On 3/1/2011 2:46 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: > Ambiguity is only a bad thing when someone knows exactly what they want and > they > choose to be unclear about it rather than when is someone aware of a general > need while being somewhat open-minded about how might be filled. This > situation > strikes me as the latter, advertising for a writer to develop public relations > material for fundraising would probably bring in a much more narrow set of > applicants and would also make it harder to get the new employee to take the > other duties that are desired seriously. I don't know how much hiring you > have > done, but it is not uncommon for people to get their minds set as to what > their > "job" is early on and getting them to put a lot of effort into things they > believe are "not what they were hired to do" is difficult. So if you want a > new > employee to have a wide range of duties, you should advertise describing a > more > open-ended position. People that have narrow mindsets are less likely to apply > for vague jobs, and everyone wins because good hiring is all about fit. > Narrow > and well-settled duties = detailed description of opening. Wide-ranging and > uncertain duties = ambiguous description of opening. This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described is a significant piece of why the Wikimedia Foundation has developed a somewhat non-standard approach to its organizational structure and allocation of staff responsibilities. Practically every conversation I've had with Sue about this, while hiring for a number of different positions, has touched on how unusual a combination of background, skills, and personality is needed for someone to be the right fit for us, and how adaptable both we and the candidates have to be during the hiring process in how we think about the position.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
