Melvin B. Miller
Editor & Publisher

Toward effective recruitment

The Boston Globe had a scoop last week. A confidential source disclosed the names of the two top contenders for the presidency of Harvard University. The very next day, one of the named finalists withdrew his name from consideration.
Top universities and corporations expect their major employees to be contacted by headhunters as candidates for other jobs. However, the recruitment minuet is very tightly choreographed. The primary rule is that the prospect must never be seen as job hunting.
Those in important jobs would be considered to be disloyal or dissatisfied with their employer if it were publicized that they are in the job market. Employers would immediately begin the search for a replacement if they thought that there was about to be a top-level vacancy.
Another consideration is that a candidate does not want to be known as a loser in a battle for a top post. Consequently, it is common for candidates to withdraw from consideration for a post when the veil of secrecy is breached. The usual response of the ousted candidate is that he or she is flattered to have been considered but has no interest in leaving his or her present position.
These forms are not followed in lower-level jobs. There is no need for secrecy because there is no public interest in the post and candidates have no extraordinary professional reputations to protect. This gets us to the real subject at hand.
Now that Dr. Manuel Rivera has decided not to become Boston’s school superintendent, community leaders must decide what is the most important qualification for his successor. Is it to be responsive and impressive in community meetings? Or is it more important to have a nationally recognized reputation as an effective leader of urban public schools?
If the preference is the latter, then it is unlikely that such a candidate will be amenable to an open recruitment process. If community involvement in the process is most important, then there will likely be a different caliber of candidates. Nonetheless, this process could still uncover a competent superintendent.
The wise course for community leaders is to consider which of the two approaches best serves the needs of the people.

It’s Oprah’s money

There is usually an expression of respect and gratitude when a person makes a generous charitable gift. However, this was not the case when Oprah Winfrey opened her $40 million private school for girls in South Africa.
According to reports, some of the South African community organizers wanted the funds to be used to help greater numbers than the few students in the school. In the United States, some spokesmen were disappointed that the funds did not go to local causes.
The fact is that Nelson Mandela asked Oprah to build a school. Without question, he is the primary leader of South Africa and one of the most respected individuals in the world. Oprah needed no greater sanction to do what she did. End of story.
Critics should also not forget that all the money belonged to Oprah. She has every right to use her own resources to pursue her own vision of the world. Oprah should be commended for committing her time and funds to changing opportunities for those less fortunate.

“I’m not sure this is the best way
to go about this.”