tzb wrote: I'm not sure what you're asking... you pick people you think can and will do the job, people with a track record of contributing and being active, people who you believe will be good candidates... and those who prove to be benchwarmers, you ask to improve, and if they don't, you remove them. Like any job, really.
The issue is not in giving people a chance... it's in keeping all seats filled so no-one has a chance.
Right, and I asked a few posts ago if filling those seats was something we had considered in addition to removing people from them.
Removing a person that has responsibilities needs to be filled as soon as possible because the removal of said person cause a strain on those that have to pick up the slack.
But we have no real idea how people will behave until they are put in the position and given the chance. I. for one, have never put someone somewhere because they were by buddy or whatever. I only put those in place that have shown they can do the job. But that doesn’t mean they are always going to do the job to the standard or liking of everyone else. We just don’t know till they are in that position. And then you have to “
ask to improve, and if they don't, you remove them. Like any job, really.”
And that again takes time where someone else has to pick up the slack for that position not being done.
Some jobs, it isn’t as big a deal to the daily running of things. Some, it can be a complete pain in the butt.
