Summary Notes
Rising above Cognitive Errors: Improving Searches, Evaluations, and Decision Making
By JoAnn Moody, PhD, JD
I.
Cognitive Shortcuts and Errors: These are not errors made by ‘bad guys,’ but traits we may tend to fall back on if we are
not motivated to avoid them.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Negative Stereotypes – Stereotypes are broad generalizations and assumptions. So negative stereotypes are negative
presumptions, such as incompetence in one area or another, or presuming a lack of character or trustworthiness. A
number of women and minority faculty stated that they were “never given the benefit of the doubt, were always on
probation, or had to prove themselves twice to be seen as accomplished.”
Positive Stereotypes – A halo effect where members are presumed to be competent…they receive the ‘benefit of the
doubt’ and success is assumed.
Raising the bar - Relates to the negative stereotypes and generally occurs during the evaluation process, because
committee members believe the candidate of a ‘group’ is thought to be incompetent and suspect. The committee asks
for more writing samples, just to be sure; or making assumptions based solely on a review of the candidate’s graduate
schools.
Elitism – Wanting to feel superior through certain attributes such as degree campuses, accents, background, dress,
social class. This can be seen through a positive or negative filter.
First Impressions – Drawing conclusions quickly based on personal likes and dislikes…Important to stop ourselves from
‘judging a book by the cover.’
The Longing to Clone – Devaluing someone who is not like most of ‘us’ or wanting to find someone who is just like an
admired and respected colleague. The committee could spend time focusing on what really made this colleague great,
and focus on those talents. This can detract from our diversity efforts.
Good Fit/Bad Fit – Important to focus on the needs of the department and students vs. will I feel comfortable and
culturally at ease with this individual? The struggle to stay mono-culture or ‘more like me.’
Provincialism – Similar to cloning, it is undervaluing someone outside your province, circle, or clan. For example,
trusting only reference letters from people you know.
Extraneous Myths and Assumptions – Undermining the careful and thoughtful collection and analysis of information
(e.g., ‘we can’t get that person to come here,’ psychoanalyzing the candidate).
Wishful Thinking – ‘Rhetoric not Evidence’ – holding to a notion, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary,
can cloud one’s cognitive processes, such as “we should be proud that all of our grant winners are from Yale and
Harvard…they are the best, right?”
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy – Some might call it channeling, where we structure our interaction with someone so we can
receive information congruent with our assumptions. (e.g., preparing one candidate with more facts about the campus
and department than others)
Seizing a Pretext – Hiding one’s real concern or agenda, for example excessive weight to something trivial or focus on a
few negatives instead of looking at the overall performance.
Character over Content – Or attribution errors, such as not considering the particular context or extenuating
circumstances – was it social, late in the day, outside of the professional arena? For example, a candidate limits
discussion on their research at dinner. Is this perceived as dismissive or maybe they thought it would be inappropriate
to discuss at dinner since it was part of their presentation the following day.
Premature Ranking/Digging In – Rush to give numerical preferences. They don’t want to waste time discussing the
‘whole’ candidate by comparing and contrasting the candidates. Ranking gives you a number; therefore it must be
objective, right? This closes minds to new evidence.
Momentum of the Group – It is difficult to resist when the majority seems to be heading in one way without a full
hearing or discussion of other considerations.
II.
Organizational Dysfunctions: These situations exacerbate the cognitive errors.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
III.
Overloading and Rushing – Impacts preparation and execution of search; therefore, becoming more vulnerable to
cognitive errors that foster bad habits. This includes limited availability of staff support and not spending thoughtful
time in committee composition, including the diversity of the committee…beyond gender and ethnicity.
No Coaching or Practice – Make the assumption that everyone can do a search. Those giving the ‘Charge’ should
ensure that the committee engages in a thorough and thoughtful review of the material and to discuss the cognitive
errors and what to avoid, otherwise they default to what they have done before.
No Ground Rules – Important to have time to talk with Chair, Dean, etc., on needs, expectations, and opportunities.
What are the selection criteria, preferred versus required? What discretion does the committee have?
Absence of Reminders and Monitoring – Reminders of common errors. Diversity Champions, as well as everyone on
the search, reflecting on possible cognitive errors that may be taking place throughout the search process. Using the
EEO Report, available from the Affirmative Action Officer, before beginning the initial screening and emphasizing the
importance of searching not just screening.
No One Accountable – No updates or disclosures required. It is important for the Search Chair to have ongoing checkins with the Chair/Dean/Hiring Authority. This allows for disclosure and transparencies of search processes.
Lack of Debriefing and Systematic Improvement – Limits ability to identify best practices, lessons learned, and past
experiences. Generally, committees have to start from scratch over and over again.
Rise Above Cognitive Errors and Remedy Dysfunctional Practices
1.
Constant Self-Correction – Devote real concentration to the task and support from department chairs and high-level
administrators.
2. Coaching, Preparation, Practice, and Reminders – Review material provided by Office of Diversity and Inclusiveness
and Human Resources.
3. Ground Rules and Preparation for the Evaluation Process - Spend time in the initial meeting discussing problems that
occurred in the past, and establish ground rules to prevent these problems from reoccurring. Have the
Chair/Dean/Appointing Authority give a focused ‘Charge,’ including:
a. Strengths and weaknesses of the department and its future needs.
b. Programmatic needs, including the educational benefits of diversity in the applicant pool and new hire.
c. Pro-active outreach and ‘head hunting’ role of the committee.
d. How quality control and confidentiality will be guaranteed.
e. How tasks will be divided to keep committee on task and insisting that evidence rather than opinion be used as
the evaluation and assessment process begins.
f. How phone and face-to-face interviews will be conducted.
g. Updating stages of the process in CU Careers.
4. Diverse Committee – Diversity Champion and all members being the ‘devil’s advocate.’
5. Use of a Matrix – This can be used to bring the committee back to the skills, abilities, and qualifications needed. Assists
in bringing the committee back to the ‘evidence’ component.
6. Slow down evaluations.
7. Incorporate Accountability into the Evaluation Processes – This supports transparency in the search process.
8. Avoid Rushing to Numerical Ratings – This can be a shortcut…summarize strengths, weaknesses, potential. This
strengthens an evidenced based decision.
9. Review EEO data with the Affirmative Action Officer - Include women, minorities, veterans and individuals with
disabilities in the pool of finalists, whenever possible.
10. Courage and Leadership – All committee members insist on evidence based decisions.
11. Consistent attention to improvements and debriefing.