Harvard Business Review: Better People Analytics

Better People Analytics

Artificial Intelligence and Ethics

Artificial Intelligence and Ethics

How the Eagles Followed the Numbers to the Super Bowl

How the Eagles Followed the Numbers to the Super Bowl

How People Analytics Can Change Process, Culture, and Strategy

How People Analytics Can Change Process, Culture, and Strategy

University Took Uncommonly Close Look at Student-Conduct Data

Rutgers

Dodgers, Brewers show how analytics is changing baseball

Baseball

Little Privacy in the Workplace of the Future

Little Privacy in the Workplace of the Future

Google's Culture of Self-Surveying

Google

The Resume of the Future

The Resume of the Future

More Academic Articles

Small Cues Change Savings Choices
James J.Choi, Emily Haisley, Jennifer Kurkoski, and Cade Massey. 2017. “Small Cues Change Savings Choices.” Behavioral Evidence Hub. Publisher's VersionAbstract

PROJECT SUMMARY

Researchers tested the effects of including cues, anchors, and savings goals in a company email encouraging employee contributions to their 401(k).

IMPACT

Researchers found that providing high contribution rate or savings goal examples, or highlighting high savings thresholds created by the 401(k) plan rules, increased 401(k) contribution rates by 1-2% of income per pay period.

Read More.

Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them
Berkeley Dietvorst, Joseph P. Simmons, and Cade Massey. 6/13/2015. “Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them.” SSRN. Publisher's VersionAbstract
Although evidence-based algorithms consistently outperform human forecasters, people often fail to use them after learning that they are imperfect, a phenomenon known as algorithm aversion. In this paper, we present three studies investigating how to reduce algorithm aversion. In incentivized forecasting tasks, participants chose between using their own forecasts or those of an algorithm that was built by experts. Participants were considerably more likely to choose to use an imperfect algorithm when they could modify its forecasts, and they performed better as a result. Notably, the preference for modifiable algorithms held even when participants were severely restricted in the modifications they could make (Studies 1-3). In fact, our results suggest that participants’ preference for modifiable algorithms was indicative of a desire for some control over the forecasting outcome, and not for a desire for greater control over the forecasting outcome, as participants’ preference for modifiable algorithms was relatively insensitive to the magnitude of the modifications they were able to make (Study 2). Additionally, we found that giving participants the freedom to modify an imperfect algorithm made them feel more satisfied with the forecasting process, more likely to believe that the algorithm was superior, and more likely to choose to use an algorithm to make subsequent forecasts (Study 3). This research suggests that one can reduce algorithm aversion by giving people some control - even a slight amount - over an imperfect algorithm’s forecast.
The Bright Side of Being Prosocial at Work, and the Dark Side, Too
Mark C. Bolino and Adam Grant. 2016. “The Bright Side of Being Prosocial at Work, and the Dark Side, Too.” The Academy of Management Annals. Publisher's VersionAbstract
More than a quarter century ago, organizational scholars began to explore the implications of prosociality in organizations. Three interrelated streams have emerged from this work, which focus on prosocial motives (the desire to benefit others or expend effort out of concern for others), prosocial behaviors (acts that promote/protect the welfare of individuals, groups, or organizations), and prosocial impact (the experience of making a positive difference in the lives of others through one’s work). Prior studies have highlighted the importance of prosocial motives, behaviors, and impact, and have enhanced our understanding of each of them. However, there has been little effort to systematically review and integrate these related lines of work in a way that furthers our understanding of prosociality in organizations. In this article, we provide an overview of the current state of the literature, highlight key findings, identify major research themes, and address important controversies and debates. We call for an expanded view of prosocial behavior and a sharper focus on the costs and unintended consequences of prosocial phenomena. We conclude by suggesting a number of avenues for future research that will address unanswered questions and should provide a more complete understanding of prosociality in the workplace.
Shifts and Ladders: Comparing the Role of Internal and External Mobility in Managerial Careers
Matthew Bidwell and Ethan Mollick. 10/5/2015. “Shifts and Ladders: Comparing the Role of Internal and External Mobility in Managerial Careers.” Organization Science, 26, 6, Pp. 1553-1804. Publisher's VersionAbstract
Employees can build their careers either by moving into a new job within their current organization or else by moving to a different organization. We use matching perspectives on job mobility to develop predictions about the different roles that those internal and external moves will play within careers. Using data on the careers of master of business administration alumni, we show how internal and external mobility are associated with very different rewards: upward progression into a job with greater responsibilities is much more likely to happen through internal mobility than external mobility; yet despite this difference, external moves offer similar increases in pay to internal, as employers seek to attract external hires. Consistent with our arguments, we also show that the pay increases associated with external moves are lower when the moves take place for reasons other than career advancement, such as following a layoff or when moving into a different kind of work. Despite growing interest in boundaryless careers, our findings indicate that internal and external mobility play very different roles in executives’ careers, with upward mobility still happening overwhelmingly within organizations.
More

More Popular Press

Meet Your New Boss: An Algorithm
Sam Schechner. 12/10/2017. “Meet Your New Boss: An Algorithm.” The Wall Street Journal. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Uber Technologies Inc. and other pioneers of the so-called gig economy became some of the world’s most valuable private companies by using apps and algorithms to hand out tasks to an army of self-employed workers. Now, established companies like Royal Dutch Shell PLC and General Electric Co. are adopting elements of that model for the full-time workforce.

Companies say the new tools make them more efficient and give employees more opportunities to do new kinds of work. But the software also is starting to take on management tasks that humans have long handled, such as scheduling and shepherding strategic projects. Researchers say the shift could lead to narrower roles for some managers and displace others.

Read More.

Inside Google’s culture of relentless self-surveying
Tim Fernholz. 6/26/2013. “Inside Google’s culture of relentless self-surveying.” Quartz. Publisher's VersionAbstract

When Google recently admitted that the baffling brainteasers it posed to interviewees were utterly useless at predicting which ones would make good employees, it was another example of the power of what Google calls “people analytics”—the mixing of Big Data with management science to come up with smarter ways to work.

The company’s obsession with human data is perhaps best known for producing the rule that no employee should sit more than 150 feet (46 meters) away from a micro-kitchen, and that in those kitchens the chocolate M&Ms be kept in opaque jars while healthier food is in clear containers, to encourage healthy eating habits. Google’s often controversial culture of omniscience about its users is mirrored, inside its posh campuses, by a team of industrial-organizational psychologists, behavioral economists, consultants and statisticians who survey and experiment with Google’s staff.

Read More.

The new fast.ai research datasets collection, on AWS Open Data
Jeremy Howard and Jed Sundwall. 10/16/2018. “The new fast.ai research datasets collection, on AWS Open Data.” fast.ai. Publisher's VersionAbstract

In machine learning and deep learning we can’t do anything without data. So the people that create datasets for us to train our models are the (often under-appreciated) heroes. Some of the most useful and important datasets are those that become important “academic baselines”; that is, datasets that are widely studied by researchers and used to compare algorithmic changes. Some of these become household names (at least, among households that train models!), such as MNISTCIFAR 10, and Imagenet.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to those kind folks who have made datasets available for the research community. So fast.ai and the AWS Public Dataset Program have teamed up to try to give back a little: we’ve made some of the most important of these datasets available in a single place, using standard formats, on reliable and fast infrastructure. For a full list and links see the fast.ai datasets page.

fast.ai uses these datasets in the Deep Learning for Coders courses, because they provide great examples of the kind of data that students are likely to encounter, and the academic literature has many examples of model results using these datasets which students can compare their work to. If you use any of these datasets in your research, please show your gratitude by citing the original paper (we’ve provided the appropriate citation link below for each), and if you use them as part of a commercial or educational project, consider adding a note of thanks and a link to the dataset.

Read More.

More

Meet Your New Boss: An Algorithm

Meet Your New Boss: An Algorithm

A.I. as Talent Scout: Unorthodox Hires, and Maybe Lower Pay

A.I. as Talent Scout: Unorthodox Hires, and Maybe Lower Pay

The Performance Management Revolution

Performance Management

Amazon scrapped 'sexist AI' tool

Amazon AI

Making it easier to discover datasets

Google AI

HR Must Make People Analytics More User-Friendly

HR Must Make People Analytics More User-Friendly

More Harvard Business Review

HR Must Make People Analytics More User-Friendly
John Boudreau. 6/16/2017. “HR Must Make People Analytics More User-Friendly.” Harvard Business Review. Publisher's VersionAbstract

Managing HR-related data is critical to any organization’s success. And yet progress in HR analytics has been glacially slow. Consulting firms in the U.S. and Europe lament the slow progress. But a Harvard Business Review analytics study of 230 executives suggests a stunning rate of anticipated progress: 15% said they use “predictive analytics based on HR data and data from other sources within or outside the organization,” while 48% predicted they would be doing so in two years. The reality seems less impressive, as a global IBM survey of more than 1,700 CEOs found that 71% identified human capital as a key source of competitive advantage, yet a global study by Tata Consultancy Services showed that only 5% of big-data investments were in human resources.

Recently, my colleague Wayne Cascio and I took up the question of why HR analytics progress has been so slow despite many decades of research and practical tool building, an exponential increase in available HR data, and consistent evidence that improved HR and talent management leads to stronger organizational performance. Our article in the Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance discusses factors that can effectively “push” HR measures and analysis to audiences in a more impactful way, as well as factors that can effectively lead others to “pull” that data for analysis throughout the organization.

Read More.

Competing on Talent Analytics
Thomas H. Davenport, Jeanne Harris, and Jeremy Shapiro. 10/2010. “Competing on Talent Analytics.” Harvard Business Review. Publisher's VersionAbstract
Do you think you know how to get the best from your people? Or do you know? How do investments in your employees actually affect workforce performance? Who are your top performers? How can you empower and motivate other employees to excel?

Leading-edge companies are increasingly adopting sophisticated methods of analyzing employee data to enhance their competitive advantage. Google, Best Buy, Sysco, and others are beginning to understand exactly how to ensure the highest productivity, engagement, and retention of top talent, and then replicating their successes. If you want better performance from your top employees—who are perhaps your greatest asset and your largest expense—you’ll do well to favor analytics over your gut instincts.

Harrah’s Entertainment is well-known for employing analytics to select customers with the greatest profit potential and to refine pricing and promotions for targeted segments. (See “Competing on Analytics,”HBR January 2006.) Harrah’s has also extended this approach to people decisions, using insights derived from data to put the right employees in the right jobs and creating models that calculate the optimal number of staff members to deal with customers at the front desk and other service points. Today the company uses analytics to hold itself accountable for the things that matter most to its staff, knowing that happier and healthier employees create better-satisfied guests.

Read More.

How to Have a Good Debate in a Meeting
Morten T. Hansen. 1/10/2018. “How to Have a Good Debate in a Meeting”. Publisher's VersionAbstract

The modern workplace is awash in meetings, many of which are terrible. As a result, people mostly hate going to meetings. The problem is this: The whole point of meetings is to have discussions that you can’t have any other way. And yet most meetings are devoid of real debate.

To improve the meetings you run, and save the meetings you’re invited to, focus on making the discussion more robust.

When teams have a good fight during meetings, team members debate the issues, consider alternatives, challenge one another, listen to minority views, and scrutinize assumptions. Every participant can speak up without fear of retribution. However, many people shy away from such conflict, conflating disagreement and debate with personal attacks. In reality, this sort of friction produces the best decisions. In my recent study of 5,000 managers and employees, published in my recent book, I found that the best performers are really good at generating rigorous discussions in team meetings. (The sample includes senior and junior managers and individual contributors from a range of industries in corporate America; my aim was to statistically identify work habits that correlate with higher performance.)

So how do you lead a good fight in meetings? Here are six practical tips:

Read More.

More