HRreview 20 Years
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Subscribe for weekday HR news, opinion and advice.
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

Reducing organisational bias: study introduces new framework

-

A new study co-authored by the London School of Economics (LSE), King’s College London and Bayes Business School has introduced a framework to help organisations mitigate cognitive biases in decision-making.

The research, published in the Journal of Management, was led by Dr Barbara Fasolo of LSE’s Department of Management, alongside Professor Irene Scopelliti and Dr Claire Heard. It integrates findings from 100 experimental studies to identify two key approaches to bias mitigation.

The framework categorises strategies into two main types: debiasing, which directly engages with decision-makers to help them recognise and counter biases, and choice architecture, which modifies the decision-making environment to influence choices. Each approach is suited to different organisational contexts and decision-making scenarios.

Debiasing interventions include training programmes that educate employees about cognitive biases, warnings that highlight potential biases in specific situations, and feedback mechanisms that allow individuals to learn from past decisions. These methods aim to improve decision-making skills by fostering awareness and critical evaluation.

HRreview Logo

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

Choice architecture, on the other hand, seeks to shape decisions by altering how options are presented. This can include restructuring the way information is displayed, adjusting default settings, or reframing alternatives. Instead of changing the way people think, this method focuses on influencing behaviour through environmental modifications.

Matching Bias Mitigation Strategies to Organisational Needs

The research identifies some key factors that determine when each approach is most effective. One consideration is the stage of the decision-making process. Debiasing is more effective in the early stages, when organisations are still gathering information and identifying alternatives. Training and warnings at this point can help employees recognise biases before decisions are made. In contrast, choice architecture is more suitable for later stages, when alternatives have already been evaluated and a decision is about to be finalised.

The level of uncertainty and complexity in a decision also influences the choice of strategy. In unpredictable environments with complex, unstructured decisions, debiasing interventions help develop transferable skills that can be applied across different situations. Choice architecture, however, works best in routine and structured environments, where decision-makers can rely on clearly defined optimal choices.

Organisational trust plays a role in determining the effectiveness of choice architecture interventions. Employees must trust that those designing decision structures have their best interests in mind. In contrast, debiasing interventions, which rely on transparency and active participation, can build trust by openly communicating objectives and expected outcomes.

Applying Bias Mitigation in Different Workplaces

Dr Barbara Fasolo said, “Cognitive biases can severely impact organisational performance, from excessive market entry to discrimination in hiring and suboptimal capital allocations. While extensive research shows how biases affect organisations, there is less focus on how to effectively reduce them.”

The framework considers factors such as goal alignment, employee turnover, and cognitive resources. Organisations with well-defined and shared evaluation criteria benefit more from choice architecture, while those with diverse goals may find debiasing more suitable. High-turnover workplaces may prefer choice architecture, as it focuses on adjusting the environment rather than relying on individual learning.

In contrast, organisations with stable workforces can gain long-term benefits from debiasing, as employees develop skills that improve decision-making over time.

Dr Fasolo added, “We draw a clear distinction between two distinct approaches to bias mitigation, based on how they work and how they have been tested experimentally. The debiasing approach equips people with tools to recognise and counter biases themselves, while choice architecture modifies the decision environment to make better choices more intuitive.

“Understanding when to use each approach – or combine them – is crucial for organisational success.”

Alessandra Pacelli is a journalist and author contributing to HRreview, an HR news and opinion publication, where she covers topics including labour market trends, employment costs, and workplace issues. She is a journalism graduate and self-described lifelong dog lover who has also written for Dogs Today magazine since 2014.

Latest news

Felicia Williams: Why ‘shadow work’ is quietly breaking your people strategy

Employees are losing seven hours a week to tasks that fall outside their core job description. For HR leaders, that’s the kind of stat that keeps you up at night.

Redundancies rise as 327,000 job losses forecast for 2026

UK job losses are set to rise again as redundancy warnings hit post-pandemic highs, with employers cutting roles amid rising costs and economic pressure.

Rise of ‘sickfluencers’ and AI advice sparks concern over attitudes to work

Online influencers and AI tools are shaping how people approach illness and employment, heaping pressure on employers.

‘Silent killer’ dust linked to 500 construction deaths a year as 600,000 workers face exposure

Hundreds of UK construction workers die each year from silica dust exposure as a new campaign calls for stronger workplace protections.
- Advertisement -

Leaders ‘overestimate’ how much workers use AI

Firms may be misreading workforce readiness for artificial intelligence, as frontline staff report far lower day-to-day adoption than executives expect.

Cost-of-living pressures ‘keep unhappy workers in their jobs’

Many say economic pressures are forcing them to remain in jobs they would otherwise leave, as pay and financial stability dominate career decisions.

Must read

Chris Jay: Creating a culture where disability isn’t a secret

How does workplace culture impact disability disclosure? Managing Director...

Office Drama: When does HR need to step in?

The reality is that disagreements that arise in the workplace are often between highly competent individuals and the consequences can have a far reaching impact on the business as well as the mental health of those involved.
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you