[Foundation-l] Erik's New Job

[Chad]

*We* didn't hire Sue, the board did. I don't remember having a say in her hire.
Not to say she's doing a bad job necessarily, but trying to shift the blame
back on us saying "Well we hired her to do this" isn't the right way to put it.

Now, perhaps I'm the only one here, but I have had some serious concerns
raised about the ethical practices of Sue's position as ED given this situation.
I understand that in many cases, a private search for a new employee can be
conducted. But to do so in a manner that appears to be planned (which I have
strong suspicions it was) and slightly underhanded in front of a community that
has always (supposedly, last time I checked) been built around honesty and
openness is upsetting to say the least. I'm not saying that Erik is bad for the
job, he might be the best damn Deputy ED the Foundation will ever see. And
if he is, so much the better.

I'm simply saying that doing things that *look* underhanded--even if they
aren't--looks bad to this community (which has been known to be slightly
paranoid) and makes me question someone's overall ethics.

Chad.


On Dec 18, 2007 3:55 PM, George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2007 12:33 PM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Doesn't make it any more justified. If anything, it makes it even more
> > underhanded.
> > Erik recused himself over the issue of voting Sue to ED, then she
> > turns around and
> > promotes him to Deputy ED?
>
> > It just screams that they were planning it,
>
> Possibly.  One could ask them if it had come up in discussions rather
> than speculate.  I would on first glance not care if the answer
> happened to be yes; Erik did abstain / recuse on the one possible
> conflict of interest vote regarding the situation, and the Board
> didn't adopt an anti-board-hire policy which would have been violated,
> though there was some discussion.
>
> > and the fact
> > that the position was /never/ advertised makes it all the more upsetting.
>
> Most executive level positions are not advertised.  Some do not
> involve any wider search at all, but top-down recruitment efforts.
>
> This is normal.  There's nothing improper about it at all.
>
> I assume that Sue discussed the issues around having such a person
> with the board and got their approval to hire someone for it.
>
> > While
> > I sympathize with Sue's aims to produce a productive and professional office,
> > back-door job offers are not the way to go about it.
>
> There would be no outcry if the American Red Cross' president or
> executive director said "I want person X as my assistant director" and
> hired them without a search.
>
> Real world hiring is mixtures of open searches, private searches, and
> private selections.
>
> We also don't factually know that Sue didn't conduct a private search.
>  You're assuming that.  All we do know is that there wasn't a public
> search.
>
> Regardless of whether there was a private search or a private
> selection, either case is ethical in business or charity employment.
>
> Part of the implied social contract between organizations and senior
> management is that senior management are assumed to be ethical and
> have good business and personnel judgment.  If you do not believe that
> Sue has good personnel judgment then either you have a perceptions
> problem or Sue should not be the ED.  I see no sign that Sue has used
> poor judgment in asking Erik to fill this role - he's clearly an
> energetic and wide-horizons person who's worked both within our
> community and outside it on educational issues.
>
> This is what we hired Sue to do - direct things.  Complaining that
> she's done so is silly.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>