There are all grown men applying for this position, correct? Jeez, if I want to apply for a job, all of the particulars may not be obvious until I interview for the position. At that point I decide if the situation (and compensation) is to my liking. If it is, I hope they hire me. If not, I tell them "no thanks" but the job is not what I'm looking for. Since when does Fritz Pollard need to hold these guys hands as if they were under aged minors that can't fend for themselves.
Fritz Pollard: Minorities Should Wait to Interview for GM Post
- Thread starter Hayden Fox
- Start date
Yes.
As others have posted in this thread, the NFL itself has outlined what a person with the GM titles main duties and responsibilities are to avoid any BS lateral moves.
That right there outlines the title, duties and responsibility pretty well.
The question here is only whether the organization is going to go against said outline, which I would imagine is against league policy/rules.
Canadianfishfan
FinHeavean VIP
The more I think of it, I call BS on this.
Lot's of GMs don't have TOTAL control. I think we'd all prefer it because we don't entirely trust Philbin or Aponte.
I bet you they interview.
Lot's of GMs don't have TOTAL control. I think we'd all prefer it because we don't entirely trust Philbin or Aponte.
I bet you they interview.
GEORGIA FIN
FIN FOR LIFE
Ok mods, we can't be outdone. Sticky a new thread for all of our members to post in and get the site's consensus of whether or not to take a new job.
Exactly. Unless the candidates being interviewed specifically come out and say that they were told during the interview process that the GM role here is different from that which has been outlined, then this is just all lame conspiracy talk.
I agree completely.
I was just stating that to go and interview for a job without prior knowledge of what your title, duties and responsibilities are is not something that is common practice, at least as far as I know.
Those things (at least the general outline of what you'll be doing - not necessarily the little things) should be known before an interview is scheduled.
madmic21
Active Roster
Can't anyone imagine the Dolphins are interviewing people and once they come across somebody they like they will negotiate/ apply a job description?
iwastherein1972
Active Roster
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,181
- Reaction score
- 258
Actually, more like the homeless guy refusing to eat anything other than Filet Mignon, medium rare, with 3 side items of his choosing and a selection of desserts.
The Saints have already denied us permission to interview their personnel guy, ostensibly because the position as defined by Ross does not come up to the level of what the NFL defines a GM as.
We are all assuming he wants a true GM (or needs one). I believe neither is the case. We really just want a personnel guru to work with Philbin and who lets Aponte handle the $$$.
WHATEVER the case, we should not let the Fritz Pollard group dictate and impose its will upon our decision-making process. No way.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Messages
- 30,103
- Reaction score
- 15,374
I suppose I'm in the minority, but I'm glad the FPA came out and said this, even if it made us look silly temporarily. Perhaps it opened Mr. Ross's eyes, but now he's come out and actually cleared up the confusion.
I think Ross still doesn't quite understand how powerful the rumor mill is in football and the fact that he needs to act quickly and decisively to put rumors to rest once they start churning.
I think Ross still doesn't quite understand how powerful the rumor mill is in football and the fact that he needs to act quickly and decisively to put rumors to rest once they start churning.
If he didn't learn from his trip to the west coast with Sparano still employed he'll never learn.
Sent from my Nexus 7 FHD
roy_miami
2020 cant get here soon enough
Hire me!!! I'll right this mother****er. I'm positive I could out-GM Ireland with nothing but FinHeaven and YouTube as my scouting resources.
As a general rule, I don't reference personal stuff online, but to declare that I know from whence I speak without a little background really conveys no credibility so here goes:
For pragmatic and selfish reasons, I have long been a keen observer and student of the interviewing process and its dynamics. As such, although it’s been some time since I started, built, ran and ultimately sold a profitable executive search firm staffing lieutenants - captains of industry to mostly Fortune 500 type companies, resulting from being party to 100's-1000s of mid and high level interviews, including being pro-active in pre-interview preparation and post interview debriefs - I'm still well-aware of some truisms and realities that transcend interviewing specifics.
As a candidate for a job that appears to be a logical next step on your desired career track progression, agreeing to interview is rarely a bad thing. At best, it proves to be a career linchpin moving you closer to your dream while favorably impacting your family. At worst, it exposes you to sophisticated people and thought processes that may be different than yours, gains you industry exposure for possible future leverage, while using it as practice to enhance your interviewing effectiveness skills. So to that end, there’s little general reason a viable candidate should refuse to interview - especially if on paper it appears to be a step up or at the worst a port in the storm as compared to where you are now.
While it’s true that an incoming job candidate should prudently have a reasonable grasp of the anticipated duties and responsibilities going in, I have seen time and time again where the supposedly inflexible employer turns out to be a lot more pliable once they see what this interviewee has to offer, and can bring to the party - especially compared to what they’re used to. Long way of saying, if someone blows Ross away, instilling a “must have” need in him by creating a vision of what could be, it’s new game on and those restrictions and influences aren’t so inflexible any longer! I have seen this happen frequently. An astute business person can discern an “A level” performer, especially if he/she is adept at analogizing how what they’ve done for their prior organization can be successfully and profitably applied to the interviewer’s. So nothing is etched in stone. Show Ross you have the confidence in yourself, profer up other owners and GMs who’ll confirm this, paint a picture of how the Fins will be better off, both short and long term with you at the helm, and it’s likely he’ll melt.
Of course, there are some great, qualified candidates whose weak suit is selling themselves. (We’ve spent countless hours teaching them how to do just that). If that’s the case, especially since I sense Ross is not a skilled interviewer who can elicit the best responses out of the candidate or clearly read between the lines, it’s unfortunate, but a fact of life, that that story will never be effectively communicated. Of course the same can be said, for Ross putting the organization’s best foot forward. That’s an issue to, and I concede it can be a turnoff for some attractive candidates who can’t see farther than their noses.
Finally, chemistry is critical. Doesn’t mean you have to party, or socialize, but instead, that you can forge a cooperative, inter-dependent synnergistic working relationship. If the hiring official senses that chemistry from the get-go, whether they’re consciously aware of it or not, they will place more emphasis on lesser qualifications and forgive bigger shortcomings. If it’s not there, the opposite is true. And there’s really no accounting for that until you’re face to face. I’ve also seen candidates who did well lose out to better qualified ones, only to again be contacted if another position opened up or the one who got the job didn’t work out. So at worst you’re building bridges.
Bottom Line: It rarely hurts to interview for a myriad of reasons, - and frequently helps, no matter the outcome. Fritz Pollard is doing their members a gross disservice with this BS power play.
For pragmatic and selfish reasons, I have long been a keen observer and student of the interviewing process and its dynamics. As such, although it’s been some time since I started, built, ran and ultimately sold a profitable executive search firm staffing lieutenants - captains of industry to mostly Fortune 500 type companies, resulting from being party to 100's-1000s of mid and high level interviews, including being pro-active in pre-interview preparation and post interview debriefs - I'm still well-aware of some truisms and realities that transcend interviewing specifics.
As a candidate for a job that appears to be a logical next step on your desired career track progression, agreeing to interview is rarely a bad thing. At best, it proves to be a career linchpin moving you closer to your dream while favorably impacting your family. At worst, it exposes you to sophisticated people and thought processes that may be different than yours, gains you industry exposure for possible future leverage, while using it as practice to enhance your interviewing effectiveness skills. So to that end, there’s little general reason a viable candidate should refuse to interview - especially if on paper it appears to be a step up or at the worst a port in the storm as compared to where you are now.
While it’s true that an incoming job candidate should prudently have a reasonable grasp of the anticipated duties and responsibilities going in, I have seen time and time again where the supposedly inflexible employer turns out to be a lot more pliable once they see what this interviewee has to offer, and can bring to the party - especially compared to what they’re used to. Long way of saying, if someone blows Ross away, instilling a “must have” need in him by creating a vision of what could be, it’s new game on and those restrictions and influences aren’t so inflexible any longer! I have seen this happen frequently. An astute business person can discern an “A level” performer, especially if he/she is adept at analogizing how what they’ve done for their prior organization can be successfully and profitably applied to the interviewer’s. So nothing is etched in stone. Show Ross you have the confidence in yourself, profer up other owners and GMs who’ll confirm this, paint a picture of how the Fins will be better off, both short and long term with you at the helm, and it’s likely he’ll melt.
Of course, there are some great, qualified candidates whose weak suit is selling themselves. (We’ve spent countless hours teaching them how to do just that). If that’s the case, especially since I sense Ross is not a skilled interviewer who can elicit the best responses out of the candidate or clearly read between the lines, it’s unfortunate, but a fact of life, that that story will never be effectively communicated. Of course the same can be said, for Ross putting the organization’s best foot forward. That’s an issue to, and I concede it can be a turnoff for some attractive candidates who can’t see farther than their noses.
Finally, chemistry is critical. Doesn’t mean you have to party, or socialize, but instead, that you can forge a cooperative, inter-dependent synnergistic working relationship. If the hiring official senses that chemistry from the get-go, whether they’re consciously aware of it or not, they will place more emphasis on lesser qualifications and forgive bigger shortcomings. If it’s not there, the opposite is true. And there’s really no accounting for that until you’re face to face. I’ve also seen candidates who did well lose out to better qualified ones, only to again be contacted if another position opened up or the one who got the job didn’t work out. So at worst you’re building bridges.
Bottom Line: It rarely hurts to interview for a myriad of reasons, - and frequently helps, no matter the outcome. Fritz Pollard is doing their members a gross disservice with this BS power play.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Messages
- 30,103
- Reaction score
- 15,374
That's specifically a great point, and it happens in pretty much every industry across all levels of employment.
Ross releases statement and now this John Wooten guy has retracted his stance that minorities shouldn't interview.