DBAX 9102 Week 1 Burden of Proof Discussion Example

Week 1 Discussion: The Burden of Proof in Applied Business Research

Where the Burden of Proof Sits Before a Study Is Proposed: Setting a Threshold for Calling Sales Managers' Coaching Effective, and Asking What Evidence Would Have to Clear It

The Claim I Want to Be True

I work in sales operations at a regional distributor of industrial supplies with fourteen branches and about sixty-four outside salespeople. Our leadership believes that sales managers who coach their people more often get better results, and our current sales plan asks every manager to hold two coaching sessions a month with each salesperson. I would like that belief to be true, because I helped design the plan. That is exactly why the burden of proof should sit on the claim, not on anyone who doubts it.

A Threshold for "Effective"

Before reviewing the literature, I want to set the standard a finding would have to meet for me to call coaching effective in a business like ours. I propose three conditions. First, the outcome must be something the company records, such as quota attainment, rather than salespeople's or managers' own ratings of performance. Second, the effect must hold after accounting for obvious differences between territories, since a strong territory makes any manager look good. Third, the evidence must concern coaching by the salesperson's own manager, not by an external coach, because that is what our plan prescribes.

Why These Conditions

Each condition answers a known weakness. Meta-analyses report that workplace coaching improves a range of outcomes (Theeboom et al., 2014), but many studies in them involve professional coaches and self-reported outcomes. Jones et al. (2016) found that coaching improved performance outcomes on average, and that the number of sessions did not clearly predict the size of the effect, which bears directly on a plan built around frequency. Dahling et al. (2016) studied sales managers in a pharmaceutical firm and linked coaching to goal attainment, which comes close to our setting.

What Would Change My Mind

If the evidence that meets all three conditions shows no relationship between coaching frequency and results, I will treat our plan as an untested policy rather than an evidence-based one. If it shows that quality matters more than frequency, the plan should change.

Why the Threshold Comes First

Setting the bar before reading matters because the literature on coaching is large and mostly favorable, and it would be easy to collect the favorable studies and stop. By deciding now that self-reported outcomes and external coaches do not meet the standard for our question, I commit in advance to setting aside some of the evidence I would most like to cite. My chair can hold me to that, and so can anyone reading the finished review.

Question for Classmates

Where does the burden of proof sit in your study, and is it on the claim you hope is true?

Reply to Olusegun

Olusegun, you plan to show that remote work improves productivity at your firm. What result would convince you it does not?

Reply to Hannah

Hannah, your threshold uses employee engagement scores. Would a result based on turnover records tell you the same thing?

References

Dahling, J. J., Taylor, S. R., Chau, S. L., & Dwight, S. A. (2016). Does coaching matter? A multilevel model linking managerial coaching skill and frequency to sales goal attainment. Personnel Psychology, 69(4), 863-894. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12123

Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12119

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.837499