Adding and Averaging in Organizational Decisions: The Impact of Evaluation Mode

Abstract

When does adding mildly favorable information (e.g., job experience at the Railway Credit Union) alongside highly favorable (e.g., job experience at Goldman Sachs) increase versus decrease the impressiveness of one’s achievement? We posit that whether a package of information (e.g., a resume) is evaluated by itself–in separate evaluation–or side-by-side with another package–in joint evaluation–matters. Across a variety of organizational contexts, four studies show that people “average” in separate evaluation and “add” in joint evaluation. Consequently, mildly favorable information hurts in separate evaluation but helps in joint evaluation. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated these effects among persons with expertise (e.g., law professors judging law faculty candidates) and hiring experience. Study 3 examined a linear pattern prediction and showed that each piece of mildly favorable information included in a package linearly added to the overall impression in joint evaluation but linearly detracted from judgments of the same target in separate evaluation. Finally, Study 4 traced these differences in evaluative judgments to a shift in reference points brought about by evaluation mode. Implications for the organization specifically and our understanding of judgment and decision making processes more generally are considered.