Standard processes, logical systems and easy decision-making. This is what Human Resources (HR) at organizations is usually about, but not for the people working there. So how can we shape better practices for them? Behavioral Science might have an answer.

Behavioral Science is a serendipitous friend of HR, the kind of encounter that lands on a prepared mind and, instead of passing through, sticks. As a friend, it complements and does not compete. It is pragmatic and practice-based and not just theoretical. It did not arrive as an authority but through a crack you didn’t know was open. And once it arrives, it does not just add to what you know, it changes what you are willing to question instead.

That last quality is what makes it most useful here. Hence, the purpose of this article is not to change people but to challenge the assumption that makes us believe a widely accepted perspective is the reality. Reframe, refocus, readjust the situation or problem statement until you arrive at an unexpected outcome. A good place to begin is with the everyday processes that organizations depend on. Because these processes are familiar and trusted, they’re often taken for granted and seldom questioned.

As an organization grows and scales, leadership has less control over how the work is done. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to introduce consistent and standardized processes and systems. Such standardization makes decision-making more manageable. There is comfort in knowing that the checklist has been followed, that it has passed through multiple layers of review, and requires minimal leadership time. 

The other reason why processes exist is because we want to be consistent so that we are perceived to be fair. 

Processes and systems don’t fail because they are unnecessary, they fail because they are built for logic and not perception.

Let's first understand why logic does not work for us. 

Firstly, it is assumed that the logic used to design these systems will permeate in its true form and essence to all people and be uniformly understood. However, people systematically deviate from “true logic” due to biases studied by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (1974), for instance:

  • Confirmation bias - People interpret the system in ways that fit their prior beliefs.  For example, once you consider buying a car, you start noticing it more —not because it appears more, but because your attention is biased towards it.
  • Framing effect - The same logic is understood differently depending on how it’s presented. For example, it is like saying, ‘Attrition is at 20%’ vs ‘Retention is at 80%’: mathematically it means the same but stating retention percentage will lead you to focus on those who stay.

Another example: a ride at the Disney Park required children to meet a minimum age. Disney did something special here. A kid, unaware of this rule, waited in line with their parents. Just as their turn arrived, they were informed that the child didn’t meet the requirement. The disappointment was immediate. But what happened next changed everything. The staff offered the child an express ticket for the same ride–one that could be used once they met the age requirement. Even better, it would allow them to skip the queue next time. In that moment, disappointment turned into excitement. More importantly, it created a reason to return; a win-win outcome. The Disney employee didn’t change the policy; they changed the framing. And in doing so, they turned a negative experience into a lasting positive impression.

In a nutshell, uniform comprehension is highly unlikely.

Secondly, in an organization, such processes and checklists are seldom dynamic. They reflect the questions most frequently asked by the approving leader, and of the attempt to appear smart by ensuring people always have answers to those questions. Furthermore, people follow established processes and checklists to signal belonging; to show they are 'one of us'. In doing so, the system rewards stability over experimentation.

Thirdly, the standardized processes, routines, and informal norms reinforces predictability and what is called ‘Structural inertia’, formalized by Michael T. Hannan and John Freeman (1984). This is a classic example of how the ‘Prospect Theory’ becomes a reality and reminds me of the character of John Keating (played by Robin Williams) from the movie “Dead Poets Society”. John urges students at a rigid boarding school to think freely and chase their passions. The school and parents resist, not because change is bad, but because losing stability feels far more threatening than any gain from self-expression. One student, caught in that tension, ends tragically. John gets blamed and pushed out. The institution carries on, unchanged, because when people are wired to avoid loss, the familiar always wins, no matter the cost.

Have we been solving the wrong issues all along? 

The opposite of logic is not illogical. 

Now let's challenge assumptions and reframe what we actually hear about HR processes, and what we could do differently.

Here are some practical examples:

  1. When people say: We want the performance evaluation process to be transparent and fair.
    We hear: We need to make it less subjective.
    What usually gets fixed: The process itself is made more structured, more measurable (ratings/categories), and more consistent.
    What if we ask: What does a person actually experience during a performance review? Not a process, feeling. They feel judged, respected or dismissed. Optimizing the wrong step creates the illusion of progress—you get better at measuring and refining what’s visible, while the real constraint stays exactly where it is.  Can we fix traffic problems by making cars faster, more powerful, and more efficient? Making performance evaluations more objective and robust is exactly that–we're building faster cars, while the traffic problem remains untouched.
  2. When people say: It is not that managers do not want to provide performance feedback; they may not know how to lead such a conversation.
    We hear: Managers need to be taught ‘how’ to give feedback.
    What usually gets fixed: The process again. The process of giving feedback is fixed, which includes training people on how to be an effective people manager.
    What if we ask: Why is performance feedback given by memory after six months? Shift focus to ‘when’ feedback should be given. We give rating/feedback after every cab ride and the same principle can be applied here—immediate feedback leads to behavioral change. 
  3. When people say: We do not have time to provide detailed feedback.
    We hear: We need to make it simple and efficient.
    What usually gets fixed: The process. Simplify and shorten the feedback form using multi-choice dropdowns to make it more time efficient.
    What if we ask: Can you imagine a situation where doctors are given a target for the number of patients they should see in a day? Isn’t this what we call goal substitution—where fast throughput is prioritized over care? In such a situation, you don’t get better performance, you get better ‘hitting the target’. Therefore, the real question is not ‘how’ we optimize, but ‘where’ we are optimizing.
  4. When people say: We want to be heard and to see our feedback in action.
    We hear: We measure engagement through employee surveys.
    What usually gets fixed: The process. Create an employee survey which attempts to measure feelings, mood, sense of belonging, experience on a rating scale.
    What if we ask: Is there a metric that truly reflects how we perceive, feel, and assign value? Think about cult movies. They flopped at release but built their status slowly, across generations and geographies. The Shawshank Redemption was one. Do surveys inadvertently focus our attention on what is immediately measurable, causing us to miss what becomes meaningful only over time?
  5. What people say: The information is overwhelming. The time to make sense of it? Not so much.
    We hear: Reduce the frequency of communication (including written) and make them succinct.
    What usually gets fixed: The process–tracking and controlling the information flow.
    What if we ask: What if, instead of managing the frequency and flow of communication, we communicated value? Indian Railways did exactly this. It was discovered they were losing substantial revenue because of widespread ticketless travel. Instead of relying solely on increasing fines and enforcement, they reframed the behavior itself by turning a ticket into a chance to win. By offering participants the chance to win a prize through a lucky draw, they introduced an element of surprise and possibility, transforming compliance from something people avoided into something they actively chose.
In essence, it makes perfect sense to design systems and processes to drive consistency. This is because consistency is seen as being fair. Except that humans are not consistent, and fairness is felt and seen.

The more processes we follow, the less human we tend to feel.  Therefore, HR should stop focusing on making the processes more rational and start articulating the value and meaning behind them.

Reference

  1. Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.
  2. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.