Yeah. That’s the problem.
Yeah. That’s the problem.
I get that nepotism is a problem overall, but hiring a family member, friend or close contact that's qualified for the job doesn't automatically invalidate their position because of perceived nepotism. Again, if Wake were winning and Manning's kid were on the staff...honestly, would you care?
Manning is gone immediately after our last game, and the buyout is not even remotely close to the rumors.
I see a distinction between:
a) hiring the family members of people who are in decision making positions working above them (e.g., Manning's kid on his staff or Bob Knight's kid on his staff) that creates inherent conflicts of interest in the treatment and evaluation of both the relative working for his/her parent and the other employees in that position, and
b) hiring a relative or friend of anyone with any connection to the institution regardless if the friend or relative is the supervisor.
Pushed to its logical extreme, WF should never hire any relative or close friend of an alum or employee or donor. That seems extreme and unduly restrictive and actually prevents hiring qualified people with a connection to the school.
True, but I am not convinced this BOT is ready to can Wellman or pressure him into letting Manning go. I'd put it at 50% or higher that Manning returns, whereas in non-academia, he is already gone.
Fair distinction. But given Wake’s small community, there’s a strong case that hiring the daughter of a big donor is closer to A than B. The big issue is how uncomfortable it could be to fire an underperforming employee and risk losing big dollars as well as putting the Peter Principle in action if the employee is simply competent.
Yes. Nepotism is a major problem and a gross mismanagement of human capital that results in discrimination by race, class, and other factors.
Valid concern, but that's just the way every institution works, and the way the world works. Someone with a connection to and/or influence with an organization recommends that the organization give a friend, colleague or relative a shot. At that point, it's up to the new hire to prove their worth. There is always a risk that a bad rec could damage the relationship between the organization and the person with influence, but there is always the upside that the rec works out and the relationship is strengthened and everyone benefits.
Manning is gone immediately after our last game, and the buyout is not even remotely close to the rumors.
Sure. That is the way institutions work and I'm offering a critique of institutions.
Fair distinction. But given Wake’s small community, there’s a strong case that hiring the daughter of a big donor is closer to A than B. The big issue is how uncomfortable it could be to fire an underperforming employee and risk losing big dollars as well as putting the Peter Principle in action if the employee is simply competent.