Comments on: More on the Rooney Rule, from Ivan Cole

By: Homer J.

Homer J. — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 15:18:17 +0000

One of the great ironies of the Rooney Rule is that no one could have used it better – or needed it more – than our beloved founder, the Chief. He was loyal to a fault – a serious fault – to his friends. He hired and rehired his great friend Walt Kiesling, who had a terrible record and was as stubborn as a mule. There wasn’t a racist bone in Mr. Rooney’s body – in fact the way he cared for a terribly injured Lowell Perry (whom he hired as an Assistant Coach) – is enough alone to put him up for sainthood. But he was loyal to his friends and hired his friends when they needed jobs. So his circle of applicants to be considered was somewhat closed. It really helped if you knew him personally and/or came from the North Side, Duquesne University, or St Bonaventure.

I guess that’s human nature. We all want to hire people we already know and like.

One other thing about the Rooney Rule and job interviews: you can hit a home run in your job interview and still not get the job. We all understand that. But the job interviewer(s) won’t suddenly develop amnesia. If you wow them, they will remember, and there will be other opportunities down the road.

Never stop looking for your next job (unless you are a Steeler assistant coach). Widen your network of friends and associations, and your opportunities will increase exponentially.

Homer first worked for ABC Sports as a stringer in 1972. He was hired full-time by ABC News in 1978. The people for whom he first worked in 1972 didn’t think he was ready for a full-time network gig at that time. But he stayed in touch with them while working at local affiliates – and they helped open the door six years later for a full-time job that lasted 31 years.

What the Rooney Rule does best of all is that it widens the network of friends and associates for those minority candidates seeking jobs, and allows wise executives to meet and take the measure of future Tony Dungys and Mike Tomlins. Of course, there will be some foolish execs who go through sham interviews, but the vast majority should see it as an opportunity to go scouting through other teams’ young and promising assistant coaches – and college coaches – as a way to better their own teams.

It widens networks for minority applicants while putting them prominently on the radars of other teams. That’s reason enough to keep it in effect.

LikeLike

By: Bill S.

Bill S. — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:29:10 +0000

In reply to elpalito.

You should have talked some trash….:)

LikeLike

By: elpalito

elpalito — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:05:12 +0000

In reply to Ivan.

He ignored me but did not disrespect me. See..that’s how rivalries work. lol

LikeLike

By: Ivan

Ivan — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 16:02:44 +0000

In reply to elpalito.

And we should be surprised that he finds a problem with a policy associated with the name Rooney? : )

LikeLike

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:45:18 +0000

In reply to elpalito.

How funny! I guess as a Steeler fan your views were automatically suspect. Or invisible…

LikeLike

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 15:44:39 +0000

In reply to elpalito.

In this particular case, it was because of public perception of the institution. It was a sort of cusp/second tier institution in the public view, and the idea was that this would increase its prestige. Which it did, actually.

LikeLike

By: elpalito

elpalito — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 13:56:27 +0000

In reply to Rebecca.

That’s an interesting world view. I would WANT to hire someone looking to move up. Why hire stagnation?

As a former career advisor, I will say that the best opportunities never come up when you NEED a job, they usually come up when you don’t. You just have to have the chutzpah to take the chance. Which is why I start a new job in a week. lol

LikeLike

By: elpalito

elpalito — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 13:52:49 +0000

The funniest thing, to me, about the Beatdown comments is that the author refused to respond to me. He only responded to Baltimore fans.

LikeLike

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 13:46:30 +0000

Some years ago I was on a search committee for a management job, the nature of which I won’t specify. In one of our early meetings we were each given a stack of the job applications which had come in after the job was posted, and were asked to read them, make a quick summary, and present them to the committee at the next meeting.

One of the committee members, an old hand at such things, took his stack of applications and said he realized we had to go through that process, but in fact we would undoubtedly be hiring someone else than anyone in the large stacks of applicants, because the people who submitted such applications were looking to move up. We were looking for someone who wanted, at worst, to make a lateral move, and preferably one who would accept something of a downward move, because, say, said person’s spouse wanted to move and Pittsburgh was fine with them.

He said he had no idea who that person was, but we should all think about people we knew, at any level, who would be a good candidate for us, and start asking if they were interested. He said that in nine cases out of ten the answer would be “no,” but that you never knew. In fact, I don’t believe we eventually interviewed ANY of the people from the applications we had so lovingly gone through. And we did actually find someone who was wanting to move and whom many would have said was taking a step down. Certainly he came from a more prestigious institution, but he had just lost a promotion to another colleague and wanted to leave.

And, for that matter, my husband is (and consequently I am) in Pittsburgh not because he applied for a job but because he was contacted by someone. He had received such queries for years, but we had no reason to want to leave until something occurred earlier that year to make us ready to move on.

So I guess I knew all this, Ivan, but had never thought of it this way. That’s why you’re such a genius : )

LikeLike