On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows
exactly what they want and they
choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general
need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This situation
strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public relations
material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of
applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the
other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you have
done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what their
"job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they
believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a
new
employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a more
open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to apply
for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. Narrow
and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and
uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening.
This explanation is quite
insightful, I think. The challenge described
is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a
somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and
allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation
I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different
positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background,
skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for
us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the
hiring process in how we think about the position.
--Michael Snow