This paper examines Zappos' distinctive recruitment and selection strategy, which prioritizes cultural fit over traditional qualifications and relies heavily on employee referrals through the Zappos Insiders program. While the company's approach has generated interest in HR circles, the paper critically evaluates the process against standard selection criteria—reliability, validity, legality, and fairness. The analysis reveals that Zappos' emphasis on personality assessment and peer evaluation, though intended to identify employees aligned with company values, runs counter to established antidiscrimination safeguards and creates risk for unintentional bias. The paper concludes that conflating cultural fit with personal similarity poses significant regulatory and ethical challenges.
With the company's emphasis on the Zappos Insiders group, a recruitment strategy that is likely to be a good fit would emphasize referrals from existing Zappos employees. A good-fit recruitment strategy would be structured to allow candidates for positions to spend time with members of the team that they are interested in joining. Zappos takes pride in being a company that is focused on company culture rather than on customer service, claiming that customer service simply happens when the company successfully hires people who align with the corporate culture. Essentially, what the company may be doing—without explicit awareness—is creating a corporate culture that enables people who are a good fit to be happy at work and satisfied with the work they do each day. This principle amounts to an affirmation of the old adage that happy employees make for happy customers.
Traditional job postings do not exist at Zappos. Instead of the transactional exchange that occurs between job seekers and job posters, Zappos' current recruitment strategy proceeds in a manner similar to joining a country club. The company emphasizes getting to know the people who want to work for Zappos through processes and events that are only vaguely associated with actual positions on teams—and they are never pegged to a job posting. The hazard of conducting recruitment in this way is that the employee pool tends to be homogeneous in the extreme. This may or may not be a problem for the company, depending on the type of work that is accomplished, the rate of growth experienced by the company, and the characteristics of the customer base.
The steps in the recruitment process are not so very different from those used in other companies, but what is different is the establishment of a sort of employee candidate pool based in the Zappos Insiders. The company defines Zappos Insiders as:
"Simply people who might want to work for Zappos someday—now, tomorrow, or sometime down the road. It's like a special membership for people who want to stay in touch with us, learn more about our fun, zany culture, know what's happening at our company, get special insider perspectives and receive team-specific updates about the group you'd like to join" (McIlvaine, 2014).
At some point in the recruitment process, the approach turns from the passive candidate pool to the more active matching of candidates with positions that need to be filled. This is when the more conventional components of the recruitment process are put into play.
Candidates from the online insider pool are interviewed by phone. Candidates who move on to second interviews are sent to behavioral interviews intended to learn what the candidates know about Zappos culture, how they might handle difficult situations, and what evidence can be observed that they are humble people who would be effective collaborators (Nisen, 2014). If the candidate was driven to the Zappos facility by a shuttle, a human resources representative will contact the shuttle driver to learn if the candidate was polite and considerate during transport (Nisen, 2014). Candidates are invited for lunch to observe how they interact with other people (Patterson, 2000).
Zappos does require all new hires to complete a four-week period as a customer service representative, following the initial job orientation and onboarding processes that all customer service employees receive (Richards, 2010). This incubation period is thought to serve as a test of the hire and is based on the assumption that it is not easy—or possible—to fake the attributes that Zappos desires in employees during this intense and stressful trial period.
As one HR expert notes, "People have an instinctive propensity to hire those who remind them of themselves, and one has to imagine that this tendency is even greater in people who aren't trained as human resource professionals" (Solomon, 2014). This tendency can subtly reshape what "cultural fit" means in practice.
Recruitment and selection processes are evaluated against criteria intended to ensure that they are generalizable, legal, practical, reliable, and valid. Zappos selection processes are not entirely unique, as other companies utilize components of the Zappos processes to one degree or another (Cutts, 2001). However, Zappos' overreliance on evaluating the culture fit of candidates and obtaining feedback from peer evaluations during the incubation period casts them onto regulatory thin ice.
"Peer evaluations, for example, run the risk of devolving into an assessment of whether a given candidate is a good drinking buddy or a worthy World of Warcraft adversary, not to mention doing an end run around the antidiscriminatory safeguards that traditional human resources procedures have evolved to support" (Solomon, 2014). This concern highlights a fundamental tension in the Zappos model: informal, culture-based assessment can easily mask discriminatory bias, whether intentional or unconscious.
Further, "The word 'fit' in the absence of that support factor [fair consideration for jobs for people who happen to be different] can easily be misinterpreted as 'being like me,' instead of what the position requires. Many organizations make the mistake of assuming that those tasked with selecting new hires are equipped to do so fairly because they are nice people or good workers. But failure to ensure the selection process is based on standard criteria with trained interviewers can result in unintentional bias in the spirit of looking for someone who's a perceived 'good fit.' Superficial differences and similarities are often the first things we notice. It's important to get beyond them" (Solomon, 2014).
The selection process leans heavily in the direction of personal impressions, and this approach raises questions under equal employment opportunity law, which requires that hiring decisions be based on job-related criteria applied consistently and fairly to all candidates. When fit becomes a proxy for personality or social compatibility rather than job competency, legal risk increases.
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.