Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Buffnik, Aug 13, 2014.
good to see his own direct reports thought he was a douche.
Saddam got better reviews.
When I read pages 1 & 2, my thought was this was bull****. Upon further reading, ouch (and I believe it was legit).
That report tells me 2 things either he sucks OR they have a culture issue and too many comfortable lifers at CSU that didnt like the shake-up. In my experience with academics and instutional workers the latter is often very prominent and anything that causes: change, accountability, turn over, progress is demonized.
Entrepreneurs are not a good fit for university bureaucracies. There are 2 sides to this, for sure. But it was clearly not a healthy situation.
Could be an AND instead of an OR.
Jack "Not at all" Graham.
I'd bet it's a lot of both. He almost certainly came in with an I'm the boss and we are going to get my priorities done mentality. That runs into secretaries and others who are used to things happening at a much slower pace and who were friendly with his predecessor.
Two different mentalities to be sure.
I've been involved in using and reviewing these kinds of assessments in educational settings. You to get the 1 - Not at all ratings usually means that he had some people very pissed off at him because normally even the worst performers will be given 2's or even 3's by their colleagues who don't want to be "mean."
Even with this evaluation though I would gladly bet that if he had managed to put $70-100 million in the bank towards the new stadium we would not be having this discussion.
The evaluation makes an effective excuse for Tony Frank to pull the plug on something that he thinks isn't working and isn't going to.
Graham didn't get fired 3 weeks before the season because he was an asshole to his employees
Yup. He was fired because the donations are ready to roll in and a P5 invite is on the way.
You better have some advocates if you are an asshole. Graham did not.
but point well taken, sounds like nobody was shedding tears as he cleaned out his desk.
My previous employer had a guy running the commercial banking division who was a total moron. He had zero people skills. He communicated poorly and inspired nobody to do anything other than the bare minimum. People made fun of him behind his back. They ran through commercial bankers like they were water. Every one of them, on their way out he door, let HR know in no uncertain terms what a douche the guy was. Productivity has stagnated, the stock price has plateaued, and turnover has been rampant.
He's still there.
He's a really good ass kisser. Sometimes, that's all that matters. Graham was clearly not a good ass kisser.
You guys ever do a 360 review? Top execs, especially entrepreneurs, frequently get trashed. How do you suppose steve jobs or bill gates would have done? I've been lucky and not had to do one of these as the subject but I've given feedback. That's all the redacted parts. You anonymously (allegedly) write what you think of the various leadership skills of the subject. It is brutal.
Add in a bunch of lazy bitchy lifer guvmint workers and you are going to get a result like this. As was stated above, he got fired for not delivering. This is just some of the window dressing that gets laid on top.
"In 17 of the total 31 questions, Jack Graham was rated at the lowest levels by a majority of his direct reports/senior staff, at least 5 of 9."
Wowzer! Sounds like moral in the AD was about as low as it could get. He appears to have been a dictator who treated others like garbage.
Is that where you interview yourself?
No. It is done by peers, direct reports, and others.
I've been on the receiving end of several these, I score in a bi-polar fashion people love me or they hate me. I typically know who the latter are and they get fired.
It's still an open question whether the performance review triggered the decision to fire, or the decision to fire triggered the performance review. It seems hard to believe that a stagnant, bureaucratic institution like a state university could move forward with firing someone within six weeks of a performance review being completed. Hell under normal circumstances it would probably take a month before anyone at the university got around to looking at the results. It seems hard to believe they could have the report reviewed by everyone necessary, make the decision to fire him, and line all the ducks up to get it done in the time between "June 2014" and last Friday. This seems like a convenient back-filled justification for a decision they'd already made.
Now that I think about it, it seems a little fishy that the consultant put the date "June 2014" on it rather than the specific date the report was delivered. That seems like the sort of thing you do (or are told to do) when it's going to be nice to have some wiggle room in your timeline.
Wrongful termination. (Sarcasm font) My mom spent her whole career at CU and based on the stories I've heard, it's damn near impossible to get fired. (Not her behavior, others) At one point, she did work for Ward Churchill.
Wouldn't an effective leader know this and work with it?
It's the public service way!
Having conducted these previously in a very similar context, you can almost be assured that the evaluation was used as a substantial part of the basis for the termination. Frank and others were likely receiving a ton of negative feedback, but they didn't have anything documented/actionable to drive a separation. They might have even given JG a timeline to improve, using the evaluation as the determinate as to whether or not he improved.
One thing is certain after reading the eval: JG was down to at most two people who were still kissing his ass.
Separate names with a comma.