Evidence Based Management

Academy of Management Review 2006, Vol. 31, No. 2, 256–269. 2005 Presidential Address IS THERE SUCH A THING AS â€Å"EVIDENCEBASED MANAGEMENT†? DENISE M. ROUSSEAU Carnegie Mellon University I explore the promise organization research offers for improved management practice and how, at present, it falls short. Using evidence-based medicine as an exemplar, I identify ways of closing the prevailing â€Å"research-practice gap†Ã¢â‚¬â€the failure of organizations and managers to base practices on best available evidence. I close with guidance for researchers, educators, and managers for translating the principles governing human behavior and organizational processes into more effective management practice. Evidence-based management means translating principles based on best evidence into organizational practices. Through evidence-based management, practicing managers develop into experts who make organizational decisions informed by social science and organizational research—part of the zeitgeist moving professional decisions away from personal preference and unsystematic experience toward those based on the best available scientific evidence (e. . , Barlow, 2004; DeAngelis, 2005; LemieuxCharles & Champagne, 2004; Rousseau, 2005; Walshe & Rundall, 2001). This links how managers make decisions to the continually expanding research base on cause-effect principles underlying human behavior and organizational actions. Here is what evidence-based management looks like. Let’s call this exampl e, and true story, â€Å"Making Feedback People-Friendly. † The executive director of a health care system with twenty rural clinics notes that their performance differs tremendously across the array of metrics used. This variability has nothing to do with patient mix or employee characteristics. After interviewing clinic members who complain about the sheer number of metrics for which they are accountable (200 indicators sent This article is based on the address I gave at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management in Honolulu, Hawaii. Chuck Bantz, Andy Garman, Paul S. Goodman, Ricky Griffin, Bob Hinings, Paul Hirsch, Sharon McCarthy, Sara Rynes, Laurie Weingart, and John Zanardelli contributed ideas toward its development. 256 onthly, comparing each clinic to the 19 others), the director recalls a principle from a long-ago course in psychology: human decision makers can only process a limited amount of information at any one time. With input from clinic staff, a redesigned feedback system takes shape. The new system uses three performance categories— care quality, cost, and employee satisfaction—and provides a summary measure for each of the three. Over the next year, through provision of feedback in a more interpretable form, the health system’s performance improves across the board, with low-performing units showing the greatest improvement. In this example a principle (human beings can process only a limited amount of information) is translated into practice (provide feedback on a small set of critical performance indicators using terms people readily understand). Evidence-based management, as in the example above, derives principles from research evidence and translates them into practices that solve organizational problems. This isn’t always easy. Principles are credible only where the evidence is clear, and research findings can be tough for both researchers and practitioners to interpret. Moreover, practices that capitalize on a principle’s insights must suit the setting (e. g. , who is to say that the particular performance indicators the executive director uses are pertinent to all units? ). Evidence-based management, despite these challenges, promises more consistent attainment of organizational goals, including those affecting employees, stockhold- 2006 Rousseau 257 ers, and the public in general. This is the promise that attracted me to organizational research at the beginning of my career— but it remains unfulfilled. THE GREAT HOPE AND THE GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT It is ironic that I came to write this article in my role as the sixtieth Academy of Management president. â€Å"Management† was a nasty word in my blue collar childhood, where everyone in the family was affected by how the company my father worked for managed its employees. When the supervisor frequently called my father to ask him to put in more overtime in an already long work week, all of us kids got used to covering for him. If the phone rang when my father was home, he’d have us answer it. We all knew what to say if it was the company calling: â€Å"Dad’s not here. The idea of just telling the supervisor that he didn’t want to work never occurred to my father, or anyone else in the family. The threat of disciplinary action or job loss loomed large, reinforced by dinnertime stories about a boss’s abusive behavior or some inexplicable company action. From this vantage point, the term management connot es harsh and arbitrary behavior, with undertones of otherness. It is a far cry from the dictionary definition of management as â€Å"a judicious use of means to accomplish an end† (Merriam-Webster, 2005). I acquired a wholly new perspective on management and managers when I became a business school professor. First, many business students, even at the MBA level, have never experienced what it is like to work for a good manager. In the first business course I taught, in organizational behavior, I gave the students two assignments: (1) write about the worst boss you ever had, describing what made that person the worst and how it impacted you, and (2) write about the best boss you ever had, describing what made that person the best and how it impacted you. My MBA students with an average of five years of full-time work experience had no problem with assignment 1. For many of them, the assignment was cathartic, and they frequently exceeded its assigned page limit in writing vituperative portrayals of managers variously presented as self-centered, capricious, or otherwise lacking in capability or character. Assign- ment 2 was another matter. Many students had great difficulty thinking of anyone who qualified as â€Å"the best manager. † Over a third couldn’t think of any boss they could even describe as good. To the extent that people manage others the way they themselves have been managed, I came to worry about what the future held for these managers-in-the-making. Nonetheless, while these business students may never have had a great boss, they themselves still hoped to become one. (By the way, I have since abandoned this assignment in favor of more selfreflection on the manager students want to become and ways they can develop themselves to move closer to that ideal. ) Second, most business students have never worked for a great company either. There is the possibility that only dissatisfied people quit their jobs to study full time for an MBA, but in this regard I suspect availability bias. ) I never have had any difficulty getting students to share their experiences of dysfunctional organizational practices. However, when it comes to identifying a more functional way to motivate workers or restructure firms, they are often at a loss. Still, in-class discussions and students’ ow n future plans suggest that they do hope to join a company (or to start one) that is better managed than those they have worked for so far. In class and out, I have spent a lot of time helping students learn how to make a business case, with their future employers in mind, for creating financially successful firms that are good for people too. I have come to feel tremendous respect and affection for those students who have the personal aspiration to be a great manager in a great company. Out of these personal and professional experiences, I have nurtured my great hope—that, through research and education, we can promote effective organizations where managers make well-informed, less arbitrary, and more reflective decisions. My great disappointment, however, has been that research findings don’t appear to have transferred well to the workplace. Instead of a scientific understanding of human behavior and organizations, managers, including those with MBAs, continue to rely largely on personal experience, to the exclusion of more systematic knowledge. Alternatively, managers follow bad advice from business books or consultants based on weak evidence. Because Jack Welch or 258 Academy of Management Review April McKinsey says it, that doesn’t make it true. Several decades of research on attribution bias indicate that people have a difficult time drawing unbiased conclusions regarding why they are successful, often giving more credit to themselves than the facts warrant. Management gurus are in no way immune. ) Sadly, there is poor uptake of management practices of known effectiveness (e. g. , goal setting and performance feedback [Locke & Latham, 1984]). Even in businesses populated by MBAs from top-ranked universities, there is unexplained wide variation in managerial practice patterns (e. g. how [or if] goals are set, selection decisions made, rewards allocated, or training investments determined) and, worse, persistent use of practices known to be largely ineffective (e. g. , downsizing [Cascio, Young, & Morris, 1997; high ratios of executive to rankand-file employee compensation [Cowherd & Levine, 1992]). The result is a research-practice gap, indicating that the answer to this article’s title question is no—at least not yet. What it means to close this gap and how evidencebased management might become a reality are the matters I turn to next. THE â€Å"EVIDENCE-BASED† ZEITGEIST The phrase â€Å"evidence-based† is a buzzword in contemporary public policy, with all the risk of triteness and superficiality that buzzword status conveys. Let’s not be misled by its current popularity. Evidence-based practice has tremendous substance and discipline behind it. We can observe its impact in two fields highly influenced by legislative decisions: policing and secondary education. In evidence-based policing, community police officers are trained to treat criminal suspects politely, because doing so has been found to reduce repeat offenses (Sherman, 2002; Tyler, 1990). In evidence-based education, many secondary schools have restored the practice of social promotion, where students who have difficulty passing their courses, even after several tries, are advanced to the next grade level. Research indicates that social promotion’s benefits outweigh its costs, because a high school diploma increases the likelihood of subsequent employment and lowers the incidence of drug use, even among students who wouldn’t otherwise have qualified for that diploma (Jimerson, Anderson, & Whipple, 2002; National Association of School Psychologists, 2005). Evidence-based practice is a paradigm for making decisions that integrate the best available research evidence with decision maker expertise and client/customer preferences to guide practice toward more desirable results (e. g. , Sackett, Straus, Richardson, Rosenberg, & Haynes, 2000). Proponents are skeptical about experience, wisdom, or personal credentials as a basis for asserting what works. The question is â€Å"What is the evidence? â€Å"—not â€Å"Who says so? † (Sherman, 2002: 221). The answer, as the criminologist Lawrence W. Sherman indicates, can be graded from weak to strong, based on rules of scientific inference, where before-and-after comparisons are stronger than simultaneous correlations—randomized, controlled tests stronger than longitudinal cohort analyses. Strong evidence trumps weak, irrespective of how charismatic the evidence’s presenter is. Sherman sums it up: â€Å"We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts† (2002: 223). Medicine is a success story as the first domain to institutionalize evidence-based practice. Evidence-based medicine is the integration of individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence. Its origins date back to 1847, when Ignaz Semmelweis discovered the role that infection played in childbirth fever. Semmelweis was vilified by physicians of the time for his assertion that it was doctors themselves who were infecting women by carrying germs between dead bodies and patients. Nonetheless, his work influenced the formulation of germ theory, which gained acceptance with the work of Lister and Pasteur forty years later (Wikipedia, 2005). Extensive infrastructures promote evidence-based health care (e. g. , the U. S. National Institutes of Health and Institute of Medicine, the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, and the Cochrane Collaboration). Evidence-based-clinical care as a way of life in health care organizations is of relatively recent vintage, enjoying its greatest growth after 1990. (If you are wondering what physicians did before, the answer is what managers are doing now, but without medicine’s added advantages from common professional training and malpractice sanctions. ) The attributes of evidencedbased medicine provide a useful reference point 2006 Rousseau 259 for exploring what its counterpart in management might look like. By way of example, germ theory is widely understood by clinical care givers. It has led to broad application of infection control systems (gowns, sterile needles, and sterile instruments), medicines to avoid or cure infections, and supporting practices (handwashing). Its application has led to radical but important interpretations of seemingly distant events. Incidence of heart attack, for example, increases immediately after having one’s teeth cleaned. Reflecting on this correlation in light of germ theory led to recognition that teeth cleaning disperses mouth bacteria into the heart’s arteries. Certain bacteria in these arteries create conditions that give rise to heart attacks. Recognizing this causal link led to a risk-reducing solution: giving heart patients antibiotics to take before dental treatments as a preventive. This application of medical evidence involved cause-and-effect connections— how dental practice can disperse mouth bacteria into the heart’s arteries. It also required isolation of variations that affect desired outcomes, requiring knowledge of the mechanisms triggering heart attacks (and, in this case, knowledge that gum disease may itself trigger heart attacks [see, for instance, Desvarieux et al. 2005]). Yet more than scientific insight is needed to create evidence-based practice. In fact, only some physicians recommend this preventive action for their heart patients. Others may not see the risk as that great, are unaware of the finding, or merely have forgotten to make this preventive action part of their standard orders for cardiac patie nts. The involvement of other practitioners further complicates matters: dentists are not necessarily educated to inquire about heart conditions. Organizational factors affect whether evidence-based practice occurs. In health care settings certain features increase the likelihood that an at-risk patient will get the preventive medication. Social networks and organizational culture matter. It helps if the patient’s physician is part of a practice or a hospital where others recommend such preventive care. Similarly, impeding this evidence-based practice is the fact that dentists are unlikely to be in the same professional networks as physicians. In a hospital where medical leadership promotes evidencebased medicine, more physicians are likely to e aware of the finding. Such settings are also likely to have staff in-services to update physician knowledge where this practice might be discussed. Relatedly, participation in research increases the salience of the evidence base. It helps if physicians in the immediate environment have participated in clinical research and are engaged in one of the several online communities that review clinical evidence and then create and disseminate recommendat ions, which raises the next point: access to information on those practices the evidence supports. Physicians have online services that provide ready access to clinical practice best supported by research, based on the review and recommendation of health care experts (e. g. , Cochrane Collaboration). Such services capitalize on the information explosion and internet connections to build communities of practice enabling experts to communicate their knowledge, identify the best-quality evidence, and disseminate it broadly to care givers (Jadad, Haynes, Hunt, & Browman, 2000). Decision supports can be designed to make it easier to implement evidence-based practices. A patient care protocol might be written specifying that each heart patient and all post-op cardiac cases be advised of the need to premedicate before teeth cleaning, along with a prescription written for and given to the patient at discharge. This protocol might be formalized to the extent that a premedication instruction is written in each cardiac patient’s discharge orders. Last, a web of factors—individual (knowledge), organizational (access to knowledgeable others, support for evidence use), and institutional (dissemination of evidence-based practice)—promotes, sustains, and institutionalizes evidence-based medicine. Britain’s national health system, for example, promotes evidencebased practice using the Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendations as the standard. Medicare in the United States publishes information on whether hospitals use proven remedies in patient care (Kolata, 2004). In sum, features characterizing evidencebased practice include †¢ learning about cause-effect connections in professional practices; †¢ isolating the variations that measurably affect desired outcomes; 260 Academy of Management Review April creating a culture of evidence-based decision making and research participation; †¢ using information-sharing communities to reduce overuse, underuse, and misuse of specific practices; †¢ building decision supports to promote practices the evidence validates, along with techniques and artifacts that make the decision easier to execute or perform (e. g. , checklists, protocols, or standing orders); and †¢ having individual, organizational, and institutional factors promote access to knowledge and its use. Now let’s consider what such practice might mean for management and organizations. WHY EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT IS IMPORTANT AND TIMELY Evidence-based management is not a new idea. Chester Barnard (1938) promoted the development of a natural science of organization to better understand the unanticipated problems associated with authority and consent. Since Barnard’s time, however, we have struggled to connect science and practice without a vision or model to do so. Evidence-based management, in my opinion, provides the needed model to guide the closing of the research-practice gap. In this section I address why evidence-based management is timely and practical. Calling Attention to Facts: â€Å"Big E Evidence† and â€Å"little e evidence† An evidence orientation shows that decision quality is a direct function of available facts, creating a demand for reliable and valid information when making managerial and organizational decisions. Improving information continues a trend begun in the quality movement over thirty years ago, giving systematic attention to discrete facts, indicative of quality (e. g. , machine performance, customer interactions, employee attitudes and behavior [Evans & Dean, 2000]). This trend continues in recent developments regarding open-book management (Case, 1995; Ferrante & Rousseau, 2001) and the use of organizational fact finding and experimentation to improve decision quality (Pfeffer & Sutton, in press). In all the attention we now give to evidence, it helps to differentiate what might be called â€Å"Big E Evidence† from â€Å"little e evidence. † Big E Evidence refers to generalizable knowledge regarding cause-effect connections (e. g. , specific goals promote higher attainment than general or vague goals) derived from scientific methods—the focus of this article. Little e evidence is local or organization specific, as exemplified by root cause analysis and other fact-based approaches the total quality movement introduced for organizational decision making (Deming, 1993; Evans & Dean, 2000). It refers to data systematically gathered in a particular setting to inform local decisions. As the saying goes, â€Å"facts are our friends,† when local efforts to accumulate information relevant to a particular problem lead to more effective solutions. Although decision makers who rely on scientific principles are more likely to gather facts systematically in order to choose an appropriate course of action (e. . , Sackett et al. , 2000), fact gathering (â€Å"evidence†) doesn’t necessarily lead decision makers to use social science knowledge (â€Å"Evidence†) in interpretating these facts. In my introductory example of the health care system, the executive director might have concluded that the performance differences across t he twenty clinics were due to something about the clinics or their managers. It was his knowledge of a basic principle in psychology that gave him an alternative and, ultimately, more effective interpretation. However, systematic attention to local facts can prompt managers to look for principles that account for their observations. The opening example illustrates how scientific principles and local facts go together to solve problems and make decisions. Opportunity to Better Implement Managerial Decisions In highly competitive environments, good execution may be as important as the strategic choices managers make. Implementation is a strong suit of evidence-based management through the wealth of research available to guide effective execution (e. g. , goal setting and feedback [Locke & Latham, 1984]; feedback and redesign [Goodman, 2001]). Indeed, with greater orientation toward scientific evidence, health care management’s guidelines frequently reference social and organizational research on implementation (e. g. , Lemieux-Charles & Champayne, 2004; Lomas, Culyer, McCutcheon, 2006 Rousseau 261 McAuley, & Law, 2005). The continued wide variation we observe in how organizations execute decisions (e. g. , in goal clarity, stakeholder participation, feedback processes, and allowance for redesign) is remarkable, given the advanced knowledge we possess about effective implementation and what is at stake should implementation fail. Better Managers, Better Learning Given the powerful impact managers’ decisions have on the fate of their firms, managerial competence is a critical and often scarce resource. Improved managerial competence is a direct outgrowth of a greater focus on evidencebased management. Managers need real learning, not fads or false conclusions. When managers acquire a systematic understanding of the principles governing organizations and human behavior, what they learn is valid—that is to say, it is repeatable over time and generalizable across situations. It is less likely that what managers learn will be wrong. Today, the poor information commonly available to managers regarding the organizational consequences of their decisions means that experiences are likely to be misinterpreted— subject to perceptual gaps and misunderstandings. Consider the case of a supervisor who overuses threats and punishment as behavioral tools. A punisher who keys on the fact that punishing suppresses behavior can completely miss its other consequence—its inability to encourage positive behavior. Status differences and organizational politics make it unlikely that the punisher will learn the true consequences of that style, by limiting and distorting feedback. The reality is that managers tend to work in settings that make valid learning difficult. This difficulty is compounded by the widespread uptake of organizational fads and fashions, â€Å"adopted overenthusiastically, implemented inadequately, then discarded prematurely in favor of the latest trend† (Walshe & Rundall, 2001; 437; see also Staw & Epstein, 2000). In such settings managers cannot even learn why their decisions were wrong, let alone what alternatives would have been right. Evidence-based management leads to valid learning and continuous improvement, rather than a checkered career based on false assumptions. Organizational legitimacy is another product of evidence-based management. Where decisions are based on systematic causal knowledge, conditioned by expertise leading to successful implementation, firms find it easier to deliver on promises made to stockholders, employees, customers, and others (e. g. , Goodman & Rousseau, 2004; Rucci, Kirn, & Quinn, 1998). Legitimacy is a result of making decisions in a systematic and informed fashion, thus making a firm’s actions more readily justifiable in the eyes of stakeholders. Yet, given evidence-based management’s numerous advantages, why then is the research-practice gap so large? I next turn to the array of factors that align to perpetuate this evidence-deprived status quo. WHY MANAGERS DON’T PRACTICE EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT The research-practice gap among managers results from several factors. First and foremost, managers typically do not know the evidence. Less than 1 percent of HR managers read the academic literature regularly (Rynes, Brown, & Colbert, 2002), and the consultants who advise them are unlikely to do so either. Despite the explosion of research on decision making, individual and group performance, business strategy, and other domains directly tied to organizational practices, few practicing managers access this work. (I note, however, that of the four periodicals the Academy publishes, it is the empirical Academy of Management Journal to which company libraries most widely subscribe. So there is some recognition that this research exists! ) Evidence-based management can threaten managers’ personal freedom to run their organizations as they see fit. A similar resistance characterized supervisory responses to scientific management nearly 100 years ago, when Frederick Taylor’s structured methods for improving efficiency were discarded because they were believed to interfere with management’s prerogatives in supervising employees. Part of this pushback stems from the belief that good management is an art—the â€Å"romance of leadership† school of thought (e. g. , Meindl, Erlich, & Dukerich, 1985), where a shift to evidence and analysis connotes loss of creativity and autonomy. Such concerns are not unique: physicians have wrestled with similar dilemmas, expressed in 62 Academy of Management Review April the aptly titled article â€Å"False Dichotomies: EBM, Clinical Freedom and the Art of Medicine† (Parker, 2005). Managerial work itself differs from clinical work and other fields engaged in evidencebased practice in important ways. First, managerial decisions often involve long time lags and littl e feedback, as in the case of a recruiter hiring someone to eventually take over a senior position in the firm. Years may pass before the true quality of that decision can be discerned, and, by then, the recruiter and others involved are likely to have moved on (Jaques, 1976). Managerial decisions often are influenced by other stakeholders who impose constraints (Miller, 1992). Obtaining stakeholder support can involve politicking and compromise, altering the decision made, or even whether it is made at all. Incentives tied to managerial decisions are subject to contradictory pressures from senior executives, stockholders, customers, and employees. Last, it’s not always obvious that a decision is being made, given the array of interactions that compose managerial work (Walshe & Randall, 2001). A manager who declines to train a subordinate, for example, may not realize that particular act ultimately may lead the employee to quit. Evidence-based management can be a tough sell to many managers, because management, in contrast to medicine or nursing, is not a profession. Given the diverse backgrounds and education of managers, there is limited understanding of scientific method. With no formally mandated education or credentials (and even an MBA is no guarantee), practicing managers have no body of shared knowledge. Lacking shared scientific knowledge to add weight to an evidence-based decision, managers commonly rely on other bases (e. g. , experience, formal power, incentives, and threats) when making decisions acceptable to their superiors and constituents. Firms themselves—particularly those in the private sector— contribute to the limited value placed on science-based management practice. Although pharmaceutical firms advertise their investment in biotechnology and basic research, the typical business does not have the advancement of managerial knowledge in its mission. Historically leading corporations such as Cadbury, IBM, and General Motors were actively engaged in research on company selec- tion and training practices, employee motivation, and supervisory behavior. Their efforts contributed substantially to the early managerial practice evidence base. But few organizations today do their own managerial research or regularly collaborate with those who do, despite the considerable benefits from industry-university collaborations (Cyert & Goodman, 1997); the globally experienced time crunch in managerial work and the press for short-term results have reduced such collaborations to dispensable frills. Nonetheless, hospitals participate in clinical research and school systems evaluate policy interventions. In contrast to more evidence-oriented domains, such as policing and education, management is most often a private sector activity. It is less influenced by public policy pressures promoting similar practices while creating comparative advantage via distinctiveness. Businesses are characterized by the belief that the particulars of the organization, its practices, and its problems are special and unique—a widespread phenomenon termed the uniqueness paradox (Martin, Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983). Observed among clinical care givers and law enforcement practitioners too, the uniqueness paradox can interfere with transfer of research findings across settings—unless dispelled by better education and experience with evidencebased practice (e. g. , Sackett et al. , 2000). Yet, despite all these factors, the most important reason evidence-based management is still a hope and not a reality is not due to managers themselves or their organizations. Rather, professors like me and the programs in which we teach must accept a large measure of blame. We typically do not educate managers to know or use scientific evidence. Research evidence is not the central focus of study for undergraduate business students, MBAs, or executives in continuing education programs (Trank & Rynes, 2003), where case examples and popular concepts from nonresearch-oriented magazines such as the Harvard Business Review take center stage. Consistent with the diminution of research in behavioral course work, business students and practicing managers have no ready access to research. No communities of experts vet research regarding effective management practice (in contrast to the collaboratives that vet health care, criminal justice, and educational research [e. . , Campbell Collaboration, 2006 Rousseau 263 2005; Cochrane Collaboration, 2005]). Few MBAs encounter a peer-reviewed journal during their student days, let alone later. Consequently, it’s time to look critically at the role we educators play in limiting managers’ knowledge and use of research evidence. EVIDENCE-BASED MANAGEMENT AND OUR ROLE AS EDUCATORS My biggest surprise as the Academy president turned out to be the most frequent topic of emails sent to me by Academy members: complaints about our journals from self-identified teaching-oriented members. A typical email goes like this: â€Å"I want to let you know what a waste the Academy journals are. There’s nothing in them at all pertinent to my teaching. The Academy should be for everybody, not just researchers. † My first response was to feel guilty (why hadn’t I seen this? ). But then I started to think more deeply about what this message implies. It says that educators aren’t finding ideas in journals that cause them to change what they teach. This might mean that current research is irrelevant to what’s being taught if educators focus on other topics. It could mean that the kind of information research articles provide about principles or practices is insufficient to determine what settings or circumstances their findings apply to. Or it could even mean that professors aren’t updating their course material when research findings differ from what they teach. These emails prompted me to wonder what exactly we are teaching. If we are teaching what research findings support, the content of a class has to change from time to time, with new evidence or better-specified theory. The concern that prompted this address stemmed from these emails: the role we educators play in the research-practice gap. How Professors Contribute to the ResearchPractice Gap Management education is itself often not evidence based, something Trank and Rynes implicitly recognize (2003) as the â€Å"dumbing down† of management education. They also persuasively demonstrated that, in place of evidence, behavioral courses in business schools focus on general skills (e. g. , team building, conflict man- agement) and current case examples. Through these stimulating, ostensibly relevant activities, we capture student interest, helping to deflect the criticism â€Å"How is this going to help me get my first job? † Business schools reinforce this by relying heavily on student ratings instead of assessing real learning (Rynes, Trank, Lawson, & Ilies, 2003). Stimulating courses and active learning must be core features of training in evidence-based management, because these educational features are good pedagogy. The manner and content of our approaches to behavioral courses perpetuate the research-practice gap. Weak Research-Education Connection Pick up any popular management textbook and you will find that Frederick Herzberg’s work lives, but not Max Weber’s. Herzberg’s longdiscredited two-factor theory is typically included in the motivation section of management textbooks, despite the fact that it was discredited as an artifact of method bias over thirty years ago (House & Wigdor, 1967). I asked a famous author of many best-selling textbooks why this was so. â€Å"Because professors like to teach Herzberg! † he answered. Students want updated business examples but can’t really tell if the research claims are valid. † This conversation suggests that professors are likely to teach what they learned in graduate school and not necessarily what current research supports. (Since many management professors are adjuncts valued for their practical experience but are from diverse backgrounds, even educators of comparable professional age may not share scien tific knowledge. ) I suspect that the persistence of Herzberg will continue until all the professors who learned the twofactor theory in graduate school (c. 960 –1970) retire. However, business schools may discourage inclusion of some well-substantiated topics because they don’t â€Å"sound† managerial. Paul Hirsch, the well-known sociologist, tells the story that when he flies business class, his seatmates ask what he does for a living. When he identifies himself as a business school professor, the next customary question is â€Å"What do you teach? † As a sociologist steeped in Weber and the century of research he spawned, Paul used to say, â€Å"Bureaucracy. † His seatmates frequently 264 Academy of Management Review April moved to the opposite wing at that point, until Paul wised up and found a more appealing response: â€Å"Management† (personal communication). Paul notes that managers still need to understand bureaucratic processes, so he hasn’t changed what he teaches— only what he calls it. I do this too: I no longer call socialization, training, and rules â€Å"substitutes for leadership† (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), having found that the last thing a would-be manager wants to hear is how he or she can be replaced. The implications are clear. We frame, and perhaps even slant, what we teach to make it more palatable. Can it be we are on that slippery slope of avoiding teaching the most current social science findings relevant to managers and organizations, from downsizing to ethical decision making, because we fear our audience won’t like the implications? Failure to Manage Student Expectations Student expectations do drive course content, and current evidence indicates that there is a strong preference for turnkey, ready-to-use solutions to problems these students will face in their first jobs (Trank & Rynes, 2003). What efforts do we make to manage these expectations? Unless students are persuaded to value sciencebased principles and their own role in turning these principles into sound organizational practice, it will be nigh impossible for faculty to resist the pressure to teach only today’s solutions. We might start by asking students who they think updates more effectively—practitioners trained in solutions or in principles. Effective practices in 2006 need not be the same as those in 2016, let alone 2036, when the majority of today’s business students will still be working. If we teach solutions to problems, such as how to obtain accurate information on a worker’s performance, students will acquire a tool—perhaps, for example, 360-degree feedback. Yet they won’t understand the underlying cognitive processes (whether feedback is task related or self-focused), social factors (the relationships between ratees and raters), and organizational mechanisms (used for developmental purposes or compensation decisions), which explain how, when, and why 360-degree feedback might work (or not). Imagine a doctor who knows to prescribe antibiotics to patients with bronchitis (a common recommendation in the 1980s before recognition of antibiotic overuse [Franklin, 2005]) but doesn’t understand the basic physiology that can lead other therapies to be comparable, more effective, or have fewer downsides. In the case of feedback, basic social science research is quite robust regarding how feedback impacts behavior (Kinicki & Kreitner, 2003). Such knowledge is likely to generate broader utility and more durable solutions over time than training in any particular feedback tool. Lack of Models for Evidence-Based Management Case methods are de rigueur in business schools, helping to develop students’ analytic skills and familiarity with conditions they will face as practicing managers. The cases that I find most effective are those that have an individual manager as a protagonist (as opposed to those that describe an organization without developing one or two central personalities). A central character creates tension and evokes student identification with the events taking place. That character is typically a manager, who can be the change agent responsible for solving the problem or a catalyst for the dysfunctional behavior on which the cases focuses. Either way, students have a model—a positive or negative referent—from which they can learn how to behave (or not) in the future. As with most complex behaviors, from parenting to managing, people learn better when they have competent models (Bandura, 1971). Nonetheless, in twenty-five years of using cases in class, I cannot recall a single time in which a protagonist reflected on research evidence in the course of his or her decision making. No Expectation for Updating Evidence-Based Knowledge Throughout the Manager’s Career Upon graduation, few business students recognize that the knowledge they may have acquired can be surpassed over time by new findings. Although social science knowledge continues to expand, business school training does not prepare graduates to tap into it. Neither students nor managers have clear ideas of how to update their knowledge as new evidence emerges. 2006 Rousseau 265 There are few models of what an â€Å"expert† manager knows that a novice does not (see Hill, 1992, for an exception). In contrast, expert nurses are known to behave in very different ways from novices or less-than-expert midcareer nurses (Benner, 2001). They more rapidly size up a situation accurately and deal simultaneously with more co-occurring factors. In the professions, extensive postgraduate development exists to deepen expertise to produce a higher quality of practice. In contrast, business schools often imply that MBAs know all they need to know when they graduate. WHAT WE CAN DO TO CLOSE THE RESEARCH-PRACTICE GAP There is a lot we can do to close the researchpractice gap, both as individual educators and through working collectively. Manage Student Expectations We can manage student expectations with regard to the role of behavioral course work in the student’s broader career. I often introduce myself to full-time students by telling them that the easiest teaching I do has always been to executives, because these experienced managers come to the program convinced that human behavior and group processes are the most critical things they need to learn. At this point in their careers, our full-time students can only be novices whose expertise will grow with time and active effort on their part to understand the dynamics of behavior in organizations. Try asking students what the difference is between ten years of experience and one year of experience repeated ten times. Then let them imagine what ten years of experience in becoming more expert on behavior and group processes in organizations would look like (the types of job, people, settings, etc. ). Let them also imagine this for one year repeated ten times. Reflecting on these contrasting visions of their careers gives students an opportunity to raise their expectations of themselves as professional managers. There are various related means for managing expectations, including the creation of learning contracts based on the learner’s anticipated future roles, the behavioral knowledge and skills these roles will necessitate, and how that knowledge and skill will be acquired in the course (Goodman, 2005). It is easier to do this as part of a larger curriculum framed by anticipated future roles—the would-be-manager’s story (Schank, 2003). Important also is the next feature: providing models of evidence-based practice and evidence-based managers. Provide Models of Evidence-Based Practice We need to model evidence-based practice in our teaching and in the curriculum. Psychological research on learning offers a useful guide for course/curriculum practices (e. g. , Kersting, 2005). These include exposing the learner to models of competent evidence-based managers. I have been fortunate to encounter such a person. John Zanardelli is the CEO of Asbury Heights, the Methodist Home for the Aged, Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania. I first met John in an executive course on change management at Carnegie Mellon. He peppered me with questions about skills, information, and management tactics and wanted to know the research support behind my answers. Trained as an epidemiologist, John understands the scientific method and regularly looks for scientific corroboration of ideas he comes across in popular management books and from self-proclaimed experts. (Not surprisingly, the calls for evidence-based management largely have come from health care professionals and scholars [e. g. , DeAngelis, 2005; Kovner, Elton, & Billings, 2005]. I knew that I was seeing an unusual manager, to say the least, when John, faced with the need to redesign his organization’s compensation practices, went off to the Carnegie Mellon library to read J. Stacy Adams’ equity theory! His organization’s vision statement is built around the concept â€Å"Where Loving Care and Science Come Together. † Managers such as John Zanardelli provide exemplars of the complex set of proficiencies required to b ecome a master management practitioner. Using them as examples reinforces the notion that the typical twenty-something student is a novice taking first steps along the path to becoming an expert (e. . , Benner, 2001; Hill, 1992). Active practice, self-reflection, and feedback are core learning principles (Schon, 1983). ? Developing student competence through active practice entails project work supported by ongoing reflection and debriefing regarding what constitutes valid learning and effective behavior. Similarly, our educational practices, 266 Academy of Management Review April courses, and curricula need that same reflection and evolution to effectively model evidencebased teaching. Promote Active Use of Evidence Students need to know that evidence is available, and they need to learn how to apply it. This necessitates a balance between teaching principles—that is, cause-effect knowledge—and practices—that is, solutions to organizational problems—though the mix is subject to dispute (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005). In the spirit of making the course tell a story students can understand and participate in, a course conveying how a novice becomes an expert manager, like any good story, involves a succession of experiences, trials, failures, and successes (Schank, 2003). That story line is marked by the acquisition of distinctly different kinds of knowledge. There is declarative knowledge regarding principles or cause-effect relationships. Students can acquire principles in a variety of ways. They might address the appropriateness of group incentives versus individual incentives by locating evidence in a textbook, in journals, or online. Informing students of the â€Å"evidence† through lectures and books has its place, but there is value in identifying and deriving the principles themselves from the sources that will remain available to them throughout their careers. Students can learn a good deal from actively accessing evidence, using it to solve problems, reflecting—and trying again. Indeed, one of the most powerful forms of learning may be deriving principles from experience and reflection, as when students review cases and then derive the principles governing the underlying outcomes (Thompson, Gentner, & Loewenstein, 2003). Thompson and her colleagues found that students learned better when they developed principles from cases than when they derived solutions, a finding consistent with basic psychological research on learning (Anderson, Fincham, & Douglass, 1997). Actually using evidence takes a metaskill— the ability to turn evidence-based principles into solutions. A form of procedural knowledge, a solution-oriented approach to evidence use is comparable to product design, where end users and knowledgeable others familiar with the situation in which the product will be used jointly participate in specifying its features and functionality. Perhaps one of the first products of behavioral research in organizations was the revolving spindle restaurants use to convey customer orders to the kitchen. William Foote Whyte (1948) discovered that status differences between restaurent wait staff (typically female) and the (male) chef led to conflicts, because chefs disliked taking orders from women. The revolving order spindle to which waitresses could attach an order and spin it in the direction of the kitchen allowed customer orders to be conveyed impersonally, reducing workplace conflict and improving communication. Other researchbased products include decision supports such as checklists to guide a performance review or action plans to conduct meetings in ways that build consensus (e. . , Mohrman & Mohrman, 1997), effectively translating the evidence into guides for action. Build Collaborations Among Managers, Researchers, and Educators As the saying goes, it takes a village to educate people. Changing how we educate managers in professional schools necessitates a collective attitude and behavior shift among educators, researchers, current managers, and recruiters. Pfeffer and Sut ton’s (in press) book calls attention to managerial heroes—people who use evidence to turn troubled companies around and/or to create sustained successes. As in the case of any change in collective attitudes (Gladwell, 2002), turning evidence-based management from a practice of a prophetic few into the mainstream requires champions— credible people like Pfeffer and Sutton’s managerial heroes—to advertise its value. Networks of individuals, excited by what evidence-based management makes possible, need to exist to disseminate it to others. One such collaborative network might parallel the Cochrane Collaboration in medicine and the Campbell Collaboration in criminal justice and education. Such a community has been advocated to promote evidenced-based management of health care organizations [Kovner et al. , 2005], suggesting that communities of experts might effectively be built around the management of specific kinds of organizations. ) Each represents a worldwide community of experts created to provide ready access to a particular 2006 Rousseau 267 body of evidence and the practices it supports. Community members, p ractitioners as well as researchers, collaborate in summarizing stateof-the-art knowledge on practices known to be important. Information is presented in sufficient detail regarding evidence and sources of outcome variation to reduce underuse, overuse, and misuse. While these communities are geographically distributed, they also sponsor face-to-face meetings to promote community building, commitment, and learning. Their major product is online access to information, designed for easy use. EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE CAN BE MISUNDERSTOOD On a cautionary note, the label evidencebased practice can be misapplied. It can be used to characterize superficial practices (another company’s so-called best practice or the latest tool consultants are selling). Alternatively, it can be used as a club (the kind with a nail in it) to force compliance with a standard that may not be universally applicable. One downside of poor implementation of evidence-based medicine is the challenge the British health care system has faced owing to the use of the Cochrane Collaboration’s recommendations to regulate clinical care decisions, with enforcement of the recommendations regardless of their suitability for particular patients (Eysenbach & Kummervold, 2005). Evidence-based practice is not onesize-fits-all; it’s the best current evidence coupled with informed expert judgment. OUR OWN ZEITGEIST PROMOTING EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE OF MANAGEMENT Forty years elapsed between Semmelweis’s discoveries and the formulation of germ theory. One hundred years later, even basic infectionreducing practices such as hand washing still are not consistently performed in hospitals (Johns Hopkins Medicine, 2004). Considering the personal growth and social and organizational changes evidence-based practice requires, our own evidence-based management zeitgeist still has plenty of time to run. The first challenge is consciousness raising regarding the rich array of evidence that can improve effectiveness of managerial decisions. Educating opinion leaders, including prominent executives and educators, in the nature and value of evidence-based approaches builds champions who can get the word out. Updating management education with the latest research must be ongoing, demanding that educators and textbook writers apprise themselves of new research findings. The onus is on researchers to make generalizability clearer by providing better information in their reports regarding the context in which their findings were observed. All parties need to put greater emphasis on learning how to translate research findings into solutions. In the case of researchers, too much information that might affect the translations of findings to practice remains tacit, in the apparent minutiae research reports omit, known only to the researcher. Educators need to help students acquire the metaskills for designing solutions around the research principles they teach. Managers must learn how to experiment with possible evidence-based solutions and to adapt them to particular settings. We need knowledgesharing networks composed of educators, researchers, and manager/practitioners to help create and disseminate management-oriented research summaries and practices that best evidence supports. Building a culture in which managers learn to learn from evidence is a critical aspect of effective evidence use (Pfeffer & Sutton, in press). Developing managerial competence historically has been viewed as a training issue, underestimating the investment in collective capabilities that is needed (Mohrman, Gibson, & Mohrman, 2001). The promises of evidence-based management are manifold. It affords higher-quality managerial decisions that are better implemented, and it yields outcomes more in line with organizational goals. Those who use evidence (E and e) and learn to use it well have comparative advantage over their less competent counterparts. Managers, educators, and researchers can learn more systematically throughout their careers regarding principles that govern human behavior and organizational actions and the solutions that enhance contemporary organizational performance and member experience. A focus on evidence use may also ultimately help to blur the boundaries between researchers, educators, and managers, creating a lively community with many feedback loops where information is sys- 268 Academy of Management Review April tematically gathered, evaluated, disseminated, implemented, reevaluated, and shared. The promise of evidence-based management contrasts with the staying power or stickiness of the status quo. Like the QWERTY keyboard created for manual typewriters, but inefficient in the age of word processing, management-asusual survives, despite being out of step with contemporary needs. Failure to evolve toward evidence-based management, however, is costlier than mere inefficiency. It deprives organizations, their members, our students, and the general public of greater success and better managers. Please join with me in working to make evidence-based management a reality. REFERENCES Anderson, J. R. , Fincham, J. M. , & Douglass, S. 1997. The role of examples and rules in the acquisition of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23: 932–945. Bandura, A. 1971. Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. Barlow, D. H. 2004. Psychological treatments. American Psychologist, 59: 869 – 878. Barnard, C. I. 1938. Functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Benner, P. 2001. From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice (commemorative ed. ). Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley. Bennis, W. G. , & O’Toole, J. 2004. How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 82(3): 96 –104. Campbell Collaboration. 2005. http://www. campbellcollaboration. org/, accessed December 5. Cascio, W. F. , Young, C. E. , & Morris, J. K. 1997. Financial consequences of employment-change decisions in major U. S. corporations. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 1175–1189. Case, J. 1995. Open-book management: The coming business revolution. New York: Harper Business. Cochrane Collaboration. 2005. http://www. cochrane. org/ index0. htm, accessed December 5. Cowherd, D. , & Levine, D. I. 1992. Product quality and pay equity between lower-level employees and top management: An investigation of distributive justice theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 302–320. Cyert, R. M. , & Goodman, P. S. 1997. Creating effective university-industry alliances: An organizational learning perspective. Organizational Dynamics, 25(4): 45–57. DeAngelis, T. 2005. Shaping evidence-based practice. APA Monitor, 35(3): 26 –31. Deming, W. E. 1993. The new economics for industry, government, and education. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Desvarieux, M. , Demmer, R. T. , Rundek, T. , Boden-Abala, B. , Jacobs, D. R. , Jr. , Sacco, R. L. , & Papapanou, P. N. 2005. Periodontal microbiota and carotid intima-media thickness: The oral infections and vascular disease epidemiology study (INVEST). Circulation, 111: 576 –582. Evans, J. R. , & Dean, J. W. , Jr. 2000. Total quality: Management, organization, and strategy (2nd ed. ). Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing. Eysenbach, G. , & Kummervold, P. E. 2005. Is cybermedicine killing you? The story of a Cochrane disaster. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 7(2): article e21. Ferrante, C. J. , & Rousseau, D. M. 2001. Bringing open book management into the academic line of sight. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds. ), Employee versus owner issues (Trends in Organizational Behavior Series), vol. 8: 97–116. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Franklin, D. 2005. Antibiotics aren’t always the answer. New York Times, August 30: D5. Frieze, I. H. 1976. Causal attributions and information seeking to explain success and failure. Journal of Research in Personality, 10: 293–305. Gladwell, M. 2002. The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference. New York: Back Bay Books. Goodman, P. S. 001. Missing organizational linkages. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Goodman, P. S. 2005. The organizational learning contract. Working paper, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. Goodman, P. S. , & Rousseau, D. M. 2004. Organizational change that produces results. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3): 7–19. Hill, L. A. 1992. B ecoming a manager: How new managers master the challenges of leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. House, R. J. , & Wigdor, L. A. , 1967. Herzberg’s dual-factor theory of job satisfaction and motivation. Personnel Psychology, 23: 369 –389. Jadad, A. R. Haynes, R. B. , Hunt, D. , & Browman, G. P. 2000. The internet and evidence-based decision-making: A needed synergy for efficient knowledge management in health care. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 162: 362–365. Jaques, E. 1976. (Reprinted in 1993. ) A general theory of bureaucracy. London: Gregg Revivals. Jimerson, S. R. , Anderson, G. , & Whipple, A. 2002. Winning the battle and losing the war: Examining the relation between grade retention and dropping out of high school. Psychology in the Schools, 39:441– 457. Johns Hopkins Medicine. 2004. Expert on hospital infections talks about hand washing. http://www. opkinsmedicine. org/Press_releases/2004/10_28_04. html, October 28. Kersting, K. 2005. Integrating research into teaching. APA Monitor, 35(1): 19. Kerr, S. , & Jermier, J. M. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22: 375– 403. 2006 Rousseau 269 and quality in human service work: 33– 46. Munich: Hampp. Kinicki, A. , & Kreitner, R. 2003. Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices. New York: McGrawHill. Kolata, G. 2004. Program coaxes hospitals to see treatments under their noses. New York Times, December 2: A1, C8. Kovner, A. R. , Elton, J. J. , & Billings, J. D. 2005. Evidence-based management. Frontiers of Health Services Management, 16(4): 3–24. Lemieux-Charles, L. , & Champagne, F. 2004. Using knowledge and evidence in healthcare: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Locke, E. A. , & Latham, G. P. 1984. Goal setting: A motivational technique that works. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lomas, J. , Culyer, T. , McCutcheon, C. , McAuley, L. , & Law, S. 2005. Conceptualizing evidence for health system guidance. Final report to Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Ottawa, Ontario. Martin, J. , Feldman, M. , Hatch, M. , & Sitkin, S. B. 1983. The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28: 438 – 453. Meindl, J. R. , Erlich, S. B. , & Dukerich, J. M. 1985. The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 78 – 101. Miller, G. J. 1992. Managerial dilemmas: The political economy of hierarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mohrman, S. A. , Gibson, C. B. , & Mohrman, A. M. 2001. Doing research that is useful to practice: A model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 357–375. Mohrman, S. A. , & Mohrman, A. M. Jr. 1997. Designing and leading team-based organizations: A workbook for organizational self-design. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). 2005. Position statement on grade retention and social promotion. www. nasponline. org/information/pospaper_ graderetent. html, accessed November 24. Parker, M. 2005. False dic hotomies, EBM, clinical freedom and the art of medicine. Medical Humanities, 31: 23–30. Pfeffer, J. , & Sutton, R. I. In press. Hard facts, dangerous half-truths, and total nonsense: Profiting from evidencebased management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Rousseau, D. M. 2005. Evidence-based management in health care. In C. Korunka & P. Hoffmann (Eds. ), Change Rucci, A. J. , Kirn, S. P. , & Quinn, R. T. 1998. The employeecustomer-profit chain at Sears. Harvard Business Review, 76(1): 82–97. Rynes, S. L. , Brown, K. G. , Colbert, A. E. 2002. Seven common misconceptions about human resource practices: Research findings versus practitioner beliefs. Academy of Management Executive, 18(3): 92–103. Rynes, S. L. , Trank, C. Q. , Lawson, A. M. , & Ilies, R. 2003. Behavioral coursework in business education: Growing evidence of a legitimacy crisis. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2: 269 –283. Sackett, D. L. , Straus, S. E. , Richardson, W. S. , Rosenberg, W. , & Haynes, R. B. 2000. Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. New York: Churchill Livingstone. Schank, R. C. 2003. Every curriculum tells a story. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh. ? Schon, D. 1983. The reflective practioner: How professionals think in action. London: Temple Smith. Sherman, L. W. 2002. Evidence-based policing: Social organization of information for social control. In E. Waring & D. Weisburd (Eds. ), Crime and social organization: 217– 248. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Staw, B. , & Epstein, L. 2000. What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 523–556. Thompson, L. , Gentner, D. , & Lowenstein, J. 2003. Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. In L. L. Thompson (Ed. ), The social psychology of organizational life: 163–173. New York: Psychology Press. Trank, C. Q. , & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Who moved our cheese? Reclaiming professionalism in business education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2: 189 – 205. Tyler, T. 1990. Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Walshe, K. , & Rundall, T. G. 2001. Evidence-based management: From theory to practice in health care. Milbank Quarterly, 79: 429 – 457. Whyte, W. F. 1948. Human relations in the restaurant industry. New York: McGraw-Hill. Denise M. Rousseau ([email  protected] edu) is past president of the Academy of Management and H. J. Heinz II Professor of Organizational Behavior and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, jointly in the Heinz School of Public Policy and Management and the Tepper School of Business.

Laurence Olivier Essay

The original classification of Shakespeare’s plays – ‘Comedies’, ‘Tragedies’, ‘Histories’ and ‘Roman plays‘ – don’t adequately describe all of Shakespeare’s plays, and scholars have come up with more names to do so. The most widely used categories are ‘Romance Plays’, ‘Problem Plays’, and Shakespeare’s ‘Tragicomedy Plays’. The plays in those categories have much in common, but there are enough differences to prevent some of them to fall into all three. The Winter’s Tale, for example is a play that does have the features of all three, however. A tragicomedy is a play that is neither a comedy nor a tragedy, although it has the features of both. Tragedies are usually focused almost exclusively on the central character, the tragic hero (although Shakespeare’s tragedies can sometimes be a double tragedy, with two tragic heroes, like Romeo and Juliet). The audience has insights into his mind and goes deeply in, as he does in Macbeth or Hamlet. Comic plays, on the other hand, remove that focus and the concerns are diversified so that the action is made up of the stories of several characters, particularly pairs of lovers. The shadows in human emotions are usually minor in the comedies: they are such things as misunderstandings, playful deceptions and so on. Plays that fall between the two stools of tragedy and comedy are sometimes referred to as ‘Problem Plays. ’ so the whole area of classification is a very difficult one. It shouldn’t be necessary to classify them but scholars need a language in which to talk about the plays. The Merchant of Venice can be seen as a tragicomedy. It has a comic structure but one of the central characters, Shylock, looks very much like a tragic character. The play has a comedy ending with the lovers pairing off but we are left with taste in the mouth of the ordeal of Shylock, destroyed by a combination of his own faults and the persecution of the lovers who enjoy that happy ending. The feeling at the end of the play is neither joy nor misery. The play has a decidedly comic structure but there is also a powerful tragic story. It can therefore be called a tragicomedy. Shakespeare’ tragicomedies usually have improbable and complex plots; characters of high social class; contrasts between villainy and virtue; love of different kinds at their centre; a hero who is saved at the last minute after a touch-and- go experience; surprises and treachery. The Winter’s Tale and Cymbeline are two plays that fit that tragicomical pattern. Shakespeare’s plays generally accepted as tragicomedy plays are: * Cymbeline * The Winter’s Tale Shakespeare’s Tragedy plays One of the main features of Renaissance art is that it was inspired by classical art and philosophy. This is evident in the work of such artists as Michelangelo who, caught up in the spirit of Humanism that was sweeping across Europe, focused on the human form. Focusing on the human form during Mediaeval times would have been impossible as it would have been a distraction from the necessary focus on God. The essence of Humanistic art was that human beings were created in God’s image so it was possible for Michelangelo even to portray God – as a beautiful and physically powerful man with realistic human features, presented as perfection – in fact, the human form at its most beautiful. Artists became anatomists, going as far as buying human bodies for dissection. The result was a new realism in the representation of human beings in art. Shakespeare is, in a way, the Michelangelo of literature. That he could, in one play, Othello, written four hundred years ago, represent what we can recognise as a modern psychopath and a modern alcoholic, in Iago and Cassio respectively, is incredible. Iago is a fully realised physochological character just as the David is a fully realized man physically. Greek drama was an important model for Renaissance drama after the flat, unrealistic morality plays of the mediaval centuries. The Greek philosopher, Aristotle, defined tragedy and asserted that it was the noblest and most serious, dignified and important form of drama. Many of the plays of the Renaissance resembled those Greek tragedies. In several of Shakespeare’s plays there is a central protagonist who undergoes a harrowing experience as he is brought down from his lofty height, ending up dead. There is also a special feeling created in an observer of those Shakespearedramas, similar to the feeling described by Aristotle as the effect of tragedy on an observer. Critics thus thought of those Shakespeare plays as tragedies and that notion has remained with us to  this day, although many of those interested inShakespeare are now thinking differently about the plays. There are still teachers, though, who teach the ‘tragedies’ as though they were Aristotelian tragedies and miss a great deal of what those plays are doing. In his Poetics Aristotle outlines tragedy as follows: The protagonist is someone of high estate; a prince or a king. He is like us – perhaps a bit different in his level of nobility so that we can both identify with him and admire him as a man as well as respect him for his high estate. The protagonist has a ‘tragic flaw’ in his character which makes him contribute to his own destruction. This can take the form of an obsession. The flaw is often part of his greatness but it also causes his downfall. The flaw causes the protagonist to make mistakes and misjudgments. That in turn begins to alienate him from his supporters so that he becomes isolated. He begins to fall from his high level. He struggles to regain his position but fails and he comes crashing down. He eventually recognises his mistakes, but too late. An important aspect is the suffering he undergoes, which the audience observes and identifies with. We experience ‘pity’ and ‘terror’ as we watch what seems to us an avoidable suffering. At thend the air is cleared by the restoration of the order that existed before the events of the story and we experience what Aristotle calls ‘catharsis’ – a feeling of relief and closure. Using the term ‘tragedy’ about Shakespeare’s plays invites attempts to fit them to the Aristotelian pattern but none of them fits. Othello seems to conform to the pattern but when one thinks about it, Othello, superficially resembling a tragic hero, doesn’t even seem to be the main character in the play. It can be seen as a modern psychological drama about a psychopath who manipulates everyone around him just for fun – just because he has nothing better to do – and destroying other human beings gives him pleasure or is necessary because they get in his way. Othello may seem to have a fatal flaw – too trusting, gullible – but so do all the other characters, because Iago has deceived them all with his psychopathic charm and a deliberate effort of making himself appear trustworthy. Every misjudgment Othello makes is the hard work of Iago. Easily manipulated? Jealous? Does he have all those ‘tragic flaws’ as well? The feeling at the end is not quite Aristotle either. Perhaps it is more of a disgust for Iago than pity for Othello, who comes across as more stupid than tragic. And to make things more complicated, our feeling of pity is directed more to Desdamona. And yet some teachers miss the meaning of this play by their insistence on teaching it as an Aristotelian tragedy. Antony and Cleopatra is sometimes called a ‘double tragedy’. While Othello appears to fit the Aristotelian pattern because of the huge charisma of Othello at the beginning of the play Antony and Cleopatra cannot fit it in any shape or form. In tragedy the focus is on the mind and inner struggle of the protagonist. The emotional information comes to the audience from that source. In comedy the information comes from a variety of sources and the comic effect is produced by a display of many different points of view, coming at the audience from different angles. That is exactly what happens in Antony and Cleopatra , so we have something very different from a Greek tragedy. What we have is a miracle – a tragic feeling coming out of a comic structure. So what is Shakespearean tragedy? Perhaps there is no such thing. And yet we can identify a tragic feeling and even a cathartic effect in some of the plays. We must be very careful not to insist on fitting them to any pattern because that wouldn’t help us understand the plays. We must look elsewhere for our understanding of them. Moreover, all of Shakespeare’s plays have elements of both tragedy and comedy, sometimes very finely balanced, creating effects that Aristotle could never have dreamt of. List of Shakespeare’s Tragedy Plays * Antony and Cleopatra * King Lear * Macbeth * Othello * Romeo & Juliet * Titus Andronicus. Shakespeare’s Comedy Plays Early Greek comedy was in sharp contrast to the dignity and seriousness of tragedy. Aristophanes, the towering giant of comedy, used every kind of humour from the slapstick through sexual jokes to satire and literary parody. Unlike tragedy, the plots didn’t originate in traditional myth and legend, but were the product of the writer’s creative imagination. The main theme was political and social satire. Over the centuries comedy moved away from those themes to focus on family matters, notably a concentration on relationships and the complications of love. Such a universal theme was bound to survive and, indeed, it has travelled well, from Greece through Roman civilization and, with the Renaissance preoccupation with things classical, into Renaissance Europe, to England and the Elizabethans, and into the modern world of the twentieth and twenty first centuries, where we see Greek comedy alive and well in films and television. Shakespeare’s comedies (or rather the plays of Shakespeare that are usually categorised as comedies), just as in the case with he tragedies, do not fit into any slot. They are generally identifiable as the comedies of Shakespeare in that they are full of fun, irony and dazzling wordplay. They also abound in disguises and mistaken identities with very convoluted plots that are difficult to follow (try relating the plot of A Midsummer Night’s Dream to someone! ), with very contrived endings. Any attempt at describing these plays as a group can’t go beyond that superficial outline. The highly contrived endings are the clue to what these plays, all very different, are about. Take The Merchant of Venice for example – it has the love and relationship element. As usual there are two couples. One of the women is disguised as a man through most of the text – typical of Shakespearian comedy – but the other is in a very unpleasant situation – a young Jewess seduced away from her father by a shallow, rather dull young Christian. The play ends with the lovers all together, as usual, celebrating their love and the way things have turned out well for their group. That resolution has come about by completely destroying a man’s life. The Jew, Shylock is a man who has made a mistake and been forced to pay dearly for it by losing everything he values, including his religious freedom. It is almost like two plays – a comic structure with a personal tragedy imbedded in it. The ‘comedy’ is a frame to heighten the effect of the tragic elements. The Christians are selfish and shallow and cruel beyond imagination and with no conscience whatsoever. This is the use of the comic form to create something very deep and dark. Twelfth Night is similar – the humiliation of a man the in-group doesn’t like. As in The Merchant of Venice, his suffering is simply shrugged off in the highly contrived comic ending. Not one of these plays, no matter how full of life and love and laughter and joy, it may be, is without a darkness at its heart. Much Ado About Nothing , like Antony and Cleopatra (a ‘tragedy’ with a comic structure) is a miracle of creative writing. Shakespeare seamlessly joins an ancient mythological love story and a modern invented one, weaving them together into a very funny drama in which light and dark chase each other around like clouds and sunshine on a windy day, and the play threatens to fall into an abyss at any moment and emerges from that danger in a highly contrived ending once again. Like the ‘tragedies’ these plays defy categorisation. They all draw our attention to a range of human experience with all its sadness, joy, poignancy, tragedy, comedy, darkness, lightness, and its depths. Shakespeare’s Comedy Plays * All’s Well That Ends Well * The Comedy of Errors * As you Like It * Cymbeline * Love’s Labours Lost * Measure for Measure * The Merry Wives of Windsor * The Merchant of Venice * Twelfth Night * Two Gentlemen of Verona Shakespeare’s History Plays Just as Shakespeare’s ‘comedies’ have some dark themes and tragic situations while the ‘tragedies’ have some high comic moments, the Shakespeare’s ‘history’ plays contain comedy, tragedy and everything in between. All Shakespeare’s plays are dramas written for the entertainment of the public and Shakeseare’s intention in writing them was just that – to entertain. It wasn’t Shakespeare, but Shakespearian scholars, who categorised his plays into those areas of tragedy, comedy and history – as well as ‘problem‘ and ‘Roman‘. Unfortunately, our appreciation of the plays is often affected by our tendency to look at them in that limited way. Most of the plays have an historical element – the Roman plays, for example, are historical but scholars don’t refer to those Roman plays (Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus etc.) ashistory plays. The plays that we normally mean when we refer to the ‘history’ plays are the ten plays that cover English history from the twelfth to the sixteenthcenturies, and the 1399-1485 period in particular. Each play is named after, and focuses on, the reigning monarch of the period. In chronological order of setting, these are King John, Richard II, Henry IV Parts Iand II, Henry V, Henry VI Parts I, II and III, Richard III and Henry VIII, although Shakespeare didn’t write them in that order. The plays dramatise five generations of’ Medieval power struggles. For the most part they depict the Hundred Years War with France, from Henry V to Joan of Arc, and the Wars of the Roses, between York and Lancaster. We should never forget that they are works of imagination, based very loosely on historical figures. Shakespeare was a keen reader of history and was always looking for the dramatic impact of historical characters and events as he read. Today we tend to think of those historical figures in the way Shakespeare presented them. For example, we think of Richard III as an evil man, a kind of psychopath with a deformed body and a grudge against humanity. Historians can do whatever they like to set the record straight but Shakespeare’s Richard seems stuck in our culture as the real Richard III. Henry V, nee Prince Hal, is, in our minds, the perfect model of kingship after an education gained by indulgence in a misspent youth, and a perfect human being, but that is only because that’s the way Shakespeare chose to present him in the furtherance of the themes he wanted to develop and the dramatic story he wanted to tell. In fact, the popular perception of mediaval history as seen through the rulers of the period is pure Shakespeare. We have given ourselves entirely to Shakespeare’s vision. What would Bolingbroke (Henry IV) mean to us today? We would know nothing of him but because of Shakespeare’s plays he is an important, memorable and significant historical figure. The history plays are enormously appealing. Not only do they give insight into the political processes of Mediaval and Renaissance politics but they also offer a glimpse of life from the top to the very bottom of society – the royal court, the nobility, tavern life, brothels, beggars, everything. The greatest English actual and fictional hero, Henry V and the most notorious fictional bounder, Falstaff, are seen in several scenes together. Not only that, but those scenes are among the most entertaining, profound and memorable in the whole of English literature. That’s some achievement. Finally, although adding this at the end of the article and leaving it in the air, several questions are begged: what we see in the plays is not mediaval society at all, but Elizabethan and Jacobean society. Because although Shakespeare was writing ‘history’, using historical figures and events, what he was really doing was writing about the politics, entertainments and social situations of his own time. A major feature of Shakespeare’s appeal to his own generation was recognition, somethingShakespeare exploited relentlessly. List of Shakespeare’s History Plays, Henry IV Part 2,Henry V,Henry VI Part 1,Henry VI Part 2,Henry VI Part 3,Henry VIII,King John,Richard II,Richard III. 2) Tragedy; Hamlet, King Lear, Macbeth, Othello. King Lear Play: Overview & Resources The King Lear play is set in the BCE period, somewhere in England, usually thought of as being what is Leicestershire today. The action in the first two acts shifts among the castles of Lear, Gloucester, and those of Lear’s two daughters, Goneril and Regan. The rest of the action takes place in the frozen countryside, mainly on a blasted heath with violent weather, symbolising the state of Lear’s mind. Date written: 1603-1606 Genre classification: King Lear is regarded as a Tragedy Main characters in King Lear: King Lear is the king of pre-Christian Britain. He has three daughters – Goneril, Regan andCordelia. The Earl of Gloucester is a senior duke in Lear’s kingdom. He has two sons, Edmund, an illegitimate son and Edgar, a legitimate son. The Earl of Kent is a fiercely loyal nobleman, sticking by Lear in spite of Lear’s atrocious treatment of him. The Fool is the court jester, developed well beyond the jesters that appear in Shakespeare’s and other writers’ earlier plays. King Lear themes: This is a play about family – a thorough exploration of family relationships, particularly filial ingratitude, where the cruelty and disregard for their father by Goneril and Regan are contrasted with those of the love and loyalty of Cordelia in spite of the ruthless treatment she has experienced at her father’s hands. There is also a deep exploration oflegitimate versus illegitimate offspring. Good versus evil is presented through the evil of the two older sisters against the saintliness of the youngest. Other themes are those of old age and authority. and attitudes to those; pain, justice, and the ever present theme in Shakespeare’s plays: appearance and reality. King Lear Plot Summary The Earl of Gloucester introduces his illegitimate son, Edmund, to the Earl of Kent at court. Lear, King of Britain, enters. Now that he is old Lear has decided to abdicate, retire, and divide his kingdom between his three daughters. Each will receive a portion of the kingdom according to how much they love him. Goneril, Duchess ofAlbany, the oldest, and Regan, Duchess of Cornwall, the second, both speak eloquently and receive their portion but Cordelia, the youngest, can say nothing. Her declaration that she loves him according to a daughter’s duty to a father enrages him and she is disowned. One of Cordelia’s suitors, the Duke of Burgundy, rejects her once she is dowerless but the King of France understands her declaration and takes her as his wife, while the Earl of Kent is banished for taking Cordelia’s part against the King. The kingdom is shared between Goneril and Regan. Lear tells them that he intends to live alternately with each of them. Meanwhile, Edmund is determined to be recognised as a rightful son of Gloucester and persuades his father that his legitimate brother, Edgar, is plotting against Gloucester’s life, using a deceitful device. Edmund warns Edgar that his life is in danger. Edgar flees and disguises himself as a beggar. Goneril becomes increasingly exasperated by the behaviour of Lear’s hundred followers, who are disturbing life at Albany’s castle. Kent has returned in disguise and gains a place as a servant to Lear, supporting the King against Goneril’s ambitious servant, Oswald. Lear eventually curses Goneril and leaves to move in with Regan. Edmund acts as a messenger between the sisters and is courted by each in turn. He persuades Cornwall that Gloucester is an enemy because, through loyalty to his King, Gloucester assists Lear and his devoted companion, the Fool, when they are turned away by Regan and told to return to Goneril’s household. Despairing of his daughters and regretting his rejection of Cordelia, Lear goes out into the wilderness during a fierce storm. He goes mad. Gloucester takes them into a hut for shelter and seeks the aid of Kent to get them away to the coast, where Cordelia has landed with a French army to fight for her father against her sisters and their husbands. Edgar, pretending to be mad, has also taken refuge in the shelter and the Fool, the mad king and the beggar are companions until Edgar finds his father wandering and in pain. Gloucester has been blinded by Regan and Cornwall for his traitorous act in helping Lear. Cornwall has been killed by a servant after blinding Gloucester but Regan continues to rule with Edmund’s help. Not recognised by his father, Edgar leads him to the coast and helps him, during the journey, to come to an acceptance of his life. Gloucester meets the mad Lear on Dover beach, near Cordelia’s camp and, with Kent’s aid, Lear is rescued and re-united with Cordelia. Gloucester, although reconciled with Edgar, dies alone. The French forces are defeated by Albany’s army led by Edmund, and Lear and Cordelia are captured. Goneril has poisoned Regan in jealous rivalry for Edmund’s attention but Edgar, disguised now as a loyal knight, challenges Edmund to a duel and wounds him mortally. Seeing no way out, Goneril kills herself. The dying Edmund confesses his crimes, but it is too late to save Cordelia from the hangman. Lear’s heart breaks as he carries the body of his beloved daughter in his arms, and Albany and Edgar are left to re-organise the kingdom. Hamlet Play: Overview & Resources for Shakespeare’s Hamlet Shakespeare sets his Hamlet play in the cold, dark isolation of Elsinor a bleak, snow-covered region of Denmark. It’s the royal court of the King of Denmark. The atmosphere is established on the cold, windy battlements of the castle. Most of the action takes place in theinterior rooms and corridors of the castle and one scene is set in a nearby cemetery. Date written: 1601 Genre classification: Hamlet is regarded as one of Shakespeare’s tragedies. Main characters in Hamlet: Hamlet, the son of the recently murdered King is the heir to the throne. Hehas had the crown stolen from him by his father’s villainous brother, Claudius whom thelate king’s widow, Gertrude – Hamlet’s mother – has married. Hamlet’s father’s ghost tellshim on the battlements that Claudius murdered him. Hamlet is continuously spied on by Polonius, the garrulous Lord Chamberlain of Denmark. His eavesdropping results in his being accidentally killed by Hamlet. Ophelia is Polonius’ daughter. Led on to a possible relationship by Hamlet, then rejected, she commits suicide by drowning. Her brother, Laertesseeks revenge by plotting with Claudius to kill Hamlet. Other characters are Hamlet’s friend, Horatio, in whom he confides, Rosencranz and Guidenstern, Hamlet’s fellow university students, who spy on Hamlet for Claudius, a troupe of strolling actors and a pair of gravediggers. See a full list of characters in Hamlet. Hamlet Themes: The play falls into the genre of the Revenge Tragedy, which was very popular in the Jacobean era with its taste for violence and intrigue. Revenge is the most obvious, and one of the main, themes of the play. Although explorations of the idea of appearance and reality are present in all Shakespeare’s plays, it’s more fully developed in Hamlet, with all it’s plotting, intrigues, deceit and hypocrisy. Other themes are the question of what a human being is; death and mortality and suicide. In common with several other Shakespeare plays, there is a clear Christian parallel. Hamlet Plot Summary Prince Hamlet’s student friend, Horatio, goes to the battlements of Denmark’s Elsinore castle late at night to meet the guards. They tell him about a ghost they have seen that resembles the late king, Hamlet. It reappears and they decide to tell the prince. Hamlet’s uncle, Claudius, having become king, has now married Hamlet’s widowed mother, Gertrude. In the court, after envoys are sent to Norway, the prince is dissuaded from returning to university. Hamlet still mourns his father’s death and hearing of the ghost from Horatio he determines to see it for himself. Laertes, son of the courtier, Polonius, departs for France, warning his sister, Ophelia, against thinking too much of Hamlet’s attentions. The ghost appears to Hamlet and tells him that he was murdered by Claudius. The prince swears vengeance and his friends are sworn to secrecy as Hamlet decides to feign madness while he tests the truth of the ghost’s allegations. He rejects Ophelia, as Claudius and Polonius spy on him seeking to find a reason for his sudden strange behaviour. Guildenstern and Rosencrantz, former student friends of Hamlet, are summoned by Claudius and their arrival coincides with that of a group of travelling actors. The prince knows these players well and they rehearse together before arranging to present Hamlet’s choice of play before the king and queen, which will include scenes close to the circumstances of the old king’s death. At the performance Hamlet watches closely as Claudius is provoked into interrupting the play and storming out, resolving to send the prince away to England. Hamlet is summoned by his distressed mother and, on  the way he spares Claudius whom he sees kneeling, attempting to pray. To kill him while he is praying would send his soul to heaven rather than to the hell he deserves. Polonius hides in Gertrude’s room to listen to the conversation, but Hamlet detects movement as he upbraids his mother. He stabs the concealing tapestry and so kills the old man. The ghost reappears, warning his son not to delay revenge, nor to upset his mother. As the army of Norway’s King Fortinbras crosses Denmark to attack Poland, Hamlet is sent to England, ostensibly as an ambassador, but he discovers Claudius’s plan to have him killed. Outwitting this plot Hamlet returns alone, sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths in his stead. During Hamlet’s absence Ophelia goes mad as a result of her father’s death and she is drowned. Hamlet returns and meets Horatio in the graveyard. With the arrival of Ophelia’s funeral Hamlet confronts Laertes who, after attempting a revolt against Claudius, has taken his father’s place at the court. A duel is arranged between Hamlet and Laertes at which Claudius has plotted for Hamlet to die either on a poisoned rapier, or from poisoned wine. The plans go wrong and both Laertes and Hamlet are wounded, while Gertrude unwittingly drinks from the poisoned cup. Hamlet, in his death throes, kills Claudius, and Horatio is left to explain the truth to the new king, Fortinbras, who returns, victorious, from the Polish wars. Macbeth Play: Overview & Resources The main source for Shakespeare’s Macbeth play was Holinshed’s Chronicles. Holinshed in turn took the account from a Scottish history, Scotorum Historiae, written in 1527 by Hector Boece. Shakespeare, flattering James 1, referred to the king’s own books, Discovery of Witchcraft and Daemonologie, written in 1599. Some of the main ideas of Macbeth are Nature, Manhood and Light versus Dark. In Macbeth, the murder of a king by one of his subjects is seen as unnatural and the images ofthe play reflect this theme, with disruptions of nature, like storms – and events such as where the horses turn on their grooms and bite them. In Macbeth Shakespeareexplores what it is to be a man. Lady Macbeth accuses Macbeth of being unmanly because of his hesitation in killing Duncan, but Macbeth says that it’s unmanly for a man to kill his king. Shakespeare plays with that paradox. Duncan is a good king and a good man, and he is surrounded by images of light. Macbethand Lady Macbeth turn their surroundings into a picture of hell, blanketed in darkness. Those images of light and dark interact throughout the play. Traditionally, there is a curse on Macbeth. Actors and productioncrews perpetuate the superstition by avoiding using the play’s title, Macbeth, which is considered bad luck. It has to be referred to as â€Å"The Scottish Play†. Date written: 1605 Read the full Macbeth text Genre classification: Macbeth is regarded as a tragedy. Macbeth Characters: The hero, Macbeth, the Thane of Glamys and later Thane of Cawdor, murders the king, Duncan, and is elected as king in his place. Lady Macbeth, his wife, is his co-conspirator in the murder. Duncan’s sons, Malcolm and Donalblain, themselves in danger, flee. Banquo, Macbeth’s friend, is also murdered by Macbeth. Macduff, the Thane of Fife, suspects Macbeth and his whole family is massacred. Macduff is the man who finally kills Macbeth. There are three witches, who plant the idea of murdering Duncan in Macbeth’s mind, and they lead him on to his destruction. Their queen is Hecate. Other characters are the Scottlish noblemen, Lennox and Ross, and the English general, Siward and his son, Young Siward. See a full list of Macbeth characters. Themes in Macbeth: The main themes in Macbeth are ambition and guilt. Macbeth’s ‘overweening ambition leads him to kill Duncan and from then on until the end of the play he suffers unendurable guilt. Another theme is that of appearance and reality. Of all Shakespeare’s characters, Macbeth has the most difficulty in distinguishing between what is real and what is not. Macbeth Plot Summary King Duncan’s generals, Macbeth and Banquo, encounter three strange women on a bleak Scottish moorland on their way home from quelling a rebellion. The women prophesy that Macbeth will be given the title of Thane of Cawdor and then become King of Scotland, while Banquo’s heirs shall be kings. The generals want to hear more but the weird sisters disappear. Duncan creates Macbeth Thane of Cawdor in thanks for his success in the recent battles and then proposes to make a brief visit to Macbeth’s castle. Lady Macbeth receives news from her husband of the prophecy and his new title and she vows to help him become king by any means she can. Macbeth’s return is followed almost at once by Duncan’s arrival. The Macbeths plot together and later that night, while all are sleeping and after his wife has given the guards drugged wine, Macbeth kills the King and his guards. Lady Macbeth leaves the bloody daggers beside the dead king. Macduff arrives and when the murder is discovered Duncan’s sons, Malcolm and Donalbain flee, fearing for their lives, but they are nevertheless blamed for the murder. Macbeth is elected King of Scotland, but is plagued by feelings of guilt and insecurity. He arranges for Banquo and his son, Fleance to be killed, but the boy escapes the murderers. At a celebratory banquet Macbeth sees the ghost of Banquo and disconcerts the courtiers with his strange manner. Lady Macbeth tries to calm him but is rejected. Macbeth seeks out the witches and learns from them that he will be safe until Birnam Wood comes to his castle, Dunsinane. They tell him that he need fear no-one born of woman, but also that the Scottish succession will come from Banquo’s son. Macbeth embarks on a reign of terror and many, including Macduff’s family are murdered, while Macduff himself has gone to join Malcolm at the court of the English king, Edward. Malcolm and Macduff decide to lead an army against Macbeth. Macbeth feels safe in his remote castle at Dunsinane until he is told that Birnam Wood is moving towards him. The situation is that Malcolm’s army is carrying branches from the forest as camouflage for their assault on the castle. Meanwhile Lady Macbeth, paralysed with guilt, walks in her sleep and gives away her secrets to a listening doctor. She kills herself as the final battle commences. Macduff challenges Macbeth who, on learning his adversary is the child of a Ceasarian birth, realises he is doomed. Macduff triumphs and brings the head of the traitor to Malcolm who declares peace and is crowned king. Othello Play: Overview & Resources The Othello play begins in Venice where there is a wealthy, well ordered, well behaved community, controlled by strong laws and established conventions.

History J5 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

History J5 - Essay Example In Burkes political career, he mercilessly defended constitutional limitation of the Crowns authority. He ignored the religious persecution of Catholics in his native land of Ireland. He aired the grievances of Britains American colonies. He contributed in American Independence and vigorously followed the impeachment of Warren Hastings, who was the General Governor of British India, for abuse of power and corruption. In his Reflections, Burke stated that the French Revolution would come to an end in very damaging way because its abstract foundations, being rational, ignored the importance of human nature and society. French Revolution was caused by the following claims, Internal struggle for leadership and empire outstrips for financial resources of the state, Political misunderstanding between the Monarchy and the nobility, over the restart of the tax system that they claimed, led to poverty and bankruptcy. The enlightenment, that is the impulse for reform intensified political conflicts and reinforcing traditional aristocratic constitutionalism. The introduction of new ways of good government and the prestige of being popular sovereignty has also led to bankruptcy. The attack on the catholic regime and advantageous class by the Literary Underground of the broadening influenced the of public opinion. Social differences between two rising groups, the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie. Removal of the ineffective leader Luis, economic hardship, especially the agrarian crisis of 1788-1789, generated general discontent and disorders caused by food shortages. This reflection was written immediately after the French Revolution. Burke’s primary antirevolutionary book questioned the motives of the actors and warned against the removal of all, which would prove amazingly prophetic. Edmund Burke expressed his views against the French revolution by criticizing it. The first was the Constitutional Society Edmund criticized this by saying that