Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleF
Again, you need people who have knowledge/experience of these specific scenarios to do the job right. There are already strong rules of engagement for these types of things already because these types of worlds are relatively small. Conflict of interest and independence risk are things that the other side or one's own side would easily attack before it can affect either of them. Thus I'm certain it's already been brought forward and explained how it is addressed.
|
Yes and no. Often times a person will be appointed with little to no experience in a specific industry regardless of whether it’s beneficial or not to the process. In any event the best way to neutralize any conflict of interest or independence risk would be to have a panel of 3 mediators/arbitrators so that you can have at least 1 neutral party to balance out any potential risks.
Quote:
|
If neither side has done that, I don't get why some people are making a mountain out of a molehill out of these loose connections. The appropriate checks and balances are already in place and applied to avoid issues relating to any of these connections.
|
Seeing as you work or have worked in an HR role(unless I’m mistaken as I’m just going off memory) you are likely aware that there are holes for lack of a better term in the system/checks and balances which can negatively impact either side of a dispute. Also as both sides were engaged in negotiations at the time of the appointment I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that they were more focused on getting a deal done than to immediately file objections to the appointment.