I have already noted how poor much management research is, and how little of it is of interest to anyone, including often the people who write it. Those who advocate ‘evidence-based-management’ (EBM) address this problem head-on. They argue that researchers should identify those research findings that will help managers to improve decision making. It is time to get rid of folklore, fiction and fantasy and to base management action on hard empirical evidence. In one sense, these issues have been around for many years – see, for example, my discussion of ‘rigour’ and ‘relevance’ in Chapter 1. However, advocates of EBM aspire to take these debates to a higher level, and their cause has been helped by the status of those who have championed it. For example, its key moment in capturing widespread attention was undoubtedly an address by the then president of the Academy of Management, Denise Rousseau, to the AOM’s 2005 conference. Her talk was published in the Academy of Management Review the following year. Many saw it as an attractive proposition, and it is not hard to see why. Clearly, the idea of EBM deserves to be taken seriously. But that does not mean it should be accepted uncritically. There is little point in escaping from one trap only to become ensnared in another. My intention in this chapter is to explore what EBM promises and look at the criticisms of it that have emerged. In my view, both the advocacy of EBM and some of the criticisms levelled at it are overblown. Is there is a third way which can preserve EBM’s welcome focus on addressing real world problems without having to adhere so closely to the managerialist agenda that accompanies it at present?