3 ms·

Wow. The hiring manager doesn't get to make the final decision? I make sure that managers reporting to me always make the final decision on hiring (and firing

Wow. The hiring manager doesn't get to make the final decision? I make sure that managers reporting to me always make the final decision on hiring (and firing) for their teams. That makes it more fair to hold them accountable for their team, because it's the team they chose. Moving the final decision to someone else, like a "bar raiser," seems fraught with misaligned incentives. Are bar raisers somehow held accountable for their hiring decisions?

ajb 5y ago
I would assume that the Bar Raiser can say 'No' when the HM says 'yes', but not vice versa. So the HM would choose their own team. But it would be true that the Bar Raiser can't be held to account, since you will rarely if ever find out that they made a bad call.
sib 5y ago
Well... I'm not sure that it's exactly like that, at least when I was there. The bar raiser can say "no" even if the HM says "yes," but I never heard of it going the other way (where hypothetically the HM would say "no" and the bar raiser "overrule" the HM.) And in hundreds of interviews there, I never experienced a situation in which it was as black and white as the above would make it seem. There were times, of course, when there was a difference of opinion, but it's on the people in the room to debate and convince each other based on logic and data - a bar raiser is not simply going to walk in and put his/her foot down and say "no" to a team that is otherwise saying "yes" without pretty detailed discussion and reasoning.
- trunnell 5y ago
  That makes more sense. So the bar raiser is there to nudge people toward better hires, but generally isn't overruling the HM?
  - sib 5y ago
    Right. (When push comes to shove, the bar raiser could overrule, but everyone would rather it not have to get to that point...)
crucifiction 5y ago
The bar raiser decides “hire for Amazon at X level and role” and then the manager decides if they want that person on their team or not. If it’s a hire decision but manager declines the specific person they find another team instead.

ajb 5y ago

I would assume that the Bar Raiser can say 'No' when the HM says 'yes', but not vice versa. So the HM would choose their own team. But it would be true that the Bar Raiser can't be held to account, since you will rarely if ever find out that they made a bad call.

sib 5y ago

Well... I'm not sure that it's exactly like that, at least when I was there. The bar raiser can say "no" even if the HM says "yes," but I never heard of it going the other way (where hypothetically the HM would say "no" and the bar raiser "overrule" the HM.) And in hundreds of interviews there, I never experienced a situation in which it was as black and white as the above would make it seem. There were times, of course, when there was a difference of opinion, but it's on the people in the room to debate and convince each other based on logic and data - a bar raiser is not simply going to walk in and put his/her foot down and say "no" to a team that is otherwise saying "yes" without pretty detailed discussion and reasoning.

trunnell 5y ago
That makes more sense. So the bar raiser is there to nudge people toward better hires, but generally isn't overruling the HM?
- sib 5y ago
  Right. (When push comes to shove, the bar raiser could overrule, but everyone would rather it not have to get to that point...)

crucifiction 5y ago

The bar raiser decides “hire for Amazon at X level and role” and then the manager decides if they want that person on their team or not. If it’s a hire decision but manager declines the specific person they find another team instead.