Recent comments in /f/WorcesterMA

your_city_councilor t1_ixk5gho wrote

>Again, they ALL. Interview. Other. People. All of them.

That is simply not true. They might consider who is the best person and have some discussion in the board, but no, they simply do not all, or even generally, interview other people. Where do you get this from?

>If you are ok with elected officials doing just whatever the hell they want, that is your right. That they are ok with it looking that way is rather frightening

George Russell was right. Batista should have been hired on way back without any silly national search, which progressives glommed onto just because the schools were doing, which was because the schools have long been in disarray and someone outside was necessary to change directions.

1

MassInsider t1_ixjz6uh wrote

Again, they ALL. Interview. Other. People. All of them. The only scenarios is in instances where a position is created for a specific person. And even then, depending on corp policy, they may still interview someone. Because decisions made in a vacuum are bad.

To your point, the fix may be in. But they do it because its due diligence.

If you are ok with elected officials doing just whatever the hell they want, that is your right. That they are ok with it looking that way is rather frightening

1

your_city_councilor t1_ixjccyd wrote

Again, it's not unheard of, and is in fact actually fairly widespread practice, to appoint someone to corporate leadership without some formal apply/interview process. You learn much more about a person when they work for an organization for a decade in different positions than you would in any apply/interview situation.

Companies are more likely to conduct a search externally if they need someone to come in and shake things up because the organization hasn't performed well. If they're looking to continue as things have been going, they'll appoint someone who's in a position of leadership already.

I mean, how else do promotions work? Someone comes to you and tells you, "Hey, we're promoting you to this job."

As for resume, I guess it's nice to have on record, but anyone could have just looked at Batista's linked in profile.

1

MassInsider t1_ixj6ikh wrote

It is almost certainly internal policy, to start with. On top of that, investors don't give a single shit how long she's been there, if someone better was able to be acquired that's who they want.

I've seen places with an internal candidate in a hard to find discipline (data scientists types 10 years ago, for ex. ) not be able to promote someone because they can't find someone else to interview and company policy was all roles are competitive and in;lude non-current employees. While that's a little extreme, in the end its just bad practice to always promote from within. You want to consistently bring in talent with new experiences, especially at competitors. If all your lead or middle management roles are all internal promotions, you start to become a bubble. Thats VERY bad, especially in a high tech situation.

Back to the CM thing, in this case, they didn't even let anyone apply. He didnt' technically apply, never mind interview. There was just no process. Petty had an order last night asking for Batista's resume. They already appointed him and they never asked for the resume on the record? Yes, some of it may have been performative if they had more process, because they had the votes, but its government ffs. Some of it is performative.

Now it just looks like Augustus ordained his successor. I have a problem with that.

Edited to clarify talent from competitors and not the illiterate thing i actually wrote.

1

Ok_Fox_1770 t1_ixi9rk5 wrote

Marshall’s was a cool spot, made TJ sweat and try a little more. Then there was the fair… or spags… I dunno it was fun to have variety of places and touch stuff. Avoid that buyers regret when you get duped online. Or “Wished” as we call it in the family. Sick of the same plaza same stores, just change the town name

1