Who Makes the Team: Without
Disagreement, You Have Nothing
In an
address before a McKinsey & Company (2011) conference, Eric Schmidt, Google’s executive chair, characterizes
his function, as well as that of co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as
providing “adult supervision”. Schmidt explains deciding who makes the team at Google “makes a difference… at every
level”; yet, long before D’Onfro (2014) questioned How Google Works, John Mackey, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, had
developed that which Erickson and Gratton (2007) define as a “signature
experience”, a unique and visible component of a company’s total “employee
experience” that “creates value for the firm” and acts as a significant and “constant
symbol” of the firm’s “culture and values”. The overarching message from both
Mackey and Schmidt, “team-based” or “peer-based” hiring produces better results
than that represented by the typical “hierarchical model”, is further affirmed
by Brown (2011) as he observes “group consensus” is comprised of “all members”
sharing in the decision making process such that the final decision is “one they
will support and buy into even though they may not be totally supportive” (p.
202).
Whole Foods
Market, as explained by Erickson and Gratton (2007), is divided into separate
departments: produce, meat, bakery and each department is organized into “a small,
decentralized entrepreneurial team”. New hires are advised of this arrangement.
During a four week trial period, new hires are observed by all team members to
determine if they are “workers” or “lone wolves” (Erickson & Gratton,
2007). This process comports with the company’s profit sharing model through
which successful team members, and their overall group performance, are able to
realize an additional two dollars per hour per paycheck, thirteen times during
the year (Erickson & Gratton, 2007). The team has the final say as to who
makes the team and who does not; and, must reach a two-thirds consensus vote
for the new hire to remain (Erickson & Gratton, 2007). Although the group
uses the voting method to reach a decision, with apparent success based on the
company’s repeated listing on Fortune’s “100
Best Companies to Work For" (Erickson & Gratton, 2007), Schmidt contends
if a group has “consensus without disagreement”; then, the group essentially
has “nothing” (McKinsey & Company, 2011).
Absent
first-hand knowledge, it is not clear if the meetings held by Whole Food Market
teams follow a process similar to those conducted by Schmidt at Google. He explains he stokes discord in
order to have a strong personality offer opinions, thus paving the way for more
shy members to feel comfortable with expressing opposite opinions (McKinsey
& Company, 2011). As outlined by McKinsey & Company (2011), Schmidt
fervently believes in a spending more time to “ruthlessly” identify and
interview those with certain “academic qualifications, intelligence,
intellectual flexibility, passion, and commitment”. The major hurdle to this
approach is most hiring becomes the decision of one manager and any hiring team
that does exist simply becomes a “rubber-stamp” for the hiring executive’s
decision (D’Onfro, 2014). Here, Schmidt agrees with Mackey’s team-based
approach; yet, Schmidt has had to implement procedures that reduce the number
of applicant interviews from eighteen to five (McKinsey & Company, 2011). Three
years later, as presented by D’Onfro (2014) Schmidt is still trying to flatten
hierarchy in hiring.
The
approaches of both Google and Whole
Foods Market are completely well-founded in the principle expressed by Schmidt,
“In a peer-based hiring process, the emphasis is on the people, not the
organization” (D’Onfro, 2014). When group members have a say, one that will be
heard and heeded by management, members have buy-in and a vested interest that
allows for the flow of “group task” and group-building and maintenance
functions” (Brown, 2011, p. 201). The hiring methods of both Mackey and Schmidt
help provide “group norms and growth” whereby members are able to express ideas
of what “members should do and feel, how this behavior should be regulated, and
what sanctions should be applied when behavior does not coincide” (Brown, 2011,
p. 202). Could such an approach backfire? That would depend on whose view is
sought.
From a team
whose added bonus is tied to overall team performance, weeding out “lone wolves”
guarantees the pitfalls of hiring manager choosing a friend over an applicant
with better qualifications do not affect the team in a negative manner (Erickson
& Gratton, 2007). By hiring those with the same driving passion that
insures the “right seating of people”, does that provide for the potential of
quelling needed discourse in a team (McKinsey & Company, 2011)? Do the “odd
people” that may not gel with the group provide a key component for any
organization (McKinsey & Company, 2011)? Is there incompatibility with
other people an automatic non-starter and should it be? Is the function of the
manager to be there to simply assist, or is a manager’s function that of
actually managing the company (McKinsey & Company, 2011)? The answer may
very well rest with the type of company and functions required to make the
company a success. As noted by Brown (2011) Schmidt admits “the
consensus-management structure at Google can
be maddening at times but it is effective” (p. 35). Perhaps this madness might
night work as well at another organization; but, empowering employees to decide
who makes the team fosters the very environment sought in an increasing global
economy, one that seeks feedback and focuses on the people first, then the
company.
References
Brown, D.R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization
Development. (8th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
D’Onfro, J. (2014, Sept. 23).
Former Google CEO Explains Why A Committee Should Do
Your
Company’s Hiring. Business Insider. Retrieved
from
Erickson, T.J., & Gratton,
L. (2007, March). What It Means to Work Here. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved
from https://hbr.org/2007/03/what-it-means-to-work-here
McKinsey & Company. (2011,
May). Eric Schmidt on business culture, technology, and social
issues.
[Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business- functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/eric-schmidt-on-business-culture- technology-and-social-issues
No comments:
Post a Comment