Advancing a theoretical framework for exploring heuristics and biases within HR decision-making contexts

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to provide an elucidative and explanatory overview of decision-making theory that human resource management and development (HR) researchers and practitioners can use to explore the impact of heuristics and biases on organizational decisions, particularly within HR contexts. Design/methodology/approach This paper draws upon three theoretical resources anchored in decision-making research: the theory of bounded rationality, the heuristics and biases program, and cognitive-experiential self-theory (CEST). A selective narrative review approach was adopted to identify, translate, and contextualize research findings that provide immense applicability, connection, and significance to the field and study of HR. Findings The authors extract key insights from the theoretical resources surveyed and illustrate the linkages between HR and decision-making research, presenting a theoretical framework to guide future research endeavors. Practical implications Decades of decision-making research have been distilled into a digestible and accessible framework that offers both theoretical and practical implications. Originality/value Heuristics are mental shortcuts that facilitate quick decisions by simplifying complexity and reducing effort needed to solve problems. Heuristic strategies can yield favorable outcomes, especially amid time and information constraints. However, heuristics can also introduce systematic judgment errors known as biases. Biases are pervasive within organizational settings and can lead to disastrous decisions. This paper provides HR scholars and professionals with a balanced, nuanced, and integrative framework to better understand heuristics and biases and explore their organizational impact. To that end, a forward-looking and direction-setting research agenda is presented.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.