That’s the question raised by Deirdre Fernandes’ story in the Globe yesterday.
As Newton tries to find a new police chief after a series of embarrassing scandals in the department, some city officials are urging the search committee to look seriously at external candidates who can help restore the agency.
But it’s unclear whether that will be an option, since the application process closed Friday and Mayor Setti Warren said he wants to initially limit the search to members of the Newton Police Department.
The names of the folks on the search committee can be found here.
As described, the process of Chapter 279 is so unnecessarily complicated that I’m more interested in its history than the result. I can certainly understand why it was in Newton’s best interest to exempt the Chief from civil service requirements, but does it really take a committee of 10 people to screw in this lightbulb? If there is a well qualified internal candidate, a mayor should know that and be able to act autonomously to appoint that person Chief. If a mayor prefers to look for an outside candidate, it may be beneficial to appoint a search committee, but why such a large and elaborately concocted one? Now I understand how we ended up with Cordero years ago. This search process is terribly flawed.
All other things being equal, I do believe any organization should look internally first, and only reach to the outside world if one determines no one internally has the credentials to do a solid job. [One doesn’t want an internal candidate who doesn’t measure up to whatever is deemed to be important in the job description.] And we certainly need a review of that job description to ensure it reflects a current day view of what we want/need in a police chief.
I must admit that that it’s unlikely one can really find “5 to 7” internal candidates that would pass muster: seems unrealistic.
Why should any organization limit themselves to their current employees? It seems to me their should be some very obvious choices internally and you compare them to the best candidates outside of the organization. That’s inside track enough.
The Boston Globe weighed in today on Newton’s search committee.
@Kim,
You ask why should any organization limit itself to internal candidates?
It’s because it fosters a climate for current employees to feel there’s opportunity for real advancement within the organization [as opposed to feeling they have to leave in order to achieve advancement.]
It’s hard to make the case that if one were to open searches to the wider world that you couldn’t find someone “better” than those you already have on board. But be thankful that most companies don’t think that way. And even then the outsider is more of an unknown commodity irrespective of great credentials.
Going outside ought to be a statement that you don’t feel you have a qualified replacement internally.
As long as they are willing to restart the search if there are no internal candidates that they feel would be right for the job, I have no problem with them starting internally. In addition to the comments above, it’s also a less costly search if you aren’t paying for an outside search (not that this should be a deciding criterion, but it is a reason for doing this in 2 steps rather than all at once). And it’s not like our last stab at an outsider worked out so great.
I disagree Dan. Having worked inside the organization is an inside track. You’ve performed in for the people making the decision. That should be enough to put an equal candidate over the top vs. an outside candidate.
You keep everyone honest by looking outside the organization. Nothing wrong with that as long as an equal candidate inside beats out the equal outside competitor.