Isidore Mulciber (![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} sethlans) wrote, |
An intriguing idea and a good one, I believe. Now that our numbers are increasing, we are only as strong as our weakest link as the debacle with young Gavin Avery has proven. A promising young man lost in the worst possible circumstances. We must all take the blame for that and seek to prevent it happening again in the future. Strengthen the links in the chain, so to speak.
We would perhaps need to set in place a protocol regarding priorities. For example, if I were to set one of my mentees a task and you were to then give another task to the same mentee that clashed with their first, not knowing of my task, there must be a set rule for what they are to do even if it is as simple as telling you that they have been set a prior task. Eager young men trying too hard to prove themselves may well cause disaster by trying to achieve aims that are far beyond them at this point in time. Or they may simply feel hesitant in contradicting one senior to them. Simple rules that they (and we) can adhere to when they are not entirely sure what to do should be established from the outset.
What were you thinking in terms of these placements?