Dr. Heilman wrote:
... we need someone who has excellent communication and people skills. Technical skills can be hired for at other levels of the organization while people skill cannot typically be taught.
Katherine, our current interim ED, appears to have these qualities. If she is [interested] in taking on the position long term I would hope her candidacy is given serious consideration by the board.
I agree with this completely. The Foundation could save so much money and time if the Board would simply appoint Katherine and bypass the planned search in recognition of Katherine's observed performance working at the WMF which no external candidate can possibly match, please?
Can we at least get confirmation that her performance working at the Foundation will be appropriately weighted in her favor if we do have another lengthy, expensive, third-party search?
Best regards, Jim Salsman
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:36 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Can we at least get confirmation that her performance working at the Foundation will be appropriately weighted in her favor if we do have another lengthy, expensive, third-party search?
I believe it is always only reasonable to account for someone's intimate understanding of organizational culture, as well as to recognize one's good performance hands on.
However, I think that the process should be wide and open - whoever becomes the permanent ED, should really be the best choice, not just because of the incumbent advantage. The solid and rigorous recruitment process will add credibility and legitimacy to whoever this person eventually is.
dariusz (Board and the ED search committee member, but speaking just on my own behalf)
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 4:46 PM Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:36 PM, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
Can we at least get confirmation that her performance working at the Foundation will be appropriately weighted in her favor if we do have another lengthy, expensive, third-party search?
I believe it is always only reasonable to account for someone's intimate understanding of organizational culture, as well as to recognize one's good performance hands on.
However, I think that the process should be wide and open - whoever becomes the permanent ED, should really be the best choice, not just because of the incumbent advantage. The solid and rigorous recruitment process will add credibility and legitimacy to whoever this person eventually is.
I would love to see a solid and rigorous hiring process that lends credibility to the eventual selection. Has the board done an analysis of the previous hiring process to help ensure that the new process will be solid and rigorous?
Luis
[Disclaimer for those who missed it last time I sent email here: I did not sign a termination or contracting agreement with the organization, so I am not a contractor with the organization. I do still speak to many friends within the org, but have not discussed this email with them.]
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Luis Villa luis@lu.is wrote:
I would love to see a solid and rigorous hiring process that lends credibility to the eventual selection. Has the board done an analysis of the previous hiring process to help ensure that the new process will be solid and rigorous?
We have identified the things we believe need to be done differently, yes.
This time, we're relying on a small, dedicated, NGO-focused organization, we have an ED search team including staff members (and me, hopefully counting as the community), as well as a process which involves staff&community feedback (through the on-going survey - which, btw, is run only on major projects, which is a shame, but in the same time the search team felt the need for urgency... on of the things to watch for in the post mortem, surely).
dj
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org