Flat Panel Discussion

The Flat Panel case demonstrates how systematic biases can be exacerbated by time pressure and high stress situations. Even if the personnel review committee had taken a more measured and data driven approach, there were fundamental flaws in the available performance data that muddled objective decision making and caused fallout among employees and managers who did not perceive a clear rationale.

Taylor let biases creep in from the get go of his decision making process. Upon learning that he was to be in charge of personnel reductions, he quickly made gut decisions and decided who would support them - forming a coalition that excluded all dissenting voices. Taylor had a mental list of people to cut and pressure to conform ran high as Taylor showed his cards early by telling all decision makers that “I made a decision about some candidates before the meeting but I want your own opinions now”. His subordinates were forced to conform, as their supervisor was giving a clear opinion and the lack of any private data collected in advance allowed them to comply in order to please. Since all jobs were on the line, conforming to the person who likely has this firing power in the future is a matter of self preservation.  

While a conformity bias undercut the diversity of opinions from the review committee, confirmation bias precluded objectivity. There were two main sources of data, EES and Performance Assessments, but that data were only used to support decisions that were effectively already made. No systematic data approach was taken; instead it was used to confirm the list Taylor had in his head. There was also an inherent recency bias that the most readily information was recalled. If a recent negative impression or review stands out in one’s mind,  it was recalled to support layoff decision.

The many biases of the committee made the personnel reductions difficult enough, but underlying distortion came from the available data gathered on employees.  While the Performance Assessment was used across the vast majority of the company, it was flawed in its structure and methodology. How can you base an objective decision on data that was collected from a committee of one? If Nathan Kim provides career counseling first and is told personal information from employees, it would color his assessment. The company had a very paternalistic and group oriented culture, any dissent from that would likely leave a negative taste in Kim’s mouth and subconsciously lead him to negatively review those team members. Kim also had the final and only say in the assessment - it seems that his own personal biases were allowed too much reign in determining a key performance that the team uses. While the EES was not used extensively it still likely colored the committees opinions. The purpose of both tools was to facilitate employee career development, not to compare performance of one employee to another. However, these ratings could be easily misinterpreted and support erroneous conclusions about “book value”.