We want a great coach that will win a lot, recruit four and five star athletes, never interview for another job, have an very low buyout if we wish to fire him and a high penalty for leaving during his contract.
In the free market that we live in , talent will always be "maybe overpaid" and always have a wondering eye. Tell me that you have never interviewed for another job or position with the expectation that if if you choose to leave, a two week notice is the leaving rule.
It is difficult to place limitations on talent for long periods of time as unhappy talent is generally poor performing talent. The younger, the more likely the performance issues is they perceive themselves under appreciated.
Scott likely thought that he could be interviewed in Bowling Green, get in and listen and get out with no observations by others. I do not know how the interview went, how Scott perceived it as an opportunity for his future or just a information gathering process to see how marketable he was and how this opportunity compared with his current position. None of you have ever done this, right?
It is almost impossible for people in the public domain to be unobservable in todays communication environment. If we have a bad coach, this will not generally happen but we would eventually wish to get rid of him (or her). If he is successful here, the market will make him more visible and more desirable, thus competition for their services. Green grass on the other side of the fence is always difficult to deal with.
If Scott leaves, he perceived the situation more of the latter. If he stays, then he perceives his current situation as positive, thus more favorable. Remember happy talent is always more desirable, if you can afford it. Thus we will wait.
In the free market that we live in , talent will always be "maybe overpaid" and always have a wondering eye. Tell me that you have never interviewed for another job or position with the expectation that if if you choose to leave, a two week notice is the leaving rule.
It is difficult to place limitations on talent for long periods of time as unhappy talent is generally poor performing talent. The younger, the more likely the performance issues is they perceive themselves under appreciated.
Scott likely thought that he could be interviewed in Bowling Green, get in and listen and get out with no observations by others. I do not know how the interview went, how Scott perceived it as an opportunity for his future or just a information gathering process to see how marketable he was and how this opportunity compared with his current position. None of you have ever done this, right?
It is almost impossible for people in the public domain to be unobservable in todays communication environment. If we have a bad coach, this will not generally happen but we would eventually wish to get rid of him (or her). If he is successful here, the market will make him more visible and more desirable, thus competition for their services. Green grass on the other side of the fence is always difficult to deal with.
If Scott leaves, he perceived the situation more of the latter. If he stays, then he perceives his current situation as positive, thus more favorable. Remember happy talent is always more desirable, if you can afford it. Thus we will wait.
