A Game Changing Hiring Approach, Not Receiving Its Due Praise

This is a topic that is stirring quite the debate in the Talent world: Coinbase's bold move to require CEO and COO approval for all new hires. This approach has sparked as much curiosity as it has controversy. LJ, their Chief People Officer, shared that since the policy's inception in November, they've onboarded 71 individuals and avoided potential mismatches with 19 others who might have been hired under a less stringent process.?

This policy reminded me of my early days at Noom, where every new addition to the team required the nod from both back then Founder/CEO, Saeju, and Co-Founder/President, Artem. Initially, this approach raised eyebrows and presented its set of hurdles. However, from my perspective, it was proven to be a game-changer for raising the bar in all things hiring related.??

From what I could see, It wasn't about creating barriers; it was about stewardship. It embodied a relentless pursuit of excellence in hiring processes, ensuring that each new member wasn't just a good fit but a catalyst for the culture and vision. It simply pushed everyone involved—recruiters, interviewers, hiring managers and candidates— to do better. Why it was valuable from my personal experience?

• Founders/CEO Cares Deeply: It's clear how significant their involvement can be. Often, they zeroed in on the details such as instances of potential lack of humility during one interview, captured in the scorecards. The hiring managers would need to explain how they resolved that particular interviewer's concern. Their attention to these nuances not only underscored their commitment but also set a tone for the kind of culture and values they wanted to foster within the company.
• More Alignment with Strategic Vision: The people at the helm have a bird's eye view on priorities. That moment when a hiring manager contemplates pushing for a hire in a soon-to-be reshuffled area or change in leadership in sight and you realize is best to wait or "the best moment to fire is before you hire them".? With the fast-paced evolution of business priorities, having a robust system for both opening a role and approving an offer is key to keep strategic alignment.?
• Calibrating on Standards for Excellence: When the founders/executives ask questions about an offer package, it looks like magic, but it is as if the whole team levels up. Suddenly, everyone's scribbling down notes like they're crafting a investor update, thinking twice before championing an average candidate, and refining their assessments, closing strategies and reference checks. The bar is raised significantly in all stages of the hiring process. It is hard, takes time, but everyone involved learns and is more aligned as a result.?
• Elevated Accountability Across the Board: Hiring managers are not only tasked with making decisions but also need to be ready to justify these choices to the top leaders. This level of scrutiny ensures that every hiring decision is thoroughly vetted, with managers and their leaders aligning closely to substantiate their decisions. It's a structure that promotes not just accountability, but also a deep sense of responsibility and alignment.
• Comprehensive Evaluation and Impartial Final Review: Digging into all the scorecard notes, debrief notes and reference checks unveil another kind of magic, it equips leaders with the ability to pose incisive and unbiased questions. This process not only identifies areas of concern or developments but also empowers managers to undertake more thorough assessments, reference checks and to build customized onboarding strategies, with follow-ups on potential concerns that are more visible now, to ensure seamless integration.
• Recruiters Getting a Seat at the Table: It's a big incentive for us to be more strategic on helping leaders to foresee potential issues. Recruiters are not only the ones representing the hiring manager in the offer packet and in those slack channels. They start to decode the DNA of what founders or CEOs seek and value, guiding hiring managers through the fog with insights like, who to add for an interview panel and "See this concern here?". Let's pause and reflect, should you find a better candidate or dig deeper in references before proceeding to an offer??
• Candidates confidence they have CEO/Senior leaders approval. You know when you join a company and suddenly your team is deprioritized? Less of a chance with this process in place. Plus, in a sea of faces in larger companies, having the senior leaders not just know your name but understand your potential given they reviewed your offer proposal carefully… That's rare air.

Critiques often focus on the potential issues with scalability, decision-making speed, individual autonomy and leaders' biases. Below the most liked comments Coinbase had:

Those are all valid points. However, looking strictly at Coinbase approach to add those approvals, through my own lens - I still see it as a valid practice to increase the overall hiring process bar. To add from my experience, what was most challenging and not everyone is talking about:?

• Scorecard and Feedback Creeping: It's an open secret that the pressure to fill roles can sometimes lead to compromised standards, with some managers and interviewers potentially inflating interview scores and downplaying by not writing down or vocalizing concerns appropriately.
• Contractor Roles Creeping: When it is so hard to approve and hire for a Full Time role, the number contractor requests increase significantly, as they typically have a path of less resistance for approvals. You can potentially see quality going down in "other hiring types", if you don't have a good approval process in place.
• Recruiters Competency in Spotlight: Crafting an offer that resonates not just with the candidate but also aligns with our executive team's expectations requires a blend of skill, insight and timely objective communication. The recruiters' role becomes pivotal in navigating these waters with hiring managers, especially when direct questions from Founders/CEO demand swift and accurate responses. This is a hard environment for most - it can be frustrating to get an offer not approved and you need to manage candidates carefully at the bottom of the funnel and how you provide feedback.?
• Hiring Managers Empowerment:? There's a delicate dance between empowering hiring managers and maintaining executive oversight. While it's vital for leaders to trust and empower managers, it's equally important for these managers to feel genuinely empowered. This balance is crucial for fostering a sense of ownership and confidence among managers, ensuring they feel supported in their decisions while also aligned with broader strategic goals.??

The hurdles of such a strategy are laud and visible, but the opportunity it presents to cultivate an atmosphere of unparalleled hiring excellence far outpaces in my opinion. Why? Below a real story:

The process seems daunting when you start it. However, as everyone becomes proficient, a transformation occurs: offers are meticulously crafted, addressing and providing a resolution for all concerns raised. This results in an almost unanimous approval rate, with minimal inquiries posed. Recruiters transition into trusted advisors, achieving alignment across the board. Hiring managers are crafting phenomenal assessments, choosing top notch interviewers and running reference checks calls. Leadership's engagement shifts towards celebrating on decisions made, seeking further understanding or context rather than obstructing choices. Ultimately, the very need for this rigorous process fades away - signaling its success.

What do you think? Is the skepticism surrounding Coinbase's strategy justified, or does it represent an essential shift in our pursuit of Hiring Excellence? Have you also encountered similar practices? Your perspectives and stories enrich this conversation!