Interviewing Employees for their own job
Interviewing for a job you are already doing so that your company can decide who to retain during a downsize or restructure.
It may sound like satire. Unfortunately, it is an actual strategy used by some companies to make these retention decisions. Defenders may cite this as the fair and objective way to handle these situations. In the event of a restructure, they will also point to the need to screen current employees for what will be a slight expansion of their current responsibilities.
Often times, those justifications are uncompelling excuses to avoid making the difficult decisions that management is responsible for making. Today, we'll cover the reasons why this is poor strategy and offer more effective alternatives for the leaders making these decisions.
Is it effective?
All the eligible employees have already been doing this job, so we should assess each based on an arbitrary skillset (interviewing) over known and documented performance histories.
See how weird it sounds when you say it out loud?
Interviewing absolutely requires certain skills, but it's a sub-optimal approach for screening as those skills are not the same ones that will lead to success on the job.
Because re-interviewing is done with existing employees, you already have a far superior method of assessing candidates…their history of performance. After all, are you trying to retain employees that are great at their job or those who are great at interviewing?
An employee's performance and proven track record, day-in and day-out, over a long period of time, IS the ultimate interview.
Is it fair?
Because the eligible candidates have already been doing the job, management may elect to interview each of them in an effort to be fair to all.
Is that really more fair than making a decision based on performance? I would argue that it's actually unfair of a manager to shirk the responsibility they have in this situation in favor of a less effective (see above) method in which they don't have to be the bad guy.
Is it objective?
Re-interviews are no more or less objective than performance based strategies. The manager who is likely to apply unconscious bias to assessing ones performance is also likely to apply that same bias in an interview setting.
Ultimately, if a manager wants a specific employee to make it through the process, they'll likely have the say to make it happen regardless of strategy. That's not fair or objective, but it's unfortunately the truth.
If you want to be as objective as possible, I'll say it again: on-the-job performance is much more objective than how well one interviews. You can even pull-in other appropriate stakeholders if you want to ensure that you are reducing the opportunity for bias in the decision.
Expanded Responsibilities
What about expanded responsibilities for a consolidated roles? Your employee is doing 75% of the job today but the other 25% will be new.
You (hopefully) know your employees. You probably have an idea of whether or not they have experience in the new responsibilities. More importantly, you know their soft skills. Even if they don't have the experience, you have a sense of how likely they are to be able to learn and adapt to the new responsibilities.
This familiarity with your employees is far more valuable than anything you will or will not learn during an interview.
For the Re-Interviewee
If you are a manager, I've hopefully persuaded you not to adopt a re-interviewing strategy. But what if you are being asked to re-interview for your own job?
For all the reasons listed above, I'd at least consider this as a red flag for your organization. At the end of the day, you need to decide whether you want to keep working for this company. Many don't always have the privilege of walking away from employment based on moral grounds so there is no judgment if you want or need to stay.
If you do want to stay, treat this like any other interview with the exception that you have the advantage of already having an established rapport with the interviewer. That rapport can work for or against you and the worst thing you can do is assume it's "in-the-bag" and underprepare. Provide data, details and examples. Ask questions. Leverage your familiarity with the interviewer but don't rely on the interviewer to fill-in-the-blanks based on that familiarity.
This Week's Action Items:
When within your authority, base these decisions on documented workplace performance.
Consider involving other appropriate stakeholders in order to reduce bias.
If you are the one interviewing for your current job, prepare as you would any other interview.
