Submitted by guybehindawall t3_ywy8ut in WorcesterMA
MattOLOLOL t1_iwm1prb wrote
The City Council didn't even bother to look for anybody else, this was decided before Augustus retired.
outb0undflight t1_iwmhxag wrote
Pretty much everyone knew it was gonna happen. Plenty of people kicked up a fuss but...no dice.
your_city_councilor t1_iwnevo1 wrote
But really, so what? Lots of companies and cities with city manager forms of government promote from within. The guy has the experience, etc., so why not?
MassInsider t1_iwnyf27 wrote
Outside of family owned companies, very few companies would do this. It completely lacks even the appearance of due diligence.
your_city_councilor t1_iwo3ps8 wrote
No. Just Google some large multinationals and you'll find a ton that promoted someone from within the organization to become CEO. It's common practice. Just look at Mary Barra: she's the CEO of General Motors, and she started working there when she was 18.
MassInsider t1_ixinqji wrote
That may be. I guarantee you that she wasn't the only one interviewed. And that they actually interviewed her. I'm fine with him. They were irresponsible in not actually doing anything but want him and that's it
your_city_councilor t1_ixiqgvt wrote
Why do you think the interviewed her? She was there for years and had on-the-job experience.
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.
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.
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
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.
MassInsider t1_ixonhmg wrote
Yea I was looking into this more today, specifically your example of CEO of IBM.First, I was a tech recruiter for a decade on the company side. I learned a few things. You never just take the next person up. Ever. You always challenge that person with what the market will present so you are always making analytical decisions based on the quality of the talent you can access. The only difference is in hard to find engineering talent. You typically need a group of whatever discipline you are looking for. That can be based more on opportunity. You are always looking and engage when you can develop someone interested.
As to your example of CEO at IBM. Yes, Arvind Krishna was internal. Ginni Rometty was internal. They know whose next, more than likely. If they haven't decided they know it is one of a few people. Because they have a leadership development program and are nurturing leaders. They don't have a next person or they don't know what they will do. Apples and oranges. And even they hired externally in 1993 when the business was in a bad place. Another example is Intel, whose current CEO left the company for 10 years and ran EMC and VMWare before they hired him as CEO last year. And we aren't even talking about the right level here. IBM has nearly 300k employees, Intel has over 100k. Worcester has a few thousand.
And I am personally fine with Batista. Much more than his predecessor. They did him no favors doing this the way they did. One councilor even addressed accusations of back room deals during the last meeting. I don't have any info about anything like that , but they shouldn't be surprised about the accusations. They did it to themselves. Now they are going to put him in front of community meetings? This idea that they couldn't wait to let him do these meetings before appointing him is absolutely absurd. They have hundreds of openings is the reason? Almost all those hires will be levels away from the CM and who the CM is has no effect on their lives. People take jobs for money, benefits, and their immediate report. Not their manager's manager's manager's manager. Especially in a govt job. Its all absurd.
When Eric chose to speak up in support of a search, when he could have chosen silence, that was him saying he was confident. Just play it out and look like you did your job. Not like Augustus chose his successor.
Horknut1 t1_iwniiez wrote
I’d they did, how many people would have complained about the cost?
guybehindawall OP t1_iwnkqyk wrote
Not to worry, people were definitely complaining that the council was trying to spend entire *thousands* of dollars to make the single most important decision that they make.
Horknut1 t1_iwnlhwf wrote
Oh, you’re totally right, I forgot people only complain about things that make sense.
guybehindawall OP t1_iwnqq8k wrote
What's that? Sorry, can't hear you over the sound of another police brutality victim cashing their settlement check.
Horknut1 t1_iwnqzz3 wrote
You’ve lost me. Have fun.
guybehindawall OP t1_iwnyciy wrote
We're just being a couple a Sarcastic Sammies
Karen1968a t1_iwo4akc wrote
That’s the beauty of this. Batista is now beholden to the old school councilors, while the progressives left him hanging out to dry. They screwed the guy who was their perfect candidate, and ended up on the losing end of yet another 8-3 vote. I’m not sure who the puppet master was here, but well played!
redstarohyeah t1_iwq2a3i wrote
You’re such a consistent clown. The progressive councilors just asked for a CM search, ya know like every other city does? It’s extremely likely Batista would have come out on top anyway, but it’s a matter of transparency, honesty and following through on your word.
Karen1968a t1_iwq3mru wrote
So, I appreciate your input. Ask yourself a question. Have those 3 councilors been effective? Have they been able to work with the rest of the council to improve the CITY, or have they been focused solely a pushing agendas that serve their interests and their interests alone. Politics is getting things done, they can’t.
redstarohyeah t1_iwqim6r wrote
This puts the entire onus on the minority group in the council though, ask yourself this: what has candy mero Carlson or Kate Toomey EVER done in their years in the position? I have infinite respect for these new councilors trying to drag the Worcester old guard into 2022.
guybehindawall OP t1_iwqmls4 wrote
Oh, so rubberstamping every extrabudgetary police expenditure and groveling to developers counts for nothing now???
redstarohyeah t1_iwqpwd8 wrote
Haha this is exactly the kinda snark I sign into Reddit for
guybehindawall OP t1_iwqr9o9 wrote
In completely seriousness though, King/Haxhiaj/Nguyen have done a great job exposing just how inert and adverse to actively leading half of the council is. Maybe that's not "getting things done" (insert jacking off gesture here) but you gotta walk before you can crawl.
Karen1968a t1_iwqq36c wrote
Well it would appear that the answer to your question is, literally everything that’s happened over the last 5-10 years. You can absolutely argue the merits of things like Polar Park, but they got it done. The minority group is incapable of getting things done because they are incapable of working together, they are agenda driven not result’s driven. Now, I see a story in the T&G today about rooming houses, that seems to have widespread support on the council. Let’s see how it plays out
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments