Ben S

  • Section A
  • Section 1
  • Alumni

Activity Feed

I think this is among the most important questions in people analytics today. I wonder how we as managers can make sure we stay as objective as possible when evaluating the benefits to the employee/manager/firm versus the cost to employees. In many cases, we will have to be the ones advocating for people analytics, but it’s challenging to be the person that highlights the value of increasing people analytics in a firm, while being the leading voice in the risks and downsides. I agree that being open is key, but I think it takes a significant investment from leadership into the people in an organization to create the opportunity where people understand and believe in the benefits of collecting and analyzing data about their work.

On April 15, 2020, Ben S commented on People analytics during a pandemic: new opportunities? :

My initial reaction is that change is taxing, and that in our current pandemic, our ability to absorb more change is at its lowest. However, if we are to believe that change is a good thing thing, and that this could improve our efficiency and quality of life, when is the right time to do this? Is it lumped in with other organizational change, because the incremental, marginal discomfort is minimized? Or should these changes be carefully spaced out to not overburden individuals. This can also help you see the independent effects of individual changes, but it can make an organization fee like it is constantly in flux

It is super interesting to see the connection of analytics and game theory at work. Now that MoreyBall is in the open, the Rockets general strategy is laid bare, and teams can proactively develop strategies to combat the tactic. This also highlights the risk of practically applying data insights. For one, organizations can only focus on a few changes at once, so MoreyBall is boiled down to basically a single offensive principle (3’s) and a single defensive principle (switches). Even if these are the best single tactics, is there a more nuanced strategy that would be more effective/robust. Also, I wonder how this impacts draft strategy. Typically teams go with a ‘best available’ strategy, but if that individual doesn’t fit your stereotyped needs, are you missing good talent?