The analysis evaluates evidence-based practices, analysis tools, critical thinking principles, decision-making processes, and ethical perspectives in organisational contexts. It also examines financial and non-financial performance measures and methods to demonstrate the value of people practices. Additionally, it presents and interprets departmental performance data and employee survey results.

Introduction

The analysis provides a comprehensive evaluation of various aspects related to organisational practices and decision-making. It begins by discussing the concept of evidence-based practice (EBP) and its pros and cons in people’s practices. The analysis then delves into a range of analysis tools and methods, such as PESTLE analysis and survey methodology, highlighting their advantages and limitations.

Section One

1.1 Evaluation

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an approach to decision-making that explicitly uses the best available research evidence, along with practitioner expertise and the values of those impacted, to determine the best course of action(CIPD, 2023).

There are several pros to applying EBP in people’s practices. Firstly, it helps optimise outcomes by ensuring practices are supported by empirical research rather than traditions or anecdotes. This increases the likelihood that practices will achieve their intended results. It also promotes accountability by requiring the effects of practices to be measurable. Practitioners must be able to demonstrate evidence that a practice is effective.

However, EBP also has some potential cons. Not all factors in people’s practices can be easily quantified or studied through traditional research methods. Important considerations like organisational culture or employee well-being may take more work to measure objectively. This could result in an over-emphasis on quantitative factors at the expense of qualitative measures. Additionally, applying research can be challenging if the evidence needs to be clarified or contradictory. Practitioners must use judgment to determine how to apply sometimes inconclusive research findings in their unique contexts.

Two key EBP approaches useful for people practices are critical thinking and comparing evidence from multiple sources.

Critical thinking involves carefully evaluating the quality, reliability and applicability of different sources of evidence rather than passive acceptance. It encourages consideration of factors like research methods, sample sizes, potential biases and generalizability.

Drawbacks: While critical thinking encourages in-depth evaluation, it can also slow decision-making. Time constraints might make it difficult for practitioners to thoroughly assess all evidence, leading to delays in implementing necessary changes. Additionally, excessive skepticism or over-analysis can paralyze decision-making if no evidence seems entirely flawless.

Comparing evidence from various sources, such as randomised studies, qualitative data, case studies, and practitioner expertise, can provide a better-rounded picture than relying on any single source(Metzger et al.,2020).

Drawbacks: The challenge of this approach lies in reconciling conflicting findings from different sources. If studies offer contradictory evidence, it can be difficult to decide which to prioritize. Furthermore, synthesizing different types of evidence can become complex and may require advanced skills in data interpretation, which not all practitioners possess.

For example, these two approaches could be applied to addressing high absence levels at an organisation. A practitioner could systematically search different databases to identify rigorous research on root causes and interventions for absenteeism. They would critically appraise the methods, results and limitations of each study found. Practitioner knowledge and employee feedback would also be considered to understand context-specific factors. The various sources of evidence could then be triangulated to determine a multi-pronged strategy, drawing on the consistently supported practices but adapted to the organisation’s unique needs. Regular re-evaluation of outcomes would ensure the approach remained effective.

1.2 A range of analysis tools and methods analysis

PESTLE Analysis

PESTLE analysis allows for a comprehensive examination of the macro-environment factors that affect an organisation (CIPD, 2024). When diagnosing legislative issues challenging organisational growth, conducting a PESTLE analysis prompts consideration of relevant Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Legal and Environmental influences. For example, forthcoming emission reduction laws could necessitate a shift in production processes or a change in the available labor pool due to new immigration policies. By gaining a deeper understanding of broader contextual trends and their implications, strategic planning can create appropriate responses to maximise opportunities arising from changes to the business environment.

Pros:

Provides a broad overview of opportunities and threats from various external sources.
Raises awareness of dynamic contextual factors too distant for leaders’ day-to-day focus.
Structure ensures important domains aren’t overlooked in strategic thinking.

Cons:

Considers variables at a high level, lacking depth on specific issues.
No guidance on prioritising influences or their materiality for business.
Still requires insightful analysis to translate macro insights to the organisation’s micro-context.

Evaluation of survey methodology

As evidenced by Fischer et al. (2021), surveys are a useful tool for diagnosing organisational growth opportunities at scale. When assessing customer satisfaction, surveys can identify underserved needs across a representative sample. Standardised questions allow comparisons between groups, while open-ended queries provide qualitative context. Distributing surveys to prospective customers as well as existing clients can reveal demands in entirely new market segments. Proactively diagnosing demands beyond the current customer base points to avenues for expansion. However, carefully targeting sampling frames is important. While surveys afford broad reach, follow up interviews help ground quantitative findings by validating insights in applied discussion. With awareness of limitations and thorough preparation, surveys effectively uncover growth opportunities when diagnosing underserved needs or undiscovered prospects at an organisational level

Pros:

Enable input from large, diverse groups impractical to interview.
Standardised data facilitates comparative and statistical analyses.
Anonymity may elicit honest, unguarded feedback.

Cons:

Response rates can be low without strong participation incentive.
Risk of social-desirability bias or misunderstanding questions.
Depths of perspectives are lost compared to qualitative methods.

1.3 The principles of critical thinking and the applications

Critical thinking is objective, reasoned analysis of facts and ideas to form well-supported judgments and conclusions (Adhikari, 2023). It requires considering multiple perspectives in a neutral, evidence-based manner by questioning assumptions, distinguishing facts from opinions, and thoroughly scrutinising the reliability of information sources and quality of data used before accepting or dismissing any perspective withoutBias and logical inference. The goal is to move beyond surface conclusions to deeper understanding through comprehensive, impartial assessment.

Reviewing One’s own ideas.

There are several core principles of critical thinking that should be applied when evaluating one’s own ideas. One involves presenting facts and data to support claims, ensuring information comes from credible sources that can be cited (McLeod and Lomas , 2023). It is important any factual statements made can be validated through empirical evidence rather than personal viewpoints alone. Another principle is maintaining objectivity – critically examining one’s own assumptions and biases to mitigate their influence. This includes considering alternative perspectives to produce well-rounded, impartial analysis .A further principle is justifying conclusions with logical reasoning rather than emotive language. Inference should reasonably flow from premises provided to allow others to retrace cognitive steps (Ennis, 1985). Together, adhering to these principles helps generate ideas built upon an accountable, methodical foundation.

Reviewing the ideas of others

When reviewing the ideas of others, critical thinking requires a different focus. As the information source is external, principles center around scrutinising the author and evidence quality. A major consideration is the credibility of the research – are they truly an expert in the field, has their work stood up to peer evaluation and what conflicts of interest do they have? Critical readers also analyse methodologies used to build arguments and test assertions. Questioning sample sizes, controls, measurements and analytical techniques helps determine a study’s trustworthiness and validity (Ghauri et al., 2020). Lastly, another principle for reviewing external ideas involves cautiously examining claims made and asking for substantiation through traceable and reproducible empirical proof before accepting conclusions (Duron et al., 2006). This ensures other perspectives are given fair hearing but not passively taken at face value.

1.4 Decision Making processes

Decision-making is a critical function in any organisation, influencing the effectiveness of outcomes across various domains (Stratil et al.,2022). To ensure that decisions are well-informed and lead to positive results, it is important to utilise structured decision-making tools and approaches. Two such tools are Best Fit and Future Pacing, both of which offer distinct advantages depending on the context and objectives of the decision-making process.

Best Fit Approach

The Best Fit approach to decision-making involves selecting the option that aligns most closely with the specific needs, context, and constraints of the organisation (Vulpen, 2018). Rather than adhering strictly to a one-size-fits-all model, this approach emphasises customisation and flexibility. The decision-making process under Best Fit typically involves a thorough assessment of the organisation’s current situation, goals, and resources. By doing so, decision-makers can identify the solution that best meets the unique requirements of the situation.

For example, in a scenario where an organisation is selecting a new Human Resource Management System (HRMS), the Best Fit approach would involve evaluating various systems based on how well they align with the company’s specific needs, such as integration capabilities, scalability, and user-friendliness. Rather than choosing the most popular or the least expensive option, the organisation would select the system that best fits its operational processes and long-term goals. This approach ensures that the chosen solution is not only effective but also sustainable, as it is tailored to the organisation’s specific context.

Advantages:

Promotes tailored solutions that are more likely to be effective in the specific context of the organisation.
Encourages a deep understanding of the organisation’s unique needs and circumstances.

Disadvantages:

May be more time-consuming, as it requires a thorough analysis of various options and their potential fit with the organisation’s needs.
There is a risk of focusing too narrowly on current needs, potentially overlooking future requirements or broader strategic objectives.

Future Pacing

Future Pacing is a decision-making approach that involves envisioning and planning for the long-term future outcomes of a decision (Buehring and Bishop, 2020). This approach is particularly useful in strategic planning, where the implications of decisions may not be immediately apparent but will unfold over time. Future Pacing involves projecting the potential impacts of a decision into the future, considering various scenarios and their possible outcomes. This foresight allows decision-makers to anticipate challenges, opportunities, and risks, thereby making more informed and proactive decisions.

For instance, when deciding on a new product launch, a company using Future Pacing might consider how the product will perform in different market conditions, how consumer preferences might evolve, and what the competitive landscape could look like in five to ten years. By envisioning these potential futures, the company can make decisions that are not only suitable for the present but also resilient in the face of future uncertainties.

Advantages:

Enables proactive decision-making by considering long-term consequences and preparing for future scenarios.
Reduces the likelihood of negative surprises by anticipating potential challenges and opportunities.

Disadvantages:

Requires a high level of expertise and foresight, which may not always be available.
The approach can be complex and resource-intensive, especially when trying to accurately predict long-term outcomes.

1.5 Different Ethical Perspectives

Please click the icon below to receive this assessment in full