Development Opportunities

The original title for this post was "Standards, Boundaries, Guidelines." It didn't work because it just didn't. The subject intended for consideration is how to handle a situation in which you have a problem and then find yourself, as did Paula Deen) needing to turn it into a teachable moment.

Paula caused quite a stir circa June 25 with regard to what she did or did not say, how she manages the workers in her kitchens, and just general protocol. She proclaimed innocence on all counts except for one instance when she used a racially questionable term. She wailed about the distress that her "young people" caused her when she would hear the names they would call one another. But she didn't talk about what she did to counter that behavior.

Good Georgia girl of the '60s, she claims that she only used the racially repugnant term one time in her life. Yet there are lawyers who have come up with quite a number of other instances. For someone of her vintage, she should have an appreciation of what the term connotes as well as other matters of which she is accused (her "pet" name for one of her chefs, the wedding dinner, oh dearie me). She's a grandparent. She's at a stage where she's been teaching etiquette and appropriate behavior to her offspring. The dynamic doesn't change when it pertains to employees, associates, and just people in general. Still, none of these situations caused her to stop and consider that she should put forth some measure that would stop these things from happening and curb the stain to her brand. Even worse, it appears none of her HR personnel approached her with suggestions or recommendations.

Establish a Zero Tolerance Policy

The concept of zero tolerance has been around for a while. It could be argued that Paula's kitchens could have put a zero tolerance section into the Personnel Handbook with regard to a lot of behaviors. The section could cover language, acts, attire, and other matters that cause one to bristle. But before jumping on that concept and saying that is the solution, the first thing that needs to be investigated is how effective zero tolerance is in any environment, whether it be at work, or at school, or anywhere else.

An initial cursory look at the string "effectiveness of zero tolerance policies" produced a lot of results that pertained to children in schools and bullying. One after another, the headnotes talked about how ineffective a zero tolerance policy is with regard to discouraging negative behavior.

But the investigation of the effectiveness of zero tolerance related to the workplace. So the string was modified to "effectiveness of workplace zero tolerance policy" which also proved to have no positive things to say about the policy. In fact, the findings still dodged the bullet by examining matters such as substance abuse, sexual harassment, and workplace bullying. It went the range of zero tolerance as it relates to a military environment to the university and all environs in-between. The reverse was discussed - how ineffective that policy is. Why is this so? According to Wikipedia, "Zero-tolerance policies forbid persons in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history." In other words, there's little wiggle room.

Not All Negative

However, one writer, Samuel Greengard, pointed out several elements that contribute toward making an effective policy, one that discourages the types of behaviors that should be kept out while maintaining a healthy environment. Management buy-in is essential. Knowing the array of legal issues and laws is also important. And having appropriate forms of punishment help the zero tolerance policy work. Stepping outside of Greengard's citations of effectiveness policies, some authorities point out that the policy should be exacted on an equilateral basis. That is, it applies equally to all personnel, no matter what the position.

The Bottom Line Is

So this brings us to a takeaway on this matter. You have employees who are bandying insulting epithets at one another. You have managers (and even owners) doing and saying socially repugnant things that cause one to question the health of the environment. This doesn't require neurosurgeon skills. Simply do not tolerate or allow (even in jest) what could be construed as objectionable, harassing, or racist behavior. Even if the language is used among those of the same racial group and some of them (but not all) contend that it's the vernacular of the community or culture, do not tolerate it. (Unless, of course, you want to send the message to your customers that your business cannot rise to serving people with courtesy and allowing them to feel they have dignity.) Even if it's part of your culture and practice in your home, it isn't appropriate for those you serve and shouldn't be imposed on them. It isn't appropriate for those who are in your employ and they should not be subjected to it. This is the time to lead by example.

Resources:

• Everything Paula Deen Did Wrong, and What She Can Do Right, Howard Bragman (June 23, 2013)
  
• Paula Deen didn't exactly deny those allegations of race discrimination, Eric Meyer (June 20, 2013)
  
• Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence for Health Care & Social Service Workers, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (2004)
  
• Chapter 7: The Workplace Violence Prevention Program, AFSCME
  
• Zero Tolerance Making It Work, Samuel Greengard, Workforce Magazine (May 1, 1999; September 11, 2011)
  
• Zero Tolerance for Workplace Violence, Nonprofit Risk Management Center
  
• Zero Tolerance, Wikipedia
  

Nine Tips for Diversity Leaders

This morning, a discussion on LinkedIn finally grabbed my attention. An editor wanted to know (paraphrasing) what tips the group members have for future diversity leaders in terms of necessary skills and expertise. It was the type of question that a nurturing personality has difficulty letting get overlooked. So I responded.

Skills:

• Ability to listen carefully, process the information, and respond with an appropriate response. Most would call all of that "good communication skills" but communication involves more than just talking at people or reciting anecdotes about 'this happened to me.'
  
• Ability to operate as a professional without projecting an air of pride or smugness. Become a beacon and role model but first, and most importantly, be human.
  
• Use your maturity. It's important to have the maturity to deal with human nature and various age demographics in order to learn from them as well as convey useful information to them.
  
• Communication is critical. If your message isn't getting through, take some time to review what you're saying and how you're saying it. Then modify your strategy so that the vocabulary and voice are not only understandable but also heard. Also consider aligning yourself with someone who more closely identifies with your target demographic so that they are speaking the language. Then the message more easily reaches its destination and becomes effective.
  

Expertise:

• Choose a specialty area and learn as much about it as possible. The learning should not be solely classroom- and textbook-centric. Those are clinical settings based on what others are telling you. In many instances, the best experience is to be out in the field interacting with the people and situations that constitute your specialty area. In order to gain that experience while still learning your specialty, it would be good to do volunteer work at a nonprofit that specializes in your calling or intern for them.
  
• There are many ways to gain an appreciation of the needs and wants of your audience. Some people have walked and lived among their specialty constituency (sometimes not on a willing basis). That can be extremely dangerous if it's done with no safety tether (others outside of the situation who can help you get out of harm fast). However, that type of immersion provides real life awareness and the ability to develop meaningful strategies to address issues.
  
• Having a real appreciation of the constituency needs leads to engendering trust from the members. That is extremely important to being effective as well as developing respect.
• A leader needs to have the sophistication to appreciate when transparency is mandatory.
  
• Recognize that privacy and confidentiality are imperative.
  
• It's important to do proper screening, usually couched in casual conversation that makes the person comfortable enough to share their philosophies that wouldn't ordinarily be verbalized (or demonstrated) in an employment interview setting. That will make proper selection of the most effective personnel possible.
  

Someone recently asked whether it's possible for a White person to be a leader of a Black organization. The ancillary query related to whether a woman could be an effective leader of that same group. As that conversation evolved, we looked at the NAACP as an example. It was founded by mutually concerned individuals from all ethnicities and walks of life. Among the founders were abolitionists, Jews, Gentiles, Blacks, Whites, men and women. One of the most pivotal of the founders was Mary White Ovington. The first "president" of the organization (who served in that capacity for ten years) was a White man, Joel Spingarn.

A few words about being a leader, no matter what the cause or organization, is having foresight and vision. Those skills will allow the leader to see most of the pitfalls before they arise. That will then enable them to develop strategies to avert the difficulties, use them to the organization's advantage, or overcome them with as much ease as is reasonable. In order to garner the support to execute the plans and goals of the organization, a leader must have excellent communication skills or a trusted adviser and speaker who can communicate the rallying cry on their behalf.

Finally, it's extremely important that the leader be able to understand the psychology of their opposition. Doing so will empower them to gain the ear of those who resist. Sometimes resistance is nothing more than fear dressed as aggression or hate. The ability to allay those fears by showing the benefits of becoming aligned takes significant skill and ability while yielding results useful for more than the constituent group.

Sponsored Link:

HBR's 10 Must Reads on Communication (with featured article "The Necessary Art of Persuasion," by Jay A. Conger)

Earning Letters to Be a Leader

A recent community discussion was raised about the need for a degree and/or certification in order to be eligible for hire as a Human Resource professional. Many perspectives are offered in that discussion. Most lean toward experience and skill plus certification. I remember a lecture from my undergrad Management instructor about being a leader and the qualifications for that role. He set forth the concept that you don't need to have a degree nor a background in the business nor industry that you're leading. What you do need is a knowledge of how to run a business and how to lead. The other details can be delegated to trusted advisers and consultants who are experts in that particular area and who do not have some hidden agenda for power grabbing of their own.

A university degree says the individual has been taught how to think and reason through issues. They have been exposed to the latest principles and concepts. They have managed to pass the academic tests structured to evaluate how well they grasped those concepts. Unfortunately, it became vogue during the '80s and '90s to negotiate an A in whatever course was taken so that the true value of the grade was watered down. Even having a 4.0 academic standing now leaves room for speculation.

Certifications are good milestone checks for how well a person has gained a good understanding of the principles. To the extent they are required at periodic intervals and evaluate new practices and concepts in addition to the basics, they are very useful. But certifications are expensive propositions. In this economy, they are for those who have the funds to take them or work for an employer who is willing to sponsor taking the test.

Which brings me back to the qualifications of a leader. The person has proven experience from many situations and venues. They understand the importance of continued education and endeavor to stay abreast of technology and practices. They look to case studies for guidance where they have no direct experience of their own.

To the extent they demonstrate the essential characteristics of a professional in deportment, demeanor, appearance, and respect for others, in addition to using good judgment, the person without all the letters but with a great amount of experience is just as qualified in many respects.

As a closing thought, some years ago a woman who was a practicing lawyer talked with me at a networking function for recruiters and HR pros. She wanted to transition from law to HR but was getting a lot of resistance and being told she didn't have the necessary qualifications. What I interpreted was that HR folk are extremely territorial. Even though she had the advantages of being a professional from another industry as well as the necessary knowledge of the law as it would apply in essentially all of the situations that would present to her, the established population didn't want an outsider to infiltrate the ranks. Incidentally, I've checked her LinkedIn profile and it appears she finally broke through.


Sponsored Links:

• Hard hat required: district leaders--even those with limited school construction experience--can successfully manage projects to create the best ... An article from: District Administration
  
  
• Leaders and Leadership in Education
  

The Elusive Difference, Part 2

[NOTE: First published on ZoomInfo's Insight Report in May 2007, this article is now republished on The Consultant's Desk in order to preserve its access.]

Developing the Talent

As to developing a pool of qualified candidates, one recommendation is to put in place a mentoring program so that women have role models to watch, learn from, and receive coaching insights. Mentoring provides opportunities for insider education about the traditional way plus small nuances that can be applied in sticky situations where rote is not the route.

The more companies get employees involved in governance and ethics training, the more they will be developing leader thinking, and therefore, candidates qualified for the upper echelons.

One of the reasons women leaders are not recognized is because women are not allowed to express themselves as knowledgeable authorities on meaningful subjects. Open the door to more challenging responsibilities and concepts and you open the door to developing the leadership that’s required.

All of these are wonderful exercises in developing that elusive difference to serve. It isn’t helping us in the here and now to find the names.

Where to Look

Where should we be looking for these untapped leaders, the ones who are not part of the small and evaporating pool? There are government registries of qualified candidates. What I loved about working with ZoomInfo’s PowerSearch is that it allowed such ease of filtering in order to find these types of people.

One way of searching is to start by looking at the industry and then using some of the filters to limit the results by gender and position. That’s a terrific system. You achieve thousands of hits. But on a search for Finance expertise, I discovered I had a lot of women lawyers. I wanted Operations and Audit experts. Customer Support was able to offer a suggestion on how to filter these types of records out of the results.

On yet another search, still in Finance, I found it very easy to narrow results from over 11,000 records to about a dozen by simply inputting the name of an association from which I wanted to cull talent. And the extremely helpful online Customer Support helped me identify an even more efficient way of going after the pearls in the sea. Start with the name of the organization from which you want your candidate to be trained.

The other place to look is development foundations where leadership skills are taught and developed, placement statistics are maintained, and a registry of qualified candidates is held for making recommendations and facilitating connections. One obvious organization that keeps such information is Catalyst’s Corporate Board Service. The International Alliance for Women is a great source for finding qualified nonprofit candidates. There are also geo-specific organizations that serve multiple industries in training, supporting, and connecting qualified women with organizations. And then there's the Secretary of State's registry of minority candidates.

Yet another, and obvious, place to search for these elusive ladies is at MBA programs and alumni associations.

PowerSearch provided an additional advantage in finding literally thousands of hits for women who are in mid-management positions. This is where many think tanks recommend beginning your leadership development process and culling the talent that’s desired. Sometimes finding the right candidate is as easy as looking just below the surface, where the most ripe are hitting the ceiling.

Use of the PowerSearch is easy. And for someone who comes from a legal background and deep familiarity with online research through legal databases, many things made sense. So I quickly found that I’d moved from a simple search to something much more sophisticated. Customer Support made me aware of this. The professional suggested that to refine my skills and results, I may want to consider the Advanced Search training. “Is there an additional cost for this?” I asked. No, it’s included in the subscription price. What a gold mine!

I think we’re going to have a lot of Pelosis who proliferate the landscape. It’s simply a matter of knowing where to look.

[back to The Elusive Difference, Part 1]

The Elusive Difference, Part 1

[NOTE:First published on ZoomInfo's Insight Report in May 2007, this article is now republished on The Consultant's Desk in order to preserve its access.]

Wow! January 2007 entered with a landmark event. For the first time in U.S. history, a woman took the third most powerful office in the country. Although she’s maintained a stellar track record of being more than capable of handling executive-level decision making, building alliances, enforcing rules, accurate listening skills, as well as speaking and presentation agility, the wisdom of and her ability to serve in that office became a question of the day.

She firmly asserted her having merited the position by unflinchingly making the decisions that were required, based on solid reasoning. She did not waffle. She did not apologize. She did not pander for the typical “soft” persona. Well, maybe she did during her acceptance speech. But in the ensuing days, the gloves were off and the sleeves were rolled up. What the country and the office require is a leader. Nancy Pelosi advanced as one.

Finding Women Candidates - Management and Executive

If there are women in Congress who are as capable as Pelosi, most certainly there are women in all ranges of business who are equally qualified in education and training, decision making, and so on. The question then becomes one of why there are so few women in these positions.

If we use education as a filtering-in criteria, there is definitely a pool of candidates. Out of the more than 12 million women who have earned a Master’s degree or higher (in 2004), compared with only 7 million of their male counterparts, there are only 16 percent who are in Fortune 500 company C-level positions and merely 15 percent who serve on those boards. The other issue is where these accomplished women can be found because, going by the statistics, they really do exist.

Bureau of Labor Statistics analyses of men and women who have completed more than four years of college shows from 1990 to 2004, the numbers are nearly equal, and the gap is closing on an average of 1.85 percent every five years.

One difficulty cited as a reason for not finding qualified women for executive and boards positions is that the pool is too small. Additionally, nearly everyone is vying for the same candidates. It’s important to take off our blinders to means of finding and recognizing qualified talent.

A November 2006 article noted that one of the reasons there are so few women in Fortune 500 and public corporation executive positions is because the process takes so long; it tends to suffocate asserting one’s leadership skills. Women opt for fast-growing smaller, private companies or start their own in order to jettison their progression and exercise their abilities in a more affirming environment.

Importance of Gender Representation

Any good organizational consultant will tell you that having diverse views adds value to an organization’s bottom line. It stands to reason that the more perspectives you add to the mix, the less tunnel vision there is. Eliminate tunnel vision; create vision of not only the goal but multiple goals and diverse paths for achieving any one of them.

It’s been noted that women are excellent listeners, tend to be more empathetic, and are accustomed to handling multiple projects simultaneously. However, another important factor in having a woman’s perspective in executive, decision- and policy-making positions is that she can provide the insights with regard to purchasing power and preferences. In other words, women in representative positions can help an organization recognize unseen advantages and opportunities.

Overcoming the Myths

There are many objections to women’s serving in positions of leadership. It’s amazing we have any at all! But like the disabled, there are those 16 percent who have pushed through the marble ceiling and go to the war table every day. The getting there was fraught with a plethora of objections. Some of them look like:

• They’ve been out of the industry for years while raising kids. They’re no longer abreast of current practices.
• Allowing them to work on flex time and alternative schedules just doesn’t provide the amount of time required to be a real leader.
• Work from home just isn’t workable for executives.

These objections (and others) pander to the stereotypes. These days, maternity leave can be as short as six weeks. The other thing is, there’s now paternity leave that can run for as long as 18 months. Additionally (and overcoming several of the objections to women as executives), a recent University of Maryland study found that over the last 40 years, women are working more hours and have also increased their number of parenting hours while still remaining quite competitive in their field.

The burnout factor of the Internet Bust and accompanying demands for overtime (sometimes as much as 40 hours per week) caused people to start taking a hard look at what’s important. Quality of life won. Work-life balance and flex schedules are equi-gender.

While the objection to working from home may be valid for some types of professions, let’s put this in perspective. The executive who’s a road warrior is just as much a type of work from home/suitcase as the telecommuter. It is doable. Many men are opting for this. Perhaps this road warrior / telecommute personality is one that should be sought.

[go to The Elusive Difference, Part 2]

It's the Little Things You Say

Some employers wonder why they just achieve full diversity in their workplace and then it suddenly collapses when an exodus of five to ten people occurs. The pay is good. The benefits are excellent. The working hours aren't excessive. Work-life balance issues are addressed. There's everything going for the environment. So why are these five to ten people leaving after a year or two? The scenario is repeated year after year, department after department.

Maybe that's the problem. The things that are being held constant but not examined. Undoubtedly, the interviewers are people who have been in the organization for a good amount of time. They've become acculturated. They speak and reflect the culture. That's one of the reasons they were selected to be interviewers. They represent the corporate culture in addition to knowing all of the details about the position and the best fit for it. As interviewers, they don't grill the candidates; they have conversations. They tell anecdotes that are actually open invitations to share information and personality. They relax and begin to spontaneously react to things said by the candidate and then reveal a little more of who they are and why they've been with the company for as long as they have.

There were faux pas during the interviews that the candidate chose not to address or acknowledge. But as time passed, the new employee realized these were not aberrant. These instances are part of the corporate culture and they keep getting repeated in various ways.

Coupled with watching the practices is the listening. The listening started from the moment the phone call reached them for the phone interview and the invitation to come in for a personal interview. The listening was happening as they sat in the reception area and as they made their way through the halls from one office to the next. The listening was happening as they walked into the front doors into the elevator from the commute to the office.

It was the little comments that were made in response to something that was willingly volunteered in order to show how motivated the candidate was. It was an observation that over-reached the situation but simultaneously came crashing down on a particular class of individuals. It was an observation that was basically pandering to some part of the candidate's identity and the observation was completely wrong. They were asked where they expect to see themselves in five years. The honest response was met with a muttered, "Yeah, right." During their tenure with the company, some executive asked them to reserve some time because they wanted to meet with the employee. The employee had been doing the right type of networking and politicking to move into that department and commented to their supervisor that the meeting would hold a lot of opportunity for them. The supervisor's comment was something on the order of, "I doubt it."

One of the things these corporate emigrants realize is that there is no place for them in the higher rungs of the company. They've been there long enough to have watched the various types of personnel who are pushed along and who has been diverted or discouraged from following a particular path. The pattern repeats itself without benefit of gossip nor sniping remarks.

Perhaps there was good follow-up and the candidate was contacted by phone or letter or email. The message was essentially that although the candidate's qualifications and background are exceptional, they simply were not the right fit for the position. Good luck in [your] future endeavors. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Or perhaps there was no follow-up. A person who looks just like everyone else in the company was hired and life just went on. If either of these situations occurred, the candidate who was passed over had little to say aloud. In fact, they may have even forgotten they interviewed at your company. Why? Because of how under-whelmed they were. They were relieved to be out of the way of the sniper shots.

In the alternative, they were hired for some reason. Maybe it was because they are of the ethnicity or gender that was required at that time. But they've reached that exodus threshold and just tendered their resignation. That's when a disappointed at the resignation notice is made and thoughts about losing a worker of that quality are mulled. Where to find more of that type of worker to do exactly the same thing but more of it. After all, that's why they were hired. More importantly, how do you keep them?

"Sam[antha], you're such a great [insert job title]. You're conscientious and hard working. You get things done and don't need a lot of supervision. You're not like the others of your kind. You're an exception. We'd like to keep your kind with us in the family. Is there anything we could do to convince you to stay, to keep doing your exceptional work for us?"

It's about this time the key to the door has been turned and locked. Sam[antha] doesn't need to say anything but will probably respond with, "I don't think so. But thanks."

The Economy Is Here

It was officially announced around 1:30 PM my time. We are in an economic recession. We have been in it for at least the past year. According to the KNX 1070 website nugget:

It's official. The US is in a recession and has been since December. The price of oil slides below 50 dollars a barrel. Stocks sell off, giving back about half of last week's gains. Analysis from Jon Najarian, CNBS contributor and founder of optionmonster.com, John Kilduff, VP at MF Global, Dr. Irwin Kellner, chief economist at Marketwatch.

What a revelation! That is essentially the same news (and information) I've been providing you for the past three years.

Backing up this realization is the economic forecast (still to be completely published) I made of the Employment Industry for this year. Pieces of that forecast managed to make it to the light of the Internet in February at sites such as HR.com, Associated Content.com, OnRec.com, Entrances Forum, and a few other places. The full forecast can be found on the Executive Recruiting Entrances in the Articles section. Watch for the links to go live on this four-part discussion. (Yes, blantant advertising and self promotion.)

KNX 1070 radio news is my sole source of entertainment these days. Therefore, it is also my sole source of audio news. The way they handled why there's been such American oblivion during this time was journalistically professional. They provided snippets of President Bush's statements to the nation over the course of selected time periods throughout these past 12 (to 15) months. At each juncture, Bush says we are doing fine and are not in an economic recession. The nation is economically sound and there is no reason to fear.

Can anyone recall the press conference Bush gave in March 2007? Bush made a statement about the strength of the nation as well as the ability of Americans to avail theirselves of going anywhere they wanted. One of the reporters interrupted the President to ask whether he was aware that gasoline was then nearly $3 per gallon. The President was not aware. In fact, he demanded to know who had put out such information as it simply was not true. Gasoline, on average, was about $2.50 per gallon. This past March Bush was still not willing to admit that gasoline prices were over $3 per gallon and prohibitive to those who are unemployed and seeking work. It was too costly to go to work!

This makes a strong statement about the type and style of leadership under which this nation has struggeled and strived for the past eight years. What's troubling is that as a nation, no one took steps to more than urge our national top employee to take a more cautious and informed look at the situation. No one insisted on better measures to pull things into safer waters. And finally, no one during any of these eight long and arduous years ever took steps to remove the leader who was methodically taking us to the last two inches of the edge of the precipice on which we hang.

It is now time for us to review history. We need to examine the many programs developed by the despised president of the 1930s and replicate some of the infusion methods used then. It is time to look at the person standing before you who wants to work, not the race, gender, sexual preference, neighborhood. Yes, it's definitely prudent to take into consideration education and intelligence. They should be considered in a fair and prudent manner, not with the historic bias that has led us in the past. As I said, it's more than time to look at the person standing before us and consider how many of the tasks that need to be performed, how many of the decisions that need knowledge, experience, and prudence can be performed by that person at an economic price -- that returns value and well being.

But then this reasoning is putting the cart before the horse. I've managed to move from the fact that the weather is a 10-hour hail storm to talking about how to rebuild our house. Time to sit down and catch my breath and thoughts for a moment.

But take heart, my dear readers. It was definitely not your imagination. We are truely in a recession (at best) but we've been in an economic depression for at least one year.

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.

Moderation Challenges

Back on April 16 (2007), the previous Ethics in Recruiting group had surpassed rowdy, outrageous, and embarrassing. The "rusing" discussion post had wound itself up to more than 60 responses. There was shouting. There were insults and name calling. There was boasting and being bombastic. Those who were not too embarrassed (or frightened) to speak merely passed by to see what else had occurred. Attempts at moderation were futile. Compounding that was the fact that each time a moderation post was made, it was deleted by a back office person. But the members of the group (especially those who dared not speak) were wondering why there was no moderation happening and also wondering what the outcome of the riot would be.

Questions were asked of the moderator. But the answers did not come. Why? Because they kept being deleted. The explanation was that the words were deemed "messages that are distracting and of no relevance to others in the community." In a final attempt to close the hottest issue for recruiters discussion, acknowledge the efforts of those who summarized our understandings, congratulate those who participated in an online mediation, and just generally bring us to closure in order to move to a new subject, the following words were posted to the group. None of the group members are aware of these words. Perhaps they will come here and read this case study on moderation and thereby learn what happened, why there was total silence.

While sanity and professionalism was restored, they were short-lived. Order cannot survive when it is constantly subverted and support for restoring orderliness does not exist. Ask any administrator, instructor, manager, or any other person who leads a group. If there is no support from the top for positive initiatives, no matter how valiant they are, they are doomed and chaos will reign.

When management fails to support bringing order and maintaining it, the question that needs to be asked and answered is "Why do you want disorder and support it?" So this is a case study of how to bring failure to one small part of an organization. When this happens, the remainder of the structure will slowly but surely follow. But this is part of the missing conversation and closure of the "rusing" thread:

Posted April 16 at approximately 9:00 PM

Now that my blood pressure is down, I've been able to read the new posts to the "rusing" thread. It was good that a more careful reading was done before speaking aloud.

Yes, we did go silent for a time. That was the time when I privately asked Laura to do a summary of the new elements that came out of the discussion and to start a new thread where those concepts could reside. But Laura has a day job and it takes precedence over an ERE discussion board. But I did put the group on notice that the summary was coming.

What also happened during that lull was Tony, Steve, Letourneau and Albucker and I had a private conversation. In striving to protect privacy of all the parties, only three of the men were included in the lengthy exchanges that occurred, as Albucker pointed out. I asked these men to do a summary of what had been concluded but forgot to assign a specific person to do so.

It looks like when the four men had time, three of them not only did an excellent job of summarizing but also openly expressed their ability to see the others' perspectives and to come to conciliation on many levels.

For all of this I am very glad. What needed to happen was to allow people to express theirselves without the extras we were initially getting. It appears we all have grown from this experience and are on good ground for having talks.

Tony points a finger and says I revived the rusing thread. It seems he forgot about the various conversations and the requests for summaries. I do not have access to the moderation tools; Brendan [a back office employee] does.

At the moment, perhaps that's a good thing because when I saw all the posts being made after I requested that the thread be closed, I would have deleted without reading. There would have been a loss, as I now see after having an opportunity to read the words. But perhaps the tools need to be returned to me because it seems Brendan already has quite a bit on his hands.

The requested summaries were done. They were excellent. The expressions of conciliation were made publicly and accepted. We achieved harmony and camaraderie (maybe that's a bit much, but we all agreed to work together). That was healthy. Thank you.

Now. About those phoney resumes. Let's deal with those another day and in another thread.

Drawing on a Point

Earlier this month, I talked about the major resistance that the recruiting population expressed at seeing analogies in politics compared with corporate and recruiting matters. There was one small voice among the shouters, amid the threats and bullying, that acknowledged that politics do have an impact on the direction in which our economy is headed and their impact on job market numbers. One voice out of nearly 50 is such a pitiful showing. (I weary myself with those musings.)

There's an article on today's AOL that seems to drive home, in exquisite form, why the Bush press conference has so much significance in regard to jobs and employment, especially in relation to the direction in which the economy is headed.

American Optimism at New Low, Poll Finds talks about the matter that is affecting men and women, blacks (actually, minorities of all colors) and whites. The survey indicators continue to plummet. One of the reasons why is because people are seeing that their financial security, job opportunities, and other things related to offshore spending rather than reinvesting in America are shortchanging everyone's viability.

The other thing people are seeing is that too much time is being spent on a situation (Iraq) that is not a domestic issue. Still another and even more compelling fault cited is poor leadership.

The reason women and minorities express concern and disdain for current policies, according to the AP article, is "numbers for women and minorities result largely because both groups tend to be more Democratic, less supportive of the war and more vulnerable to economic downturns, analysts say."

The latter is the essential reason. The article does an excellent job of fair reporting by virtue of the fact that interviewees who were cited are from both major parties, one even noted as being a conservative Republican, but still expressing the same dissatisfaction.

Unfortunately, this month's survey was of a scant 1,000 respondents over a three-day period. While 300 people per day is a good number, it is difficult for 1,000 to be a truly accurate sampling of a few billion in national population. Still, this survey has been running since 2003. The statisticians are using a good margin for error number and the results are steady. The numbers compare and contrast to others used in similar surveys. Thus, I would say even though the sampling is small, it is reliable, realistic and deserves our attention to the issues called into question.