Consultant's Recommendations for the Health of All

There are many instances when an Organizational Development Consultant's input is vital to the health of an organization, its constituents, and its employees. With our airwaves, from coast to coast and border to border, being bombarded with news of the horrors of King-Drew Harbor General Hospital, it became mandatory that the knowledge I have regarding the facility, through experience and observation, be delivered to those responsible for its governance. On the last Tuesday of the month, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Hearing is open to public comment and testimony (during debate on agenda items) for the Board's consideration before taking a vote on the measure before them. It was time for me to address the body and, during public comment, deliver the information I have.

The Supervisors' concerns focused on having a community emergency care facility in the community. More importantly and especially in light of the shocking story of Edith Isabel Rodriguez, who was allowed the die in the triage area, a safe and competent emergency care facility. To close the facility would cause multiple, grievous hardships on the population and drive up numerous infrastructure costs as well as costs to human lives.

The Supervisors asked many questions of their experts and counsels. They examined numerous documents while in chambers and drafted motions to address the issues and needs before them during session. They acted as a team, as a collective body focused on a single mission. Among the considerations were the alternatives that would be available should the hospital's license be suspended compared with revoked. Also among the considerations were the impact on nearby emergency room facilities, ambulance service, waiting time and so on, should the license be suspended, revoked, or the facility closed. The only view was with regard to multiple failures in the emergency area.

Public comment came after more than two hours of Board deliberations. The sister and brother of Ms. Rodriguez were allowed to address the body. Ms. Rodriguez's siblings emphasized the need for those who need to use the facility in the future know that they will be treated with human consideration and not disregard.

Many others spoke before my name was called. They had very relevant words to add to the picture and things to be considered in regard to emergency care. Some offered their services as resources for evaluating and replacing existing staff. Some had prepared statements as written in briefs that were left for later review but accompanied verbal testimony or comment.

I spoke, not as an emergency care recipient but as a person sent to the facility for routine testing and evaluation and as an independent observer of the conditions at the facility. Those observations showed that the problems with the facility are not isolated to the emergency care. Instead, the issues are systemic.

The Board spoke of having gone through the facility some years ago and discovered they had people who simply did not know their jobs, They were the "F performers," as Yaroslovsky put it, but they didn't get rid of the ones doing D- work. Apparently he spoke of emergency room performers. In my interface with the facility, I discovered staff people who could not tell a constituent where a department or room was located or in which wing of the building they should go to reach it. A technician who saw a patient on one day and injected them with imaging dye did not, on the next day, remember that they had injected that same patient. They then wondered aloud at the puncture wound. Yet the workload was not so high to have caused that level of forgetfulness. And one department had three out of four attendants who appeared to be on heavy anti-depressant medication yet all seemed to be equally responsible for patient management, records, and dispensing of instructions. They did not appear to be in a condition to do these functions unsupervised.

A hospital is a building, nothing more. The things that differentiate it from any other building are the equipment, the personnel, and the type of business it does, and how it does that business. Every part of the facility that I saw was immaculate as far as cleanliness. All of the equipment and machinery that I experienced was in good working order. This relates to the general facility. I did not experience the emergency room nor that area.

While the emergency room at Harbor General is in dire condition, the issues that impact the hospital are more profound. It is the hospital staff in general, the people who work there, who need the evaluation. This is the job of the Human Resources department -- the place where the recruiting, testing, screening, hiring, training, retention, and promotion activities take place. The Human Resources department is also the place where determinations about who needs to be given leave of absence until fit to return to work and perform in a reliable manner, how long that leave should be, that does this type of review. Yet it appears the Human Resources department is not capable of fulfilling those responsibilities.

It also appears the recruiters who are part of the Human Resources department are not capable of finding the qualified talent that can deliver on the promises to the community -- safe and competent care provided by qualified talent at all levels. This is something very important to Supervisor Molina. She wants to know that if she takes her mother to that facility, that her mother will receive competent care and that her mother will be safe.

The Rodriguez siblings made an excellent point during their opportunities to speak. People who use the facility are treated as though they are fungible entities, not human individuals entitled to human rights and dignity. For the most part, it appears the treatment is because people who seek treatment at that hospital are viewed as the poor and indigent because their either have no health insurance or are extremely under-insured. Compounding these indignities, it is apparent in many instances that the constituents are also viewed as being the stereotypical representative of their perceived race and therefore treated as the lowest common denominator of life.

Although one-on-one conversations with facility personnel had polite and humane sounds, there were many subtle suggestions in the way things were said or the terminology used, that the individual held the belief that the constituent was merely another of those in the baseline population. The condescensions were ignored in deference to learning more about the primary issue.

So in my capacity as an Organizational Development Consultant, it was possible to deliver information and testimony to the Board of Supervisors that was sorely needed in order to make a more informed decision about whether to close King-Drew Harbor General Hospital or keep it open. It was possible to bolster their findings in order to also help them determine which alternative is the more advantageous, license revocation or voluntary suspension. And with that bolstered information, they will be able to make deliberate in anticipation of a vote that is in the best interests of handling the issues of the hospital, the community it serves, as well as the impact on surrounding communities and populations.

It was good to once again work with a long-time professional friend. It's always good to be immediately recognized and acknowledged even after nearly a decade of absence in association. Finally, it was good to return to my indigenous state in doing public speaking and address in order to inform, educate, and persuade.

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.

Survey: Diverse Candidate Selection

I would appreciate your help in gathering information about attitudes toward women candidates for senior executive positions and seats on Boards of Directors, and a sampling of factors that impede their attaining those positions.

To that end, I've created a poll that consists of 6 questions and one narrative input. Your completing this short survey would be greatly appreciated. It requires you to choosing between two women candidates for a senior-level executive position and another two women being considered for a seat on the Board of Directors.

The survey should take about 5 minutes and expires on June 20. Please click here to take survey.

EEOC News - Work-Life Issues; Minimum Wage

A couple of hours ago, the folks at Starbucks wondered why I stood on top of a table and cheered. (Well, I wasn't quite that demonstrative!) Yes, I had my very own personal celebration. It's because I've been a feminist since the 1960s. I've been an affirmative activist since the '60s. And I'm on record as being in favor of an increase in the minimum wage so that it returns to being a livable wage.

And a few hours ago I read the news from today's Employer Advisor E-Alert. That service announced that EEOC has made a ruling in regard to discrimination that touches on work/life balance when it comes to FMLA, caregiving responsibilities on either side of the age gap, acknowledgement (I said acknowledgement) of the fact that women are indeed discriminated against when it comes to caregiving responsibilities and career advancement opportunities, protection of women from being passed over for wage increases and promotion, recognition of discriminatory issues related to men and women of color.

And (oh yes) the Federal minimum wage will increase to $7.25 over the next 26 months. Yes, that is definitely a long time and the cost of living will have skyrocketed again so that the net increase will be a decrease. But at least there is some type of increase instead of stagnation.

That's a mouthful! That's a whale of a lot of progress. That's so much that I won't even attempt to summarize the news. I'll simply allow the news blurb to speak for itself: Workplace Bias: EEOC Spotlights Work/Family Balance in New Guidance.

Employer Advisor will have a full report on these matters in an upcoming issue of the California Employer Advisor. I'll be more than glad to keep you apprised. I might even dance on top of the tables at Starbucks next time!

EDITOR'S NOTE, August 3, 2007:
The Managing Editor at ERI contacted me today to advise that the treatment of the news blurb was use of copyrighted material. Today's edit will allow you to read the article via the link to the public content on ERI's website.

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.

When the Teens Grow Up

I just found a link to a site called Delete Cyberbullying. It's related to McGruff, the take a bite out of crime dog. The discussion relates to cyberbullying as a teen phenomenon. Okay. I'll allow that cyberbullying has a higher incidence among the teen population by virtue that they are online more than adults and are in chat rooms and using IM far more frequently than adults.

But the age of majority throughout the United States is 18 years. In some states, it's lower. In many states, it should be much higher. Oh, I guess that relates to Emotional Intelligence, which is an entirely different subject and concept altogether. The point is, eventually those teens reach the age of majority and venture into the workforce. As time passes, somehow these former teen bullies manage to stumble and finesse their ways into management positions. However, their bullying habits have traveled with them and been visited on many along the path to today's point in time. Some are now discussion board bullies (whether they want to believe it or not) and some are abusive managers.

Too bad McGruff doesn't have any suggestions about what adults can do to control the destructive patterns of adult bullies. However, they do have a white paper that highlights findings of a Harris Poll study and is called Cyberbullying Executive Summary-2007. That's a good first step. And the full report (Teens and Cyberbullying) is something that will require extrapolation and analogy (of which all we adult professionals are capable) but is well defined and lends us additional explanation of what can be done about our bullies of whatever age.

Resources:

• Positive Change through Policy
  
• Positive Change Through Policy: Hate Crimes
  
• Law Enforcement, Race, and Reconciliation in Washington State (PDF format)
  

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.