Staff Selection By Election - A Case Study In Employee Trust

SummaryYou can select staff by any method that you think will work
for you. But election by subordinates isn't a common method. This
article describes such an event in a hi-tech company.The PositionThe
vacant position was Production Manager. The successful candidate would
manage mainframe computer operations with about 25 employees working
shift work maintaining a very large mainframe processing centre. This
event occurred before PCs were in common use.The CandidatesThe
installation was unique. An internal appointment was necessary. Four
senior supervisors were potential candidates. Of these, two were
serious candidates. Both had sound claims to the job. But one was
considerably more popular with the computer operators than the
others.The ManagersThe two senior managers responsible for the
appointment felt that the other - the less popular - would be more
suitable for the vacancy. They believed he was more experienced and a
generally better if not more popular, people manager.The ProblemThe
senior managers believed that if they went ahead and simply appointed
the more experienced but less popular supervisor there might be a
backlash from some operators. The mainframe installation was central
to the company's operations and success. It was very technically
sophisticated for its time. If employees caused major problems, it
would have serious operational effects."But Leon"Some of ou may say,
"Bite the bullet. Appoint who you want. You're the Boss." If you feel
like that, you're generally correct. But the situation was delicate.
If the successful candidate was unsuccessful, they were in trouble.
This applied no matter whom they appointed.An Innovative SolutionIt
may sound strange. But the solution was to let the operators decide
who'd be their Production Manager. We decided to have an election.
There were risks that "Mr Popular" would defeat "Mr Experienced"
purely because he was so well liked. The vote could be tied. We'd be
seen as manipulative. We'd be seen as failing to act responsibly.
Safeguards were necessary.The SafeguardsThe two senior managers
prepared a detailed, output centred, job analysis. A carefully worded
letter was prepared. It explained the process to the operators and
guaranteed absolute anonymity and privacy. All four supervisors would
be included as candidates.The ProcessEach of the operators received
the letter in a personal envelope marked "confidential". It was signed
by the Director of Operations. It included the job analysis, a simple
explanation of the voting process and the "ballot paper" containing
four names. Operators were asked which of the candidates they believed
would be most suitable based on the requirements specified on the job
analysis. No resumes were provided. We felt this could create
perceptions of bias.The Outcome"Mr Experience" easily won the ballot.
That delighted the senior managers. It also meant that "Mr
Personality" could see that he'd been fairly treated. And the
operators has a vested interest in helping "Mr Experience" settle in
and succeed in the new job. After all, they'd put him there. I don't
recommend "selection by election" as a standard process. But it suited
the circumstances in this case.ConclusionThis case study demonstrates
how important it is to trust your employees. That doesn't mean you
must give them freedom to "Do as they like". You must still provide
the structure and systems within which they must work. But trust them
to trust themselves to do what's best for the business.