FAQ
It is currently Wed May 24, 2017 1:27 pm


How many hours a week do you put towards your 'research'?  Poll ended at Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:33 am
Less than 10 0% 0  0% 
11 - 20 0% 0  0% 
21 - 30 0% 0  0% 
31 - 40 100% 1  100% 
41 - 50 0% 0  0% 
51 - 60 0% 0  0% 
61 - 70 0% 0  0% 
71 - 80 0% 0  0% 
81 - 90 0% 0  0% 
91 - 100 0% 0  0% 
Total votes : 1

Author Message
Umaapow
Post  Post subject: Hello  |  Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 7:33 am

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:57 am
Posts: 5

Offline
Hello everyone,

I am a psychology student. I hope to one day be a contributor to science.
I studied proofreading, specifically error detection of adjacent letter transposed letter word errors in proofreading during my undergraduate studies. It was more like a pilot study and was never published.
I am currently in the process of finishing up my master degree in industrial organizational psychology: organizational behavior.
During the last year, i've been much more interested in the cognitive psychology, specifically Decision making, judgement, and choice. So, i've been sort of going off track from my social/behavioral focus in my program.

I've been heavily influenced by Chester Barnard, Herbert Simon, and Kahneman & Tversky. Barnard has been renown for his insightful contributions to organizational theory, Simon as well. However, the earlier work of Simon that contributed towards organization behavior has also pointed towards more work in cognitive psychology. Which leads me to the works of Kahneman and Tversky who, in a way, carried the 'baton' in their published work regarding judgement under conditions of uncertainty.

So this is my influence most recently. I have studied some social psychology, but much of it has been experience in small groups. I hope to speak with many of you and to be inspired by your ideas, as i am sort of hung in my own incoherent thoughts.

_________________
You want the Truth? One may argue that there is no absolute Truth, but perhaps there is only context and perspective of truth.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hello  |  Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 2:01 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Welcome to the community, Umaapow! Do you know yet what you'd like to do when you complete your studies?

Regarding your poll, note that I love science, but am no longer doing direct research myself, so cannot comment on the choices given (unless research on the taste of Texas draft beers counts, in which case 91-100 hours!)

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Umaapow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hello  |  Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 3:25 pm

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:57 am
Posts: 5

Offline
Right now i'm trying to finish a poorly thought out paper that i started in January!
Initially it was going to be about decision making in organizations, however, after reading March & Simon (1958) Organizations he clearly points out that the research in organizational theory, under the premise of bounded rationality of human cognition, should move forward in the direction of studying cognitive psychology (sciences). My problem is that my paper, with many my readings on decision making in organizations (a social environment), will shift towards a discussion of studying the cognitive process of the individual.

Anyway that is my problem that i must sort out by next Wednesday.
And to answer your question, i'm hoping to develop a hypothesis this December that I can run by my professor so i may begin to conduct an small independent research experiment by February. I'm interested in reasoning, judgement, particularly in the organizational setting. Particularly, i'm interested in approaches to questions like 'what does the recruiter or hiring manager do when they have to make a choice on which candidate to hire when many candidates are qualified for the same position?' This question will particularly approaches topics such as the heuristic of "representativeness", a useful but also faulty 'tool' that we employ when we need to make a 'judgment call' or use our 'intuition', when there is not enough data to make a rational choice and other situations of uncertainty. Work like this began almost 40 years ago so I'm going to have to hurry things up and look at more recent studies on this thing or the like.

_________________
You want the Truth? One may argue that there is no absolute Truth, but perhaps there is only context and perspective of truth.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hello  |  Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:20 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
I wonder if you've looked at military structure. In my experience, large multi-national corporations very often operate like the military. They have top-down decision making processes where specific individuals are given near full control of certain domains, divisions, and/or regions.

A bit simplistic, but these decisions try to minimize expense while maximizing profit, and those decisions are made based on what limited information is available, what politics are in place, and what seems most likely to get approved by the hierarchy above them (basically, a best guess that won't destroy their career, and hopefully will advance it).

Talent acquisition teams (or recruiters) and quite similar to sales people. They have a specific number of requisitions to fill with a specific type of person and they are tracked on how long it takes them to do so. Their bonus is based on their ability to fill reqs and put butts in seats (though, some forward looking companies are starting to tie recruiter pay to quality of the hire, itself measured based on new hire performance during the first six months). Usually, though, most recruiters only spend less than 10 seconds scanning resumes and applications and LinkedIn profiles before they decide to move on or reach out and make contact (it's probably more limbic system and gut reaction than cerebral cortex and hardened reason).

Then, once they make the first cut and contact with the candidate is made, as long as the person doesn't come across like a bumbling fool or total moron, they'll usually get passed along to the next interviewer (like the project team members, potential peers, or the hiring manager). In essence, recruiters get the leads and fill the pool, but others usually do the selection.

Not sure how relevant this is to your work, but it's a topic I know well. I work with VPs of HR across the worlds biggest companies talking about attracting and retaining talent everyday. It may a,so be useful to know that algorithms and analytics do a bunch of the work before an actual human being ever even sets eyes on the candidate.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Umaapow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hello  |  Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2015 5:12 am

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:57 am
Posts: 5

Offline
I have studied the theory that describe organizations in hierarchical and non-hierarchical spectrum. And you are correct, in hierarchical orgs. decisions are more centralized however decentralized with many other conditions. I do not want to make grave generalizations here right now.

I also endorse your views that there is much of algorithms and analytics involved in decisions like hiring, however, you raise the same question I am when you mentioned they have to make a "guess" or when finally, after the analyses and algorthyms have been employed, the hiring manager must come to a decision. What is this best guess? What is the hiring manager doing? Many variables are at work here and the unfolding of future events all contribute to this aspect of uncertainty. What makes the administrator a better decision maker under uncertainty that is different from the layman? Does the administrator or expert have a special power? -i would not like to think so. Does one have a specially developed skill? Then if it is the latter, which i am hopeful about, the skill can be taught and can be developed. We can have more people developing this skill and better citizens to society and the organizations they contribute to.

Rather than continue with my utopia dreams, the question I have been focused on in my paper is the concept that the decision maker the typical person is making decisions everyday despite having all the adequate evidence for a rational decision. We must keep in mind that we are not acting with complete rationality but instead intend to be rational, because the limitations of the individual only allow a bounded rationality to employ (Simon, 1948): i'm paraphrasing.

I guess what i'm trying to get here is, what are we doing when we're making a selection? When there is uncertainty and inadequate information to make a rational choice? What are the limitations of our judgement? And i'm trying to approach these questions in the context of organizations from the perspective of cognitive psychology.

_________________
You want the Truth? One may argue that there is no absolute Truth, but perhaps there is only context and perspective of truth.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hello  |  Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2015 8:24 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
All excellent questions. I wonder... Perhaps there are parallels between hiring decisions and dating decisions. Maybe the manager/recruiter is using the same mechanism and bio-machinery (if that's even a word) as the teenager or college student is using when deciding whether to initiate or remain in an existing romantic partnership. I ask because I bet there's TONS of research on that topic that you could leverage in your work in IO Psych looking at OrgDev and system / cultural dynamics.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Umaapow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hello  |  Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:15 am

Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 6:57 am
Posts: 5

Offline
my professor has raised this same topic that you just described.
the thing is I think you are accurate about the same or similar mechanisms being used. Its where -dare i say it- rationality starts to deteriorate and non-rational strategies start being employed (i.e. representativeness, fundemental attribution error, availibility; Kahneman & Tvsersky).
Actually, There is a thread where you posted an image of some heuristics and more that i just listed. I will actually have to look for that thread again lol. I think it was in the cognitive science or cognitive psychology topic.

_________________
You want the Truth? One may argue that there is no absolute Truth, but perhaps there is only context and perspective of truth.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hello  |  Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:48 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Another useful way to frame this issue may be to recall that rationality can be found in many different contexts. Within the same transaction or event there will be some parts that are objectively quite rational and other parts that are very much not. I think it's more of a spectrum than a binary state.

At it's heart, what I'm suggesting here is that the recruiter is almost certainly acting rationally even when making poor hiring choices. It's just that they're prioritizing different metrics than you are. For example, they are probably rationally protecting their career, rationally trying to increase their paycheck, rationally attempting to improve their relationship with their boss and look good relative to peers, rationally trying to increase their free time and ability not to work 100 hour weeks...

My guess here is that they are still making very rational and oftentimes complex decisions, even if they're perhaps not selecting the best suited, highest potential, hardest working candidate for a specific position or job. Perhaps time to fill and any warm body / any port in the storm is more important to their mental state and overall well-being and future potential at their company than any minor benefit or bounce they receive by pairing an individual hiring manager or organization with a perfect candidate. It's sort of a Maslow's hierarchy concept... They have baser needs that must be satisfied before they worry about self-actualizing with perfect employee placements on every requisition.

If that's the case, then I'd argue it's still very much a rational choice they're making, just for different reasons. They used their reason and rationality to achieve other priorities, a perfectly human thing to do, but that also means that perhaps we need to be asking a different question, such as... What are the relevant metrics and influencers / behavioral levers we can use to ensure recruiters are appropriately prioritizing ideal candidate placements over any baser desires or satisfaction of immediate personal needs? How do we help the recruiter place the well-being of the company over the well-being of themselves, and could fixing this apparent dissonance be as simple as rewarding the recruiter in ways that align better with the needs of the company? Should we stop giving bonuses based on time to fill and total reqs closed and instead give bonuses based on how well the employees each recruiter selects ultimately perform in their first six months on the job, for example? ... lower bonus for new employees that quickly leave or quit... lower bonuses for employees that perform poorly / higher bonuses for employees that add value more quickly, etc...


I'm just tossing out ideas here. Apologies if it's not terribly relevant to your core inquiry, but I do find it to be a fascinating subject and hope some of these tangents prove useful. Cheers.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hello  |  Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:56 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5521
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Saw this on my LinkedIn feed today. Was reminded of this thread.


THE STORY OF A RECRUITER

A recruiter works hard and sends 50 profiles to the company. 10 candidates get shortlisted. 4 candidates actually show up and attend the interview. 2 candidates attend all 4 rounds. 1 candidate is offered the job. Finally he rejects the offer.

End of story.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Robittybob1
Post  Post subject: Re: Hello  |  Posted: Fri May 27, 2016 12:49 am

Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 4:11 pm
Posts: 183

Offline
iNow wrote:
Saw this on my LinkedIn feed today. Was reminded of this thread.


THE STORY OF A RECRUITER

A recruiter works hard and sends 50 profiles to the company. 10 candidates get shortlisted. 4 candidates actually show up and attend the interview. 2 candidates attend all 4 rounds. 1 candidate is offered the job. Finally he rejects the offer.

End of story.

What do you find most frustrating?


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   


Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy