|
Post by wcatradio75 on Mar 24, 2019 22:30:53 GMT -5
Jerry -
We will have to politely disagree on this one. Someone who is very happy at their current institution, but sees an opportunity at a particular institution does not want to signal that they are unhappy where they are or are looking to leave. When it comes out, it changes the dynamic within the entire institution and most folks are going to assume this person may be unhappy and looking to get out. At that point the person may as well resign - even if this one position is the only one he or she is looking at.
Same thing with any publicly paid official. A police chief or a county manager is not going to signal to the agency that they are applying for a specific job. Just as I won't tell my boss if I interview with a company that recruits me. What if it turns out I don't like what I hear and don't want the job, but I do want to stay in my current job.
|
|
|
Post by The Cats on Mar 25, 2019 10:13:31 GMT -5
You are right, we'll have to disagree.
If someone is applying for a lateral move, your theory might hold some weight, however, if it's a promotion, everyone understands that you usually have to move for those, certainly if it's a chancellor position. The position of chancellor should not be selected by a few, in the dark. It should be a completely open process, to the folks that are paying the bills, the taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by FLCATAMOUNT on Mar 25, 2019 11:18:53 GMT -5
Interesting article. Akron is kidding itself. If it is a step up a president or chancellor should not be punished by losing his job. I still think it is important that all searches conducted by any government agency in the USA should be open and never done in private. This is America and nothing short of full sunshine and transparency should be accepted. Also, in America, no matter what the topic, all conversations and meetings should always be open to the public. As Thomas Jefferson would say, all things done by the people's government in private are wrong in a democracy. Also, all citizens in a democracy should have a healthy distrust of their government. The older I get, the more I see the wisdom in that statement. I don't trust anyone in the government whether elected or appointed. They work for us but you sure cannot tell it. www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/03/28/akron-president-latest-long-line-leaders-facing-ramifications-after-applying-new
|
|
|
Post by FLCATAMOUNT on Mar 25, 2019 11:25:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rivercat on Aug 3, 2019 16:09:17 GMT -5
I agree entirely. I’m a triple retiree businessman. I can say unequivocally that once I learned any employee was looking for a new employer, my loyalty to them was over and their replacement search began. It would be employment suicide to participate in a public job search. And, to address the other concern (“if you don’t want it known that you are looking for a new job, don’t apply”), that statement would argue that “best and brightest” administrators have to remain shackled at smaller, financially strapped, geographically impaired, etc. colleges or universities, because they don’t want to paraded as part of a huge group of hopeful candidates applying for a job that requires public disclosure of their resumes. Makes no sense. Remember, if fifty people apply, forty-nine are going to be turned down.
As a matter of practice, only troubled, disgruntled or problem administrators would consent to a public search. That’s because all the “losers” have nothing left to lose.
|
|
|
Post by wcatradio75 on Aug 4, 2019 8:10:37 GMT -5
I agree entirely. I’m a triple retiree businessman. I can say unequivocally that once I learned any employee was looking for a new employer, my loyalty to them was over and their replacement search began. It would be employment suicide to participate in a public job search. And, to address the other concern (“if you don’t want it known that you are looking for a new job, don’t apply”), that statement would argue that “best and brightest” administrators have to remain shackled at smaller, financially strapped, geographically impaired, etc. colleges or universities, because they don’t want to paraded as part of a huge group of hopeful candidates applying for a job that requires public disclosure of their resumes. Makes no sense. Remember, if fifty people apply, forty-nine are going to be turned down. As a matter of practice, only troubled, disgruntled or problem administrators would consent to a public search. That’s because all the “losers” have nothing left to lose. I'm in sales and have changed jobs several times in the last 20 years. I've been on interviews for "better" jobs that I turned down, or they decided I wasn't the right fit. If my employer knew I went for an interview - like you - I would have been gone fairly quickly. The same goes for any job - particularly higher paid administrative positions.
|
|
|
Post by catamountfanatic07 on Aug 4, 2019 8:14:33 GMT -5
Agree. As soon as I find out one of my employees is interviewing I’ll give them all the time they want to go and interview. Just happened last week with one of my account reps. He has all week next week now to go and interview and look for jobs since he no longer works for me.
|
|
|
Post by FLCATAMOUNT on Aug 4, 2019 10:53:32 GMT -5
Agree. As soon as I find out one of my employees is interviewing I’ll give them all the time they want to go and interview. Just happened last week with one of my account reps. He has all week next week now to go and interview and look for jobs since he no longer works for me. I hear what you are saying. I guess the other side of that coin is that if nobody wants the employees you have, do you really have good employees? There are plenty of satisfied employees out there that get recruited by other employers for better positions that your firm cannot offer those opportunities to because the further you move up the chain the less positions there are for qualified employees. In my opinion, your view on this fosters fear and mediocrity. I do not blame anyone for trying to better themselves and that has absolutely nothing to do with loyalty. I bet if times got bad and you had to lay people off, you would not think there is anything wrong with that. Are you being loyal to your employees if you do that? So you want to be able to fire people when you want to but you do not want your employees to be able to better themselves by finding a better opportunity without fear of retaliation by firing. I would say with that attitude, your staff is full of a lot of folks who are scared and only do the minimum to get by.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 4, 2019 11:59:21 GMT -5
No one can make me believe that hiring a chancellor of a state university should be done in private behind closed doors. Hiring in the private sector is different than hiring for a state agency, almost everyone working at any state agency, has moved around, with most even being employed by several other agencies within that state.
I don't think a chancellor out there holds it against his/her provost if they pursue a chancellor / president position at another school.
The folks that are in positions to be hired (i.e. existing chancellors or provosts) are expected to be seeking bigger challenges. Just look at our new chancellor and how many different universities she has been employed at. It's like saying FCS coaches should not be allowed to interview for FBS positions (they have to receive permission from their current AD to talk to other schools).
|
|