While certain factors are easy to put an economic value on, such as per worker output; other seem to be not so determinable such as the money saved by not being sued and having to pay for a whole legal team or the cost on morale and motivation. How can a utility analysis capture these factors, especially when some factors are the unforeseen consequences of not having HR practices?
It seems like the challenge I/O and HR professionals face regarding utility has three steps. First, these professionals must persuade organizations to utilize HR related interventions, with the idea that these interventions will meet organizational goals or increase productivity/performance. Second, these professionals then face the challenge of actually demonstrating these relationships through a utility analysis. But most importantly, these professionals have to be able to communicate the information they discovered in the utility analysis to help management and the organization recognize the connection between the intervention and the (hopefully) improved outcome. How can HR and I/O professionals better communicate the utility of their interventions in ways that management and organization leaders can connect with and understand? How can we adapt these analyses to show the connection between the interventions and the desired organizational goals?
•How likely are decision makers to be involved in the development (i.e., take time out of their day, thus money)? Their time is much more costly, and this would seem to be a factor that should be considered in the utility formula.
Ployhart et al. discuss in the chapter the importance of putting attention to selection of employees with less central roles (e.g. ticket agents to an airlines) because their performance variance is greater. Would you feel comfortable making utility calculations and arguing for the importance of careful selection of these types of employees because of the greater variability of their performance?
I like the idea of utility analysis. It seems to hold promise as a decision tool for organizational decision-makers similar to those used to make decisions in finance and operations. But, it seems to lack ecological validity in the minds of those who are the end users. Many decision-makers (although educated and sophisticated professionals) are not experts in finance or cost accounting and yet they trust the evaluations made by professionals within those fields. Why are the evaluations of HR related professionals such as I-O psychologists not similarly trusted?
While certain factors are easy to put an economic value on, such as per worker output; other seem to be not so determinable such as the money saved by not being sued and having to pay for a whole legal team or the cost on morale and motivation. How can a utility analysis capture these factors, especially when some factors are the unforeseen consequences of not having HR practices?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the challenge I/O and HR professionals face regarding utility has three steps. First, these professionals must persuade organizations to utilize HR related interventions, with the idea that these interventions will meet organizational goals or increase productivity/performance. Second, these professionals then face the challenge of actually demonstrating these relationships through a utility analysis. But most importantly, these professionals have to be able to communicate the information they discovered in the utility analysis to help management and the organization recognize the connection between the intervention and the (hopefully) improved outcome. How can HR and I/O professionals better communicate the utility of their interventions in ways that management and organization leaders can connect with and understand? How can we adapt these analyses to show the connection between the interventions and the desired organizational goals?
ReplyDelete•How likely are decision makers to be involved in the development (i.e., take time out of their day, thus money)? Their time is much more costly, and this would seem to be a factor that should be considered in the utility formula.
ReplyDeleteAlong with everyone talking about moderators, what are some organization level factors that might effect the utility analysis?
ReplyDeletePloyhart et al. discuss in the chapter the importance of putting attention to selection of employees with less central roles
ReplyDelete(e.g. ticket agents to an airlines) because their performance variance is greater. Would you feel comfortable making utility calculations and arguing for the importance of careful selection of these types of employees because of the greater variability of their performance?
I like the idea of utility analysis. It seems to hold promise as a decision tool for organizational decision-makers similar to those used to make decisions in finance and operations. But, it seems to lack ecological validity in the minds of those who are the end users. Many decision-makers (although educated and sophisticated professionals) are not experts in finance or cost accounting and yet they trust the evaluations made by professionals within those fields. Why are the evaluations of HR related professionals such as I-O psychologists not similarly trusted?
ReplyDelete