When decision making concerns human resources, the stakes
might be higher than other resource allocation decisions: simply put, there are
people involved. An investment decision might involve a certain level of risk and
if it goes “badly”, there are consequences, but people move on; however for human
resources decisions (e.g. regarding performance improvement, potential
development or career choices) then the risk might be considered higher because
if it goes “badly”, the person involved will potentially have to carry the
consequences for the rest of their lives. Considering this, Korte, in “Biases
in Decision Making and Implications for Human Resources Development”, (in Advances in Developing Human Resources,
Vol. 5, Nov. 2003, pp. 440-457) researched and concluded on how to optimise
decision-making in such an HR context.
Here’s how to make effective HR decisions followed by
further implications (“et alors”):
Making Human
Resources Decisions
Decision making in the HR context is “a complex process rife
with social and political agendas, individual biases and rapidly changing relationships…
the decision-making process must include an explicit examination and challenge
of the assumptions and biases underpinning the process and a prescription to
mitigate the stifling effects of these orientations.” Korte accordingly recommends
five optimising processes for decision making in HR:
Bias Analysis
Identify, assess and challenge the orientations and
underlying assumptions of the decision-makers.
This is sub-optimal if the assumptions and orientations of
the team are “glossed over.”
Information Gathering
Challenge the information gathering process to overcome
biases from 1/ visibility, 2/ timing, 3/ limits of understanding,
4/expectations, 5/ comparisons and 6/experience. Do not settle on a definition
of the problem or solution until as late as possible in the process.
This is sub-optimal if the sources of information are based
on 1/ experience, 2/visible sources and 3/ preferred sources.
Information Processing
Challenge the information analysis process to overcome
biases from 1/ inconsistency, 2/conservation, 3/miscalculation, 4/inertia,
5/overconfidence and 6/ anchoring. Explain reasons for processing information
and justify the reasons based on the data.
This is sub-optimal if data is analysed 1/ with inconsistent
use of criteria, 2/ to support preferences, 3/ with overconfidence on biased
data.
Information Response
Enlist several non-aligned sources for reality checks of analysis,
definitions and solutions. Attend to the perceptions, expectations and impulses
of the stakeholders throughout the process.
This is sub-optimal if you unduly hope for the best and
overestimate the degree of control or the ability to fix things later.
General Problem-solving
Consider that the problem can never be completely defined or
completely resolved. Avoid the impulse to act early in the process (unless to
just as a test of ideas and solutions).
This is sub-optimal if you just focus on a single definition
of the problem and the solution or if you follow a linear, mechanistic
problem-solving process.
Et alors
That is quite a lot of things to take into consideration all
at once; however the points are worthy of consideration if only because the
stakes are high when making HR decisions! One of the key messages is to
overcome biases in the early stages of the decision-making process; however, these
assumptions, orientations and biases might be cultural. Whilst people consider
that they are making optimal decisions, in fact, there are underlying cultural references
that are (usually) implicit in the assumptions being made by people in arriving
at their decision. This might be expedient where the whole context is
mono-cultural: “collective programming” or “shortcuts” might be the very
definition of culture with the benefit of expediency; however what about in a
multi-cultural context? Then there might be a challenge as all the parties in the
process might not consider the process (or the solution) to be optimal as it
would only be so in one culture or the other (but not both).
So is there an intercultural solution (for example for
career management systems in a multicultural organisation)? Potentially not! I
have concluded from my research into intercultural leadership that cross-cultural
understanding and trans-cultural leadership are possible and feasible when the
stakes are not too high and/or the situation is not “personal”. When however,
there are individuals involved (such as in decisions relating to HR) and when
the stakes are increased because they relate to important human conditions such
as love, conflict, power or wealth, then each respective culture tends to
revert-to-type. In such cases, cross-cultural understanding tends to evaporate!
So overcoming biases etc. in a mono-culture is one thing; whereas it is quite
another challenge to overcome biases etc. in a multicultural context when there
are “human resources” at stake!
No comments:
Post a Comment