The BBI case about the disagreement between human intuition and the system is interesting and can easily happen in real life. Aliyah, as the hiring manager, is doubtful to choose between Molly and Ed as the new Marketing Director. Especially this role will support handling 34 different products and thus needs someone who knows very well about the business and has a strong outlook to help Aliyah sharpen the goals and strategy.
We might think that Aliyah is just being resistant because she has a personal attachment to Molly as her protégé. But in my opinion, she has a valid reason to be uncertain about the successor. The algorithm is designed to improve our predictions and decisions. But even so, it should not be the single and foremost decision maker. Mann & O’Neil (2016) argued that algorithms can be biased and prejudiced because they are human opinions embedded in code.
The HR team brought up recommendation data using the new people analytics system, and there are several reasons why it has shortcomings. First, the network analyses (ONA) system they used is still new. The VP of HR, Christine, mentioned that it has been used to inform 3 promotion decisions so far. Maybe, it was just launched in the ongoing year. Brad, the People Analyst, also admitted that they still don’t have evidence of whether the system obtained good promotion judgment.
The second reason is the ONA system was only based on e-mail and meeting history over the past 6 months. There are 2 pitfalls here: the period and data sources. The period was used only 6 months, which during this time Molly may focused on her subscription service project, and coordination with other groups was limited. In another hand, we can gather data from passive and/or active sources. In this case, the HR team only uses a few passive data (e-mail and meeting history). There are also unrecorded phone calls and active data like employee surveys that should have been used to obtain greater confidence in results and population coverage.
Finally, the network and risk analyses are built based on the HR team’s opinions and discretions in choosing the model and methodology. When the data showed Ed has a higher risk of leaving BBI if he doesn’t get the promotion, other questions came up in my mind: what are the criteria to say so? How likely is this prediction to be real, and in what confidence level?
From the case, I sense that Christine was being optimistic about the new system she had championed. On the other hand, Brad was more pragmatic, to be frank about the shortcomings of this new system. Christine might have a hidden agenda to influence the hiring manager to adopt the data from the system so that it can progress. But I think this case should be completed with the fact that Aliyah is not the only decision maker.
I remember from my experiences, that when it comes to promotion decisions, we include at least 3 different roles: the hiring manager, one over’s manager, and HR. Occasionally, we can add someone from a different function who will work closely with the candidate, for instance, the stakeholder of this role. The purpose is to ensure the decision-making is objective. In this case, the decision fully relied on Aliyah as the hiring manager, whereas she was not alone!
Unfortunately, we do not have enough information on whether HR and one over’s manager have interviewed both candidates as well. Let’s say the one over’s manager for this position is the CEO of BBI. The CEO should make time to interview the candidates and share his thoughts on who is more fit for the position. The HR should also do the same thing, besides sharing the data from the system. Usually for director-level positions, the VP of HR or the more senior level than the candidate can do the interview.
To answer the question from the case, should Aliyah trust the algorithm or her instincts (should she hire Ed or Molly), it reminds me of the Hedgehog and the Fox illustration that Dr. Anna Tavis ever mentioned during the class. The Hedgehog is illustrated as someone with a blue character; who focuses on data, logic, and analytical. On the other side, the Fox is someone with a red character; relationship and emotion-oriented, creative, and tries to connect the dots.
Christine is typically the Hedgehog. She displayed the trait that seeking to know more than their opponents. She is a data-driven and analytical person. She wants to put her broader view on influencing Aliyah through data. On the other side, Aliyah is the creative Fox, uses her instinct, and promotes relationships. Indubitably, Aliyah prefers to choose Molly more than Ed. It’s quite funny, for usually, HR people are more likely the Fox who use more heart and emotion when dealing with people.
However, I think to solve this case we need to be “purple” (a combination of blue and red). Using the data doesn’t mean that we must accept offhandedly the result, but also be critical about whether the data is reliable or not. With the shortcomings that I have described earlier and using Aliyah’s preference in giving her protégé the chance to succeed, I would choose to promote Molly.
Another thing to be anticipated from this decision is the chance of spreading rumors that this promotion is based on personal preference, because of Aliyah and Molly’s close relationships. Therefore, the process should be transparent and reviewed by different roles, even they can crosscheck with the current managers.
Additionally, having a good relationship with the manager can be beneficial too, especially in building trust, coordination, and performance. The quality of the relationship that they already have will help Molly achieves this position’s goals. I evaluate from the case that Molly is someone who can make a distinction between personal and professional life. When she met Aliyah for the interview, she got down to the business that she wanted it to be a formal interview. That’s a good sign.
So, Aliyah, be not worried!
Comments