10 years may be non-negotiable

10 years may be non-negotiable
by pablo (2020-05-13 11:14:05)

In reply to: No. But for An Associate Head Coach, It Should Be Close... posted by dillon77

Having written a few position descriptions in my day, using the word "requirement" for 10 years is probably fixed. Typically, you use the word "preferred" if you want some wiggle room. It potentially gets sticky, and potentially litigious, if you want to hire someone with fewer than 10 years, but you have someone who has met the 10 year threshold in the applicant pool. I do agree with those who say NI probably has her coach picked out. It is not unusual to pick the person, and then write the description specifically to that person's qualifications to ensure the person is hired. It's a bit deceptive, and arguably unethical, and HR frowns on the practice. But, it happens often. Look for the person who matches this description to the letter, and that is likely the next coach.

Probably right and if it is Coquese, this backs it up

In other words, if this job posting was just to fulfill a requirement and job had already all but been filled, then writing a job description that fits Coquese and probably very few other probable candidates, eliminates any critical review from the outside.

Thx The "Preferred" Phrasing Is A Good Point...

I was seeing if there might some wiggle room going into the search, but like many, I think this search is pretty much focused on one or two candidates already. I've taken a guess at one "ND coaching tree" and two outside the tree and all three blow by the 10-year requirement.

Melissa D'Amico has seven years of coaching experience but played pro ball for quite a few. However, the requirement was for 10 years coaching.

Think we'll know this soon enough....