A candidate for a Chief Marketing Officer is flown in from the west coast for what is expected to be a final round of interviews at a southeastern based financial services firm. The candidate possessed all the right qualifications to drive the changes needed to support a new business strategy.. Among the candidate’s attractive qualities was his broad marketing experience and out-of-the-box thinking. . Having passed muster with a number of peer executives as well as the senior executive committee, he was invited back to interview with subordinates and spend time again with the senior human resources officer and CEO. Both were prepared to make the candidate a verbal offer before he returned home to California.
Before they could do so, their plan was derailed. Following the interview with direct reports, they reported to the CEO and human resources officer that the candidate should not be hired. They felt the candidate did not have the appropriate skill set for the role and that his proposed market strategy was doomed to fail. Although the CEO attempted to persuade the marketing department employees as to the reasons the candidate should be hired, they persisted with their argument. What was the outcome? Although confident they had identified a strong candidate for the position, the CEO and HR leader decided that they could not go forward with the candidate given the “thumbs down” by his subordinate interviewers. Ouch!
What went wrong? The important question to ask is this: Should everyone have an equal voice in the hiring decision? Peers, subordinates, bosses and others usually have different agendas as to what really matters to them. This may be the case, even when they are working from a common job description. For example, what is important to a peer may not be important to a direct report. When an organization solicits the input of multiple parties in selecting new leaders, the hiring manager must set clear expectations as to each person’s role. First, the hiring manager should specify the input that she is seeking about the candidate, such as key technical skills, knowledge of the customer, or critical leadership skills such as relationship building and execution. Second, the manager should collect the requested data from the other interview process participants and make a final decision on the candidate. Accountability rests with the manager. If the candidate proves to be a poor choice, there is no excuse that it was a consensus decision.
With decision accountability clear, the hiring manager should be selective in engaging others in the process. Some associates might participate in meetings with the candidate to offer their perspectives on how their roles would interact or share insights into the organization’s products, technology, or customers. Still others may be used to “sell” the organization to the candidate. Taking this approach, everyone knows their specific role. No one mistakenly believes they have “veto” power on a candidate when they do not. Conversely, their “thumbs up” does not necessarily mean the hiring manager will agree. Responsibility rests on the shoulder of the hiring manger. Build the interview process accordingly.