On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 5:52 AM, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>wrote;wrote:
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.
on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipedia(a)frontier.com wrote:
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, do you, and the rest of the Foundation staff, have any idea how
detached - yes, estranged - you are becoming from the Community that is at
the heart of this Project?
Marc Riddell
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Wikimedia Foundation seems to be turning into another non-profit bent on
social outreach. The internal structure appears to be mutating into
something very corporate, from the constant direction of
consultants/analysts to expansion into emerging markets. They all seem to
resemble any other corporation trying to expand, overlooking that fact that
the actual product is governed and maintained by an active community which
is responsible for most of the content.
One look at the current staff page points to the flawed vision of the
internal structure, with titles like chief talent and culture officer, which
sounds more like a job from a futuristic science fiction or even a cult, a
successful one of course. The fundraising part of the staff seems to be
under the community department, communications seems to be under global
development. There seems to be only one person in the finance and
administration department.
Chief propaganda officer doesn't seem to be far behind, unless you prefer
raconteur which is more or less the same title.
Jason