Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
I don't see it.
#1 it would be infantalizing her. if they hired her they must trust her judgment to some degree
#2 what are they going to tell her? Use common sense? Don't be an idiot? Take the obvious approach of accountability/we're working to change?
#3 one could argue it's borderline unethical* (maybe too strong a word) to micromanage/influence her in that role. AFAIK she was appointed as an individual, not in her capacity as a partner at that firm.
I don't see why they'd assume she was going to mess this up. At most I could see her bosses offering to be a sounding board, but it would seem an odd step to 'intervene'
|
They needed to discuss with her what the position of the board was. Her capacity as a partner in a large law firm absolutely played a part in her appointment. You could always see that this was going bad for Hockey Canada, and this would be a very charged interview for her. She (and Hockey Canada) was already looking bad before that interview.
But I think your reference to "sounding board" is a good one. I think she needed to discuss with professionals what her position was and get feedback on how it sounded.
She and her firm have taken a huge reputational hit. A little foresight may have prevented that.