More Workplace Abuse Resources

It's with great dismay that a particular page needs to be closed. The reason for the reluctance is because the content is so useful (and I need the laptop resources). The site is called "When An Abuser Goes to Work" and is authored by Patricia G. Barnes, J.D. Patricia also focuses on age discrimination at Age Discrimination in Employment. Unlike Chai Feldblum, Patricia has not been an EEOC Commissioner. But she has been a judge and is a lawyer. Their advocacy is Title VII related but on specific aspects of enforcement of rights for particular constituents.

When you visit her LinkedIn profile, you'll notice that Chai has a strong leaning toward supporting gay and lesbian rights. She is a contributor to a book title on religion and same-sex marriage. She also keeps her followers up to date on the outcome of EEOC age discrimination cases (that were not under her purview).

Patricia has written on a wide swath of Title VII issues, in addition to workplace abuses. Yes, it is entirely possible to visit her blog to learn what she's published. But I'd like to preserve at least some of those titles here (until I can move them to my website's Library) where we'll have a quick reference to her insights on the subjects.

Pat Barnes' list of aggressive behaviors in the workplace is not only enlightening, it's what's been considered offensive and abusive over time. Failing to respond to phone calls and messages is the classic. Recruiters (both retained and staffing industry) use the excuse that they're too busy. Too busy to get someone (a motivated worker) employed? No one comes up with a spoken excuse for interrupting. However, the underlying message is what the person has to say isn't important. The other unspoken message is the one doing the interrupting is entitled to do so; they are privileged.

There are times when an interruption is a kind gesture. The train of thought is meandering or drifting into whining. The speaker needs to get refocused. Sometimes they may be exhibiting distress and needs to regather their thoughts. Many times, unfortunately, none of those reasons are the case. There was no kindness intended. The one doing the interrupting is simply showing they have very little regard for the one who was speaking.

There are a lot of behaviors that demonstrate abuse in the workplace. Perhaps taking in what these two authors have to say on the subject will help make us more aware and more inclined to discourage the behavior.

Resources:

• Aggressive & Violent Workplace Behaviors
  
• Harassment
  
• Shown the Door, Older Workers Find Bias Hard to Prove
  

Sponsored Links:

• Moral Argument, Religion, and Same-Sex Marriage: Advancing the Public Good
  
• Overcoming Age Discrimination in Employment: An Essential Guide for Workers, Advocates & Employers
  
• Betrayed: The Legalization of Age Discrimination in the Workplace
  
• Zen and the Difficult Workplace: Transcend Your Boss
  
• Surviving Bullies, Queen Bees & Psychopaths in the Workplace
  
• 
  
  

A Guide to Sarbanes-Oxley, Part Two

by

Niquette M. Kelcher
October 2002 -- In Part One of this series, we discussed how the Sarbanes-Oxley Act came to be, outlined its major provisions, shared accounting and finance professionals' reactions to SOA, and explained what it means to the accounting profession.

If you missed Part One, click here. Here's what's covered in Part Two:

• How managers can implement SOA into the company culture
  
• How to keep staff members educated and informed
  

How Managers Can Implement SOA Into Company Culture

Creating new laws and expecting companies to follow them is one thing, but efficient implementation of them is another. Clair Raubenstine, former president of the Institute of Management Accountants, emphasizes the crucial "tone at the top."

According to Raubenstine, "Companies need to communicate that they are resisting the pressures of the financial community and setting realistic goals. Don't set goals too high for the sales staff, for instance. Additionally, managers should encourage open lines of communication between management and staff. Management needs to 'walk the talk.'"

Ethics programs, already a staple in many companies but expected to pop up in more, also should be implemented. Raubenstine suggests companies establish ethics hotlines and assign ethics coordinators so employees can report suspected misconduct without penalization. 

"Management has to continually educate personnel what the company rules are and educate people on how their role fits in with the total organization and the overall mission of the department. Employees need to feel like they are a part of the business," explains Raubenstine.

In turn, he continues, finance and accounting professionals need to recognize that there are more penalties that could be imposed on individuals for not properly reporting financial matters throughout the ranks. "Companies will expect more from their employees so management is properly certifying the financial information," says Raubenstine.

Yvonne LaRose, a Business Management and Personnel Consultant for Executive Recruiting Entrances, agrees that managers need to set an example. "Managers lead by how they conduct themselves; their staff takes their cue on what is important and how to do things based on how managers handle situations. Thus, managers should incorporate into their routine a pattern of following good practices," she explains.

Additionally, adds LaRose, "when reports are presented to a partner or manager, there should not be a rubber stamp approval. Managers need to take the time to actually review the document(s) and ask questions about numbers -- and even sources of information -- to ensure that they know what is there. If there are red flag issues, they should be addressed. Staff should be put on notice that those types of issues are important and attended to at the source so that matters are rectified and the problem abated."

In a SmartPros FMN segment, Dr. Jonathan Schiff, professor of accounting, Fairleigh Dickinson University and president of Schiff Consulting Group, gives similar advice. Schiff says financial managers "should have good documentation of plans, as well as programs in place, that try to do more than merely react to what Congress may come up with, or what the SEC may come up with. They need to be more proactive in designing systems of control that are competitive within one's industry and which raise the level of acumen across management."

Free guidance on corporate ethics is available from a variety of associations. Through the IMA, financial professionals can now get free, confidential guidance on ethical issues via the IMA Ethics Hotline. 

"When financial professionals call the toll-free hotline, their inquiries will be forwarded to an experienced ethics counselor, who provides confidential guidance," explains IMA president Margaret Butler. "This hotline is particularly well-suited for small businesses and solo practitioners who need guidance on ethical issues."

The IMA also offers to corporations the use of its Standards of Ethical Conduct for compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Similarly, Financial Executives International encourages companies to adopt its Code of Ethics model (Word doc).

How to Keep Staff Member Educated and Informed

Despite the disruption SOA may cause, the show must go on. Says Wyatt: "As with anything new, accounting firms should encourage reading and study." Companies must continue to perform -- and given the current economy they must perform within a limited budget.

So how can managers ensure their staff is up to speed on the new requirements? SmartPros culled expert opinions and various studies on some cost-effective methods for educating accounting staff members on SOA and related topics.

E-learning.

Webcasts and online continuing professional education are among the most efficient and cost-effective means of staying on top of the profession because companies are spared many expenses by educating staff in the office or at home at their own computers.

Nucleus Research reports that thousands of ongoing return on investment (ROI) studies for Global 2000 corporations indicate that companies adopting e-learning initiatives recognize "first-tier benefits including reduced costs for travel, human resources overhead, regulatory compliance, and customer-support costs." Additionally, second-tier benefits include "improved employee performance that directly impacts profitability." Nucleus found that most organizations could gain significant returns from even modest investments in e-learning technology."

Adds LaRose: "Seminars are an extremely valuable tool in developing a greater appreciation of the terms and nuances of the Act. From these trainings, professionals and leaders will be able to get immediate, first-hand answers to the initial questions -- answers that will build understanding of what is involved and some approaches to responsible attention to details."

Books (hot off the presses)

An entire library of accounting and finance books related to the upheaval of the industry have been published, including material on detection and prevention of fraud, audit committee and ethics handbooks, investor guides, cost management resources and management primers.

Book recommendations from SmartPros:

• The Financial Numbers Game by Charles W. Mulford
  
• Take on the Street by Arthur Levitt
  
• Ethics for CPAs: Meeting Expectations in Challenging Times by D. R. Carmichael, Dan M. Guy, Linda A. Lach
  
• The Audit Committee Handbook by Louis Braiotta, Jr.
  
• Financial Statement Fraud: Prevention and Detection by Zabihollah Rezaee
  
• Paying for Performance: A Guide to Compensation Management by Peter D. Chingos
  
• Valuation of Companies in Emerging Markets by Luis E. Pereiro
  
• Essentials of Corporate Performance Measurement by George T. Friedlob, Lydia L. F. Schleifer and Franklin J. Plewa Jr.
  

Resources:

• Third Party Management for Financial Services, free Third Party Management in Financial Services Illustrated graphic download to visualize and develop an effective approach to managing third party risk in a GRC context.
  
• OCEG Events
  
• OCEG CLE Webinars
  
• OCEG Resource Collections
  

Sponsored Links:

• Building Public Trust: The Future of Corporate Reporting
  
• Fraud 101: Techniques and Strategies for Detection
  
• The Real World of Finance: 12 Lessons for the 21st Century (Wiley Finance)
  
• Chairman of the Board: A Practical Guide
  

Reviving Ethics in Recruiting

In 2004, I developed a discussion group called Ethics in Recruiting. The goal was to have a place where those in the recruiting industry could discuss best practices, consider the ethics involved in those practices, and develop a consensus about ethical practices that could be used on a global basis. That last prong would also require learning about cultural practices from various countries in order to gain an appreciation of whether or not a global standard is even possible.

Nevertheless, it was a venue where those in the industry could talk about practices and look for guidance - or just vent. There were members who came from other industries. Their presence provided us with various barometers and bases for consideration of rules.

It was a lively and popular group that drew a lot of attention. It was a bold move. By 2006, it became a recruiting conference session on its own merit. It was in essence the topic du jour and there was fierce competition for ownership of the group. It was obvious the group needed to move to its own home; the move didn't happen in time. By 2008, the original venue dropped the group.

The idea and need still lives. To satisfy the desire for that type of group, Ethics in Recruiting discussions is being revived as a subgroup of Entrances, the 360 networking group on LinkedIn. It will be available for members by July 1, 2014. Join us.

Look for the LinkedIn logo

Ethics in Recruiting

A Guide to Sarbanes-Oxley, Part One

It was 2002. As a measure to ameliorate the financial industry atrocities that were revealed, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was adopted. Questions arose regarding its effectiveness, its reach, implementation and adoption. SmartPros dedicated a two-part article to examine the Act and collect opinions and reactions from professionals associated with the industry. Even though 12 years have passed since its implementation and the article has been removed from the SmartPros site, it would serve financial industry newcomers to have a reference point about the "why" of the Act and the early reactions to it.

A Guide to Sarbanes-Oxley, Part One

by
Niquette M. Kelcher
October 2002 -- The groundbreaking Sarbanes-Oxley Act signed into law by President Bush in July 2002 will forever be remembered as the legislation spurred by corporate corruption, crooked CEOs and creative accounting.

In reality, the accounting industry has been heading toward a major reform for many years - it just finally came to a head. Now that it's here, financial executives find themselves at a crossroads, facing the daunting task of implementing major changes in day-to-day operations, while at the same time quickly educating their staff on the sweeping changes brought on by proactive - but also reactive - legislation.

This article provides a concise overview of the many facets of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOA) including:

• How accounting reform caught up with the industry
  
• Major provisions of the Act
  
• Reaction from the trenches
  
• What SOA means to the accounting profession
  
• How managers can implement SOA into the company culture
  
• How to keep staff members educated and informed
  

How Accounting Reform Initiatives Caught Up With the Industry

It's viable to stretch back to the beginning of accounting as an "industry" to address how this recent reform effort came to be, but all we really need to do to understand this phenomenon is step back into the 1990's - a decade that proved to be incredibly tumultuous for the accounting industry overall, a decade that began with an economic slump and ended at the tail-end of a technology boom - to understand why we are here today.

In former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt's new book, Take on the Street, published this month, he writes about the politically-charged nature of Wall Street during his tenure as SEC chief in the 90's. Levitt, the 25th chairman and also longest-serving, held the reigns at the watchdog agency for seven years under the Clinton administration. A strong supporter of auditor independence, Levitt, who calls himself "pro-investor," constantly battled with accounting firms and the AICPA over the controversial issue, as firms began to package their auditing services with technology consulting.

But it was an incident involving the Financial Accounting Standards Board that Levitt cites as the biggest mistake he made as SEC chief. In the early part of the 90's, Levitt says he persuaded the FASB to soften its stock-based compensation rules because of political and corporate pressures to do so. (Of course, this same topic is in debate today.)

Levitt states that he learned a valuable lesson from this mistake: "Accounting firms were passive when it came to standing up for investor interests," he writes. "[Auditors] failed to rally to the cause of investors and instead supported the demands of corporate clients. They had become advocates. I would forever look upon the accounting profession differently after this episode."

Hence, Levitt began to tout major accounting reform efforts. At the turn of the millennium he left current SEC chief Harvey Pitt with a lot of reformation left to be done, and until Enron happened, the industry was pretty sure Pitt's "kinder" and "gentler" SEC would stem the talk of accounting reform.

However, Enron helped investors see what Levitt realized many years prior - that the self-regulated industry failed to protect them. Consequently, a weak economy and discontent voters pushed Congress to action. Suddenly Levitt's ideas weren't so radical after all; In fact, many of the reforms proposed by him while he served as SEC chairman have been adopted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, legislation that has yet to show its true colors.

Major Provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act

Specifically, the new law, as explained in a SmartPros Financial Management Network segment:

1. Establishes an independent auditing oversight board under the SEC;
   
2. Beefs up penalties for corporate wrongdoers;
   
3. Requires faster and more extensive financial disclosure; and
   
4. Creates avenues of recourse for aggrieved shareholders.
   

One of the most fundamental changes for the accounting profession is the creation of the independent Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a non-profit corporation funded by public companies and subject to SEC supervision. At this time the Board has yet to be formed, but it is expected to wield significant power. [See $435,000 Oversight Positions Prove Tough to Fill]

Here are links to in-depth texts on the Act:

• Summary at the AICPA Web site
  
• Overview at the Financial Executives International Web site
  
• Full text (PDF) and SOA timeline at CCBN Regulation FD Center
  

Other articles worth reading:

• Four Significant Accounting Changes of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  
• Audit Committee and Management Disclosure Requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
  
• Lawmakers Reach Accord on Corporate Reform Bill
  

Reaction from the Trenches

So far, the reaction from accounting and finance professionals in the field has been mixed. Many say it's about time such legislation passed, while others matter-of-factly state that all the legal ramifications in the world won't stop corporate crooks from lying, cheating and stealing.

In a recent survey conducted by CFO magazine, most financial officers voiced opposition to specific reforms. Some 52 percent, in fact, did not believe audit firms should be banned from providing consulting services to clients; 65 percent did not think auditors should be barred from going to work for clients for a specified period; and 52 percent did not think it wise to rotate auditors on a regular basis.

"For CFOs," says Julia Homer, editor-in-chief of CFO magazine, "all of these proposals are just going to make their jobs more time-consuming and expensive."

Gary Wyatt, CPA, a benefits and compensation specialist with Texas-based Travis Wolff Advisors & Accountants, says those accounting firms with a large number of public clients will be dramatically impacted.

"It will change the way they do business," Wyatt explains. "No longer can the financial statement audit be used as a 'loss leader' in hopes of selling more lucrative tax and consulting services. The largest accounting firms will likely lose many tax-consulting clients to each other. Also, high-quality regional and specialty 'boutique' accounting firms may pick up significant new tax and consulting engagements."

Wyatt also believes private companies will feel the effects of SOA: "Even though the Act is generally applicable only to public companies, the principles may eventually spread into 'best practices' affecting auditors of private companies."

William Maslo, an experienced speaker on financial topics with his own CPA practice in Reading, Pennsylvania, agrees. He speaks for the "non-SEC practitioner" who "is fearful that the concepts of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act could be adopted by state legislatures to affect non-public companies. The larger firms manage to spin off divisions and operate in a way that, at the end of the day, all is well. But for smaller firms this could spell disaster," explains Maslo.

Rebecca Wallace, a Colorado-based attorney and CPA, says the "Act is most significant for accountants because it takes away accountants ability to regulate themselves . . .. While increased oversight of the accounting firms should help to keep the audits in check, too much SEC control over the process is not necessarily a good idea. The creation of layer upon layer of bureaucracy could lead to inevitable inefficiencies in the end sought by the Act."

Bruce W. Marcus, a consultant in marketing and strategic planning for professional firms and the editor of The Marcus Letter on Professional Services Marketing, says the ramifications of the sweeping SOA "may be more damaging than the conditions they mean to correct."

In a recent article, What Sarbanes-Oxley Will Mean to the Accounting Profession, Marcus highlights the inherent challenges accountants - and accounting firms in particular - now face with the implementation of SOA, including the separation of auditing and consulting services. "Many services are relevant to improving the audit," he argues. To meet the needs of its clients, firms will need to find a way to implement consulting services that improve the audit, such as technology services that improve the flow of financial data, without the "consulting services that flagrantly taint the attest function."

Additionally, Marcus recommends the accounting profession re-examine its partnership structure by "reworking the governance structures for better management, and to allow the outside world to see more clearly how each firm is serving the clients and protecting their shareholders."

Likewise, the profession and those who regulate it should remember it does not operate in isolation to the markets it serves. "The time has come for all professionals to recognize that they exist only in their ability to meet the needs of their clients and the public – and not themselves," says Marcus.

Go on to Part Two and learn:

• How managers can implement SOA into the company culture
  
• How to keep staff members educated and informed

Sponsored Links:

• Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance: It Can't Happen to Us--Avoiding Corporate Disaster While Driving Success
  
• Building a Career In Compliance and Ethics
  

Disclosure

April was an eventful time on ERE Media. In terms of drama, it reached the height of one of the dramatic crises. Some outrageous public statements were published by no less than David Manaster, statements that were untrue, unfounded, uninvestigated, and based on hearsay.

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.

Enforcement of Employment Standards

One of the considerations in Organizational Development is examining employee behavior as it could and does affect corporate image. Many elements are part of the company brand. I've spoken of and identified several of them several times in the past. There's attire, speech, socialization skills, emotional maturity, creativity, problem solving, and leadership, to name a few. And while it's important to allow willing workers to earn a living through gainful employment, whether they have an impairment or not, there is a time to draw the line.

The courts have drawn that line in recent months in regard to business employees. As yet, they are silent with regard to treatment of personnel in an industry that is self governed and where the individuals are self employed.

There have been several rulings on ADA mental illness cases where the plaintiffs said they should have been given more leeway than others because of the unique health condition from which they suffer -- paranoid schizophrenia in one case and bi-polar disorder in another. The plaintiffs argued that they should be protected from punishment because they suffer from a disease just as an alcoholic or drug user suffers from a disease.

In the cases of Sista v. CDC IXIS, So. District of NY. No. 02-Civ. 3740 (2/15/05) and Mammone v. Harvard College, Mass. Supreme Judicial Court, 446 Mass. 657 (5/12/06), the courts were consistent in their rulings. Egregious misconduct is no excuse under any circumstances and the person should be terminated. A recent criminal case, People v. Reynolds considered the death penalty as punishment for the defendant where the situation was very similar. In Reynolds, the defendant also suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and admitted that he knew he had done horrid wrongs for which he deserved punishment. The judge agreed and sentenced him to death because Reynolds was very congizant of the gravity and reality of his acts.

Employment Industry Code of Ethics

This is leading us to look at the codes of ethics that are promulgated by our various employment industry organizations. There are words that talk about how the member will adhere to the rules. However, in none of the codes that I have reviewed do I see any language about what should be done if the rules are violated. So it appears there are no consequences except loss of membership, which is not really a grave loss if you play out the thought process a bit. Membership can be volulntarily discontinued by a member at any time and for any reason. And if the person is not already a member of the organization (or any of the several in the industry), then the attitude will be a very flippant "So what?"

Additionally, there does not seem to be anything that talks about what to do when a non-member performs an act that is unethical and/or harms some member of the unsuspecting consuming public, be it a candidate or a business of any size. What should be done in a situation like this goes unanswered. Who holds this representative of the employment industry accountable for their malfeasance is a matter that goes silently into the dark of night.

Using Mammone as a Barometer

With many interruptions, I've been reading the Mammone case where the court performs its analysis by discussing one case on which plaintiff heavily relied in arguing that he should not have been fired, Garrity. The court says of Garrity, ". . . we conclude that Garrity applies to all employment discrimination cases brought . . ., regardless of the type of handicap underlying the workplace misconduct . . ."

The court looked very carefully at Garrity and discussed the circumstances that brought that case under judicial review. It seems Mammone should not have chosen Garrity as his key argument. Although the reading of the above cite seems to support the argument that a person with a handicap is protected, it reasoned in just the opposite manner. The description was:

Garrity suffered from alcoholism. As part of her employment, she was asked to distribute "chits" to passengers, which could be exchanged for free drinks during flight. When some passengers declined the chits, Garrity, irresistibly compelled by her disease, kept them for herself. After her shift, she boarded a United Airlines flight, paying a significantly reduced employee fare. On the flight, Garrity exchanged the chits for free drinks, "became intoxicated and began drawing attention to herself and to the fact that she was a United Airlines employee." . . . Garrity "demanded excessive service and attention" and complained to and in front of passengers "about how United 'screws us.'" . . . United Airlines terminated Garrity for "violating company policies by accepting 'drink chits' from customers, using those chits while flying on a United pass . . . and for becoming intoxicated" while on the flight.

The court spoke of right to terminate in a situation where there is workplace misconduct (emphasis supplied) and said in one of its citations,

("'[A]n employer . . . must be permitted to terminate its employee on account of egregious misconduct, irrespective of whether the employee is handicapped.' . . . [A] handicapped employee who engages in conduct significantly inimical to the interests of his employer and in violation of the employer's rules . . . is not a 'qualified handicapped person' within the meaning of G. L. c. 151B").

What Manner of Enforcement Where There Is No Employer

In the Garrity case, as with Mammone and Sista, there was an employer, a business, that had in place a code of conduct and could enforce the letter of the employee handbook by terminating the employee for going against the rules. However, a solo practitioner has no such rule book. And if they are not a member of any of the various employment industry associations, they have nothing except their conscience to hold them to any standard of good conduct. In a situation where there is misconduct -- of any type -- who should enforce the rules of conduct?

A Possible Model

The Direct Selling Association has a Code of Ethics that is quite comprehensive. It includes a definition of how to file a complaint for misconduct and the procedure to be used in that instance. If there are any other Codes that have similar provisions, I'd like to know of them. But that's the Direct Selling Association and not any of the employment (or recruiting and staffing) organizations. Still, sales has such a common denominator in regard to recruiting, it makes one wonder why the DSA's code was not used as a model by any of SHRM, NAPS, CPS, or ASA.

Online Conduct and Representation of Industry

Additionally, there is online life. The sole practitioner has a unique space in the employment industry. They are a representative of their own self. Simultaneously, they are a representative of the industry. Although there are times when it seems as though we are simply a lone individual sitting quietly with our thoughts, of one sort or another, in front of a computer, that is not really the case. It may seem we can say and do whatever we want. It is very easy to forget that although we keyboard our words in the solitude of our home office at our computer, the words are going out to the Web where however we conduct ourselves is a matter of public knowledge and scrutiny. We are our own representative, creating our own brand and reputation. And where that repesentation is harmful to the standards of the industry, who steps in and enforces its rules?

But that question presumes that there is an industry standard, a norm, a bar that is held at a certain elevation and everyone in the industry is aware of it, is trained about it, is held to that standard in their doing all manner of business, and completely understand that standard and course of doing business.

Perhaps we should just avert our eyes when one in the employment industry deviates from what is our personal standard of conduct. Unfortunately, that act is a form of tacit confirmation of behavior. It's feeding and rewarding misconduct. But then, if we reward and commend egregious behavior, are we then changing the standards by which industry "professionals" should be held? After all, leading by example is a very real management concept that is used in all forms of life.

Bending the Rules

That Mullins case, where the fellow lost three jobs for essentially the same sins -- cheating on expense resports and forging chits in order to get reimbursed. It was found that he cost the state and taxpayers more than $6,000 in false expenses.

Now it could be argued that $6,000 is a paltry sum, especially when governments are spending millions and billions in dollars. Why would they bother with something as small as $6,000? Because it adds up, is one reason. Because this fellow was chronic at it is another reason. Because he admitted to having lost two previous jobs for the same types of acts. Because eventually the public absorbs these frauds in the form of higher prices of goods and services while wages stagnate.

Additionally, Mullins brings up so much in the area of ethical practices. It brings to mind several case studies that will be touched upon in this writing. Eventually, they'll be drawn out a bit more. But today I want to consider some of the tangents to Mullins and consider whether the rules should be bent in some situations. We need to think about whether rules are written in stone or whether their interpretation is governed by the extenuating circumstances.

Padding the Account

First, Mullins admitted to padding his expense account and cheating on expenses. He made long trips outside of his district that appeared to be not related to his work at all, yet he charged the mileage and associated costs to his expense account.

How many have used the trip to the conference as an excuse to have a family visit and charged all of the costs back to the company, without making an effort to parse out which was actually business and which was social? I remember having a very long conversation with a friend some 25 years ago who bundled all of the costs and thought nothing of charging the company for the entire package. Her thinking was it would be dumb not to do so. Why should she incur the cost when she was already there and probably would not have gone except for the company business. So she just stayed a little longer and had the company pay for the extra time.

But this also brings up a comment in an article I read recently. It encouraged managers to go out of their way to increase morale by buying some special treat for the entire department and then charging the cost to miscellaneous expenses or the stationery budget. Pizza for the department isn't two packages of paper. Dinner at the Thai restaurant isn't toner for the copier. Maybe there should be an office morale or a discretionary spending allowance.

In thinking about that advice, I remembered the Executive Manager of a nonprofit who started off very well. But as time passed, the monthly financials received by the Board started showing strange charges to expenses that were out of proportion. Unfortunately, the Board ratified (not unanimously) having one of the Directors also serve as the Treasurer as well as the organization's accountant. He, for some reason, did not see the strange charges. As it turned out, the EM was pulling money from the organization. After a huge scandal and a very long and thorough investigation by the City Council, the EM was asked to resign.

But the Treasurer and the other Directors should have seen those monthly expenses and asked more questions. And after the second month of questionable expenses, it seems the Treasurer/Accountant/Director should have resigned from two positions.

Hotel Stays

Mullins stayed overnight in cities and forged hotel receipts but he actually slept in his car and incurred no hotel expenses whatsoever.

Would this still be considered unethical if instead of Mullins it was a friend of his who had lost his apartment and needed a place to stay for a short time until he could get his bearings? Would Mullins have needed to get authorization to help out his friend? It was a benevolence. Should we leave a friend to the wolves because we can't fudge on the expense account?

Another Example

There was a case of a woman who was suffering domestic abuse. She siphoned funds out of the company expense account in order to help herself manage. When she was discovered, the matter was shushed up. She was hired as a manager at another high profile company but not put in charge of finances. When there's domestic abuse or some extraordinary circumstance, should an exception be made?

About the Rules

Rules and standards are made for a reason. Should they be bent under certain circumstances? How compelling should the situation be if the answer is "Yes" or is the answer always a resolute "No?"


Business Background Checks

Evaluating the Evaluator

There are times when we need to either evaluate a candidate before extending an offer or do a reference check on them in order to learn what others who have experience in working or interacting with them have determined about the person's character and personality. These are people whose observations have validity. Were this not the case, they would not hold the positions that they do or they would not have been offered as a reference. Some positions are so sensitive, have so much public interaction and focus that a psychological evaluation may even be appropriate. So we send the candidate to take a psychological assessment and rely on the clinical results.

Sometimes we get feedback from these experts that is unexpected. We're startled when we learn from a previous manager that the candidate seemed lazy and unreliable, had a propensity to speak in unbridled terms. Or an associate tells of incidents wherein the candidate seems to have an over-inflated sense of self. And the psychologist reports that the candidate has strange, repressed ideations.

Given the events of Virginia Tech, it's wise to take these evaluations seriously. But it is also wise to take the words with a grain of salt and question assessments that are 180 degrees in opposition to what was observed during the several in-person interview sessions. It is entirely possible that the evaluator is the one who is flawed, not the candidate.

In providing this counsel, it is given with quite a number of experiences and reliable references. But let us do this examination in a disciplined manner. Dr. Sam Vaknin is an expert on narcissism and in psychology. He discusses the lack of reliability of mental health evaluations that are offered by those who are essentially not qualified to dispense them but nevertheless do so. Says, Dr. Sam, "Mental health professionals are human. Many of them suffer from mental disorders. Many of them chose their profession simply in order to to be able to cope with their own deficiencies and problems."

Dr. Splash

Indeed, there was one psychiatrist (who we will call "Dr. Splash") suffered from various deficiencies and regularly inflicted them on patients, staff, and contractors. In order to live up to Doctor's expectations and gain his approval, the staff would adopt his flair for saying work was done in slipshod fashion and he should not be required to pay full price. Or that the work was not delivered on time, therefore, he should not be required to pay expedited processing fees.

As time passed, the truth of the matter became clear. Doctor sent out work done in a sloppy manner that required three to four times as much effort as usual. Doctor's evaluations were questionable but his position caused staff to second guess theirselves and fall back on bad decisions that resulted in costly mistakes, delays, or needless duplication of effort. Doctor would intentionally phrase things in such a fashion that would cast a negative pall on the person being evaluated.

The question of patient impropriety arose. Doctor's association with the truth began to be questioned. Professional colleagues would affirm that they knew him but would thereafter become silent.

Of this sort of mental health professional, Dr. Sam says, "Unfortunately, some of them are not sufficiently conscientious. They engage in the delicate art of therapy long before they overcome their own problems.

"They bring their problematic, even sick, selves into the therapeutic setting and, in doing so, they aggravate the patient's issues."

In fact in the example of Dr. Splash, exacerbating his own problems as well as those of his patients was routine. Since he operated his own practice, there was no one to actually supervise his work. His habits created profound insecurities in nearly everyone associated with him. Although I am unaware of the end of Dr. Splash's story, it seems his practices became so widespread that he eventually drove himself out of business. His record became very obvious and people learned to hold him to firm quality standards that had no room for equivocation.

Again, let me refer this examination to the explanations of Dr. Sam wherein he says, "Analysts are supposed to work to solve their own problems prior to practicing. Therapists are supposed to work under supervision and to refer and defer to these supervisors. An outside perspective is often very helpful to them. But not all therapists and psychiatrists adopt these professional standards and work methods." In the case of Dr. Splash, he had the professional backup of those associated with Medi-Cal and Medi-Care as well as other industry and professional associations. It was the state and federal agencies that began to see the flaws in his practice.

Dr. Splish

Dr. Splish is also a noted psychologist. His specialty is in personality assessments and he has published some very interesting pronouncements. It was interesting to review some of the tests and assessments he has prepared. A casual reading revealed nothing outrageous. In fact, everything seemed to fall into a very reasonable sequence. But that was the problem. Without doing any critical reading of the assessments, the fact that the questions were skewed and structured in such a way that they actually exhibited bias in many instances that tended to disqualify candidates of color.

The other interesting thing about Dr. Splish is his propensity to perform unsolicited psychological and psychiatric evaluations of people over the phone. It has been indicated that he shares these evaluations with others who have relied on the information to make business decisions about associations with the individuals who were unsuspectingly evaluated.

As with Dr. Splash, Dr. Splish suffers from a number of unresolved insecurities. They are revealed in small snippets of rueful statements splattered here and there during conversation. It sometimes seems as though he uses his negative evaluations as a tool to lash out at those who he perceives to be outdistancing him and thereby compensate for what Dr. Sam has called "insecurities." With this revelation, you have to wonder whether it is actually safe to come in contact with Dr. Splish at all, much less rely on his evaluations. It is safe, but only in small doses and for a limited amount of time. The heart of dealing with him effectively is to draw a standard that must be met and not equivocate on the bar. Remind him that there is a standard. Acknowledge expertise and valid insight when appropriate and thank him.

How to Handle the Evaluation

What we should learn from the examples of Dr. Splash and Dr. Splish is that not all psychologists or psychiatrists, even those with long lists of letters and professional associations after (or associated with) their names should be looked to as ones who dispense gospel. There is one example of a sound psychological / psychiatric professional I have found. Noted for his work as the foresic psychiatrist in the "Son of Sam" case, Dr. Jay Ziskin's words stand the test of critical evaluation. He is incisive and has no axe to grind. He deals with the facts and disciplined principles and uses them to provide an accurate assessment.

What this means for us as we look to mental health experts for information relating to hiring decisions is we need to listen carefully to what is being said. We need to ask questions when the evaluation does not match what we have already seen. We should not be enamored with the person's credentials. Rather we should also be evaluating the one who is speaking in order to determine whether they have some type of bias, whether they are capable of making an impartial determination based on proven standards. We should make an attempt to ascertain whether the person who has performed the evaluation had authorization to do so. Finally, it is very important that we determine whether the evaluator comes to us with a solid foundation and has used reliable industry resources to validate their work. We should not be afraid to seek a second opinion.

Human Resource Library: Administration & Policies