Originally Posted by Volklskier1
This whole system reeks of the favoritism...
I would disagree with the degree
very large organization probably has a degree of favoritism involved in its own advancement process - it really is human nature to helpfully support people like ourselves. It's also our nature to remain neutral or distant to people we don't know personally and to consciously (or unconsciously) hinder people who express contrary views, grate on us or are perceived a threat in some way to our own comfortable little world.
The question is not a matter of favoritism existing, it's a matter of the degree to which it actually affects the advancement process for individuals and the ongoing process of organizational change.Of course
we humans tend to favor the people we currently know and like personally! But when more than one person gets involved in the selection process
with that process documented by standards there is a degree of transparency and integrity. There are also loud detractors all lined up ready to 'out' any malfeasance and this tends to help keep the process fair and on track.
Most organizations only change from the top down. People in the upper echelons are changed out over time or are externally influenced to change. Organizational culture and the lower echelons either support change or hinder it. I think favoritism always hinders the change process because it keeps 'people like ourselves' in power whereas Diversity promotes change.
Interestingly, the PSIA National Team changes from the 'relative middle'. It is not the people sitting on the PSIA throne who decide who gets to be on the National Team - instead it's
who come from many Divisions who do the Team Selections. These may be people who never made the National Team themselves, never held National Office, etc. (Perhaps someone can post the criteria for Team Selectors..?)
I'm in favor of Fast-Track type programs. It isn't a 'failure' of such a program when someone tries but doesn't make it all the way. The greater the goal, the more we strive to reach it if we believe it's achievable. In many ways it's a great test of the training process itself
. If we really are teaching the 'right' things then a highly motivated person should be able to learn very quickly. If we're teaching rubbish then the student will take a very long time to accumulate meaningful content and progress slowly.
I would make it a requirement that any fast-Track person provide a post-process written or verbal evaluation of what worked, what didn't, what made sense or didn't, and what they'd like to see changed. They could do this in exchange for the opportunity and help improve the system.