IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jobhdp/v160y2020icp149-167.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Newman, David T.
  • Fast, Nathanael J.
  • Harmon, Derek J.

Abstract

The perceived fairness of decision-making procedures is a key concern for organizations, particularly when evaluating employees and determining personnel outcomes. Algorithms have created opportunities for increasing fairness by overcoming biases commonly displayed by human decision makers. However, while HR algorithms may remove human bias in decision making, we argue that those being evaluated may perceive the process as reductionistic, leading them to think that certain qualitative information or contextualization is not being taken into account. We argue that this can undermine their beliefs about the procedural fairness of using HR algorithms to evaluate performance by promoting the assumption that decisions made by algorithms are based on less accurate information than identical decisions made by humans. Results from four laboratory experiments (N = 798) and a large-scale randomized experiment in an organizational setting (N = 1654) confirm this hypothesis. Theoretical and practical implications for organizations using algorithms and data analytics are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Newman, David T. & Fast, Nathanael J. & Harmon, Derek J., 2020. "When eliminating bias isn’t fair: Algorithmic reductionism and procedural justice in human resource decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 149-167.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:160:y:2020:i:c:p:149-167
    DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749597818303595
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.03.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Highhouse, Scott, 2008. "Stubborn Reliance on Intuition and Subjectivity in Employee Selection," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 333-342, September.
    2. Sinan Aral & Erik Brynjolfsson & Lynn Wu, 2012. "Three-Way Complementarities: Performance Pay, Human Resource Analytics, and Information Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(5), pages 913-931, May.
    3. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    4. Arkes, Hal R. & Dawes, Robyn M. & Christensen, Caryn, 1986. "Factors influencing the use of a decision rule in a probabilistic task," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 93-110, February.
    5. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:512-520 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Wiesenfeld, Batia M. & Brockner, Joel & Thibault, Valerie, 2000. "Procedural Fairness, Managers' Self-Esteem, and Managerial Behaviors Following a Layoff," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 1-32, September.
    7. Fan Zhang, 2019. "In the Dark," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 30923.
    8. Berkeley J. Dietvorst & Joseph P. Simmons & Cade Massey, 2018. "Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1155-1170, March.
    9. Shapiro, Debra L. & Buttner, E. Holly & Barry, Bruce, 1994. "Explanations: What Factors Enhance Their Perceived Adequacy?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 346-368, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Siliang Tong & Nan Jia & Xueming Luo & Zheng Fang, 2021. "The Janus face of artificial intelligence feedback: Deployment versus disclosure effects on employee performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(9), pages 1600-1631, September.
    2. Zhang, Lixuan & Yencha, Christopher, 2022. "Examining perceptions towards hiring algorithms," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    3. Peng, Leiqing & Luo, Mengting & Guo, Yulang, 2023. "Deposit AI as the “invisible hand†to make the resale easier: A moderated mediation model," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    4. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. Won, Jongho & Lee, Daeho & Lee, Junmin, 2023. "Understanding experiences of food-delivery-platform workers under algorithmic management using topic modeling," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    6. Anicich, Eric M., 2022. "Flexing and floundering in the on-demand economy: Narrative identity construction under algorithmic management," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Volkmar, Gioia & Fischer, Peter M. & Reinecke, Sven, 2022. "Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Exploring drivers, barriers, and future developments in marketing management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 599-614.
    8. Fumagalli, Elena & Rezaei, Sarah & Salomons, Anna, 2022. "OK computer: Worker perceptions of algorithmic recruitment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    9. Raveendhran, Roshni & Fast, Nathanael J., 2021. "Humans judge, algorithms nudge: The psychology of behavior tracking acceptance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 11-26.
    10. Lees, Jeffrey Martin, 2022. "Algorithms and Professionals May Disagree On Companies’ Reputations," OSF Preprints amwy4, Center for Open Science.
    11. Wang, Weisha & Wang, Yichuan & Chen, Long & Ma, Rui & Zhang, Minhao, 2024. "Justice at the Forefront: Cultivating felt accountability towards Artificial Intelligence among healthcare professionals," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 347(C).
    12. Wang, Lijun & Zhou, Yu & Sanders, Karin & Marler, Janet H. & Zou, Yunqing, 2024. "Determinants of effective HR analytics Implementation: An In-Depth review and a dynamic framework for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    13. Benedict G. C. Dellaert & Suzanne B. Shu & Theo A. Arentze & Tom Baker & Kristin Diehl & Bas Donkers & Nathanael J. Fast & Gerald Häubl & Heidi Johnson & Uma R. Karmarkar & Harmen Oppewal & Bernd H. S, 2020. "Consumer decisions with artificially intelligent voice assistants," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 335-347, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Markus Jung & Mischa Seiter, 2021. "Towards a better understanding on mitigating algorithm aversion in forecasting: an experimental study," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 495-516, December.
    2. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Benedikt Berger & Martin Adam & Alexander Rühr & Alexander Benlian, 2021. "Watch Me Improve—Algorithm Aversion and Demonstrating the Ability to Learn," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(1), pages 55-68, February.
    4. Zulia Gubaydullina & Jan René Judek & Marco Lorenz & Markus Spiwoks, 2022. "Comparing Different Kinds of Influence on an Algorithm in Its Forecasting Process and Their Impact on Algorithm Aversion," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 2(4), pages 1-23, October.
    5. Bryce McLaughlin & Jann Spiess, 2022. "Algorithmic Assistance with Recommendation-Dependent Preferences," Papers 2208.07626, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2024.
    6. Ekaterina Jussupow & Kai Spohrer & Armin Heinzl & Joshua Gawlitza, 2021. "Augmenting Medical Diagnosis Decisions? An Investigation into Physicians’ Decision-Making Process with Artificial Intelligence," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 713-735, September.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:449-451 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Kevin Bauer & Andrej Gill, 2024. "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: Algorithmic Assessments, Transparency, and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 226-248, March.
    9. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Mitra, Ranjan Kumar, 2023. "What drives managers towards algorithm aversion and how to overcome it? Mitigating the impact of innovation resistance through technology readiness," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    10. Yael Karlinsky-Shichor & Oded Netzer, 2024. "Automating the B2B Salesperson Pricing Decisions: A Human-Machine Hybrid Approach," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 138-157, January.
    11. Hemesath, Sebastian & Tepe, Markus, 2023. "Framing the approval to test self-driving cars on public roads. The effect of safety and competitiveness on citizens' agreement," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    12. Said Kaawach & Oskar Kowalewski & Oleksandr Talavera, 2023. "Automatic vs Manual Investing: Role of Past Performance," Discussion Papers 23-04, Department of Economics, University of Birmingham.
    13. Awtrey, Eli & Thornley, Nico & Dannals, Jennifer E. & Barnes, Christopher M. & Uhlmann, Eric Luis, 2021. "Distribution neglect in performance evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 213-227.
    14. Mallory Avery & Andreas Leibbrandt & Joseph Vecci, 2023. "Does Artificial Intelligence Help or Hurt Gender Diversity? Evidence from Two Field Experiments on Recruitment in Tech," Monash Economics Working Papers 2023-09, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    15. Martin Adam & Konstantin Roethke & Alexander Benlian, 2023. "Human vs. Automated Sales Agents: How and Why Customer Responses Shift Across Sales Stages," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 1148-1168, September.
    16. Martin Bäckström & Fredrik Björklund, 2017. "Increasing systematicity leads to better selection decisions: Evidence from a computer paradigm for evaluating selection tools," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-15, May.
    17. Wang, Cuicui & Li, Yiyang & Fu, Weizhong & Jin, Jia, 2023. "Whether to trust chatbots: Applying the event-related approach to understand consumers’ emotional experiences in interactions with chatbots in e-commerce," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    18. Marie-Pierre Dargnies & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Dorothea Kübler, 2022. "Aversion to Hiring Algorithms: Transparency, Gender Profiling, and Self-Confidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9968, CESifo.
    19. Ivanov, Dmitry, 2023. "Intelligent digital twin (iDT) for supply chain stress-testing, resilience, and viability," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    20. Kevin Bauer & Moritz von Zahn & Oliver Hinz, 2023. "Expl(AI)ned: The Impact of Explainable Artificial Intelligence on Users’ Information Processing," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1582-1602, December.
    21. Petropoulos, Fotios & Apiletti, Daniele & Assimakopoulos, Vassilios & Babai, Mohamed Zied & Barrow, Devon K. & Ben Taieb, Souhaib & Bergmeir, Christoph & Bessa, Ricardo J. & Bijak, Jakub & Boylan, Joh, 2022. "Forecasting: theory and practice," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 705-871.
      • Fotios Petropoulos & Daniele Apiletti & Vassilios Assimakopoulos & Mohamed Zied Babai & Devon K. Barrow & Souhaib Ben Taieb & Christoph Bergmeir & Ricardo J. Bessa & Jakub Bijak & John E. Boylan & Jet, 2020. "Forecasting: theory and practice," Papers 2012.03854, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jobhdp:v:160:y:2020:i:c:p:149-167. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.