On 22/1/21 12:22, Livingood, Jason wrote: [...]
Finally, my own personal perspective is that re-appointment should be largely pro forma unless there is tangible evidence of someone being a poor fit for the role or otherwise struggling or failing to do their job in the 1st term.
IMHO, I disagree. Some of the reasons are that the possible obvious outcome for this would be:
1) Most likely you'll get fewer candidates for roles where's the possibility of re-appointment, particularly if/when not being appointed can be seen by their managers as somebody else being better qualified for the role.
And, if you nominate and go through the burden of being a candidate, is it because you did it knowing that you would not be selected? Or is it "rumor has it that AD X has done a terrible job"?
2) Picking the best candidate now implicitly turns into firing the folk currently occupying the seat, rather than picking the best candidate. Which at the end of the day means results in the nomcom having to explain themselves how they rate this and that action (i.e., is there enough of a reason to fire the incumbent? Is there an established criteria for that?). Additionally, it publicly sends a message about the folk not being re-appointed that is not necessarily the message the nomcom is trying to convey ("We picked this one because he/she is really the best candidate" does not need to imply "Yeah, we fired the current AD because he/she was really bad")
Just my two cents, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
