Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Samuel S" data-source="post: 129398433" data-attributes="member: 1754664">It's fine&nbsp; to pass time by offering up our choices, but no one here is in a position to really make a sound decision. We don't have&nbsp; the knowledge or the means to get the knowledge to distinguish among people who meet the equivalent of the posted job qualifications. &nbsp; That's why process is so important and why our last two hires were very poorly done. You could have multiple candidates who, on&nbsp; paper,&nbsp; look equally qualified. That's where due diligence begins. We can't inquire in the coaching club and find out what their bosses or former bosses think about them and what they see as their strengths and weaknesses. We don't know about temperament or personality issues that may be good or bad signs.We employ people to make these decisions (and they often will seek out others with more specific expertise of he game and first-hand knowledge of the candidates).I can say what we absolutely should not do. We shouldn't let one person have all the authority to&nbsp; sign us with a flavor of the month &quot;hot commodity&quot; because he hopes to make himself look smart. We'll pay the price when it turns out he isn't so smart about such things and failed to do proper vetting and&nbsp; due diligence. We need to do this one the same way a corporation with close to $100 million dollars in annual revenue would hire a top executive who could literally make or break the company, not the way we have been doing it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Samuel S, post: 129398433, member: 1754664"] It's fine to pass time by offering up our choices, but no one here is in a position to really make a sound decision. We don't have the knowledge or the means to get the knowledge to distinguish among people who meet the equivalent of the posted job qualifications. That's why process is so important and why our last two hires were very poorly done. You could have multiple candidates who, on paper, look equally qualified. That's where due diligence [B]begins[/B]. We can't inquire in the coaching club and find out what their bosses or former bosses think about them and what they see as their strengths and weaknesses. We don't know about temperament or personality issues that may be good or bad signs. We employ people to make these decisions (and they often will seek out others with more specific expertise of he game and first-hand knowledge of the candidates). I can say what we absolutely should not do. We shouldn't let one person have all the authority to sign us with a flavor of the month "hot commodity" because he hopes to make himself look smart. We'll pay the price when it turns out he isn't so smart about such things and failed to do proper vetting and due diligence. We need to do this one the same way a corporation with close to $100 million dollars in annual revenue would hire a top executive who could literally make or break the company, not the way we have been doing it. [/QUOTE]

Name