4 ms·

I'm not sure how I feel about everyone getting a veto. It sounds like a surefire way to ensure only the least offensive candidates who are unlikely to challeng

by j_baker 15y ago

I'm not sure how I feel about everyone getting a veto. It sounds like a surefire way to ensure only the least offensive candidates who are unlikely to challenge the status quo get hired.

jusben1369 15y ago
Yes, when you add in the "Sunday test" it seems as though an unintended consequence of this approach over time is a lack of diversity (in thought, not biological or cultural) and healthy tension.
- gdb 15y ago
  I think that's definitely a danger, but by being very cognizant of the peril you can work hard to make sure that candidates you reject are being rejected for the right reasons. We work very actively to recruit a diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives, and I feel that this has been extremely valuable to us to date.
  - jusben1369 15y ago
    Well I applaude you gdb - Stripe is a very well regarded startup so you're doing a lot of things right. Doesn't your "Veto" though negate the ability to ensure they're rejected for the right reasons? If you feel as though a Veto is for the wrong reason do you challenge the "Vetoer" and get it overturned etc?
    - gdb 15y ago
      The latter. By veto, we mean that we won't hire someone over a current employee's strong objections. But we always debate and push back on those objections, and more than once we've had people change their minds after this kind of discussion.
adrianhoward 15y ago
It doesn't work that way in my experience as long as your existing team is good. Good teams like challenges. They just don't like asshats. As soon as you have a few folk who find new hires to be threatening - then a global veto can start you heading in a bad direction.
- j_baker 14y ago
  I'll buy that when I see it. Having good team members isn't a magical way to bypass human psychology. Good people have insecurities, want to work with people who won't threaten them, and dislike change just like everyone else. But it does give you a convenient way to rationalize all those things away. "Hiring non threatening people is for companies who don't hire good people like we do." The real solution? Admit that humans are imperfect and make allowances for it. Double check their hiring decisions to make sure they're doing the right thing and not just rejecting people they feel threatened by, or accepting only people below them. This is a well-known problem among organizational psychologists: http://changingminds.org/disciplines/hr/selection/selection_spiral.htm http://changingminds.org/disciplines/hr/selection/selection_...
  - adrianhoward 14y ago
    I'll buy that when I see it. Fair enough. I've seen it so I think it can work (and this was when I wasn't "on the team" so I don't think I was invested in that decision in a way that would have biased me in the same direction). The real solution? Admit that humans are imperfect and make allowances for it. Double check their hiring decisions to make sure they're doing the right thing and not just rejecting people they feel threatened by, or accepting only people below them. Agreed - but I don't think anybody was suggesting arbitrary decision with no checks and balances. Saying "we’ve been careful to preserve the principle that a single person’s strong objections are sufficient to result in not hiring a candidate" doesn't imply that there isn't discussion around and argument with those objections. I'm aware of the selection spiral - had to deal with it a few times :-) I'd say that having the whole team can actually help since it's harder to disguise individual biases. If we're going for some kind of anonymous vote black balling type situation - yeah sure. That's just asking for trouble.
calibraxis 15y ago
I think it depends. In a rational team, the unilateral vetoer carefully explains their reasoning, and they know their belief has to be reasonably strong. (Otherwise they'd just step aside, after mentioning some objections.) But unfortunately, this article doesn't give the least clue of how their hiring process actually works. Does the candidate present in front of the entire team? If so, then (pretending I'm on the Stripe team) my teammates know whether my objection is totally outside reality, because they saw the exact same thing I did. Then I'll be under pressure to justify it.
- j_baker 14y ago
  Either that or they'll feel threatened and change averse for the exact same reasons, and not pressure you at all. :-) I can't help thinking that a "rational" team wouldn't trust heuristics like these.

by j_baker 15y ago

I'm not sure how I feel about everyone getting a veto. It sounds like a surefire way to ensure only the least offensive candidates who are unlikely to challenge the status quo get hired.

jusben1369 15y ago

Yes, when you add in the "Sunday test" it seems as though an unintended consequence of this approach over time is a lack of diversity (in thought, not biological or cultural) and healthy tension.

gdb 15y ago
I think that's definitely a danger, but by being very cognizant of the peril you can work hard to make sure that candidates you reject are being rejected for the right reasons. We work very actively to recruit a diversity of backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives, and I feel that this has been extremely valuable to us to date.
- jusben1369 15y ago
  Well I applaude you gdb - Stripe is a very well regarded startup so you're doing a lot of things right. Doesn't your "Veto" though negate the ability to ensure they're rejected for the right reasons? If you feel as though a Veto is for the wrong reason do you challenge the "Vetoer" and get it overturned etc?
  - gdb 15y ago
    The latter. By veto, we mean that we won't hire someone over a current employee's strong objections. But we always debate and push back on those objections, and more than once we've had people change their minds after this kind of discussion.

adrianhoward 15y ago

It doesn't work that way in my experience as long as your existing team is good. Good teams like challenges. They just don't like asshats. As soon as you have a few folk who find new hires to be threatening - then a global veto can start you heading in a bad direction.

j_baker 14y ago
I'll buy that when I see it. Having good team members isn't a magical way to bypass human psychology. Good people have insecurities, want to work with people who won't threaten them, and dislike change just like everyone else. But it does give you a convenient way to rationalize all those things away. "Hiring non threatening people is for companies who don't hire good people like we do." The real solution? Admit that humans are imperfect and make allowances for it. Double check their hiring decisions to make sure they're doing the right thing and not just rejecting people they feel threatened by, or accepting only people below them. This is a well-known problem among organizational psychologists: http://changingminds.org/disciplines/hr/selection/selection_spiral.htm http://changingminds.org/disciplines/hr/selection/selection_...
- adrianhoward 14y ago
  I'll buy that when I see it. Fair enough. I've seen it so I think it can work (and this was when I wasn't "on the team" so I don't think I was invested in that decision in a way that would have biased me in the same direction). The real solution? Admit that humans are imperfect and make allowances for it. Double check their hiring decisions to make sure they're doing the right thing and not just rejecting people they feel threatened by, or accepting only people below them. Agreed - but I don't think anybody was suggesting arbitrary decision with no checks and balances. Saying "we’ve been careful to preserve the principle that a single person’s strong objections are sufficient to result in not hiring a candidate" doesn't imply that there isn't discussion around and argument with those objections. I'm aware of the selection spiral - had to deal with it a few times :-) I'd say that having the whole team can actually help since it's harder to disguise individual biases. If we're going for some kind of anonymous vote black balling type situation - yeah sure. That's just asking for trouble.

calibraxis 15y ago

I think it depends. In a rational team, the unilateral vetoer carefully explains their reasoning, and they know their belief has to be reasonably strong. (Otherwise they'd just step aside, after mentioning some objections.) But unfortunately, this article doesn't give the least clue of how their hiring process actually works. Does the candidate present in front of the entire team? If so, then (pretending I'm on the Stripe team) my teammates know whether my objection is totally outside reality, because they saw the exact same thing I did. Then I'll be under pressure to justify it.

j_baker 14y ago
Either that or they'll feel threatened and change averse for the exact same reasons, and not pressure you at all. :-) I can't help thinking that a "rational" team wouldn't trust heuristics like these.