Topic: Start now! How to evaluate candidates for USAW president.

[Don Weideman]

Assess past performance, not potential!

When selecting executives; Start with an appraisal of strengths

All one can measure is performance. And all one should measure is performance. This is another reason for making jobs big and challenging. It is also a reason for thinking through the contribution a man should make to the results and the performance of his organization. One can measure the performance of a man only against specific performance expectations.
Still one needs some form of appraisal procedure or else one makes the personnel evaluation at the wrong time, that is when a job has to be filled. Effective evaluators, therefore, usually work out their own radically different form. It starts out with a statement of the major contributions expected from a man in his past and present positions and a record of his performance against these goals. Then it asks four questions:

1 "What has he [or she] done well?"
2 "What, therefore, is he likely to be able to do well?"
3 "What does he have to learn or to acquire to be able
to get the full benefit from his strength?"
4 "If I had a son or daughter, would I be willing to have
him or her work under this person?"
a "If yes, why?"
b "If no, why?"

This appraisal actually takes a much more critical look at a man than the usual procedure does ie. how well liked he is. But it focuses on strengths. It begins with what a man can do. Weaknesses are seen as limitations to the full use of his strengths and to his own achievement, effectiveness, and accomplishment. The last question is the only one which is not primarily concerned with strengths. Subordinates, especially bright, young, and ambitious ones, tend to mold themselves after a forceful boss. There is, therefore nothing more corrupting and more destructive in an organization than a forceful but basically corrupt executive. This is a weakness that faults everything else and is a disqualification by it's self rather than a limitation on strengths.

This is a short example of professional management practice as it pertains to selection procedure. We need to assess viable candidates early, as it's not just a popularity contest. Not if you want things to change.
 
Just starting the ball rolling! I'm sure I don't need to mention Lord Acton.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Don,

Very interesting stuff. I have questions. If we should judge past performance rather than potential, how does one get experience? What kind of experience is the most conducive to an effective BOD member? Is only experience as a BOD member relevant? Or is any experience as an executive relevant?

I believe we must have BOD members who are very experienced in our sport. I do not think a non-weightlifter can truly understand what it takes to lift big weights and the impact of the decisions they make on weightlifters. My experience observing BOD meetings is that they are tough-very complex decisions usually with good arguments on at least two sides of the issue.

I want people on the BOD that know the sport very well, love the sport very much, and are therefore willing to work very hard at the volunteer position. I want people on the BOD who believe it is an honor and a pleasure to serve the sport.

Just a few thoughts in response....

Thanks

[Don Weideman]

Chris

From what you're telling me you want a USAW president that;

a. Has been a competitive lifter
b. Has coaching  credentials
c. Has been a board member

All this is past performance and I agree I would expect that from
a candidate with a true love and passion for weightlifting. How
many people off hand would meet these initial qualifications. Of
those how many would actually want the position enough to run
for it. Once you have this list then I believe strength appraisals
and preformance assessments would follow to identify the most
effective candidate/executive. Hopefully we identify talent and
use it to the association's benefit. I would be interested in other
rationals for the selection. What I know of the workings of the
boards comes from Butch and Jim, so I'm nieve to some extent due
to the lack of firsthand experience. The politics can add dimensions I'm sure.

Finally
My posts are in no way meant to suggest that the current or past
presidents  have been lacking in their qualifications in any way.
What we want is the most bang for our vote.

Don

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

From what you're telling me you want a USAW president that;

a. Has been a competitive lifter
b. Has coaching credentials
c. Has been a board member

Yes, I agree but think one more characteristic is necessary. They must be charismatic in order to negotiate the politics of our sport.

How many people off hand would meet these initial qualifications. Of those how many would actually want the position enough to run for it.

I can't think of many, not even a handful. If Dennis will not do it again, I really only have one person in mind. But, I will hold that back for a while and see who all runs for the position.

Finally My posts are in no way meant to suggest that the current or past presidents have been lacking in their qualifications in any way. What we want is the most bang for our vote.

Yes, I think that was clear in your post.  :D

[Don Weideman]

Charisma, that's a tough one. Gee, the only one that comes to

mind is ....... JANZ!  

[Mike Wittmer]

"When selecting executives; Start with an appraisal of strengths"

Honesty and integrity, I suppose, should not particularly be considered "strengths," rather the norm.  Not really so in today's world. So let me say that a lack of honesty and unwillingness to be communicate openly would be considered weaknesses.  

Without honesty and integrity, nothing else matters.

[Don Weideman]

Mike

This is a weakness that faults everything else and is a disqualification by it's self rather than a limitation on strengths.

!00% correct Mike. By the way what do your qualifications look
like? Close to the ideal I'd bet.

Don

[Mike Wittmer]

100% correct Mike. By the way what do your qualifications look
like? Close to the ideal I'd bet.

Don

Thanks but I don't know about the "ideal."

I ran for the BOD last year, I think I was about 8th or 9th, with the top 5 elected.  It's a tough job.  In my speech, I stressed honesty and open communication only to be told later that the out in the open/ communication part cost me some votes.  Personally, I think 90% of the delegates know (or are told) how they will vote before the speeches anyway.  The delegations vote in blocks.  Our system is quite "political," just like many others aspects of our lives.  My guess is that the next president will be Leo Totten, Frank Eksten or Dragomir (and I can't spell it without looking it up).