I think the utility analysis presented in this article captures more of the picture of HR practices. If you think about job analysis, selection, training, and performance appraisal; they all work in a sequence and it is more realistic to think about the utility of the sequence, rather than each one individually. Would multilevel analysis help with utility estimates so the contextual factors of the organization or the particular branch could be utilized in the estimate?
It seems like the major conceptual difference between single attribute utility analysis and causal chain analysis is that the causal chain analysis addresses multiple determinants or influences on the utility of an HR intervention. I like the method, but am unsure of its practicality in an organizational setting. It seems that organizations have a hard enough time gathering the data they need for a single attribute utility analysis, let alone trying to incorporate other factors such as customer satisfaction, etc. into their analyses. How can organizations incorporate the causal chain analysis approach into their strategic planning to maximize the types of information collected that might be influenced by or affect the utility of HR interventions? What other types of information beside customer satisfaction and employee attitudes might influence, mediate, or moderate utility?
•Is the causal chain method more accurate or at least less likely to overestimate compared to the single-attribute utility approach because it incorporates more variables that influence the selection process? •Is the voice effect part of what is helping decision makers to have a better “buy-in” of this method?
To me there is a major problem with the sample in the study. To start only 36% of the people responded to the questionnaire. Further, they only analyzed the data of those who were "serious" about taking the questionnaire. Don't the participants seem as though they would be markedly different from the real population of managers that the authors are attempting to generalize to?
Here is a method that appeals to more managers, but still needs to be tested more. Does this approach make sense to you? Could you see yourself gathering this kind of business-unit level data (on customer satisfaction, employee commitment) to run this kind of analysis? In the study, the data on their HRM intervention they gathered for their path analysis was cost of training and org. outcome was bank performance. How could cost of training be appropriate here for this analysis? Is this being used in place of a validity coefficient?
Winkler et al. found that one of the reactions to single-attribute utility analysis by managers was that the monetary estimates seemed to large. Might this judgment reflect a lingering negative bias among managers towards HR interventions in general?
I like this method a lot more than the single attribute analysis because it seems more comprehensive and easier to communicate. I wonder how useful such an analysis is in non-profit sectors where conceptualization of customer satisfaction and perception are not as obvious?
I think the utility analysis presented in this article captures more of the picture of HR practices. If you think about job analysis, selection, training, and performance appraisal; they all work in a sequence and it is more realistic to think about the utility of the sequence, rather than each one individually. Would multilevel analysis help with utility estimates so the contextual factors of the organization or the particular branch could be utilized in the estimate?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the major conceptual difference between single attribute utility analysis and causal chain analysis is that the causal chain analysis addresses multiple determinants or influences on the utility of an HR intervention. I like the method, but am unsure of its practicality in an organizational setting. It seems that organizations have a hard enough time gathering the data they need for a single attribute utility analysis, let alone trying to incorporate other factors such as customer satisfaction, etc. into their analyses. How can organizations incorporate the causal chain analysis approach into their strategic planning to maximize the types of information collected that might be influenced by or affect the utility of HR interventions? What other types of information beside customer satisfaction and employee attitudes might influence, mediate, or moderate utility?
ReplyDelete•Is the causal chain method more accurate or at least less likely to overestimate compared to the single-attribute utility approach because it incorporates more variables that influence the selection process?
ReplyDelete•Is the voice effect part of what is helping decision makers to have a better “buy-in” of this method?
To me there is a major problem with the sample in the study. To start only 36% of the people responded to the questionnaire. Further, they only analyzed the data of those who were "serious" about taking the questionnaire. Don't the participants seem as though they would be markedly different from the real population of managers that the authors are attempting to generalize to?
ReplyDeleteHere is a method that appeals to more managers, but still needs to be tested more.
ReplyDeleteDoes this approach make sense to you? Could you see yourself gathering this kind of business-unit level data (on customer satisfaction, employee commitment) to run this kind of analysis? In the study, the data on their HRM intervention they gathered for their path analysis was cost of training and org. outcome was bank performance. How could cost of training be appropriate here for this analysis? Is this being used in place of a validity coefficient?
Winkler et al. found that one of the reactions to single-attribute utility analysis by managers was that the monetary estimates seemed to large. Might this judgment reflect a lingering negative bias among managers towards HR interventions in general?
ReplyDeleteI like this method a lot more than the single attribute analysis because it seems more comprehensive and easier to communicate. I wonder how useful such an analysis is in non-profit sectors where conceptualization of customer satisfaction and perception are not as obvious?
ReplyDelete