The World As I See It

In the case of job application, I perceive the ideal form of the interviewer side to comprise both HR and the immediate supervisor of the vacancy. Both could have an interest in promoting the organisation’s well-being by attending to the shortfall in the workforce, but inherently a conflict of interest tears them apart. By putting them together in the same interview, it is more likely a balance of interest can be reached in the selection process.

Left alone to HR, they would employ the best talent that fits into the company, but may not work well with the supervisor. Left alone to the supervisor, he may opt for the second or third best that fits into HIM – one that is no brighter than him and thus less threatening to him – at the expense of the organisation.

……………………………………………………

My reply to Steve:

Steve, what I set out here are general statements. Of course we still allow for the emergence of special circumstances. But in making a general rule, as in the case of a conservative budgetary forecast or economic policy and legislation making, it is a matter of prudence to take the assumption of a reasonably pessimistic view, so that if situation gets better, it is automatically taken care of, thus sparing the complication of a policy response or review. This is more commonly known as "err on the cautious side".

In the case here, if we have a competent HR (which is assumed to be impartial anyway, as they hire on behalf of the organisation) and a self-interested supervisor, then there exists a conflict of interest as stated, and I propose to put them together. On the other extreme, if we have a competent HR and a selfless Level 5 supervisor, then their interests just converge to the company’s interest - it makes no difference to have either HR or the supervisor, or both.

I acknowledge the top management of a great company has to be Level 5 leaders, who adore talents, to sustain its greatness. But it appears too optimistic to me to assume a similar case for its subsequent levels of supervisors. The companies thus are better off to prepare themselves with a counter, in case the conflict of interest happens at all.

My point is, in general the interviewers should consist of both HR and the immediate supervisor.