Hey Luis! So, the good news is that a couple things you describe here are in the works. I think others have been discussed but haven't reached consensus or implementation, while still others are helpful new suggestions. I can't speak to all of these suggestions, but I can talk about what we've got going within the Foundation. You can also see some of my (very similar) answer to Wittylama's question on governance on the Annual Plan: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan%2F2016-2017%2Fdraft&type=revision&diff=15574845&oldid=15574808
> Some things that the board should do to change this situation: > > > > - *Make the board HR committee effective.* This would involve at > least: > > - Simply documenting *who is on the HR committee and how to contact > > them*. > > Last fall, there was no way for staff to even know who was on the > HR > > committee until my repeated questions to *four separate board > > members* > > led to this edit > > < > > > https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?title=HR_Committee&type=revision&diff=103767&oldid=95573 > > >. > > As of when I left, there was still no way to confidentially email > the > > entire committee as a group. > > - Using of one of the board's appointed slots to appoint an *HR > > expert*, as has been done in the past with finance. (I assume Arnon > > was an attempt at this. If so, I'm very sorry it did not work out.) > > - Improving *policies* *on staff-board contact*. The whistleblower > > policy is not the right place for this, but it was all the staff > > had. And > > for board members, the Handbook > > < > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Board_member_standard_of_conduct > > > > > is unfortunately not clear on how to address HR issues. Better > > policies, > > explaining roles and responsibilities, might have helped both > groups. > > - *Monitor organizational health*. This would involve at least: > > - Conducting a *regular engagement survey* with (ideally) a trusted > > neutral reporting results to the board as well as the executive > > team. This > > is now in place through HR, but was not done until monitoring of > > office > > attendance indicated that people hated coming to the office, and > > tends to > > break down in an executive crisis (since HR may not be trusted). > As presented at Metrics last week, the WMF has committed to doing regular engagement surveys on a 6-month basis for the foreseeable future. When the Board agrees, we will reduce to a yearly cycle, which is still more consistent than in the past. I expect this drawdown will be sometime from now, well into the permanent ED's term. The results will be presented to the staff and Board by our current third-party engagement survey contractor, CultureAmp, to ensure a neutral perspective. The top-level results will continue to be presented at Metrics meetings (more detailed, team-by-team or demographic breakdowns will not, due to issues around personally identifiable information). The next survey is scheduled for this month, with results due in June. CultureAmp will present to the Board and staff. During the presentation of the May 2016 results, CultureAmp will also re-present the November 2015 results, according to their interpretation of the findings. We will share these top-line findings at Metrics, per usual. > > - *Exit interviews* with all departing executive staff. To the best > > of my knowledge, the current board did not do this, even after 9-10 > > executives departed in the space of a year. This is good > > practice even when > > the board has endorsed a "cleaning house" of the executive staff > (as > > may > > have occurred here), since those staff are still likely able to > > provide > > insight into the performance of the ED that the board may not be > > able to > > glean themselves. > The Board has agreed to regular c-level exit interviews by the HR committee, per Patricio's comment here. Patricio's comment also discusses the engagement surveys. https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan%2F2016-2017%2Fdraft&type=revision&diff=15578608&oldid=15578561 > > > There are, of course, many other things a board can do to help with these > > issues (leading on creation of a clear strategy; putting a staff rep on > the > > HR committee; regular contact with staff and executives; etc., etc.) But > > these are the utter, utter basics that are still, to the best of my > > knowledge, unresolved. > > > > Besides the points above, I'd like to see: > > > > - When I asked board candidates > > < > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Affiliate-selected_Board_seats/2016/Questions&diff=prev&oldid=15497994 > > > > > what they thought the top responsibilities of the board were, I was > > hoping > > to see at least one person say "HR". Obviously many votes have been > > cast, > > but I'd still like to hear the candidates speak about how they will > > effectively fulfill their HR-related responsibilities ("select, > evaluate > > and (if necessary) remove the Executive Director > > < > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Effective_Board_oversight > > > > > "). > > - The HR committee is supposed to do a yearly self-assessment > > < > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_Handbook#Human_Resources_Committee > > >. > > I think the current HR committee and the board should publish that > > self-assessment, and share (*as part of the hiring plan*) how they > plan > > to > > monitor *and support *the next ED's performance. > > > > Slightly more than two cents- > > Luis > Always appreciated them. > > > > [Disclosures: > > > > - After I left, I did not sign a termination or contracting agreement > > with the organization, so I did not become a contractor with the > > organization. I do still speak to many friends within the org, but > have > > not > > discussed this email with them. > > - I was one of the people who spoke to James (as well as other board > > members) about Lila last fall. I appreciate his efforts on behalf of > the > > staff, as well as his efforts to protect our confidentiality. > > - My baby was due yesterday, so I probably won't check the list again > > for quite a while. :) Still, hope this is helpful to highlight some > > specific actions the board could be taking.] > Baby pics when you get 'em! :) > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > -- Katherine Maher Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105 +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kma...@wikimedia.org _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
