Introduction to the Hiring Process

In many organizations, managers make the first call about which candidates to bring in for an interview, and then later which applicant gets the job. While their expertise is crucial to selecting the right person, the process can be laborious and time-consuming as they must take a step away from their core activities to focus on reviewing applications and narrowing candidate pools. But what if the responsibility for picking first-round interviewees was transferred to HR? Does it have an impact on who gets hired? Our research, published in Administrative Science Quarterly, examines this scenario.

The Role of Managers in Hiring

Managers play a significant role in the hiring process, as they are often best positioned to assess the skills and qualifications required for a particular position. However, their involvement in the initial stages of the hiring process can be time-consuming and may take away from their other responsibilities. This can lead to delays in the hiring process and may result in the loss of top candidates.

Transferring Responsibility to HR

Transferring the responsibility for picking first-round interviewees to HR could potentially streamline the hiring process and reduce the burden on managers. HR professionals are trained to assess candidate qualifications and can bring a more objective perspective to the initial screening process. However, there is also the potential for HR to bring their own biases to the process, which could impact who is selected for an interview.

Impact on Hiring Outcomes

Our research examined the impact of transferring the responsibility for picking first-round interviewees to HR on hiring outcomes. We found that when HR was responsible for selecting candidates for initial interviews, the pool of candidates who were selected was more diverse than when managers made the selection. This suggests that HR may be more effective at identifying and selecting candidates from underrepresented groups.

Implications for Organizations

The findings of our research have implications for organizations looking to improve their hiring processes. By transferring the responsibility for picking first-round interviewees to HR, organizations may be able to increase the diversity of their candidate pool and reduce the burden on managers. However, it is also important for organizations to ensure that HR has the necessary training and resources to effectively assess candidate qualifications and make informed decisions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our research suggests that transferring the responsibility for picking first-round interviewees to HR can have a positive impact on hiring outcomes, particularly in terms of increasing diversity. However, it is also important for organizations to carefully consider the potential implications of this change and ensure that HR has the necessary training and resources to effectively manage the hiring process.

FAQs

• Q: What is the traditional role of managers in the hiring process?
  A: Traditionally, managers are responsible for selecting candidates for initial interviews and making the final hiring decision.
• Q: What are the potential benefits of transferring the responsibility for picking first-round interviewees to HR?
  A: The potential benefits include streamlining the hiring process, reducing the burden on managers, and increasing the diversity of the candidate pool.
• Q: What are the potential drawbacks of transferring the responsibility for picking first-round interviewees to HR?
  A: The potential drawbacks include the potential for HR to bring their own biases to the process and the need for HR to have the necessary training and resources to effectively assess candidate qualifications.
• Q: What were the findings of the research on the impact of transferring the responsibility for picking first-round interviewees to HR?
  A: The research found that when HR was responsible for selecting candidates for initial interviews, the pool of candidates who were selected was more diverse than when managers made the selection.

The workplace has changed—dramatically. And with it, the definition of company culture is being rewritten.

Gone are the days when company culture meant ping-pong tables, casual Fridays, or free snacks in the breakroom. In 2025, employees want something deeper: culture that feels human, intentional, and aligned with their values.

So what does company culture really mean now—and how can organizations build it with purpose?

1. Culture Is No Longer Top-Down—It’s Built Together

Strong company culture doesn’t come from leadership memos or mission statements alone. It’s shaped by how people show up, how they’re treated, and how safe they feel to contribute.
In today’s environment, culture is co-created. Employees want to be heard, not just managed. They want transparency, collaboration, and leaders who are willing to listen—even when the answers are hard.

2. Belonging Is the New Benchmark

Employees aren’t just asking, “Do I like this job?” They’re asking, “Do I belong here?”

Belonging goes beyond DEI training. It shows up in the language we use, how meetings are run, whose voices are amplified, and how feedback is given. Companies that prioritize psychological safety and inclusion don’t just retain talent—they unlock it.

3. Flexibility Is Cultural Currency

Workplace culture used to be about who was first in the office or who stayed latest. In 2025, flexibility is the new loyalty.

Companies that offer flexible hours, hybrid options, and results-based evaluations signal a deeper trust in their teams. This shift tells employees: “We care more about your output and wellbeing than where you sit from 9 to 5.”

4. Culture Shows Up in the Small Things

The way people talk in Slack threads. The tone in company-wide emails. Who gets celebrated—and how.
These “invisible signals” shape how culture feels day to day. Leaders who are intentional about those micro-moments create an environment where respect and humanity become part of the brand.

Final Thought

In 2025, company culture isn’t about perks—it’s about people.
It’s about creating an ecosystem where trust is high, communication is open, and everyone—at every level—feels they matter. That kind of culture doesn’t just attract great talent. It keeps it. And it fuels the kind of innovation and impact today’s world demands.

The political impacts on workplaces are becoming increasingly evident, affecting employee engagement and overall productivity. In today’s globalized world, politics plays a significant role in shaping the work environment, influencing employee morale, and driving business decisions. As we delve into the world of work, it’s essential to understand the far-reaching consequences of politics on employee engagement.

Understanding Employee Engagement

Employee engagement refers to the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral state of being fully involved and committed to one’s work. Engaged employees are more productive, efficient, and dedicated to their organizations, leading to improved job satisfaction, reduced turnover rates, and enhanced overall well-being. However, various factors, including politics, can significantly impact employee engagement.

Factors Influencing Employee Engagement

Several factors contribute to employee engagement, including job satisfaction, recognition, feedback, and work-life balance. When employees feel valued, supported, and empowered, they are more likely to be engaged and committed to their work. On the other hand, factors such as poor management, lack of autonomy, and unsupportive work environments can lead to disengagement and decreased productivity.

Political Impacts on Employee Engagement

Politics can significantly impact employee engagement, both positively and negatively. For instance, a supportive and inclusive work environment can foster engagement, while a toxic or discriminatory environment can lead to disengagement. The current political climate, with its emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion, has brought attention to the importance of creating a welcoming and inclusive work environment.

Case Study: Google’s Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives

Google’s diversity and inclusion initiatives are a prime example of how politics can positively impact employee engagement. In 2019, Google announced a $150 million investment in diversity and inclusion programs, aimed at increasing underrepresented groups in the tech industry. This initiative not only enhanced employee engagement but also improved the company’s reputation and attracted top talent from diverse backgrounds.

Global Politics and Employee Engagement

Global politics can also significantly impact employee engagement, particularly in multinational corporations. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, highlighted the importance of global cooperation and solidarity. Companies that demonstrated empathy and support for their employees during this time saw increased engagement and loyalty.

Example: Microsoft’s Response to COVID-19

Microsoft’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic is a notable example of how global politics can impact employee engagement. The company implemented various measures to support its employees, including flexible work arrangements, mental health resources, and financial assistance. This proactive approach not only enhanced employee engagement but also contributed to the company’s reputation as a responsible and caring employer.

Challenges and Opportunities

While politics can positively impact employee engagement, it also presents challenges. The current polarized political climate can lead to conflicts and divisions within the workplace, negatively impacting employee engagement. However, this also presents an opportunity for organizations to foster open dialogue, promote empathy, and encourage employees to engage in respectful discussions.

Strategies for Fostering Open Dialogue

Organizations can foster open dialogue by creating safe and inclusive spaces for employees to share their thoughts and opinions. This can be achieved through regular town hall meetings, anonymous feedback mechanisms, and diversity and inclusion training programs. By promoting open dialogue, organizations can address conflicts and divisions, ultimately enhancing employee engagement and productivity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the impact of politics on employee engagement is a complex and multifaceted issue. While politics can positively impact employee engagement, it also presents challenges. By understanding the factors that influence employee engagement and implementing strategies to foster open dialogue, organizations can navigate the complexities of politics and create a supportive and inclusive work environment. Ultimately, this leads to enhanced employee engagement, productivity, and overall well-being.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: How can politics impact employee engagement?

A: Politics can impact employee engagement by influencing the work environment, employee morale, and business decisions. A supportive and inclusive work environment can foster engagement, while a toxic or discriminatory environment can lead to disengagement.

Q: What are the benefits of fostering open dialogue in the workplace?

A: Fostering open dialogue can address conflicts and divisions, enhance employee engagement, and promote empathy and understanding. It can also contribute to a positive and inclusive work environment, leading to improved productivity and overall well-being.

Q: How can organizations create a supportive and inclusive work environment?

A: Organizations can create a supportive and inclusive work environment by implementing diversity and inclusion initiatives, providing training programs, and fostering open dialogue. They can also promote work-life balance, recognition, and feedback, ultimately leading to enhanced employee engagement and productivity.

Q: What role does leadership play in shaping employee engagement?

A: Leadership plays a significant role in shaping employee engagement. Leaders can foster a positive and inclusive work environment by promoting open dialogue, empathy, and understanding. They can also lead by example, demonstrating a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, and creating a culture of respect and empathy.

Q: How can employees navigate the complexities of politics in the workplace?

A: Employees can navigate the complexities of politics in the workplace by being aware of their organization’s policies and values, seeking support from HR or management, and engaging in open and respectful dialogue with colleagues. They can also prioritize self-care, set boundaries, and seek resources and support when needed.