I do feel the need to warn against making a checklist of good qualities for
potential candidates...
First, a lot of these things are hard to interview for. If you ask someone
if they support their employees and give them clear goals, they're probably
going to say "yes". To find out if they consistently can/do in your sort of
work environment, you'd rather need to interview the people they've been
supporting & managing for a while and ask them how *they* feel.
Second, we're never going to find a "unicorn" who is all things to all
people. Real people are imperfect, and real situations are complex.
Third, what happens when the "unicorn" retires and we transition again?
I think we're going to need to think harder about structural remedies:
communications channels, reporting infrastructures, "escape valves" for
miscommunications or squashed communications in the reporting chain, etc.
In government we call these sorts of things "checks and balances", and we
want them in place both when we like the people being elected into office
and when we are deeply distrustful of them.
I don't advocate huge changes done quickly, but I strongly advocate making
some small steps in the short term; at a minimum, quickly establishing the
promised ombudsperson role to provide an alternate channel for reporting
problems in the regular reporting chain would go a long way to restoring
trust lost in November-February.
-- brion
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Food for thought:
http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-best-managers-exhibit-these-7-behav…
Looking forward to further discussions in the weeks and months ahead,
Pine
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>