What the Pollster's Mistakes Can Teach Us About Predicting Work Behavior
Marla Gottschalk, Ph.D.
LinkedIn Top Voice | I/O Psychology Practitioner | Author of The Core Files Newsletter | Helping organizations tell their story & grow ??
I often wonder if I’m getting it right. As a psychologist, this is my responsibility when evaluating the health of an organization. Are we posing the right questions? Are the responses representative of the population? Are we obtaining a clear picture of what is really happening within an organization? Based upon the available data, will valuable employees remain engaged? Will they walk away?
What am I missing — and what has been held back?
Each time I examine diagnostic results, I obsess over these questions.
When we consider how wrong the vast majority of pollsters were in predicting the outcome of the Presidential election, I quake in my boots. The Atlantic, skillfully takes us through why things went woefully wrong — and poses an unnerving question we must all contemplate when making data-based predictions concerning human behavior:
Did we all believe Clinton would win because of bad data, or did we ignore bad data because we believed Clinton would win?
Yes, confirmation bias may have played a role here. When we become too sure of any future outcome, we essentially stop considering the other potential end points. We lose perspective and become myopic — and that can spell danger for decision formation.
We must also consider technique. One polling organization, the USC Dornslife/LA Times Election Poll seemed to have the ability to capture what was really happening. Interestingly, their methods were a departure from other polls, with a stable panel of 3200 from which daily polls were pulled. Moreover, they considered the likelihood of an individual actually voting. So, in essence, the poll attempted to measure both sentiment and intent to behave in a certain way (voting). This is how they explain it:
…we calculate a ratio of a person’s likelihood of voting for a specific candidate to his or her estimated chance of voting.
So, let’s jump to the business of predicting how employees feel and behave in the workplace. What we can learn from the inability of the polls (and the candidates) to predict voting behavior?
- Bias abounds. There I've said it. As human beings we are indeed flawed as decision-makers and we often see what we want to see. If you think your organization, or team, or employee is in a good place — do not think for even a moment that this comes with a long-term, “forever” guarantee. Try to build “bias” protection into your decision-making processes.
- Explore the small shifts. I’ve learned that where there is smoke there is fire. If your organization is growing rapidly or is undergoing a significant change effort, pay particular attention to trending sentiments. You may not want to acknowledge the spark, but that spark could still ignite a firestorm.
- Consider who might be silent, but resolute. There are always individuals who have formed strong opinions and have already planned their future steps (and they do not feel the need to share their opinion or plans). This could be your star employee, who has observed over time that their path with you is “less than”.
- Time can erode your core base. Consider how time and events might impact your core. Elements such as stress and burnout can influence just as many departures as a lack of engagement. Consider how history might affect even your most dependable people. (Consider the resulting impact of Wisconsin. Or Michigan, for that matter.)
Have you ever been dead wrong when predicting behavior? Share your observations here.
Dr. Marla Gottschalk is an Industrial & Organizational Psychologist. She is the Director of Organizational Development at Allied Talent. A charter member of the LinkedIn Influencer Program, her posts on workplace topics have appeared at The Huffington Post, US News & World Report and The World Economic Forum
Business Intelligence | Innovation Management | Finance & Analytics | Power BI | ORACLE EBS | PMP | CPMAI | #StandwithUkraine ????
6 年Love it! “When we become too sure of any future outcome, we essentially stop considering the other potential end points”
#H2H (happy to help) - Looking for good conversations with interesting people. Love learning new things - don't mind being challenged!
8 年In regards to the quiet ones who don't let on that they are unhappy and unlikely to stay much longer - how can you root that out and address it and save that person? Other than that question, I really like your points about confirmation bias. Good points!
HR & Business Consultant | Helping SMEs Build Scalable HR Systems
8 年Good points Dr. Marla Gottschalk. Often, the management fails to gauge the emotions which plays a strong role in such plays. An employee may look calm outside but there may be a strong undercurrent that shows in the result
CTO, Board Member, Advisor
8 年Great article, Marla ! thank you for sharing
T & D Construction - Florida
8 年Data will never tell the true story and very often employees resent being questioned. In my humble opinion, most employees believe upper management should know what's going on, that's upper management's job responsibility. Survey's are rarely answered truthfully or enthusiastically. Survey's and data will tell a true story if enough people within the group being surveyed feel enough discomfort. As an example, I worked for an organization where almost all employees were dissatisfied and where we had 4 fatalities over a 4 year period. A well renowned Behavior Consulting Group was brought in and middle and lower management saw an extreme need for change. The employees were convinced by middle and lower management to participate in the survey. The results were as expected. Our organization rated in the lowest 5% for Safety Culture of all organizations this consultant ever started to work with.