Monday, October 26, 2009
Week One--Students Whose Last Names Begin with H-P
The reading, HR Professionals’ Beliefs about Effective Human Resource Practices: Correspondence between Research, explores how the practices of managers diverge from the evidence collected through research. What role does evidence play in making managerial decisions? What role does instinct play?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems to me that evidence plays a far smaller role in HR practices than I would have thought.
ReplyDeleteFrom the research, it seems that strict evidence-based decisions lurk in the back of managers' heads, and practical use of them is most often only discovered after researching a particular situation in a procedural manual or textbook.
Instinct, however, is something that most HR managers like to believe they have developed well over the years, and it therefore colors their decisions even when consulting hard research numbers.
Instinct seems to play the dominant role in HR, then, with evidence used to back up the opinions of the decision makers when it's needed.
From: Bud Petitdemange
ReplyDeleteDate: 26 October 2009
Subject: Evidence versus Instinct
What role does evidence play in making managerial decisions?
From the research presented, HR managers do not rely much on published research in their hiring processes. Although some management practices are supported by sound science, others practices are not and in some cases directly contradict the scientific evidence. For instance, considering conscientiousness over intelligence is not supported by the science.
What role does instinct play?
Although the article does not address instinct, per se, it appears to reveal itself in several points in the article. Instinct may be involved when managers rely on characteristics such as trustworthiness, conscientiousness, etc., as opposed to intelligence. Such a person would likely be a team player and follow my lead. Although I know hiring a highly intelligent person may be in the best interest of my organization, my instincts may tell me that such a person may threaten by future. An intelligent person (someone who may be smarter than me) may challenge my authority and even my position.
The results of this study indicated a stronger tendency toward instinct than evidence in HR managers. While some survey results had over 80% respondees answer in line with proven research results, about half of the 35 responses indicated that 60% or fewer of the respondees act inline with evidence. I imagine most HR managers are initially trained in evidence-based practice, but since the survey population had an average of over 13 years in the industry, most of that evidence is likely overridden by 1) experience (could be considered personal evidence), 2) instinct, and 3) influence from reading largely non-scholarly publications.
ReplyDeleteSubject: Evidence versus Instinct
ReplyDeleteIt appears that although research offers evidence for particular tendencies as being better than instinct, HR managers either know and often choose to deviate from those behaviors or aren't aware of them at all. In the first case, it may be true that instinct in the hire decision should take precedence particularly when candidates are equally qualified and a 'good fit for the team'. In the latter case the research may not be readily available to HR managers in the sources that they go to for information. This research information is also often written in such a manner as to not be easily understood and applied by the average manager.
Indeed, it seems many HR managers - at the higher levels of the managerial ladder, interestingly enough - rely on instinct more then they do on research. I found it interesting that the largest gap between research and practice was in the area of hiring employees (for example, selecting for values rather then intelligence where research clearly indicates the opposite).
ReplyDeleteThe article claims that one of the reasons for this is that research is not readily accessible and should be published in the more popular magazines and web sites HR professional frequent. A rather self-serving finding, don't you think?
As managers and leaders, our behaviors are shaped by a combination of evidence (facts, research results) and instinct (a combination of intelligence, skills, and "gut"). One way organizations can use evidence to influence managerial behaviors and decisions is to provide evidence-based training, which should result in behaviors that are more consistent and effective than having managers rely on instinct alone. The challenges for individuals and organizations are (1) in acquiring evidence and (2) modifying behaviors based on the evidence.
ReplyDeleteAs an example, an organization can provide managers with training on how to effectively interview and select candidates, based on best practices, rather than rely on managers to do what they believe is correct. For me personally, attending this type of course as a new manager was very effective in changing my behavior. I had previously relied on my instincts to guide me in conducting interviews, until my "technique" failed me. Today, "interviewing correctly" is second nature.
As a note, the article did not seem to address cultural considerations in its research.
Subject: Evidence versus Instinct
ReplyDeleteEvidence plays very little role in HR managerial decisions. Most of the managers are not even aware of evidence-based research because they don't read research journals. The journals they read most often don't have any scientific study, because researchers don't like to publish in HR journals where their scientific findings are placed beside non-scientific articles which contradict the evidence based on research.
Managers believe their instincts more than any evidence from research. They rely on their experience and beliefs rather than any research to make their decisions. From selecting employees and evaluating performance to setting goals, managers rely on their beliefs and instincts even when they are contradictory to scientific evidence.
Evidence versus instinct
ReplyDeleteA higher percentage of decisions are based on instinct rather than evidence. Many times it is easier to trust your instincts rather than to find the evidence to base your decision. Also there are many tangible attributes that it is hard to find evidence but are easier to measure strongly on the instinct scale. To encourage evidence based decision making, there should be proper training with most relevant and up to date information.
On Evidence versus Instinct, Helen Miller said:
ReplyDeleteAmong HR professionals in this survey, instinct seemed to play a larger role than academic evidence in their beliefs of HR management, particularly in areas such as employee selection and performance where people may naturally rely on their social instincts. Respondents seemed to have more knowledge of research into HR practice with regard to impersonal issues of management practices, general employment practices, training and employee development, and compensation and benefits. It's difficult to draw conclusions from correlational data, but the authors hypothesized that a selection of research data may not be reaching HR professionals through channels where they seek knowledge. The survey data seemed to support this theory, with HR professionals reporting as their number one source of reading a non-academic magazine and their number one source of help their coworkers. However, respondents also reported apprehension about the application of research findings to their work, so perhaps they are less likely to seek research findings directly, as well. As I was reading the paper, I wondered if organizations in general tended to emphasize management, general employment, and training issues over selection and performance actions, thus prompting HR professionals to seek more information in those areas.
Evidence versus Instinct:
ReplyDeleteAccording to this study, evidence plays a surprisingly small role in HR management decisions in many areas. One striking example concerns the usefulness of intelligence (GMA)as predictor of performance. Here the majority of managers disregards research evidence supporting intelligence as a selection device.
So, based on this study's findings it is fair to assume that managers use instinct over evidence in their decision making.
As the article noted, the participants generally had long careers in HR. It would seem natural to me that experienced HR professionals would rely more on their own intuition. The article also mentioned that less experienced respondents were more interested in reading about research findings.
ReplyDeleteThe article also quoted results of studies that show that learning gets more difficult with age, so maybe that could be one factor why more experienced professionals tend to not be so interested in those scholarly journals.
From a technical communications point of view, it was interesting to see that the main problem here was seen to be disseminating complex knowledge outside a specialized domain. Sounds like a job for a technical writer!
subject line: Evidence versus Instinct
ReplyDeleteWhile evidence available through research doesn’t seem to play a large role in decisions made by HR practitioners, I suspect that many HR practitioners would argue that their decisions are not made by instinct. Within this survey, the respondents had an average of 14 years experience. During that time, the practitioner’s day-to-day activities would expose them to conventional wisdom, long-standing practices and rules of thumb that would seem to be based on evidence, but evidence provided by personal experience rather than empirical research.
As in most “versus” situations, legitimate conclusions are often evident in both sides of the argument. “Thus, many decades of research ultimately revealed that the researcher and practitioner perspectives each had some validity, with the end result being improved research and improved practice” (Rynes, Barber & Varma, 2000).
ReplyDeleteIf the “improved research” or “researcher” can be correlated to the “evidence”; and the “improved practice” or “practitioner” can be correlated to the “instinct”, it would appear that both make a significant, although inconsistent contribution to the decision making process regarding human resource issues.
Evidence is the result of factual findings from research and is difficult to dispute. Instinct is often the result of experience and practicality and cannot be ignored. Of the human resource dimensions measured and outlined in this article (Management Practices, Employment Practices, Staffing, HR Development, Compensation and Benefits), the dominating result to agree or disagree with either evidence/ “research” or instinct/ “practice”, was dependent on the area being measured.
Evidence vs. Instinct
ReplyDeleteAlex Lik
Not much to be surprised with. Evidence is free or almost free of personal “flavor” whereas people’s knowledge and confidence in that knowledge gained during years of experience is often “spiced with” their personal judgment that might add noise to the decision making process.
It’s interesting how many of them missed in the staffing section of the survey.
I think that good manager’s instincts should be based on awareness and experience and it takes a strong personality not to have those two compete.
from Dawna Turner:
ReplyDeleteAlthough most people go on instinct, thorough and frequent management training helps instill the principles that we learn through evidence. For example, HR can offer "Hiring Winners" training that teaches managers how to ask the right questions when interviewing, such as open questions asking candidates to specifically describe what steps they took to accomplish something mentioned on their resume. Or questions such as "how would you handle ...?", and asking the candidate to share specific steps.
In addition to this subject, I'd like to address something we discussed today -- that managers sometimes will share negatives about an important or high-performing employee in order to discourage another manager from taking that person. I really think that we must have our employees' true best interests at heart. If someone has been with me a long time and needs to move forward or do something different, I need to honorably support them. Of course, it is a manager's discretion, or should be, about the timing of losing someone, for example, not in the middle of a crucial project. But if each manager has high integrity, and truly supports people in moving forward and finding the best job possible for them, it increases trust. Trust, I think, is one of the most important motivators -- people want to work for managers they can really trust.
Thanks, everyone, for a good class today. Lots of good info and I really like reading everyone's input!
Test post
ReplyDeleteEvidence vs. Instinct, Ellen O'Brien...
ReplyDeleteAccording to this paper, evidence plays a minor role in HR-related managerial decisions. Even in those areas where HR professionals correctly identified a statement as true or false, it didn't appear to be based on their reading of any research results (the paper indicates very few practitioners read research-based or academic journals). In my own experience as a manager in a large, multi-national corporation, I'd say that evidence-based decision making is more common when legal issues are at stake (such as descrimination, harassment, etc.).
Instinct (and prior experience) appear to rule in many areas of HR practice. The paper highlights many areas in which practictioners follow their beliefs rather than any proven approach that's been backed up by research. Again, in my experience HR is seen as (and often practiced as) a subjective, experience-based profession.
For Stephanie Lataille:
ReplyDeleteEvidence and Instinct - HR Professionals’ Beliefs about Effective Human Resource Practices: Correspondence between Research and Practice
This study indicates that evidence plays a very small part in a HR Manager’s decisions. In fact, it appears that evidence is not often present or regarded in much decision making, and a variety of reasons were cited. In one area of the study, the results showed that HR Managers rely overwhelmingly on their peers when they are faced with issues. In another, it showed that evidence (in terms of research findings) are viewed as being unreliable in practice, hard to understand and even harder to find the time to review. In terms of instinct, it seems to me that HR Manager’s find themselves in the position of having to rely on instinct, past experiences and their peers in situations out of necessity.
Comments from Debbie Meizner
ReplyDeleteBased on the reading, it seems to me that the majority of managers are not interested in evidence, especially if they have a lot of experience. The article pointed out that research is not presented in way that most managers understand.
Evidence based on empirical studies can be helpful if a manager wants to choose to apply certain techniques to his/her interview style (such as formal testing/scoring and a structured interview). That way, they can gather their own "evidence" about the candidate. However, the final decision will most likely be based more on "gut" and less on research studies or evidence. Managers want to know if the candidate will "fit in," and an understanding of human nature (the "gut instinct") combined with test scores (or, in a tech writer's case, writing samples) will help the manager make an informed decision.
Believing in the results of research can somewhat diminish the human aspect. The handwriting analysis is a good example of how "evidence" can be misinterpreted.
Robert Levy:
ReplyDeleteWhat role does evidence play in making managerial decisions?
It appears that evidence plays very little part in at least certain decisions (mainly hiring and motivating). Then, the evidence also seems to play little role in assessment, since so many people are (knowingly or not) lenient.
It's interesting to me how important intelligence is in predicting job productivity, knowing how often sentences start with, "he's very smart, but...."
What role does instinct play?
Instinct plays a larger role than it probably should, again, at least for hiring and motivating employees. I'm struck by the fact that using the same interview structure is most likely to provide good results. I'd think that most hiring managers would rather do unstructured interviews, feeling that they give a better feel for the applicant.
I wonder how a mixed approach would work, with all the same questions, plus a bit of on-the-fly questions. Probably not as well as the purely structured method.