If executive positions are filled randomly after a preselection of candidates, this counteracts arrogance, abuse of power and discrimination. Scientists from different faculties at the University of Zurich have found this out in experiments. In an interview, economist Margit Osterloh, one of the researchers, names good reasons for the focal chance decision and also explains why the current management is resisting it.

For jobs and vacancies in the IT industry, see also the job market on heise online:

heise online: In experiments you and other researchers found out that it would be better for the economy if executives were selected by drawing lots. That sounds absurd and unrealistic.

Margit Osterloh

Margit Osterloh: Well, new ideas often have a hard time coming up enforce. Our discovery is not entirely new, as chance decisions have always played a role in history, but that has been forgotten. It will probably take some time before random methods are used again. There are already approaches in science: The VW Foundation in Germany is carrying out a pilot project for the random selection of research funding. The Swiss National Science Foundation is also experimenting with the idea. I don’t know any examples in business, you have to be patient with innovative ideas.

If executives are selected by chance, it can Combating arrogance and abuse of power, as well as almost doubling the proportion of capable women in management positions, emerges from the experiments. But are superiors arrogant and abuse their power

There is some current and notorious evidence for this. In Switzerland we have the case with ex-Raiffeisen boss Pierin Vincenz because of fraud, embezzlement, forgery of documents. In Germany, the former VW CEO Martin Winterkorn is a prominent example that hubris leads to people no longer obeying rules. There are a multitude of managers who have done incredibly high damage to the economy due to their arrogance. The diesel scandal is a typical case for this.

Please describe the experiments.

The experiments were carried out with students from different subjects at the University of Zurich and the ETH in their laboratories carried out. Groups of six were formed to solve tasks on the screen. The three with the best results were selected from all subjects. At the same time, we formed two comparison groups. In one, a management trio was chosen at random, in the other, the three best were randomly selected. We then compared the usual service selection with a pure and a focal random selection. In our experiments, these were the best candidates. This is the crucial group for our findings. The purely random selection turned out to be not important.

What is so special about this focal random decision?

Focal means that a pre-selection takes place according to competence and performance, the decision is therefore not arbitrary, but technically well-founded. This is also the principle in the pilot projects of the VW Foundation and the National Fund. Conventional criteria inevitably mean that ordinary prejudices apply. But that is the price for the combination of competence on the one hand and the advantage of random selection on the other.

What speaks in favor of a random number determines who is ultimately in charge?

These people are less arrogant, tend to respect rules and have a higher pro-social disposition and behaviors. These are the advantages on the part of the leaders. Those who are led also have advantages through the random selection described: those who do not get a move keep their face because a drawing of lots does not affect self-confidence, but is simply due to a lack of luck. Therefore, their cooperation with the leader is significantly better than when managers are determined by performance selection.

And thirdly applies to all random decisions: Discrimination and prejudice do not play a role. Through the random choice of leaders, for example, educationally disadvantaged groups have better chances of advancing, because all forms of discrimination are eliminated more often in management positions.

Yes, and that from the perspective of the supply and demand side. On the demand side, women are still discriminated against in professional life. On the supply side, qualified women are less likely to apply when it comes to filling management positions or they do not want to when they are proposed for a higher position. Hence the low number of women occupying executive chairs. Particularly high-performing women have an aversion to competing against men in their typical domains. With the focused random selection, the gender gap disappears and as many good women as men take part in the competition.

Today’s bosses have often worked hard for their position. Does the drawing of lots undermine the performance principle if the effort is no longer rewarded?

We are talking about focal random selection. So people will have to make an effort to get on the shortlist before the die rolls. So there are several equally good candidates who are eligible for the top position. This is how every professional headhunter works and makes several suggestions to his client. At the University of Basel, im 18. Century, professorial chairs filled by focal random decisions. This is a historical example that shows that the idea works. When several have the chance to advance, several make an effort. The willingness to perform increases overall.

For which group of bosses this selection process is suitable: only for the throne or for each rung on the Career ladder?

I can imagine the principle of the procedure across the entire hierarchy level. But it is above all the tip that is afflicted with arrogance. So I would start at the top and extend the random selection down.

The approach seems rational. Why is the procedure not applied then?

Because the bosses fear losing control. This is already a form of arrogance because they believe that only they can recognize who is suitable for a management position. And the bosses no longer have clanships if they don’t have the people who belong to them in certain positions. The random procedure reduces the power of those who have decided so far, which is why they defend themselves against the focal random decision. Chance is a wonderful instrument for the circumcision of power.

(mho)