Research on providing single‐attribute utility analysis has shown moderate or even negative effects on the acceptance of selection and training tests by human resource decision makers. In this study, we contrasted the perceived utility of single‐attribute utility analysis with causal chain analysis as an alternative way of conducting utility analysis. Causal chain analysis focuses on measuring the linkages between HRM interventions and organizational outcomes mediated by employee attitudes and customer perceptions. We compared 144 managers' reactions to both methods of utility analysis concerning the variables understandability, information quality, perceived usefulness, user information satisfaction, and intention to use. Causal chain analysis yielded higher results than single‐attribute analysis for these variables, and a compound measure of these constructs supported this finding. This indicates that causal chain analysis is a valuable alternative method of communicating the utility of HRM interventions.