Ethics in Recruiting
Members of the Ethics in Recruiting Group,
Over the weekend, the staff members of ERE received a number of complaints from group members regarding the group's leadership and facilitation. These are not the first complaints we have received in this regard, but they have been the most egregious, including several inappropriate bannings of group members by the group leader.
It is my responsibility, and that of the ERE staff, to make sure that the environment on ERE.net and all of the discussion groups is one that is conducive to professional discourse in the recruiting profession. Due to the recent abuse, I have made the decision to revoke the authority of the group leader in this group, effective immediately.
This decision will be welcomed by many and controversial for a few, but it is important to restore a professional networking environment and consistent leadership to this group, and after agonizing over the decision, I have come to the conclusion that this is the only way to do it. I welcome feedback from the group members on this decision, and as always, I will read every email that I get.
The leadership role for these groups will be temporarily transferred to an ERE staff member, Brendan Shields, until we can find a new permanent leader to take her place. If you have any suggestions or would like to volunteer for the responsibility (and at times it can be a time-consuming one), please email me.
I can be reached via the ERE Network or at david(at)ere.net.
Given the nature of the representations, it seemed these words were an invitation to respond. As the founder and leader of the Ethics in Recruiting group, I did on April 22, 2007 at 5:44 PM, so by saying:
Three people have been banned from the group. All but one have had the reason explained. In some manner, they have continued they conduct remotely in regard to encouraging diruptive behavior or discouraging professionalism. The three:
Karen Mattonen - July 30, 2005: A short summary of the matter is unethical behavior in many aspects in addition to disruptive conduct in other parts of the Network and encouraging others to behave in like manner both in this group and in other parts of the Network.
Dave Mendoza - April 29, 2006: The URLs that finalized the determination to eject Dave are below. In addition to the inflammatory and essentially mutinous public remarks, there was outright unethical conduct on his part in many instances, as well as harassment that continued until this past Summer.
* http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={038AE09A-CBA8-46C7-B524-1A4FB45D2040}
* http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={0DF91953-53E8-4E30-8814-B239036E4C6D}
Maureen Sharib - February 20, 2007: The explanation I gave to Maureen reads as follows:
"Last May I removed you from the L.A. Metro group. That action was taken because of the stance I interpreted you had taken with regard to the flaming that was being directed at me by Mendoza, Sunil, and Karen. The response you gave was, "I know they're a pain but somebody's gotta tell 'em like it is."
"As I said, my action was taken through my interpretation of those words. My interpretation was that you supported their flaming and encourage it.
"You've also said publicly that you do not discourage that type of behavior in your groups either on ERE, Yahoo! Groups, or anywhere else. I cannot keep someone in my groups who condones and encourages such behavior. My interpretation of your words is that you are fixed on your path."
Manaster's post goes on to say:
"It is my responsibility, and that of the ERE staff, to make sure that the environment on ERE.net and all of the discussion groups is one that is conducive to professional discourse in the recruiting profession. Due to the recent abuse, I have made the decision to revoke the authority of the group leader in this group, effective immediately."
It is interesting that his post was made almost immediately above mine that read "A Gentle Reminder." It was one of two similar stand-alone posts. Those stand-alone posts did not include the numerous others wherein I asked for discussion, not arguments; professionalism, not bullying.
Sorry, I do not have time to go through each line of each discussion thread. But the stand-alone posts can be found at:
* http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={ED0FAD73-B0B3-4CC2-B7A7-5CF43ACCE520}
040107
* http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={8A7A4AED-B689-4ABA-AAE5-07CA06629C85}
050406
Given the representations that were made in Manaster's post, it appears there was very little investigation into this matter and the determination was based on mere hearsay. As I've said on numerous occasions as private coaching as well as public recommendation and group admonition, we need to conform to discussing the issues as theoretical matters and not personal testimony; we need to be professionals and discuss. Shouting and bullying, attempts a being the "last word" or always right are not appropriate for this group. Further, I endeavor to *open* discussion, not shut it down because of deflating statements.
We should be using this forum to discuss, explore, learn, develop.
Apparently, there is very little room for discussion and plain view of the truth in that venue. Not only was the response removed, but in retaliation, I was banned from the network.
Being on ERE's network was a bit like being one of the characters in a Shakespearean play. And all it takes is being silent for a time and observing to realize the identity of the puppeteers in the drama. It is quite interesting to hear the same people toss in a name and a remark that challenges action in order to avoid being proved wrong. You have to consider why the name and the challenge are even part of the conversation as they have no relation to the real, underlying focus. And that is when the sham becomes plain, as well as the identity of some of the players. That is also when the realization occurs that gossip keeps the flames of dissention alive. That is when to focus on where your footsteps should not fall lest you find yourself nested in the trap that was laid.
Los Angeles Metro Recruiter Networking
The identical announcement was posted to the L.A. Metro group either a few minutes before or a few minutes after the Ethics notice. Again, I am the founder and was the group leader of the group. Again, in light of the same allegations and representations that were published without investigation, discussion, or regard for the truth, I had the impression there was a request for a public refutation and statement from me. To that end, I responded on April 22, 2007 at 6:52 PM as follows:
There have been 5 who have been banned from this group. Two were fake IDs and there is still one other that is suspicious and has been deleted from the Network, "Kimchi Chow." The two that were verified were
Cheese Wizzer 2/16/2007
whore wrh 10/5/2006
The other three ejected members are:
Karen Mattonen - July 30, 2005: A short summary of the matter is unethical behavior in many aspects in addition to disruptive conduct in other parts of the Network and encouraging others to behave in like manner both in this group and in other parts of the Network.
Maureen Sharib - May 18, 2006: Given the freshness of the events in May 2006, it did not appear an explanation was necessary. However, in February of this year, I discovered Maureen was also a member of the Ethics group. The explanation applied to both groups and on February 20, 2007 reads as follows:
"Last May I removed you from the L.A. Metro group. That action was taken because of the stance I interpreted you had taken with regard to the flaming that was being directed at me by Mendoza, Sunil, and Karen. The response you gave was, "I know they're a pain but somebody's gotta tell 'em like it is."
"As I said, my action was taken through my interpretation of those words. My interpretation was that you supported their flaming and encourage it.
"You've also said publicly that you do not discourage that type of behavior in your groups either on ERE, Yahoo! Groups, or anywhere else. I cannot keep someone in my groups who condones and encourages such behavior. My interpretation of your words is that you are fixed on your path.
"It was not until you began posting in the Ethics group that I realized (or remembered) that you were also in
that group. I determined that it would be prudent to be watchful of the posts and take action if it was
warranted. I asked the ERE back office to put you on "Inactive" status so that I could monitor what was
happening. They refused. I was left with no other alternative since group leaders do not have moderation
tools.
"I felt you deserved an explanation. With removal of you from the group, there is no means of measuring the
quality of the participation. The situation at present is either black or white and no grey.
"The two posts you have made have quality and good discussions have flowed from them. Perhaps this
situation will encourage ERE folk to develop some moderation tools so that we are not faced with only two choices."
Sarah White - April 6, 2007:
insulting and inflammatory post here
* http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={0CEFCEE7-1D81-43BB-92A2-71C048D78F65}
then cross-posted for effect here
* http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={A3217321-2F0E-47FC-8E2F-57D2C92173AB}
along with additional defamatory remarks posted here
* http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={0CEFCEE7-1D81-43BB-92A2-71C048D78F65}
after an email exchange where I had the impression the matter and insults were resolved. It was not; it continued.
Manaster has also said in relation to this group:
"It is my responsibility, and that of the ERE staff, to make sure that the environment on ERE.net and all of the discussion groups is one that is conducive to professional discourse in the recruiting profession. Due to the recent abuse, I have made the decision to revoke the authority of the group leader in this group, effective immediately."
As with the Ethics group, this announcement was posted almost immediately above a stand-alone reminder about decorum and protocol. That one was labelled
Some Miscellany
http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={1C021688-2530-4D09-AEAE-FF13A1360254}
on March 29, 2007
The Better to Serve
http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={348A7D24-9F01-4BB0-8E14-BB3F81AD8E47}
March 19, 2007
Reminder
http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={A5846F09-ADA7-4610-A7A9-14A1EA3B3F37}
May 4, 2006
Reminder
http://www.ere.net/erenetwork/groups/posting.asp?LISTINGID={2045690B-41D6-4FED-9379-56D1BC703DD4}
June 18, 2005
Again, I simply do not have the time to go through each line of every thread for the group. Suffice it to say that there have been reminders about protocol and encouragement to use it throughout the history of this group.
Given the representations that were made in Manaster's post, it appears there was very little investigation into this matter and the determination was based on mere hearsay. As I've said on numerous occasions as private coaching as well as public recommendation and group admonition, we need to conform to discussing the issues as theoretical matters and not personal testimony; we need to be professionals and discuss. Shouting and bullying, attempts a being the "last word" or always right are not appropriate for this group. Further, I endeavor to *open* discussion, not shut it down because of deflating statements.
But the outlandish remarks died away. Replacing them were offlist requests that I post all manner of things on the board in the stead of others. How curious it was to receive job postings that many people wanted, expected, me to rewrite, publicize, and perform a search for. I would also appreciate knowing who put out that mis-information?
I would appreciate knowing why there was an impression that I am the only one who may post to the board. The impression could not have come from me because there have been quite a number of times I have publicly asked group members to feel free to talk with one another, to post on their own behalf, and requested feedback on various issues. Encouragement of networking is part and parcel of our live and online networking meetings. And I have had time to counsel many offline as well as provide support that it doesn't appear other group leaders provide (based on lack of response from others).
Again, it appears that impression was incorrect. Not only was the post removed, I received an incendiary email regarding the post and again notifying me that I was ejected from the network.
In light of the long-standing, unabated interference with both groups and the lack of higher leadership support, I had in September 2006 determined it was time to move both groups to a new venue where the noise, jealousy, and concommitant confusion were lessened and a professional atmosphere could be restored.
I have established the new venues for both groups. As far as i am concerned, the founding venue for these groups has dissolved them and they are invalid there. It is gratifying that my pitiful part in the play revved up Manaster's site numbers to 50,000. Unfortunately, the personal and unwilling cost was greater than the benefit as there was none for me.
New Group Homes
The monthly networking meetings for the L.A. Metro group will continue both online and in person. They will continue to offer informational or educational content of or higher than that of the past. It is necessary to contact me in order to join.
The Ethics in Recruiting group has resituated itself and is striving to grow in the direction and purpose to which it was originally established. It has the appearance of suffering some malingering ailments of its past which I am striving to eradicate. Those who can walk in consonance with its purpose are invited to join and add to the discussions and goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment