In an editorial, The Dallas Morning News calls for school districts to publicly release the names of candidates it is considering to fill the position of superintendent. The News says there are 40 school districts statewide searching for a new superintendent and most will name only a single finalist. After the public has a suitable opportunity to review the finalist, the school board offers him or her the job, assuming the public reaction is favorable. The News wants more:
"Taxpayers deserve a better sense of the process and the chance to hold their elected leaders accountable. ... We urge these school boards to show real leadership and publicly disclose a short list of superintendent finalists before they make their hire."Good in theory, terrible in practice. The trouble with this was identified in the very first sentence of the News' editorial: "Few job seekers relish going public with their employment prospects."
If you work at Circuit City, it's unlikely that your boss is going to find out when you apply for a job at Best Buy. If you get the job, you turn in your resignation at Circuit City. If you don't get it, you haven't ruined your relationships at Circuit City. But if Best Buy blabs and then doesn't offer you a job, you could be screwed back at Circuit City.
Likewise, if it becomes known that a superintendent at a small school district is applying for the open position at a larger school district, he risks ruining his relationship with his current school board, administrators, teachers, parents and students. Given that many candidates apply and only one is given the job, the result of the open and transparent system the News calls for would be turmoil at dozens of school districts for every hire somewhere else. To avoid that, if candidates knew their names would be released, the best candidates wouldn't even apply.
In short, the News' desire for a "fully transparent process" is laudable, but naive. It wouldn't serve the interests of the job seekers, the school districts or the public well.
4 comments:
Agreed, for all the reasons you say.
Bill
I agree, but something in there chafes me a bit.
Somewhere in the back of my head this is wiggling around: "Hey, let's all collude to help employees deceive their employers."
If it's not deceit then sunlight is no deterrent. If it is deceit then I want no active part in the collusion.
And, yes, when I transitioned out of my last job I telegraphed it civilly ahead of time. Worked out fine. Had plenty of time to really train my replacement[s]. Was it harder on me? Yes. But I think it was the honest thing to do.
I am aware of the counterarguments, and I think they are strong. Like I said above I think Ed's position is correct; I just don't have to like it. :-)
bloggermouse, you were fortunate to have an understanding management. Sadly, it is all to common that if you signal your thought to move elsewhere, that human nature dictates (assuming that your manager is human, which is often in doubt ;) ), that too many managers would demote you or reduce your level of responsibility or never consider promoting you again, even if you decide to stay for a long time after all.
Besides, in this particular case, the school board would be very foolish if they didn't expect this sort of thing to happen. What other promotion can a superintendent get, if not to another district? So a reasonable school board either puts in the contract that the superintendent has to give at least 90 days' notice (to allow for the turnover process you allude to) or the contract renews at a certain time of year which would be the only time the superintendent could make a move, giving the board a calendar to consider.
Special contracts aside, we work in an 'at will' state, meaning that your manager can dismiss you at any time for no particular reason...I have been in companies where conversations like this with a manager ended with the employee being walked out the door immediately...no, fortunately, that's not common, but there's nothing to stop a bad manager from doing it, so it's understandable that an employee might want to use what little leverage that he/she has...
And, yes, I agree that it's sad that it's this way...
Bill
bloggermouse, I understand your point but the fact is that most people seeking to change jobs are reluctant to have their applications become known to their current employer. In general, I don't equate that desire for privacy with being deceitful.
Post a Comment