We have a responsibility to make fact-based decisions for our clients. The more science-based those facts are, the better decisions we’ll make, writes Marc Effron

HR should always “start with the science”. When we don’t start with the science, we make poor quality decisions that negatively affect the design of our HR practices. Listed below is some HR folklore that’s often taken as fact.

HR folklore #1: Employees will work harder to achieve goals they set themselves. So we ask employees to lead the goal-setting process and their managers to review and approve the goals. But the science says employees will work equally hard towards a goal that’s set by their manager or set by themselves. So we should have managers lead the goal-setting process. This means that managers should initiate the conversation and set expectations for what the employee will deliver. Why? First, employees are unlikely to set goals that are as challenging as those their manager would set for them. Second, their manager is hopefully better equipped to translate goals from the level above them to the employee’s level.

HR folklore #2: “Stretch” goals are different from “regular” goals. So we possibly include a stretch goal in the goal-setting process but rarely focus on increasing the challenge level of all goals. But the science says the more challenging any goal, the more effort the employee will exert to achieve it. So we should add the maximum reasonable amount of stretch into every goal. Every goal that doesn’t ask the employee to deliver as much value as possible leaves performance on the table. Every goal should be set to the maximum level of stretch to ensure we get the employee’s highest possible performance against that goal.

HR folklore #3: Self-assessments are a valuable part of a performance review process. So we ask employees to write a description of their accomplishments and possibly rate themselves against each or provide an overall rating of their performance. But the science says self-assessments are the least accurate form of assessment – less accurate than the assessment of one’s manager, peers or direct reports. So we should make self-assessment a voluntary part of the review process, being completely transparent with employees that their self-assessment has absolutely no impact on the final rating decision. Employees should understand that this is a performance review by their manager. It’s not a negotiation, debate or chance to make their best pitch for a high rating. They should know that they have a “voice” but not a “vote”.

HR folklore #4: When a manager sees a gap between their self-perception and how others perceive them, they will work hard to close that gap. So we include self-assessments in 360s because we assume that seeing these gaps will spur managers to change. But the science says our brains are hardwired to carefully maintain our well-honed, positive self-image and to resist any information that might challenge our deliriously inaccurate self-perception. We won’t work to close those gaps – we will work hard to explain them away. So we should stop including self-ratings in 360 assessments and stop trying to use gaps as a motivational tool. Explain to managers that the feedback and direction they receive should be evaluated on its own merits – not in comparison to their personal assessment of a situation.

HR folklore #5:Learning agility is a proven predictor of high potential and/or high performance. So we buy assessments to measure learning agility and use the results to classify select leaders as having high potential to advance. But the science says there are a large number of problems with the claims some consulting firms make about learning, or other types of, agility. First, the research they present doesn’t meet the level of “science” defined earlier but many make scientific claims about their agility products. Second, while the term “learning agility” has intuitive appeal, there’s no consistent definition of what it means. Third, the academic community has strongly questioned whether “learning agility” is even a concept. Many of them see it simply as a combination of already studied phenomenon that’s now being bundled and sold under a new heading. So we should wait for proven science before using these tools to assess or develop leaders.

Starting with the science demands that you critically compare your own assumptions against what’s been scientifically proven to be true. It’s never easy to admit that you’ve been operating on a few mistaken assumptions. But it’s far better to acknowledge and change than to continue to build solutions from flawed raw material.

3 levels of scientific proof for HR

In One Page Talent Management we remind HR that it should always “start with the science”. Consider three levels of proof when evaluating someone’s claim that something is “scientifically proven” to be true in HR:

  1. Proven science: Many experiments over many years have all reached a similar conclusion that X causes Y. These experiments have been published in well-respected, peer-reviewed academic journals.
  2. Science: An experiment has been conducted that shows that X causes Y. It’s been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. There may be other science that conflicts with the findings of this experiment.
  3. Research: A consulting firm or other group has conducted a survey (very large to very small) and has reached a conclusion. They likely have not released the raw data for others to examine and validate.

Similar Posts