Hold on, Jytdog, I think you're reading more into Pierre's statement than is really there.
Pierre has not said the decision to retain the ED "was itself trust-destroying for [him]". He said it was a mistake, and he said it was a mistake because the board was wrong to think that the ED could recover from a 90% staff disapproval level.
He also pointed out that "[i]f the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts". Thus he is not particularly concerned about the board saying the support was unanimous. Pierre's concern is that the board thought it was a good idea to keep an ED with a 90% staff disapproval rating.
Risker/Anne
On 7 March 2016 at 18:24, jytdog jytdog@gmail.com wrote:
Pierre that is exactly what I struggle with. You are saying that throwing integrity out the window in the name of politics is OK. I am saying it is absolutely not OK. The individuals representing the board should have been honest and simply said "The board supports the ED" and left it at that, and if asked, yes, been honest that support was not unanimous. Misrepresenting things a) accomplished nothing, as we can see now, and b) opened huge rifts that remain gaping today.
I do hear you, that the decision to retain the ED in November was itself trust-destroying for you, because you view that as such bad judgement. I hear that.
To me, making public misrepresentations is another thing altogether. It calls into question whether folks are even telling the truth, and that just destroys the very basis for authentic conversation. It is a deeper wound. This to me, bars the way to move forward.
How do we trust what the board says going forward? How can the board be effective, when people cannot trust what its members say about its decisions?
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Pierre-Selim pierre-selim@huard.info wrote:
Seriously ?
If the board decide to keep the CEO/ED, the board cannot go and undermine the authority of the CEO by communicating doubts.
The mistake was not to say unanimous support but the "keep the ED" straw poll result. It really surprised me because the more you wait the more it costs (talents leave, delayed arrival of a new CEO, ...), and honnestly there is no recovery possible at 90% of disapproval from your staff (C-levels included). Le 7 mars 2016 7:16 PM, "jytdog" jytdog@gmail.com a écrit :
Craig, thanks for your reply on this. This is actually not about HR matters. It is about what board members chose to do and say.
It would have made little difference in the RW if they had said "the
board
supports Lila" (and if there was a majority vote for that, the board
did
support Lila) vs "the board unanimously supports Lila". They chose to state the latter. That has nothing to do with Lila per se, and
everything
to do with the choices individuals made in representing what the board actually did.
This is what I meant. Poor processes poorly executed definitely
allowed
this to happen; if board votes were accurately recorded in minutes and swiftly published, what happened would not be even possible or would be
so
foolish that no one would do it. But these were still choices that individuals made in the context that existed.
These choices and those of other board members - as individuals -
have
created an unbearable set of contradictions that need to resolved.
This
is
what we should focus on. I hope you can see that the HR angle is a a distraction from that, as this has nothing to do with WMF staff per se.
Yes we should also urge the board to develop more rigorous procedures
and
to follow them more closely to make it harder for individuals to make
bad
choices, but there is still resolving what did happen, so that we can
go
forward.
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 1:50 AM, Craig Franklin <
cfranklin@halonetwork.net>
wrote:
To be honest, I consider it unlikely that Patricio or anyone else is
going
to discuss HR matters at length in public, even when they concern
Lila,
and
especially when they could potentially be interpreted as negative
towards a
particular identifiable individual. For legal reasons, it might be
the
case that the BoT will let Lila have as dignified an exit as possible
from
the organisation, without putting a whole bunch of information into
the
public domain about how they regarded her performance.
Cheers, Craig
On 7 March 2016 at 16:39, Oliver Keyes ironholds@gmail.com wrote:
+1. I would also very much appreciate Patricio explaining whether
the
"full confidence of the board" actually meant the full confidence: IOW, that a vote was taken and everyone unanimously agreed that
Lila's
continuation was the best thing.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe