Our current hiring processes (from deciding what “jobs” exist to deciding who gets an offer) are somewhat centralised. Within such an environment, it’s possible that contributors feel removed from the decisions and consequences of such decisions. With a view to change that, we wanted to try discuss few hiring experiments in this area.
Theory: Each contributor we hire should add to the overall impact & value of Status.
Proposal: launch a SITG type experiment for hiring by requiring Core Contributors to put SITG (i.e. pay) to propose a hire.
Scenario: You’ve just met/interviewed a fantastic candidate. You want to hire them for Status. To affirm your opinion and the strength of your convictions, you would be willing to pay a small but not insignificant fee ($50?). If the candidate gets hired and passes trial then we would assume they are having a positive impact on Status and that as a result, the overall value of Status would rise. Therefore, you could recoup your initial $50 outlay through an increase in the value of the SNT you hold. However, if the candidate does not pass trial, you would lose your $50.
As a result, you are personally invested in making good hiring decisions for Status. We could then look to remove some of “centralising” processes of hiring.
Options/Iterations:
- Should we return the $50 if the contributor subsequently passes trial? Or return more than the original fee.
- Could also apply to other processes (the trial process itself).
- Is $50 enough to make contributors consider themselves “invested”?
WDYT? Suggestions for how we might improve the design of such an experiment? (@oskarth the SITG expert)