I’m sure you have all been in this position before. Someone on your team quits and moves on only to leave you with more work to do. Better yet, you are still getting paid the same amount of money and now you’re manager is watching you closer because it is crucial that all the work gets done.
After a while, you get used to the extra work. You learn to manage because you’ve come to the conclusion that no one else is going to be hired; however, your manager finally decides that it is time to fill the position. Next thing you know, you have a new coworker and you were never in the loop! This makes me ask the question:
From a management position, is it better to hire a new hire with your team knowing, or is it better to fill the spot and never let the team know until day one? If you work on a small team, should they be involved in the interview process? After all, in a small team you have to work very closely in order to get all the work done.
I’ve never been in a management position when this situation arose but it would be interesting to hear from someone who has been. It seems more often than not, decisions are made behind the scenes in order to keep the employee’s mind focused on the matter at hand. I do not think this is the best way to communicate with your employee’s, but it’s an understandable approach. I just want to know if anyone has taken the other path and what impact has it made?
This article talks about how to prevent hiring disasters. One of the recommendations is to identify the ideal candidate and competencies needed. Maybe this is where you can use your coworkers to help identify these needs.
http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/may2010/ca20100528_317741.htm
This is the main reason why it is very important to hire the RIGHT people for the RIGHT job. The person not only has to have the skills and capabilities to do eack task and job that is at hand. But they also have to have the work culture it needs to be apart of that particular firm. This also goes into many discussions we had as a class about employee empowerment. If a firm gives the employees the chance to make group decisions about positions (hiring, firing and scheduling) as well as promotions and day-to-day work. This is a good way to have insight to each employee because the group as a whole is making a decision on what they see from each individual on a day-to-day basis. Keeping employees out of the loop after they suck it up and put their own necks on the line by doing extra work, makes for a hostile and resentful employee.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few things that can be said about the 'secret' hiring that you describe in your post. First, why does it need to be a secret? It is pretty obvious that if an employee leaves, there should be a plan to replace that person, or not. This should be made known to the team early on. If the rest of the team is expected to pick up the extra work that needs to be done, why would a manager not want them to know how long they are expected to do so?
ReplyDeleteI suspect you won't be able to keep the remainder of the team motivated if they feel they are being taken for granted. Would it not make more sense to let them know that their efforts are appreciated and that a replacement is being sought?
If I were one of the remaining team members, I would want to know how long I am being expected to take on the extra work, and how soon a replacement will be selected.
This sounds familiar but honestly, we have a policy that we HAVE to post a position, even if they have a person in mind anyway. It has to be fair and open to everyone.
ReplyDeleteMy group expressed disappointment that we didn't know of candidates or even opportunities. So, now they include more of us in the interviewing process.
We have been on a hiring freeze for almost a year, so I had been stuck twice doing two jobs for the price of one. The freeze was just lifted....but if we don't make our numbers for the 4th quarter, I was told " read between the lines"...so now we have to work even harder with less people to hope we can keep our jobs?
While Tara's company does the right thing by posting and interviewing even if they have someone in mind, that practice always bothered me to some extent. If a company has an ideal candidate in mind, why waste time and money to bring in people that don't even have a chance at the job? The NFL has something called the "Rooney Rule" that requires every team to interview at least 1 minority candidate for a head coaching job. While the idea of the rule was admirable, it's really become a farce in many occasions. The same African-American candidate has interviewed something like 12 times for Head Coaching jobs, which just seems unfair to him. Now, many people think he's going to get the Vikings job once they fire their coach, and good for him, he's worked hard for that organization for a long time, and probably deserves it, but what he didn't deserve was the 12 flights to cities to interview for jobs he has no chance of getting...
ReplyDeleteThanks for the feedback everyone. Definitely good to know that most hiring takes place with everyone involved!
ReplyDelete