My previous post about the right number of interviews received a lot comments - some from people saying I should add an extra interview to allow for interviews for subordinates to help select their incoming managers.
My knee-jerk reaction was "This is bonkers". But I am an understanding and listening soul. These people may take me on a 'learning journey' (Have you heard enough from people talking about their 'journeys'? Me too). I even searched out for some blogs on the subject. Perhaps I need a more balanced view about how the world works?...
They make the case on three grounds as far as I can understand:
I thought about this for some while. I reflected.......
.........I'm even more convinced "This is bonkers" than I was before:
Firstly to respond to the three points above:
I cannot see one redeeming benefit of involving subordinates in the recruitment process. It would seem that some organisations looking for their most senior execs put candidates through a 6 or 7 interview process including a meeting with a spread of subordinates. In the unlikely event I was selected from such a process, my very first decision would be put a stop to this and save a fortune by making the HR department redundant en masse.
Despite lot's of flowery words from a lot of people who say that subordinates should interview their future managers, I don't get it on any level. I have found no evidence that it works (those who think about the world like this don't seem to be too objective), and no evidence that anybody has even looked for hard facts to prove their case.
There may be a danger here that you think that I think that people who support this approach are swivel-eyed loons. I would like to clarify my position: You ARE swivel-eyed loons.
(Image courtesy of http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/)