I live in a private community of about 800 full time residents on 5,000 acres on the Sonoma coast. We just replaced a horrible community manager, unqualified, with an outstanding one, really overqualified.
Our tremendous search firm insisted we preserve anonymity for all candidates until we brought the first place candidate to the community for a few final interviews. No one other than the search firm and the board of directors knew the very last very few candidates from about 150 applicants. The promise of anonymity probably increased the original pool and protected all the applicants.
Garrett, still wounded by the Duke experience, was a total jerk in writing his ambiguous tweet, but the error of the selection process is obvious. You promote division within your audience, before and after your choice, if you suggest two (or more) were potential candidates after the search.
If TT was the best choice and the first choice, which I think he was, only he should have been brought on campus.
(Of course, our 800+ posts of guessing was anxious fun.)
Our tremendous search firm insisted we preserve anonymity for all candidates until we brought the first place candidate to the community for a few final interviews. No one other than the search firm and the board of directors knew the very last very few candidates from about 150 applicants. The promise of anonymity probably increased the original pool and protected all the applicants.
Garrett, still wounded by the Duke experience, was a total jerk in writing his ambiguous tweet, but the error of the selection process is obvious. You promote division within your audience, before and after your choice, if you suggest two (or more) were potential candidates after the search.
If TT was the best choice and the first choice, which I think he was, only he should have been brought on campus.
(Of course, our 800+ posts of guessing was anxious fun.)
