Hiring and democracy in the workplace
Rands has posted a new winner called The Button in which he provides strategies for people interviewing at companies. In typical Rands style, he provides a breakdown of several different character types you will meet along the way, and how to get the information you need from them to learn everything you can about the company, figure out what they are looking for (if possible), and who’s really important and who is not.
While I was reading it, I started to get a growing awareness of the essay that I wanted to read that wasn’t there: advice for the company trying to select a candidate. I know a few companies helmed by brilliant people and staffed by mediocre or actually detrimental employees. It would be great to have a good, solid Rands blog entry to wheel their way and try and offer some ideas. But in the absence of one, I’m going to try and take a shot at it myself. So it goes.
The primary problem I’ve seen at these companies is a desire by the founders to try and make the business a happy one by not making waves. This extends to their hiring practices as well. If any interviewer gives a candidate the thumbs down, they don’t hire the candidate. Unanimous vote is the rule.
This raises two major red flags for me. First off, getting more than three people to agree on anything is damn near impossible. Insisting on unanimous consent between 6 or so people means that you are going to end up hiring the most mediocre and inoffensive person possible, or stay with a skeleton crew until a Greek god decides to apply to your company for employment.
Secondly, I’ve seen situations in which interviewers are threatened by the go-getters applying for work. Sometimes these people are slackers that know that they have a good thing going, and the new hire, if brought on board, might make them look bad, or have to work harder in order to keep up. Alternatively, they may be worried that new managers might see them for who they are and cause them to lose their jobs.
Either way, some people turn down new candidates because they feel threatened. You may have someone like that in your crew, so it might be a good idea to opt for a more general democracy and an evaluation period for the new hire instead.
Democracy in the work place.
Our company subscribes the the checks and balances doctrine under which the United States was founded and has Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches.
The Executive Branch
Well, this is me. As the CEO and Chief Engineer, my job is to make snap judgement calls in surprise situations based on my experience and (hopefully) high intelligence. In the event of a mixed vote between the Legislative and Judicial branches, I can make the call on things and get to veto decisions made by the Legislative Branch, unless they unanimously vote that I am smoking crack. In the event of an absolute deadlock, things get decided by the Judicial Branch.
The Legislative Branch
This is our staff. For a company of our size it’s pretty easy to make sure that everyone gets a voice in the decision making process. If the Legislative Branch agrees unanimously on some point, they can challenge a veto from me and get a decision from the Judicial Branch.
The Judicial Branch
This is Lisa, our company President. Lisa has an IQ comfortably higher than any of us. In the time since the company was founded she has had two children, and tends to stay out of things unless it is really necessary. Our mutual trust in her, however, is quite high, and in the event of an absolute deadlock on a decision between myself and our employees, we take things to her. Her track record of adjudication is solid enough that we usually defer to whatever rabbi-like decision she settles on.
The hiring decision process at our company
When we are evaluating a new client, one solid ‘no’ from a member of the Legislative Branch is not enough to drop a candidate if the other members are by-and-large interested and the Executive Branch (me) is to.
Likewise, if I have misgivings, but everyone in the Legislative Branch is all for the new person, then I’ll listen to the group.
In the event that we have a strong disagreement and can not arrive at a satisfactory decision between ourselves, we perform a Rite of Lisa Summoning and heed her counsel on the matter.
Finally, we usually opt for a 90 day evaluation period that lets us decide as a group whether or not the new candidate is working out.
Hopefully, I’ve presented a clear view of how things work here. The bottom line is, we listen to each other, and we trust each other, and we have mechanisms in place to try and work around deadlocks. So far it has worked well and my hope is that it will serve us well in the future.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I like it! It’s especially true that the mediocre can reject the amazing because they find them threatening. In an ideal world you would avoid that by never hiring the mediocre in the first place, but in the real world, it’s a good thing to keep in mind.
The 90-day (or in one extreme case I worked 6-month) probation is a good idea, but only if you are actually good at firing people. Even in 90 days you can become sufficiently aware of a person’s humanity to make it very difficult to let them go.
I think the ultimate hiring test is to go out drinking. I think you can tell more about a person at the bar than you can in a stuffy interview room, including gauging that most important and more ethereal quality: how well they fit into the team.
Of course, that assume you work for a company that values the ability to drink. I suppose a good dinner might do the same thing and be less legally troublesome.
Finally, in software we have that advantage of being able to look at a person’s portfolio, which a much better indicator of technical skill than on-the-spot technical questions or the resume, which is French for “a list of lies.”