A common scenario in my practice is the senior leader who needs to bring in a new manager. In some cases this involves replacing a departing manager, while in others it involves the creation of an entirely new role. But in all cases where there are a group of current employees who will report to the new manager, the leader needs to decide what role those employees will play in the hiring process.
At one extreme those employees play no role at all. The leader conducts the search, hires the manager, and introduces them to their employees: "Meet your new boss." In some circumstances this makes sense--typically when there's an urgent need to fill the role and the leader lacks faith in the employees' judgment. But I see this very rarely, in large part because the leaders in my practice value their employees' input and don't want them to become flight risks if they feel disregarded or are unhappy with the new manager.
At the other extreme the leader plays a minimal role. They delegate the search to one or more employees, ask them to identify several candidates, and may even empower them to make the hire: "Go find your new boss." Again, in some circumstances this makes sense--typically when the employees are viewed as mission-critical to the organization and possess specialized expertise necessary to assess a manager that the leader lacks. But this is also relatively rare, generally because leaders want to select their direct reports and play an active role in shaping culture through hiring.
Much more common are two alternatives: Voice and Veto. In each approach the leader can involve employees in a number of ways, but in a Voice process employees have opportunities to assess managerial candidates at various stages and provide input to the leader, while in a Veto process the leader goes a step further and makes a commitment that they will not hire a manager over the employee's objections.
It may sound easy to distinguish between these two approaches, but I see leaders routinely run into several problems:
- They fail to clarify which approach they're adopting, leading to mismatched expectations.
- They inadvertently suggest that employees have a veto, when that's not their intention.
- They actually award employees a veto, but later renege on that commitment.
Why do these problems occur, and what can senior leaders do to avoid them?
Make a Decision (and Choose Carefully)
The starting point is deciding among one of these approaches, and in most circumstances that means choosing between Voice and Veto. Note why it's so important for the leader to make this choice only after careful thought and deliberation: A) The distinction may seem inconsequential to the leader, but it will have many implications for the employees, and B) switching mid-stream from Veto to Voice will result in wasted effort and lost trust.
Most people prefer to have as much control over their work environment as possible, so leaders may feel pressure to grant employees a veto--and for the very same reason leaders may be reluctant to do so. Neither process is inherently preferable--the right choice will depend on the circumstances. The key is for the leader to thoroughly explore the following questions (and to involve the employees in that exploration as much as possible):
- What specialized expertise might be necessary to assess candidates' capabilities? To what extent will employees' expertise be required to conduct this assessment?
- How would I characterize the judgment of these particular employees? Are they willing to support a manager who might challenge them?
- If these employees have concerns about a candidate, how candid will they be with me? And how seriously should I take their concerns?
- How much input do these employees feel is necessary? And if I fail to meet that threshold, how likely are they to become flight risks?
Communicate Clearly
Once this decision has been made, it's essential that it be communicated explicitly to the involved employees. A challenge here is related to the dynamic highlighted above--people typically seek to maximize control, so employees are likely to prefer a Veto process, and the leader is likely to prefer Voice. As a result, when a leader opts for Voice they may be met with negative responses ranging from disappointment to frustration.
Leaders who strive to maximize harmony or who are uncomfortable with critical feedback may seek to avoid this friction by minimizing the distinction between the two processes. In my experience leaders don't actively mislead employees, but they often engage in wishful thinking and mislead themselves about the difference, which inevitably results in unclear communication and subsequent misunderstandings.
Don't Renege (and Keep Your Commitments)
If a leader initially opts for Voice and later decides to switch to Veto, there's no problem--employees will be happy to exercise greater control. But it's highly fraught when a leader tries to go in the other direction, reneging on a prior commitment to grant employees a veto. The issue isn't merely that the leader has gone back on their word, although that certainly diminishes trust and leads employees to wonder whether other commitments that have been made are similarly insubstantial.
When employees are granted a veto it informs how they participate in the process, not only in interviews with the candidates, but also in discussions with the leader and among themselves. They will typically be more forthright and vocal, and if it turns out that they don't really have as much influence over the decision as was initially promised, they may feel that they were tricked into sharing views they would have otherwise kept to themselves. The solution, of course, is to make the right decision in the first place.
For Further Reading
Leadership, Decision-Making and Emotion Management
Daniel Kahneman on Conducting Better Interviews
Capacity, Methodology, Innovation (On Hiring)
Photos: Microphone by PickPik. Thumb by Public Domain Pictures.
