Consultant Q&A
John Runyan Responds:
Integrating employees as interviewers and
contributors into hiring processes makes a great deal
of sense in certain circumstances, with the right
purposes and with clear parameters. When the conditions
are right, this kind of employee involvement can yield
important dividends—not the least of which may be
increased employee satisfaction with their influence in
their own workplace. However, in the absence of the
right conditions, employee involvement can be
superfluous, irrelevant and even damaging.
The Right Circumstances
I believe that employees should primarily be involved
when hiring decisions are made about their peers.
Managers should include representative employees as
interviewers and solicit their observations and
opinions when key workers at their level and on their
teams are being hired. These representatives might even
help with the shaping and wording of the job
description for openings in their areas.
Employees should also be involved when
supervisors and managers with whom they will have to
collaborate closely are selected. This is particularly
important in organizations where supervisors/managers
are asked to serve more as team leaders than
hierarchical authority figures.
A Clear Purpose
The purpose of employee involvement needs to be clear
in everyone’s minds. Specifically, representative
employees should only be included when their
observations, information and opinions will really be
valuable in the hiring process and really be used.
Employees should be encouraged to participate
throughout the hiring process with all realistic
candidates—asking penetrating questions, posing
realistic scenarios and pressing for candid answers
during the interview process. Then the representative
employees should participate fully in the interview
debriefs and reviews of all candidates before the
hiring managers make their decisions.
It is a mistake to include one or more
employees whose input will not be used merely as
symbolic or token members of a hiring group. This does
not mean that employee representatives should have the
only say or a veto over hiring decisions around which
they are consulted. However, to avoid damage to
management credibility and employee morale, this is not
a time where mere lip service should be given.
Finally, managers need to set clear and
appropriate parameters for the involvement of selected
employees in their hiring processes. For example:
• Managers and employee representatives should
discuss and reach understandings up front about hiring
criteria, equal opportunity and affirmative action
factors and anything else that should be taken into
account in the interview process.
• Those employees who are selected for
participation and who voluntarily join these processes
should be informed and briefly trained about the legal
and ethical boundaries that exist for questioning
prospective employees.
• Everyone involved in the interviewing process
should establish expectations and boundaries around the
confidentiality of information gathered in the
interviews both for the time of the deliberative
process and when the hiring process is complete.
• Those who participate should have input into the
design and timing of their part of the
interviewing/screening process.
If you and others in charge of hiring ensure conditions
like these are met and that clear parameters are set, I
believe you will gain the advantages of employee
participation and avoid the disadvantages of a flawed
process.
JOHN RUNYAN is a Senior Consultant,
now affiliated with Leadership Everywhere, LLC, in
Seattle. An educator and consultant for 25 years, he
specializes in coaching leaders and helping to create
"learning organizations." His e-mail address is
JRMRV@aol.com. John's colleagues, Elaine Sullivan,
Leopoldo Seguel, Rhonda Gordon, Rene Pino, Catherine
Johnson and Merrilee Runyan, inspire and help him to
think carefully and write clearly in response to these
questions.
Vince
Ventresca Responds
June 2001 News for
a Change Homepage
Issue Highlight —
A Sad and Grateful Remembrance
