{"id":1744,"date":"2013-11-05T11:53:42","date_gmt":"2013-11-05T16:53:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/joangarry.com\/?p=1744"},"modified":"2024-09-23T17:48:14","modified_gmt":"2024-09-23T21:48:14","slug":"include-staff-hiring-executive-director","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/joangarry.com\/include-staff-hiring-executive-director\/","title":{"rendered":"The Staff Didn’t Want To Hire Me"},"content":{"rendered":"

When I was first hired as the new Executive Director of GLAAD back in 1997, many of the existing staff was pretty upset. The Development Director was especially upset; she wanted the board the hire a proven fundraiser.<\/p>\n

Fundraiser? I had never even asked my mother<\/i> for money.<\/p>\n

While I like to think I eventually proved the naysayers wrong, maybe they never should have hired me. Certainly, I was hired against many staff wishes. That sure made my job a whole lot tougher, at least at first.<\/p>\n

This brings up a couple questions. First, was the staff correct? Should they not have hired me?<\/p>\n

And second, how much influence and input should the staff have in executive level hiring decisions anyway?<\/p>\n

Let’s start with the second question.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

SHOULD STAFF BE INCLUDED OR NOT?<\/b><\/h2>\n

Ok, imagine the following. You’re sitting on a board (for many of you, this doesn\u2019t take much imagination.) Your nonprofit has begun to search for a new leader. You’re on the search committee.<\/p>\n

The staff wants to be involved in the search.<\/p>\n

I mean, sure, you get it. Kind of. But it’s also annoying. It’s going to complicate things and make the entire process take longer. And frankly, in your day job, it’s not like anybody asked you for input when they hired your<\/i> new boss.<\/p>\n

Pop quiz. What do you do?<\/p>\n

a) Engage the staff as late as possible in the process, after you pretty much already know whom you want to hire. Make it seem like they had input so they’ll feel good about things.<\/p>\n

b) Put together a staff committee but be as non-committal as possible about how much authority they have. Only give them “authority” if they sign off on whom you wanted to hire anyway.<\/p>\n

c) Put together a real<\/i> staff committee that has real<\/i> input and is taken seriously throughout the process.<\/p>\n

I’ll give you a moment.<\/p>\n

INCLUDING THE STAFF IN HIRING DECISIONS<\/b><\/h2>\n

The right answer is “c.” You have<\/i> to include them. This isn’t corporate America. It’s nonprofit America, a special place in which staff works more for passion than to make the big bucks. They’re probably not expecting a big year-end bonus.<\/p>\n

But they do expect their voices to be heard.<\/p>\n

Now, there’s a right way to do this and a wrong way. Ah, the wrong way. I speak from experience on that one.<\/p>\n

Luckily, the brilliant Rachel Tiven, Executive Director at Immigration Equality<\/a> (and, full disclosure, my client,) came up with a great<\/i> way to handle staff involvement.<\/p>\n

HOW TO GET THE MOST OUT OF STAFF INVOLVEMENT IN A JOB SEARCH<\/b><\/h2>\n

Rachel will soon be leaving Immigration Equality and I worked with her and the board during her transition process. I impressed upon them the importance of including the staff in the discussion.<\/p>\n

During a retreat, the staff expressed its concerns about Rachel’s departure and their hopes for a new E.D. After the retreat, Rachel and I discussed ways we might communicate the staff’s hopes and suggestions to the search committee before the formal search began.<\/i><\/p>\n

Rachel came up with a great approach, with three simple steps.<\/p>\n

1) She used an extremely easy-to-use online survey website, Survey Monkey<\/a>, to anonymously survey the staff, asking three questions:<\/p>\n