Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Transition Team/2016/Community input

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director steering group needs your input. We are looking for more than only our own perspective and we want to invite you to share your thoughts and ideas about what kind of ED is needed to lead the Wikimedia Foundation.

In preparation for the ED search we need to define what kind of people we looking for. Is it a specialist or a generalist; background in technology, communication or economy; which characteristics are important, which are not? Board and executives created first and rough collections of aspects a job description may include. These collections need to be merged, rethought and refined, and we want to ask three questions, which we we think help us to get better understanding of the community’s various opinions and expectations, because they are important for the search.

If you have a specific source organization or candidate in mind for the job, please help maintain their professional privacy and email the ED search team at edsearch (at)

Board's collection[edit]

Management experience and skills
  • Experience in leading an organization as ED or CEO, very preferably an NGO or F/L/OSS (Free/Libre/Open Source Software) organization, with 250 people or more
  • Proven track record of establishing and executing on strategy (preferably in a global environment)
  • 10-15+ years experience managing progressively larger departments or organizations
  • Strong communication skills (and EQ)
  • Preferably experience or knowledge relevant to organizations that deliver knowledge to the public
  • Experience in working with different cultures preferable
Personal characteristics
  • Curious and willing to learn (with respect to community, collaboration, etc.)
  • High commitment to a participative approach, transparency, and free knowledge
  • Ability to seek strategic, not reactive, solutions
  • High commitment to diversity
Special expertise
  • Experience in working in a cooperative/participative environment
  • Experience in working in knowledge-intensive environment
  • Relevant graduate degree, such as an MBA in non-profit governance
  • Preferably, a Wikimedia contributor or some other relationship with WMF or its projects

Executives’ collection[edit]

Professional Experience
  • Experienced in leading large, global organizations
  • Ambassadorial and diplomatic; ability to deftly navigate the considerations of our 90+ global affiliates
  • Excellent operational experience; internal operations, as well as with global operations;
  • Pragmatically managing and developing the internal resources of the organization
  • Fundraising experience; ability to lead in major development and donor relations
  • Community management experience; ability to map out a strategy for engaging and growing our global volunteer community
  • Leadership experience; ability to create stable environments, empower people and teams
  • Strategic thinker; clearly defining a process, staying the course making course adjustments as necessary
  • Ideally understands technology, but does not need to be a technical leader on their own
Communication Skills
  • Excellent communicator; across the organization, as well as with the public
  • Magnetic personality; a natural communicator and speaker that can inspire and convey our values/mission
  • Strong presence that can passionately articulate a vision for our work and organization that goes beyond our identity as a website
Team Building/Management Skills
  • Supports his/her direct reports; creating unity, trust
  • Proven track record for building great teams (can properly evaluate people, make good hires)
  • Big picture thinker, not a micromanager
  • Comfortable having power and sharing power
Other possible qualifications
  • MBA (e.g., nonprofit MBA) or relevant professional experience
  • Technical or engineering experience
  • Product or user-centric program development experience

Our questions[edit]

  1. What are the three most important competencies and skills that are required to lead the Wikimedia Foundation?
  2. Will the right candidate come from a tech company, a media company, an NGO, Open-Source, GLAM, research, or educational institution...?
  3. What are three pitfalls we should avoid?

Your answers[edit]

1. Main competences[edit]

  • In terms of the Civil Service framework (see talk page or here) I would suggest the top three (one in each group) are
  • Making effective decisions
  • Leading and communicating
  • Delivering at pace
Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with Rogol Domedonfors. The attributes which the Civil Service seeks are those suitable for leadership of a secretive, highly-resourced, hierarchical employer, where authority and resources are controlled at the top. In the civil service model, power and resources are delegated to an lower level by command and control mechanisms. These are almost precisely the worst attributes for leadership of Wikipedia projects.
Wikipedia is built and driven by community of volunteer editors who collaboratively create the content, making decisions transparently and by consensus. The core competency required of a WMF ED is the ability to offer leadership which will build consensus. That requires trust and transparency, which are built on communication skills (especially listening), shared values, and sufficient humility to own up to and recover from errors ... and above all it requires experience and commitment to consensus decision-making.
Note that this skillset is possessed by the most effective editors: those who can't listen with open mind experience the collaborative environment as hostile; those who can't admit errors generate conflict; those who lack humility become exasperated by people with less skill, while those who don't share the fundamental values of Wikipedia are unable to even understand why the previous points matter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you would regard Making effective decisions; Leading and Communicating; and Delivering at pace as being "almost precisely the worst attributes" for Executive Director? That seems extreme. (We could debate whether your view of the UK Civil Service is correct, but it might be considered a diversion from the matter at hand.) Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Rogol Domedonfors. Broadly, I do regard those attributes as wrong:
  • "Making effective decisions" is based on a layer of assumptions, such as that this one person is the decision-maker, and that the effectiveness of the decision (measured by who???) is the key criterion. In a diffuse, consensus-driven project, change takes time and people need to be brought onboard ... so a decision which appears to be less effective may be one which ensures that the community remains engaged.
  • "Leading and Communicating" is a very vague phrase, which covers a huge range of approaches, many of which would be dysfunctional. It includes everything from a rule of fear with barked orders to endless meetings in which people are browbeaten into consent.
  • "Delivering at pace" is a classic concept of managerialism, but again it is wrong for a community-based project. It is far more important for Wipkipedia to ensure that delivery is accompanied by consultation and feedback, with the possibility of modifying or even reversing direction, than than for it to be fast or to adhere to a preset timetable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying those points. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the most important task of the new Executive Director will be to restore the trust of the volunteer community in the Foundation. So what I'd look for is a candidate's ability to use a leadership position, in words and in actions, to instill confidence that the Foundation's agenda is driven by the needs of the community that builds the project. That obviously requires communication skills, in particular the skill of listening with an open mind.  --Lambiam 22:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second that. Restoring trust of the volunteer community should the highest priority of the WMF as a whole, just after keeping the light on. However, the main cause of distrust is not the staff nor the ED, but the board. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thirded. We need somebody who supports and understands being an editor. To understand being an editor it is pragmatically necessary to actually be one! If they are not, it is inevitable that there will be future clashes that further erode editor trust and confidence in the WMF as a whole. Part of the problem is that the traditional concept of a leader, as one who makes decisions largely on their own personal judgment, is counter to the consensus-based culture around which Wikipedia's been built. We need somebody who's a hybrid. Somebody who knows that part of their decision-making tools is the ability to consult the community. And they need to be brave enough to do it for issues that would affect editors. I see this type of engagement as helping match the Board's "High commitment to a participative approach, transparency, and free knowledge" criteria. The absence of a matching transparency item from the Executives' criteria is worrisome and it needs to be considered as a "Communication Skills" item. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restoring trust is vital. But this should not be done by clever rhetoric alone. Only actions that undo some of the Founation's former errors, and that clearly demonstrate that in the future the Foundation can and will listen to the volunteers. This can only be done by someone with a solid track record of solid unpaid voluntary work in a non-profit where their skills have been acknowledged and reported. Kudpung (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think the new ED should have the following competencies:
    • Building consensus
    • Thinking long-term
    • Understanding online communities
At least those would be a good start. Kaldari (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One way I have been thinking of communication skills in the new ED is the ability to say, genuinely and when appropriate:
    • "I'm sorry"
    • "I made a mistake"
    • "I don't know"
Libcub (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These three seem to be the musts for me:
    • Leader of the team. Not just a leader who imposes their vision, but also a person capable to lead the team of C-levels.
    • Good communicator who can communicate both online (with community) and offline (with staff). By the way, communication also includes listening.
    • Strategic thinker: strategic thinking is something we desperately need.
    NickK (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be able to lead a big non profit organization in tech and education. Personal characteristics: We don´t need an ED who will run the show alone, he/she could hire staff for communication and strategy tasks, who will advice the ED. I mean en:Staff (military). --Goldzahn (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In selecting collaborators / supporters c-workers (paid and unpaid) we mostly tend to recruit people who remind us of ourselves. Sometimes that makes sense. Often it really doesn't. For any top job you need someone who knows their strengths and their weaknesses and who is smart enough to select collaborators with complementary sets of strengths and weaknesses. If they have a track record that demonstrates these insights ... that would be good. Charles01 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes wiki contributors aka editors act as though they think wiki contributors are the most important people in the wiki-world. They really are not. Nor is the executive director. Wikipedia contributors are volunteers. You cannot tell them what to think and should not wish to but .... hell, we need to hear from somewhere a little more about focusing on wiki-users / readers, be they casual or deep digging. There is a need for someone to sell effectively to wiki contributors the importance of "customers" - without coming across as a simple salesman, of course ..... If we forget about our "customers" and think only of ourselves (and our fellows) as contributors, we hasten the time when the project will ossify, shrivel and .... we don't want to go there Charles01 (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we need someone who will impress on editors the sensitivities of our readership, that we must be more outward-looking and less focused on Wiki as if it's our own personal preserve. The patrollers and taggers do essential work but should not be loose guns. They need to keep the readership in mind and not create unsightly, over-tagged articles. And they should know what they're talking about from personal efforts in the area they're patrolling, like NGOs and organizations in the South. Often an organization's own website and affiliated organizations are the best anyone can do except for a couple independent references. Do policy articles reflect this? Patrolling can get insulting for no good reason. More focus on the customers' perceptions is needed.(User talk:Jzsj) 06:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The executive director must understand each member of the Wikimedia community, and must help each of us to do our activities: edit the projects, get new members, extend our reach. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. Background[edit]

  • There is no single answer to this question, since we do not exactly have a queue of suitable candidates at the WMF office in SF, and likely the choice will be from a (very) limited number of candidates. Any background might in principle work. However, aside from that, IMO background in research or educational institution is preferable. We are certainly not a commercial company, and what we are doing is the closest to the educational activity. Especially in the situation when we have currently no strategic plan, it still needs to be worked out, and the ED will be tasked to implement this strategic plan - we need enough flexibility and ability to work with very diverse backgrounds which are best found in education and research.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is still the flag ship of the movement. I think that a background from the world of education / GLAM would be beneficial in order to see the whole of Wikipedia, from the individual who is editing, from the question of quality content, to the actual recipient. In comparison to that, software engineering or FLOSS or free content etc., fundraising seems to be something more instrumental and something that should be the primary expertise of the departments in question. And, as the movement is fueled mostly by volunteers' work, experience in such an organisation would be of the utmost importance. Ziko (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I subscribe to Ziko's point of view in general, but I arrive at a different end because, in fact, Wikipedia is a major player in media, not in education or in GLAM; it never will be the latter. A bio from the field of tech by far is not enough, as we just have learned. Techies are inclined to make everything a technical problem, losing grip of the social aspect of things. Wikipedia needs someone who understands the development of media on an international level and on a big scale as well as the technology behind it. So, I think, experience in publishing, or journalism would be a necessary prerequisite for filling the vacancy. After all, we deal with information, and you have to understand how the infosphere works and develops in order to make the right strategic decisions. You will not find someone with an expertise like this in education, in the academia, museums, etc. because these are quite different worlds apart from ours and, indeed, from us as Wikipdians.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is the wrong question. We need an Executive Director who can understand Wikipedia in all its complexity and with all its sensitivities, and who can be trusted not to have a hidden agenda and seek glory, but is purely motivated by their love for the project. Such a person can have all kinds of background. Actually, other things being equal, I'd prefer a candidate with a variegated background.  --Lambiam 22:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concurring largely withLambiam. Wikipedia isn't so important that its CEOs need to be on the front cover of TIME. FLOSS experience would be valuable, but a background in maximum-profit oriented organisations such as Apple, Google, banking, other financial sectors and health insurance companies, etc, should be met with a significant amount of scepticism. Kudpung (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that rather than "Ideally understands technology" the ED must have technical experience. Tech proficiency is currently written as optional for the Executive criteria and at best implicit in the Board criteria (via the F/L/OSS experience item). This is a major mistake as it could let somebody through who is tech illiterate. That said, I do not think this tech experience must be demonstrated by a professional background. The ED is a management position (they manage the organization) so management experience is more important. So, as long as the candidate is literate in the language of computer hardware and software (especially the languages of modern web development) it counts. This literacy might be through private self-learning. An assumption professional tech experience directly correlates with tech competency is not very strong. I know many people who are awesome web developers but have never worked as a web dev. Conversely, I've seen some professionals who have questionable ability. In the end, since the WMF is driven by tech, the ED needs to know tech. The ED and CTO, for instance, should be able to communicate more deeply than budget requests and allowances. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no suitable background as Wikipedia movement hardly fits into what we can expect from a potential candidate (unless he/she is a unicorn). The least appropriate background is easy to define, it is a tech person from a Silicon Valley for-profit non-FLOSS IT company. For the most appropriate background, any combination of the following experiences would be appropriate: non-profit management, FLOSS movement, education or GLAM experience, experience with online media, international experience. Of course it is next to impossible to find a candidate with all of these experiences, but in principles a candidate with some of these experiences should fit — NickK (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I second NickK's definition of the worst background candidate, and I share Lambiam's preference for a variegated background.
However, I think it is mistaken to try to list a set of desirable backgrounds. I would prefer to assess to what extent a candidate's background nurtures the personal attributes required by the Wikipedia community. For example, a background would rate better if it valued:
  1. knowledge, rather than physical product
  2. voluntarism, rather than profit or salary
  3. collaboration, rather than control
  4. long-term relationships, rather than short-term
  5. transparency rather than secrecy/confidentiality
  6. public service, rather than private benefit
  7. diversity, rather than homogeneity
  8. values rather than ambition
That list is not exhaustive, but it gives some pointers to how to whether a background was one in which the skills required for WMF would be successful. This allows the selection panel to consider candidates from backgrounds it might not previously have considered. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with BrownHairedGirl, these are all traits that are important to see in a director.

3. Pitfalls[edit]

  • An obvious pitfall: do not try to hire a manager who was successful in an area where required skills are not compatible with our mission (example: a for-profit company).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not look for a unicorn and be flexible: Be prepared to shift some of the desired competences of the future ED to staff, board, and, well, community. Be prepared that not all things would be working ideally but have a list of things which must be working in any case.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (one more to come to make it three)
    Seconded. Avoid MBAs without primarily a non-profit background. Any candidate with a for-profit background will be carrying with them a for-profit mindset, conditioned by years of thinking that way. They'll put too much emphasis on growth and increasing revenue, uh, donations, while paying too little attention to sustainability. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be overly focused on technology experience. I was 60-70% persuaded in the last ED search that the WMF needed a strong "product technologist", which was then the key part of the brief. However, my view now is that the ED must have the particular kind of leadership, management and communications skills that work in our movement. The hypothetical CTO can develop the "product vision" and even without one the WMF Tech teams can do quite a good job working from bottom up. Ultimately though the WMF is not a pure "tech" organisation and shouldn't be led like one. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look outside the Silicon Valley echo chamber. Don't confine your search to the "usual suspects". Don't rely on the usual search agencies, for whom WMF is not the usual sort of customer. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appoint for the future, not for the past. In particular don't just look for qualities that might have resolved whatever issues you may have identified with the previous incumbent. Articulate where you want the Foundation to be in three, five or however many years out you're looking, and select someone who you believe can achieve, or grow into, the role you need; don't just look at what you think you needed last year. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't look at the post in isolation. Build a strong leadership team with complementary strengths. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't confine your search to people already familiar with, or embedded in, the Wikimedia projects. Anyone of the calibre you're looking for will be aligned with the mission and its future broadly considered rather than looking backward to any particular historical way of doing things. Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scaleback the emphasis on "engaging and growing our global volunteer community". These endeavors must be quite expensive with questionable return on expenditure compared to other choices foregone. There needs to be a WMF culture shift away from "engage and grow the volunteers" to a "build it and they will come" strategy. By "build it", it just means "keep Wikipedia looking and running well". Readers (and therefore new editors) will use a site that runs well but I cannot stress enough that the interest in editing Wikipedia is mostly determined by social forces so spending money to combat things like "gender gap" or "editor decline", particularly in countries with pervasive internet access, is a fool's errand. Money spent on those items is not going to make a big enough dent to affect the sought outcome. The WMF and therefore the ED needs to start taking a laissez-faire approach whereby they ensure the site works well but so long as the site is not hostile to particular groups they are agnostic to the demographics who actually edit. Given the history of the WMF this would be something of a paradigm shift so it make take a moment to overcome a kneejerk response to it. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC) AMENDMENT: Preemptively I point out that I wrote "scaleback" which does not mean the same as "eliminate", although that possibility should be investigated as well. Jason Quinn (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jason Quinn has said what I have also said in the other sections (they do overlap, don't they?). A profit/salary driven mindset would definitely be out of place here as well as someone who is expecting to spend half their time in airplanes, airport lounges, and 5-star hotels. People who are also more used to sitting in meetings, pretending to listen to everyone else then unilaterally deciding for their own agenda should be avoided. Someone is needed who is not afraid of, and who will do some real office work and who will treat their colleagues, and above all our tens of thousands of volunteers, as colleagues and not as an army of faceless, expendable minions. A suitable candidate may need to understand that however well they do the job, a 5-year stint at the top f the WMF might not be the best thing they would want or need on their CV when looking for their next step up.
It needs someone who is able to recognise the ski;ls in other and delegate, but one who does not hand out responsibility (and salaries) willy-nilly and allow junior contractors and engineers to waste valuable time and funds on their own lost causes. Someone who is approachable by and accessible to the volunteers through talk pages, important meet-ups and Wikimania, rather than living in a land of blogs, Facebook, and Twitter.
Their biggest challenge is going to be to recruit a new C-level component to repair (some) of the damage of the mass exodus caused by their predecessor. Maybe some of those exits were needed, but a huge amount of institutional memory went with them - all at once.
Last but not least, it needs someone who understands that Wikipedias and their associated projects are knowledge bases - the WMF is an encyclopedia management team, not a software engineering company, and it's not (or not supposed to be) a socio-political NGO either. Kudpung (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is better to have an ED who has less experience but is really enthusiastic about our mission and values than an ED with more experience but wrong mindset. We have (or should have, given the mass exodus) a strong C-level team, so it is important to have an ED who will be able to delegate things to other executives than make mistakes him/herself. If an ED is not a tech guru but eager to learn, it might be a bit difficult in the first few months but quite easy to manage. On the other hand, if an ED does not share our values and thinks of profits before people, we will not be able to change this mindset — NickK (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we can't have someone who has contributed to Wikipedia (or any MediaWiki project for that matter). I personally would think that would be something we should look for since they would then have a preexisting connection with the movement and would be somewhat knowledgable. --MorbidEntree (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech experience not essential - a leader can lead and delgate and take input from tech savvy people. Need a person who understands people and volunteerism and improving morale and uptae of volunteers. This is the foundation all the rest relies on. Also someone with some familiarity with tertiary-level research and study who can look at the material on the wikis and understand how much improvement is needed. Casliber (talk) 03:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of great suggestions above, but I think that Jason Quinn's is the most important: to avoid MBAs without a non-profit background.
However, I would go further, and urge the board to try to avoid anyone with an MBA. The styles of management and leadership encouraged by MBA programmes are pretty much the inverse of the qualities needed to lead a diverse, consensus-driven voluntary project. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of MBAs either -- I think many courses are backward looking and counter innovative -- but would point out that the ED's immediate job is to lead not the diverse voluntary project, but the couple of hunded paid staff who keep the servers running and the software working and all those other good things. Aligning that with the wider community is certainly an aspect of the job, and an important one, but as to leading the volunteers ... Rogol Domedonfors (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ED is required to lead those few hundred staff to work in ways which support and enable the diverse volunteer community, who are the main productive element. MBAs are based on a concept of leadership which assumes centrally-set objectives, and central control of the project's resources; neither of those apply to Wikipedia, which requires a style of leadership radically different from the MBA model. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new director should have 1) edited intensively for some period on one of the top 10 most crowded Wikipedia's and 2) must have sensed how it is to discuss on such a platform. Ymnes (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new ED must understand the priority is not the readers but the volunteers, if the volunteers are well motivated they will make a good job for the readers and everybody win. The contrary is not true, prioritize the readers will not make the volunteers motivated to make a better job. Danilo.mac talk 19:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don´t have to look outside the Foundation, just look inside the Foundation too. For example the interim ED, with a communication background. If she manages the job well, why not give her the job? --Goldzahn (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please modify the Russian text of the survey[edit]

Dear colleagues! Please make the following modifications to the Russian text of the survey. The all modifications, with one exception indicated with an asterisk, are orthographical. In these orthographical modifications, the differences are in bold. About the asterisked modification, it has two possibilities: the first is just orthographical and does not touch the meaning, the second changes both meaning and orthography (I suppose that the meaning of the first is wrong).

now needed  
поможет нам лучше понять что, ожидает коллектив и сообщество поможет нам лучше понять, что ожидает коллектив и сообщество  
от сотрудников Фонда, его партнеров и доноров от сотрудников Фонда, его партнёров и доноров  
Время не ждет Время не ждёт  
на заполнение данного опроса дается только одна неделя на заполнение данного опроса даётся только одна неделя  
сообщить о нем другим сообщить о нём другим  
сосредоточить свое внимание сосредоточить своё внимание  
Основываясь на своем участии Основываясь на своём участии  
какой из трех следующих групп какой из трёх следующих групп OR
каким трём из следующих групп
следует указать определенные характеристики следует указать определённые характеристики  
добавьте ее добавьте её  
В какой стране вы живете? В какой стране вы живёте?  

Excuse me if I have chosen a wrong place for this error report. If you know a better place for it, please move my message here. And sorry for my English. Gamliel Fishkin 10:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Results.[edit]

I wanted to share the results of the Executive Director Survey that we conducted in June. We did not do any formal analysis of this, so what I am sharing is just the raw topline results. Lgruwell-WMF (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

homegrown executive director vs outsider[edit]

2011 A T Kearney published a study saying that hiring an insider CEO let a company outperform other companies. also price waterhouse coopers Strategy& and RHR international come to similar conclusions:

hiring an outsider CEO has the following effects:

  • higher compensation
  • greater risk profile
  • wrong expectations about business area and its specifics

--ThurnerRupert (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]