Work-Life Integration Myth
Most workplaces expect employees to set aside personal responsibilities and focus solely on organizational needs once they enter the workplace. Companies restrict personal activities at work while simultaneously expecting employees to spend more time at work, with average work hours increasing 15 percent between 1970 and 2002 in the United States. This pressure is especially intense in professional services, law firms, and tech companies.
Organizations use dress codes and uniforms not just for identification but as subtle control mechanisms that signal hierarchy and serve as constant reminders that employees must surrender individuality in favor of organizational identity. At work, employees are expected to surrender control and decision-making authority to bosses, regardless of their capabilities outside the workplace.
Companies enforce "display rules" about which emotions employees should convey to customers and colleagues. While these emotional display rules can benefit business outcomes, they take a toll on employees who constantly express emotions they don't feel, leading to burnout and health problems.
Despite the fact that 59 percent of employees report dating colleagues, many companies forbid workplace romance. Organizations fear legal liability from sexual harassment claims, charges of favoritism, and workplace gossip. Some even require one partner to leave when employees marry.
Interpersonal competition that would be considered problematic in family life is actively encouraged at work. Former CompUSA CEO James Halpin explicitly told employees to view coworkers as enemies-advice that would be unthinkable from a parent to siblings.
In the workplace, employees are expected to endure abusive behavior from superiors that would be condemned in any other setting. Notorious examples include former Sunbeam CEO Al Dunlap, who was known for "barking at you for hours" while being "condescending, belligerent, and disrespectful" to subordinates.
The separation between work and personal life is relatively recent historically. A century and a half ago, most people worked on farms or in small shops where work wasn't separate from the rest of life. The separation emerged with the employment relationship-working for someone else for wages-creating "agency problems" where owners and employees have conflicting interests.
Organizations with strong cultures, like those on Fortune's "best places to work" list, embrace employees' whole lives including their families. Southwest Airlines exemplifies this approach with its family-oriented philosophy, acknowledging significant events in employees' lives whether work-related or personal. By involving family members in company events, Southwest avoids divided loyalties and jealousy.
Researchers from Erving Goffman to Arlie Hochschild have found that strategic self-presentation-displaying emotions you don't feel or presenting an inauthentic self-depletes cognitive and emotional resources. Studies across various occupations show that employees forced to display false emotions experience dissatisfaction, alienation, burnout, less organizational commitment, and stronger desires to quit.
Research on workplace bullying shows that it damages both victims and organizations. Bernard Tepper's study of abusive supervision found that employees with abusive supervisors were more likely to quit, and those who stayed reported less job and life satisfaction, lower organizational commitment, more work-family conflict, and increased depression, anxiety, and burnout.
Глава 5
The Talent Trap
While renowned companies like IDEO do have great people, attributing their success solely to hiring smart people is fundamentally misleading. Though IDEO's founder David Kelley claims he "just hires some smart people and gets out of the way," the best evidence indicates natural talent is overrated for sustaining organizational performance.
The differences between top and average performers are enormous. Psychologist Dean Keith Simonton found that in virtually any field, the top 10 percent of contributors produce as much as the remaining 90 percent combined. Research shows top computer programmers are 10 times more productive than the least productive and 5 times more productive than average ones.
While incompetent collaborators can't succeed, the talent mindset rests on three flawed assumptions: that individual ability is fixed, that people can be reliably sorted based on abilities, and that organizational performance is simply the sum of individual performances.
Even in professional sports where talent should be easily identified, many top players weren't recognized early in their careers. The best predictors of performance aren't that reliable-IQ, the strongest predictor, explains only 16% of performance variation. Performance naturally fluctuates over time, making single-point assessments unreliable.
Talent isn't predetermined but depends on motivation, experience, management, cultural context, and effort. Research shows experienced teams perform better because members develop trust, communication, and complementary skills. Studies of airline crews found 73% of serious errors happen on a team's first day together, while semiconductor firms with founding teams who worked together previously showed stronger financial performance that increased over time.
Organizations function as complex systems where performance depends on resources, colleague support, and infrastructure-not just individual talent. Research across industries from software development to airlines shows even brilliant people can't excel in flawed systems, while well-designed systems with ordinary but well-trained people consistently achieve remarkable results.
NASA's space shuttle disasters illustrate this principle: despite personnel changes after Challenger, Columbia failed 17 years later due to the same systemic flaws-prioritizing schedules over safety, ignoring technical expertise, and outsourcing critical components. Similarly, Toyota's success stems from its robust system, not individual brilliance-even CEO changes have minimal impact.
Wisdom may be more important than raw intelligence for sustaining organizational performance. While IQ helps with known problems, organizations truly need people who recognize the limits of their knowledge, ask for help when needed, and tenaciously teach and help colleagues.
At IDEO, designers like Rickson Sun spontaneously help colleagues Larry and Roby with relevant knowledge about vacuum systems, demonstrating the "confident humility" that characterizes wise organizations. Those who refuse to work cooperatively face social consequences-they're gossiped about, shunned, and given boring work until they either adapt or leave.
Глава 6
The Financial Incentive Fallacy
Financial incentives consume enormous organizational resources and attention. Compensation consultants, HR executives, and board committees devote tremendous effort to designing pay systems based on deeply held assumptions: that people work primarily for money, that without incentives people would "shirk" their duties, and that financial motivation is the primary driver of performance.
The growing use of financial incentives stems partly from what researcher Chip Heath calls an "extrinsic incentives bias"-our tendency to overestimate how much others care about pay while underestimating their intrinsic motivations. Heath's research reveals this striking disconnect: people consistently believe others are primarily motivated by money, even when they themselves are not. A Watson Wyatt survey of high performers found they ranked financial rewards ninth out of ten motivational factors, far below maintaining a positive reputation, being appreciated, and meaningful work.
Financial incentives undoubtedly drive performance, as demonstrated at Safelite Glass where productivity increased 44% after switching from hourly wages to piece-rate pay. This success worked because the job was ideal for incentives: individual work with no interdependence, easily measured quality, sophisticated monitoring systems, and unambiguous goals.
However, most organizations lack these conditions, leading to disaster when incentives work too well but in the wrong direction. In Albuquerque, garbage truck drivers paid to finish routes early began driving overloaded trucks, missing pickups, and having more accidents. New Orleans police, incentivized to reduce serious crime, simply reclassified 42% of serious crimes as minor offenses.
Individual financial incentives inevitably increase reward dispersion-at Safelite Glass, salary variation increased 43% under piece rate versus hourly pay. While organizations intend to reward top performers differently, most people overestimate their own abilities, believing they're above average performers. When performance can't be objectively measured, employees receiving smaller rewards than expected resent managers and organizations.
Differential rewards damage social relationships, creating jealousy and resentment while reducing trust. Individual incentives work best when performance can be objectively assessed and results from individual rather than interdependent effort. However, in settings requiring cooperation, dispersed rewards consistently harm organizations. Studies of university faculty, executives, business units, and even baseball teams all show that greater pay dispersion correlates with lower satisfaction, less collaboration, weaker financial performance, lower product quality, and poorer team outcomes.
Financial incentives are tremendously overused as the default solution to almost every problem. But incentives often fail because people quickly adapt to rewards, which soon become expected compensation. Instead of subtle, gameable financial rewards, companies like SAS Institute succeed by clearly communicating expectations and creating meaning beyond money.
Глава 7
The Strategy Obsession
Strategy dominates business thinking-yielding 29,209 book entries on Amazon.com and 120 million Google results, far outpacing "implementation." This obsession with figuring out what to do rather than actually doing it has created a lucrative industry. Strategy consulting firms like Monitor, Bain, and McKinsey command higher fees and prestige than operations-focused firms.
Despite strategy's prominence, empirical evidence linking strategic planning to company performance is surprisingly mixed. Research on this relationship largely disappeared after the 1980s as strategy's importance became taken for granted. Reviews of studies show "inconsistent planning-performance findings" with "two decades of empirical research not producing consistent support."
Money magazine's 30th anniversary analysis of top-performing stocks from 1972-2002 challenges the industry structure paradigm. The best performers-including Southwest Airlines, Walgreens, Wal-Mart, Circuit City, and Kroger-operated in industries that Porter's five-forces model would predict unfavorable.
While doing the right thing is important, there's reason to be skeptical that strategy alone drives business success. According to the resource-based view of the firm, competitive advantage comes from possessing resources that are both valuable and rare-but also difficult to imitate. The problem is that most strategies aren't hard to uncover: companies announce them in annual reports, and strategy consultants readily analyze competitors' approaches. What provides competitive advantage isn't knowing what to do but having the ability to execute.
Wells Fargo CEO Richard Kovacevich emphasized this: "I could leave our strategic plan on a plane, and it wouldn't make any difference. No one could execute it." Similarly, Dell Computer's strategy is easily discernible-direct sales, just-in-time manufacturing, low prices, good customer service-yet competitors struggle to match its performance. As CEO Kevin Rollins explains, "the key to our success is years and years of DNA development within our teams that is not replicable outside the company."
Beyond questioning whether strategic planning provides competitive advantage, organizations should consider two major costs. First is the resources consumed by planning itself, particularly when linked to budgeting processes. According to research cited in "Beyond Budgeting," planning consumes 4-5 months annually, absorbs 20-30% of senior executives' time, and costs substantial resources.
Strategic focus helps concentrate resources but creates dangerous blinders. Many new companies form precisely because their founders couldn't pursue ideas within their previous employers' strategic constraints. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" illustrates how incumbents often develop breakthrough technologies first but fail to commercialize them due to commitments to existing customers, technologies and strategies.
Rather than rigid strategic planning that reduces peripheral vision, organizations might follow John Sall's approach at SAS Institute: "listen to your customers, listen to your employees, do what they tell you." This simple philosophy has helped SAS achieve $1.5 billion in sales, employee turnover below 5 percent, and 98 percent customer retention.
Глава 8
The Change Management Conundrum
The business world constantly preaches that companies must change or perish, glorifying those who make successful changes while demonizing those who cling to the past. But this represents only a half-truth. Change and innovation are double-edged swords, with most new initiatives failing.
Enterprise software implementations, for instance, typically cost twice as much and take twice as long as projected, with vendors like Oracle highlighting only success stories while hiding failures. Understanding the real odds of success, true costs, and organizational impacts before leaping into change can prevent significant misery.
Before implementing change, verify you're not already doing it under another name-a surprisingly common occurrence in large organizations. When considering practices others have tried, resist the temptation to believe you'll succeed where others failed. Leaders typically overestimate their ability to implement change better than competitors, claiming superior planning or talent.
Even when a new practice is demonstrably better than current methods, the costs might outweigh the benefits. Senior executives consistently underestimate change costs while overestimating potential gains. This "grass is greener" phenomenon occurs because when observing other companies, we primarily see their successes-not the struggles, problems, and failures.
Perverse incentives often lead executives to implement changes that benefit themselves while harming organizational performance. Studies show CEOs who adopt management fads like employee empowerment may not improve company performance but do secure personal raises. Similarly, executives pursue acquisitions despite evidence they typically damage acquiring firms' performance, because leading larger companies increases their pay and status.
Power dynamics determine whether change initiatives succeed, regardless of their merit. Even CEOs and top executives frequently fail to implement changes when they lack sufficient organizational power. Successful change agents carefully map the political landscape, identifying potential supporters and opponents while building coalitions.
The belief that organizational change must be slow and difficult becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, profound change can happen quickly. Continental Airlines transformed from worst to first in on-time performance in about a year. Magma Copper shifted from labor strife to cooperation in 18 months. DaVita went from near-bankruptcy to industry leadership in under two years.
Successful change happens when four key elements are present. First, dissatisfaction: people must be unhappy with the status quo. Second, direction: leaders must relentlessly communicate what the change is, why it's necessary, and what people should be doing right now. Third, overconfidence punctuated by self-doubt: express excessive faith that the change will succeed while periodically discussing doubts and incorporating new information. Fourth, embrace the mess: accept that errors, setbacks, miscommunication, and anxiety are normal parts of change.
Глава 9
The Leadership Control Myth
We are obsessed with leadership. Thousands of studies, books, and articles have been published on the topic, including Bernard Bass's 1,000-page Handbook of Leadership with 7,500 references and the massive 2,120-page Encyclopedia of Leadership. Our culture portrays leaders as all-powerful deities who wield complete command over organizations.
Business magazines routinely describe CEOs like Carlos Gutierrez as single-handedly "fixing" companies, and Ann Mulcahy as having "Xerox by the horns." Compensation practices reflect these beliefs-CEOs of America's 500 largest companies earned over $3.3 billion in 2003, with the average CEO making 531 times more than the average blue-collar worker by 2000.
History shows leaders can make profound differences-from Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. to Queen Elizabeth I and Winston Churchill, while others like Stalin and Hitler had devastatingly negative impacts. On smaller organizational scales, leadership matters too, as seen in Ulysses S. Grant's transformation of Lincoln's army and the contrasting South Pole expeditions of Amundsen and Scott.
Leaders also profoundly affect organizational climate and employee well-being, with studies consistently showing that 60-75% of employees report their immediate supervisor as the most stressful aspect of their job. Poor leaders destroy health, happiness, loyalty and productivity, while driving talented people to competitors or causing "malicious compliance."
Despite conventional wisdom, leaders often have far less influence than most people think. Studies consistently show that leaders' actions rarely explain more than 10% of performance differences between organizations. A 20-year study of 167 companies found that industry and company-specific factors had much larger effects on performance than leadership changes.
Our culture romanticizes leadership despite limited evidence of its impact. This perception bias occurs partly because leaders are visible while constraints affecting them remain invisible-the "fundamental attribution error." We also use cognitive shortcuts to make sense of complex organizations, finding it more comforting to believe someone is in control.
Leaders must project control to gain actual influence. As Andy Grove admitted, "part of it is self-discipline and part of it is deception... but after a while, if you act confident, you become more confident." Steve Ciesinski demonstrated this at Resumix, where he faced daunting financial challenges while needing to transition from client-server to web-based applications. By projecting confidence despite difficult realities, he retained key employees and customers, ultimately selling the company for over $100 million.
Research confirms that leaders who take responsibility for negative outcomes benefit their organizations. Studies by Salancik and Meindl tracking Fortune 500 firms over 18 years showed that companies performed better when executives attributed both good and bad performance to internal actions.
While leaders must project confidence, they must avoid believing their own hype. Research by Deborah Gruenfeld shows that power positions fundamentally change behavior-people start talking more, taking what they want, ignoring others' needs, and acting rudely without realizing it.
Despite Western stereotypes of leaders who constantly direct and provide feedback, the most effective leaders know when to step back. Three key rules guide this decision: First, if you know less about the work than your people, get out of the way unless you're there to learn. Second, when creative work is happening, authority figures asking questions and giving feedback actually reduce creativity, as people default to proven approaches when being watched. Third, leadership means getting things done through others, sometimes by letting them use their talents without interference.
Глава 10
Building an Evidence-Based Organization
Evidence-based management isn't a list of techniques to memorize and install, but rather a perspective for navigating organizational life-a way of thinking about what works, what doesn't, and what to try next. While not mysterious or complicated, these principles provide competitive advantage only when actually used.
Companies succeeding through evidence-based management develop an "attitude of wisdom"-finding balance between knowing and doubting, between overconfidence and insecurity. Leaders who practice this mindset treat their organization as an unfinished prototype rather than something "not broke" or too messy to fix.
Examples include Cisco's constant refinement of its merger process, Enterprise Rent-A-Car's experimentation with customer loyalty measures, and Amazon's philosophy of maximizing "invention per unit of time" through small team experiments. QVC exemplifies this approach by making minute-by-minute adjustments during broadcasts and conducting daily postmortems to learn why some product pitches succeed while others fail.
DaVita, which operates over 600 dialysis centers, uses the mantra "no brag, just facts" to focus attention on what truly drives quality care and operational efficiency. This principle serves as the perfect antidote to the smart talk, self-aggrandizement, and "bullshit-based decisions" that pollute business life.
Many managers assume they're already making good decisions, so they overlook the obvious improvements right in front of them-like the economists who ignore a $20 bill on the sidewalk because "someone would have picked it up by now." Though evidence-based management principles may seem like common sense, they're rarely common practice.
Our natural optimism creates a double-edged sword: it generates positive self-fulfilling prophecies but also blinds us to risks and keeps us on failing paths. Studies show entrepreneurs vastly overestimate their chances of success-over 80 percent believe they have a 70+ percent chance of succeeding when only 35 percent of new businesses survive five years.
Excessive confidence and certainty destroy more companies than fear or lack of courage. Many leaders believe showing greatness means never admitting errors or doubt. Microsoft's antitrust trial defense was described as puzzlingly "dumb" from such a "smart" company-their monopoly position had made them overconfident and unable to see others' perspectives.
Evidence-based management should permeate the entire organization. The best organizations give everyone permission-or better yet, responsibility-to gather and act on data and share what they learn. In the best hospital units studied by Amy Edmondson, nurses felt obligated to catch and report medication errors because "mistakes are serious" and weren't "afraid to tell the nurse manager."
The single most revealing diagnostic question about an organization is: what happens when people fail? While failure is painful and embarrassing, there is no learning or innovation without it. Organizations that handle failure well create psychological safety where people can openly discuss mistakes.
The most effective approach comes from medicine: "forgive and remember." Forgive, so people admit inevitable errors; remember, so the same mistakes don't recur. Organizations that forgive but forget keep repeating errors, while those that remember but blame create a climate of fear where people hide mistakes rather than learn from them.
The myth of superhuman executives with magical powers is nonsense. Research shows leaders live in messy, uncertain worlds filled with interruptions and unplanned interactions. Their crucial role is displaying and promoting curiosity so they and their followers continuously learn and apply evidence to improve their organizations.
The best leaders know when to be students and when to be teachers. As DaVita CEO Kent Thiry says, "a question well asked is half-answered." The best leaders continuously ask questions, remain curious, and create environments where people constantly learn and teach.
