Consensus Hiring: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Well, welcome to the real world, folks, where we don’t have time for everyone to get their hands in the cookie jar. The idea of consensus hiring, while it might have been plucked from a utopian episode of “The Office”, is one of the most self-destructive habits a company can develop.
Let’s break this down. Consensus hiring means getting everyone on the team to agree to a new hire. Sounds like a democratic, inclusive paradise, right? Think again, my friends. This practice is the corporate equivalent of a snake eating its own tail, and here’s why.
First off, the operative word here is “speed”. Consensus hiring slows everything down. You’re waiting for John in accounting to finish his TPS reports so he can sit down and give a thumbs-up to a candidate he’s never going to work with. I mean, do we have time for that? No, we don’t. Time is a non-renewable resource. In today’s hyper-competitive environment, speed isn’t just an advantage; it’s a necessity.
Next up, there’s a nasty thing called “groupthink”. When everyone must agree, you’ll be favoring the safest option, the least offensive, and guess what? You end up hiring a parade of white bread, beige wallpaper candidates. Diversity of thought is what drives innovation and out-of-the-box solutions, and you’re not getting that when everyone’s trying to agree on the same song.
What about our dear friend, meritocracy? Consensus hiring undermines this principle. If we believe that the best idea should win, why don’t we believe that the best candidate should get the job? It’s not a popularity contest. Talent and skills should matter, not whether everyone thinks the candidate can fit in or not.
Lastly, accountability, folks. With consensus hiring, if a bad hire is made, it’s like an untraceable crime. Everyone approved, so no one is responsible. Isn’t that convenient? Now, contrast that with a hiring manager who makes the decision. They’ve got skin in the game, right? They’re accountable. That’s what makes them vigilant and forces them to make better decisions.
In conclusion, I’m not saying we should scrap collective input completely, but consensus shouldn’t be the endgame. You can ask for input, you can listen, you can consider — but at the end of the day, hiring decisions should be fast, efficient, and based on merit. Anything less is a disservice to the company and its ambitions. There’s a difference between being a democracy and being a bureaucracy. We need to remember that.
