4 ms·

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

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 15y 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 15y 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.

j_baker 15y 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 15y 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.