Evaluation use in organizations- Start looking at the architecture of the decision-making environment

 

The Evidence Paradox: Why Your Best Data is Collecting Dust (and How to Fix It)

We’ve all been there: a meticulously designed evaluation, robust methodology, clear findings, and a final report that—despite its brilliance—collects digital dust.

For strategy leaders and senior evaluators, the frustration is real. We often operate under the "Enlightenment Model": the belief that if we provide high-quality evidence, rational actors will naturally use it to optimize performance. But organizations aren't laboratories; they are complex, living ecosystems.

If we want to bridge the gap between production and utilization, we have to stop looking at the data and start looking at the architecture of the decision-making environment. Here is why the "truth" often loses to the "system."

1. Timing: The Perishable Nature of Insights

In the C-suite, a "good answer" today is worth infinitely more than a "perfect answer" next quarter. Evidence use often fails because evaluation cycles are decoupled from budget cycles or strategic pivot points.

• The Challenge: Are you producing "autopsy reports" (learning what went wrong after the money is spent) or "diagnostic signals" (informing the path forward in real-time)?

• The Shift: We must move toward agile evaluation—shorter feedback loops that sync with the organization’s heartbeat, even if it means sacrificing some degree of academic precision for operational relevance.

2. Politics: Evidence as a Weapon (or a Shield)

Evidence is never neutral once it enters an organizational hierarchy. It is a form of power.

• The Reality: Data is often used "symbolically" to justify decisions already made, or "politically" to protect a favored program. If your findings threaten a powerful stakeholder’s "pet project," the evidence won't change their mind; it will trigger their defenses.

• The Shift: Evaluators must become politically savvy navigators. This doesn't mean compromising integrity; it means mapping stakeholders early and understanding the informal power structures that determine which "truths" are allowed to survive.

3. Incentives: The "Safe Bet" vs. The "True Best"

Why would a manager use evidence that shows their department is underperforming if their career progression is tied to "perceived success"?

• The Conflict: Most organizational incentive structures reward certainty and stability, whereas evidence-based practice requires humility and the willingness to pivot. If the "cost of being wrong" is higher than the "reward for learning," evidence will always be suppressed.

• The Shift: Leadership must decouple "learning from failure" from "performance punishment." Until the incentives favor course correction over face-saving, evidence will remain a threat.

4. Culture & Leadership: The "HiPPO" Effect

Even the best data can't survive a culture dominated by the HiPPO (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion).

• The Cultural Barrier: In many organizations, intuition is lionized and "data-driven" is just a buzzword. If the leadership style is directive and top-down, evaluation is seen as an audit to be survived, not a tool to be leveraged.

• The Shift: Evidence use is a cultural habit, not a technical task. It requires leaders who model vulnerability—leaders who are willing to say, "The data shows I was wrong, so we are changing direction."

The Hard Truth for Strategy Leaders

Evidence doesn't "use itself." The gap between a finding and an action is filled by the courage of leadership and the design of the organization. If your organization isn't using evidence, it’s likely not a "data problem"—it’s a structural and behavioral one.

Audit Your "Evidence Appetite"

Stop asking, "How can we make our evaluations better?" and start asking these three uncomfortable questions:

1. Permission to Pivot: Do our managers actually have the "permission to fail" if the evidence suggests a radical change in direction?

2. Seat at the Table: Is our evaluation team in the room when the strategy is being set, or only when the results are being defended?

3. Reward Systems: Are we rewarding "hitting the target" or "learning what the target should actually be"?

This week, identify one major decision currently on the table. Instead of asking for a report, ask your team: "What evidence would it take for us to stop doing this entirely?" If you can't answer that, you aren't using evidence—you're just looking for an echo.