Understanding the Difference: Traditional Management vs. Evidence-Based Management

Published on
5 minute read

What Is Traditional Management?

Traditional management is a term often used to describe the approach many managers have used for decades, if not centuries. While the term “traditional” might seem outdated, it’s a method that many still rely on. In essence, traditional management practices are:

  • Experience-based: Decisions are often made based on past experiences rather than current data.

  • Top-down decision-making: Managers make decisions independently or escalate them up the hierarchy.

  • Focus on authority: The manager or someone senior typically has the final say.

One personal story highlights this well. I gave my father a book on evidence-based management about ten years ago. He read it and told me, “Oh, that’s what I’ve been doing for the last 40 years in my company!” This shows that the principles of evidence-based thinking have been around for a long time but weren’t always framed in this way.

Evidence-Based Management: A New Perspective

Unlike traditional management, evidence-based management requires a shift in how we make decisions. It’s about:

  • Collecting data 📊: Gathering quantitative and qualitative data is at the heart of this approach.

  • Analyzing evidence 🧠: Making decisions based on what the data reveals rather than gut feelings.

  • Validating outcomes ✅: Ensuring that decisions lead to the desired outcomes through continuous measurement and adjustment.

This method is particularly challenging because it requires patience and diligence. It’s not about making decisions based on what feels right at the moment but rather relying on what the data tells us.

Why Evidence-Based Management is Hard

Evidence-based management is not easy, and many managers struggle to adopt it. Here are a few reasons why:

  • Time-consuming ⏳: It takes time to collect and analyze data before making a decision.

  • Resistance to change 🛑: Managers who are used to making decisions based on intuition may find it difficult to shift to a data-driven approach.

  • Focus on vanity metrics: Too often, managers focus on metrics that make them look good rather than those that reflect real progress.

Vanity Metrics vs. Valuable Metrics

A common pitfall in evidence-based management is focusing on “vanity metrics.” These are metrics that:

  • Make managers look good 📈

  • Are easy to collect but don’t necessarily drive value for the organization.

  • Include things like story points, velocity, or the sum of tasks completed per sprint.

Example: Imagine a product owner who makes decisions solely based on velocity—the sum of story points completed each sprint. This might look impressive on paper, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the product is delivering value to the customer. It’s like judging a race based on how fast a car is going without considering if it’s going in the right direction.

Common Decision-Making Pitfalls in Traditional Management

In traditional management, decision-making often happens in one of two ways:

  1. Making it up 🤷: A manager might make a decision based solely on their authority without consulting data.

  2. Escalation-based decisions 📢: When a manager is unsure, they ask someone more senior to make the decision, leading to a reliance on hierarchy rather than evidence.

Both approaches can lead to suboptimal outcomes, especially when dealing with complex, multi-million-dollar decisions. Instead, managers should be asking:

  • Why are we making this decision?

  • What do we hope to achieve?

  • How will we measure success?

The Importance of Asking “Why?”

Just like a courtroom requires evidence before reaching a verdict, organizations should require evidence before making decisions. This involves:

  • Gathering evidence 📑: Collecting data that is relevant to the decision at hand.

  • Analyzing data with a team 🧑‍🤝‍🧑: Bringing together diverse perspectives to interpret the evidence.

  • Making informed decisions 💡: Using the data to guide the direction of the team or organization.

This approach helps to avoid making decisions based solely on gut feelings, which can be unreliable.

Story Points, Velocity, and the Danger of Misinterpretation

One of the most glaring examples of misused metrics in Agile environments is the obsession with story points and velocity. Here’s why it’s problematic:

  • Story points and velocity can be misleading: Outside of the team’s context, these metrics don’t provide a true picture of progress.

  • Managers focus on looking good rather than delivering value: Decisions are made to improve these numbers, even when they don’t reflect real progress.

A Better Approach: Focus on Systemic Impact 🌟

To truly embrace evidence-based management, leaders need to look beyond vanity metrics and ask deeper questions:

  • Is this metric helping the entire organization achieve its vision?

  • Are we focusing on the outcomes that matter most to our customers?

  • Are we validating our assumptions with real data?

By focusing on these questions, managers can make decisions that are good for the entire system, not just for their own performance reviews.

Transforming Organizations with Evidence-Based Management

Making the shift from traditional to evidence-based management is not easy, but it’s essential for organizations that want to thrive in a data-driven world. Here’s how managers can start:

  1. Commit to data collection 📊: Make it a habit to gather data regularly before making any major decision.

  2. Encourage team-based analysis 🧑‍🤝‍🧑: Bring in diverse viewpoints to analyze the data and avoid biases.

  3. Validate outcomes ✅: Continuously measure the impact of decisions to ensure they align with the organization’s goals.

  4. Avoid vanity metrics 🚫: Focus on metrics that drive true value rather than those that look good on paper.

Personal Experience: The Shift in My Own Practice

When I first encountered the concept of evidence-based management, it was a game changer. I used to think that making decisions based on my experience and intuition was enough. But I quickly realized that:

  • Data provides a clearer picture: It highlighted issues that I wouldn’t have noticed otherwise.

  • Collaboration leads to better insights: Working with my team to analyze data brought out perspectives I hadn’t considered.

  • Validating outcomes helped us course-correct: By continuously measuring our progress, we could make adjustments faster, leading to better results.

Final Thoughts: Embrace Evidence for Better Decision-Making

Evidence-based management is not just a buzzword; it’s a way to make smarter, more informed decisions. While it might be challenging to adopt at first, the benefits are clear:

  • Better alignment with organizational goals 🎯

  • More informed decisions 🧠

  • A culture of continuous improvement 📈

The next time you’re faced with a decision, ask yourself: Are you relying on evidence, or are you just making it up? Embrace the challenge, and you’ll see the difference it makes for your team and organization. 🌟

So I get a lot of questions about the difference between traditional management versus evidence-based management. I’m not sure the term traditional applies. It’s interesting; I had a book on evidence-based management practices that I gave to my father about 10 years ago when he was asking me what the heck it is that I do. I gave him this book, Radical Management, and he read the book and he said, “Oh, that’s what I’ve been doing for the last 40 years in my company.” That’s the type of things, trying to change the organization and move people in a particular direction and do all those things.

So maybe that’s why traditional, like if people have been doing it 40 years ago, 80 years ago, then it’s the common management, the normal way people approach things. Evidence-based management is hard. If we’re talking about the differences between traditional, classic, the way most people do things, common cause, right? Evidence-based management is hard. Evidence-based management is we have to collect data, we have to read the data, and we have to make informed decisions.

Most management decisions are made one of two ways: make it up. I’m just going to decide. I’m the manager, I’m the boss, I will decide, and I make a decision, right? Or I ask somebody more senior to me to make the decision, right? So escalation-based decision making. Both are bad. We shouldn’t be making decisions on multi-million dollar things based on, or even smaller than that, right? But based on just making it up. We want to be asking, “Why are we doing this thing? What do we hope the outcome’s going to be? And how are we going to measure it?”

We want evidence to know. That’s why when we’re in court, we don’t make decisions based on how we feel today, right? We collect a bunch of evidence, we present that evidence to a group of people, and a group of people analyse that evidence, including, you know, not evidence parts as well, how they feel about it, how they think about it, and they put it together into something that is a coherent decision. And that’s what we would like to see in management today.

Most managers trying to do evidence-based decision making, unfortunately, the evidence that they choose to accept is generally whatever the easiest data is to collect. Most of that revolves around metrics, right? Original estimate, actuals, how far off course are we? People talk about scope creep. Well, you said you were going to do this and it’s changed to this; therefore, the scope has changed.

That traditional look at data is very… what’s a good way to describe it? Vanity metrics. That’s the expression I’ve not used in a while. Vanity metrics are the biggest part of this. I want to create metrics. For me as a manager, I want to have metrics that make me look good. I want to keep my job. I want to perhaps get promoted. So I want to create metrics that make me look good. That would be nice. So that’s the ones I’m going to focus on. That’s the ones I’m going to judge my people that report to me by, is the metrics that I think make me look good.

Unfortunately, metrics that make you look good are suboptimal metrics. We’re looking at one part of the puzzle. Me, right? Me as a manager, I’m looking at one part of the puzzle and I’m trying to make a decision on how I measure things based on one part of the puzzle. But is my decision going to be good for the whole thing, for the whole organization, for the whole product or organization team, whatever it is? At whatever level you’re playing at, is that going to be the right metric that’s going to help progress the outcomes, the impacts, the goals that we’re trying to have as an organization, the vision? Or is it just making me look good?

That’s a suboptimal metric. We’re not looking at the whole system, just part of the system. And that’s really common. I see that with story points and velocity, right? Ridiculous metrics to look at outside of the context of internal to the team. Story points and velocity can be useful inside of a team. Actually, I would maybe disagree with my own statement there, but they might be useful within that context. But outside of the team, no use whatsoever.

Any manager that makes a decision based on velocity, any product owner that makes a decision based on velocity, you know, sum of story points per sprint or sum of tasks, whatever it is, it’s just mental. That’s vanity metrics. We’re trying to massage the metrics to make ourselves look good. And that’s really the big difference between traditional management and evidence-based management. Evidence-based management is about the evidence. We’re going to collect the evidence, we’re going to try and validate that evidence, right? Is it good evidence or is it bad evidence? And then we’re going to try and make decisions based on it rather than just making stuff up.

Decision Making Evidence Based Management Metrics and Learning Evidence Based Leadership People and Process Decision Theory Pragmatic Thinking

Connect with Martin Hinshelwood

If you've made it this far, it's worth connecting with our principal consultant and coach, Martin Hinshelwood, for a 30-minute 'ask me anything' call.

Our Happy Clients​

We partner with businesses across diverse industries, including finance, insurance, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, technology, engineering, transportation, hospitality, entertainment, legal, government, and military sectors.​

MacDonald Humfrey (Automation) Ltd. Logo
Boeing Logo
SuperControl Logo
DFDS Logo
Hubtel Ghana Logo
Workday Logo
Xceptor - Process and Data Automation Logo
ALS Life Sciences Logo
Higher Education Statistics Agency Logo
Philips Logo
Schlumberger Logo
YearUp.org Logo
Lockheed Martin Logo
Lean SA Logo
Cognizant Microsoft Business Group (MBG) Logo

NIT A/S

Ericson Logo
Sage Logo
Department of Work and Pensions (UK) Logo
Washington Department of Transport Logo
Washington Department of Enterprise Services Logo
Nottingham County Council Logo
Royal Air Force Logo
Ghana Police Service Logo
ProgramUtvikling Logo
Flowmaster (a Mentor Graphics Company) Logo
Genus Breeding Ltd Logo
Sage Logo
ALS Life Sciences Logo
Emerson Process Management Logo