How Will You Remember? Friday, Sep 11 2009

Today is September 11. It is also eight years since that infamous day of purported terrorist attacks on our American soils wherein thousands of unsuspecting and innocent lives were decimated or forever changed.

I would like to know how you who are visiting my page will remember 9/11 and what type of significance the day has for you now.

What did I do on that fateful day? I listened in disbelief to the radio newscast of the occurrences and wondered how any pilot could accidentally fly into the side of a building. And when the aircraft mishaps built in intensity and time of frequency, I was convinced that these were not accidents. But life had to go on because I was and still am an independent consultant. I needed to deliver on my clients’ work so that I could continue to be paid. A year later I shared my impressions on SmartPros with my submission of “All in the course of a day“.

After requesting that friends on a networking site share how they will be remembering this day, a few responded with rather surprising responses. Their words were definitely not expected but the information they provided was not. Additionally, they are in professions that support their contentions and at least one provided concrete evidence of the veracity of their words. The 9/11 incident was not an accident. I was so relieved that the last presidency ended and no one from his party replaced him in order to continue our march to Bataan in order to realize rule under fascism. Even though it was entirely justified on many bases, I have to ask myself why that man was never recalled.

One friend from that site has posted a YouTube video called “Can’t Give up Now” that has a great deal of relevance to 9/11. Please partake of it.

And There Was Oklahoma City

As I circulated this message on that other networking site, another of my friends sent me an impassioned response. He lives in Oklahoma City and reminded me of the bombing that occurred there in 1995. He wondered if I, or anyone, remembers that day. I do remember it and the travesty that it was. I also remember the senselessness of the act and the maliciousness of the perpetrators who were captured, tried, and sentenced. He will be remembering the lives that were lost on that day while others recall the more recent disaster in New York and other nearby vicinities.

With his reminder, I will also remember Oklahoma City.

In regard to Oklahoma, I don’t recall the precise date of the incident (it was April 19, 1995) nor the time of day (except that it was before 10 AM. What I do recall (and shared with my friend) is how it unfolded as I prepared to do my broadcast of the news that day. It was indelible. I was on my way to the studio at Broadcast Services for the Blind as I tuned in to the middle of the story of a fire that was out of control. No location was identified when I tuned in nor any other details.

When I walked into the studio, I told the Director that a fire was raging somewhere and had they heard the news. Since we were broadcasting the news to the the low vision and blind population in 13 counties, it seemed that we should be on top of that story and provide awareness of it. By the time I left the studio, an hour later, the full details had started surfacing. Yes, it was devastating. And I remember it very well.

The American Promises

Finally, please remember the American promises of the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s that we so believed were true and caused us to have the patriotism that made our hearts beat faster and our brains burn with desire. Sing “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” in a loud and lively voice as though those promises are still just as relevant and reliable today as they were when we were innocent children and still believed in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.

Leave a Response »

 

So Where’s the Harm? Sunday, Jan 25 2009

These networking sites are quite interesting. They provide venues in order to meet new people. If your interests match, it’s entirely possible to strike up an online friendship. And that can lead to gaining information you want but would not have otherwise been able to receive.

Networking can consist of meeting new people for the sake of friendship, making business connections, creating a web of associates and colleagues without having to join a professional organization, finding a date or a new love prospect, or building some type of alliance with others. The fact that there is an effort to network and connect with others for a particular purpose is usually plain and the type of connection is also rather transparent. As I said, however, these networking sites seem to be evolving into creating a different sort of connection, one with an unspoken purpose. It’s making me wonder about the genuineness of the parties on the site.

In the last several months, I made a unique discovery about some of the participants. Although the particular application was focused on dating, some of the newcomers would hold theirselves out as single for the sake of the venue. But when their profiles were more closely examined, it was as plain as the day is long that they are married. It seemed a bit odd that these men would misrepresent their availability to others. It could have been that the sites and applications just didn’t see far enough to include a relationship category for “divorcing” or “separated” or other tip-off language. Instead, we got things like “it’s complicated” for whatever that means.

For whatever reason, these men are not only holding theirselves out as available for intimate relationships, they are also withholding some additional information. But before I explore that dimension of the question, let us also explore a few other things that are happening on the sites.

Since many of these are social networking sites, people are real world friends but desire a means of staying in touch as they move to distant locations. Perhaps they were classmates in school but graduation and jobs (and marriage) have swallowed up the neophytes. As the name implies for Facebook, they want more than just a picture book to help them stay connected. And as their professional lives evolve, new friends are included in their networks as well as contacts for potential job opportunities. They want easy access to those new associates.

So recruiters started invading the space in order to “source” for the talent and get leads on others who are just as good or even better. Would it be necessary to represent to others that you’re single if you’re actually a recruiter looking for career talent? It makes you wonder what type of approach recruiters have been using to get the alumni to open up to them and be receptive to their overtures of potential job interviews and offers. It’s entirely possible that the recruiters were even holding theirselves out to be fellow classmates but in different classes in order to qualify for the camaraderie. Then there’s also the question of whether the recruiters even told their audiences that they were recruiters.

That thought had to be tossed aside. The USC students were more than receptive to all manner of folk using the Starbucks for business purposes. One’s capacity as a student wasn’t important. And if they discovered you just might have a finger on the employment pulse, your value as a contact increased exponentially. No. It was hard to imagine recruiters who were pretending to be other students.

There were a few students who expressed some distaste for having their privacy invaded with recruiters and hiring managers who would pry into their profiles and friends’ profiles under the guise of searching for talent. They argued that what they did in their private space had absolutely nothing to do with their business endeavors nor how they conduct theirselves at work. They objected to any type of invasion.

These ways of interacting with others became a fascinating construct. Holding oneself out as a fellow student was one thing. Pretending to be single when in fact you’re married was yet another curious practice. What purpose these misrepresentations held was a mystery. The advantage gained by using these cloaks was also obscure.

Could it be that covering one’s real capacity was useful because the purpose in being on the site was not to source for talent but instead, sell some type of service to the students? I discovered several sales people hawking their wares and promoting their websites. Well that’s not right! It’s important to be forthright about your identity and purposes.

This was when the contemplations of these distortions began. The first thought was that these were acts of fraud and fraud in the inducement. Maybe that was going a bit far. Considering the four elements of fraud (scienter, intent, reliance, and damages), it could be considered a real reach to say that a married man pretending to want a date is committing fraud.

Considering what’s happening (just talking to folks and learning about one another) and the consequences, maybe this is actually a mere case of misrepresentation. Still, misrepresentation is calling into play acts of intentional misstatement of fact, that tends to mislead, while inducing another to act on those representations as true when they otherwise would not have acted, and those acts resulted in damages. The pivotal issue is whether there was any damage or not.

In the realm of dating, it could be argued that there will never be damages because of a mere representation that one is single when they are not. But in a dating relationship, trust is growing and reliance on the representations that are made that would ordinarily be the foundations of creating a bond. To that extent, the fraud could form the basis of causing the uninformed party to give things or forbear having other things in order to help the one who is the fraud. Relying on a trusting relationship, the uninformed may purchase goods and services or invest in various types of assets that they would not have otherwise considered. In that regard, the false identity of “single” has been an inducement and motivated action that probably would not have happened.

Compare the above conclusion with the formal definition and explanation of fraud. They seem to come to the same conclusion. But there’s one niggling thing about this analysis that deserves additional attention. That is whether the definition of a scam is the same as fraud or is part of a fraud. What I learned from studying two definitions is that a scam is another word for fraud can involve a third party to the wrong who is identified as the shill or the one who attempts to give credence to the transaction based on their [false] testimony regarding the value and veracity of the deal or good that the two are attempting to induce the target to take.

What are some solutions to the scam, the fraud, the misrepresentation? Wikipedia talks about the scam baiter, the one who wastes the scamer’s time and thereby prevents them from victimizing others while also frittering away not only their time but their money.

Is the recruiter on social networking sites trying to induce job seekers to give up their money? Another very legitimate question is whether the recruiter who never seems to get the job order is actually committing fraud if their failure to act is causing the job seeker to hold out for this very lucrative situation that just hasn’t come through yet. I would say, a reasonably prudent person would take steps to protect their own interests and not rely on some distant, future promise. In fact, we are told under the law of fraud that a future promise will cause the case for fraud to fail.

Is the case of false identity a fraud or a scam. Well, it depends on the overall goal of the false identity.

One Response »

 

Perfect Equal Opportunity Wednesday, Nov 5 2008

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was established forty years ago to address the various forms of discrimination affecting those desiring to work in this country. Discrimination reared its ugly head of denial in many ways — as to gender, religion, race, color, or national origin. As time passed, we finally recognized the injustices borne by other populations such as those with disabilities and older workers. Title VII addressed these and other restrictive practices that caused social loss as well as economic. The EEOC continues its work in parsing out what is legal and what is not, how a claim should be filed and which party has the burden of proof under certain circumstances. And we move along the path of progress in making a level playing field for all participants in the employment game.

The EEOC deals with employment. But let us look at raw equal opportunity in order to investigate the underpinnings of the ethical employment perspectives. Let us consider how the common denominator would be structured in order to determine whether some issue is fair or not fair.

Saturday morning I overheard the ultimate example of equal opportunity. I’ve seen it in play in a few other situations. But it was finally articulated in no uncertain terms. A brash young woman was quite loud and didn’t care how many could hear her matter-of-fact pronouncements as we jerked and lurched along the boulevard in an over-crowded bus. Another passenger was bumped and thrown about the aisle as there was only standing room left. The young woman shouted her warning, “I don’t care what you age is, your sex, or your abilities. It doesn’t matter how big you are or what disabilities you have. If you [insert personal accident], I’ll knock your block off.”

About two weeks before this moment in time, another young woman (who was not riding a bus at 3 AM) of a similar personality and demeanor had something interesting to say to her housemate. There was an issue with regard to who could use the occupied bathroom, compared with the one not in use on the other side of the hall. The shared use did not appear to be a major issue as one person was putting medication and wrappings on a sore while the other pressed and styled her hair.

But the one doing the hairstyling wanted the entire 100 square foot room to herself. She screamed a demand and threat. “Get out of here! I’ve already jacked up your left eye. If you don’t get out, I’ll do the same to the right eye. I’m already psychotic. But this time I’ll kill your a–. And I’ll use this hot, flat iron pressing comb to do it.” In other words, the speaker was completely aware of the harm she’d done before and had no remorse for her actions. In fact, she had no qualms about committing the same acts again, but to a heightened degree — to death. Like the passenger on the bus, the victim’s age and other qualifiers were of no concern. The only concern was the integrity the speaker wanted for her right to possess the space.

This type of thinking is quite simplistic. There is no good, no bad. Just entitlement to rights for the self. If we look at this reasoning in the employment industry, we can see that it would be the ideal starting point. It is entirely possible that the EEOC could be replaced if this type of thinking were universally used. The basic question would be, “Can you do the job?” If the answer is no, then you’re not hired and the search continues. If the answer is yes, then we allow the candidate to start but evaluate them very carefully. If they make a mistake, they’re out. After all, we can’t afford to keep paying for something someone cannot do and keep replacing the resources they’ve spoiled.

Is this fair to the newcomer, the one with little to no experience? Of course it is. The newbie should be watching and paying attention in order to gain understanding of what’s expected. If they dont’ understand, then they should be asking questions. More than that, they should be practicing so that they can do what’s necessary exactly as it’s supposed to be done. Don’t violate anyone else’s space. Don’t destroy resources. Just use what’s absolutely necessary and do what’s expected.

Who pays for the beating suffered by the one who accidentally steps on a foot or commits some other indisgression? We’d have to determine what the ethical issues are in order to make a determination. We’d have to find what the los is and its gravity compared with the punishment. But this is definitely a world of perfect equal opportunity.

Leave a Response »

 

Miracle Worker – Out of Business Sunday, Jun 29 2008

For a long time, people using the Internet thought that there was some type of silver bullet that would dramatically change how we do business. In the twinkling of an eye, in the flash of a second, a cataclysmic event would occur and millions upon billions of dollars of profits would happen overnight for each and every person who turned away from their 9 to 5 jobs and ventured forth with their entrepreneurial ideas turned endeavors. All it took was a little more tweak here or a minor adjustment there, optimizing your settings in just the right way for the search engines. Then all of those other pickle-brained ideas that others hatched (and many followed) would be shattered because this new way of tweaking and adjusting outdid the rest. Besides that, it was free and we got to reap all of the cash profits!

Then the year 2000 happened. That was also the year that the Internet bust happened. People learned there was a tomorrow that was demanding payment. No payment? No dollars? Then you’re out of business. Not only that, if you’re not in business and you’re no longer working, and you’ve invested everything you had into one of those fly-by-night Internet start-ups. Being part of that crowd meant you were also history.

Well, we’re still recovering from The Bust. But we still haven’t learned the ultimate lesson from it. Free just doesn’t work. There are a few exceptions. I call them miracle workers and it appears the better title for them would be “Rats” as in those who have traits of individuals born in the Year of the Rat — resourceful, industrious, turning negligible scraps into incremental opportunities built upon one another until reaching success. These are the people who seem to walk on water, defy gravity, and simply make the impossible happen.

The other lesson to learn from The Bust is that barter or exchange does work. Still, we keep feeling as though “free” is the way and any kind of “free” is great because there’s no price tag. Not everyone can survive this. Actually, it’s only an appearance that there’s no price on what’s done or received. Ultimately, we all must pay the piper in some way. Resources stretched too far for too long can exact severe tolls on various things that are extremely dear to us.

The layman’s term for this state is “burnout.” The creativity, the resilience, the cleverness are gone. They could be reignited with some difficulty. Even then, the flame has a short wick and quickly flames out again. Positive traits are replaced with fatigue, tension, biting remarks. There’s only so long that it can continue — the drudgery of coming up with alternatives that will compensate for no pay. There’s only so long that things that should come with a dollars and cents price tag can be skirted or parlayed into barter or substitutes used to make the product. Yet it appears no one, absolutely none of the partakers have any appreciation of the effort that went into producing the deliverable. They seem to only hunger for more and more and more for free.

Then there’s the competition that will layer on demands and encourage requests for more from feigned and legitimate supporters. The goal is to deplete, to devastate, to empty everything and thereby eliminate the competitor. Meanwhile, notes are taken to determine what seems to be popular and what works. Then duplicate while also setting up roadblocks for the competitor until they simply drop.

The answer to the miracle worker syndrome is to not do it too long, too often. The answer is also to find a means of being compensated for the deliverable. Even a token payment is better than constant free. Constant free is the same as being taken for granted. It’s the same as being taken.

Don’t let this be your status. The tactics of your competition are illegal and you are complicit in your defeat. Shutter up this madness called “free.” Offer samples, offer two with the second for a percentage off, offer exchanges. But get rid of “free.”

Additionally, hang a sign outside your door that reads

Miracle Worker – Out of Business

Consultant Available

Leave a Response »

 

Hacker Alerts and Unfair Competition Thursday, Jun 19 2008

The third one in a week’s time reached my Facebook account. This third one, it seemed, was justified in being circulated. Following the instruction attached to it, it was forwarded to all of my Facebook friends and associates.

Earlier in the week was another warning away from association with a particular person who is a hacker and identity thief. I had just added that person as a “friend” although we had no connections in regard to other people but a few interests that looked like potential. And there was the first one of the week that didn’t look too promising at all.

As I forwarded the third alert, a thought occurred to me. Those who belonged to the Recruiting.com blog sphere, the Blog Swap sphere, and those who are now part of the RecruitingBlogs.com sphere, many ERE users (plus a few others) have the belief that they are entitled to use any tactics they see as appropriate in order to gain the upper hand in getting traffic, attention, notoriety, and therefore revenue. In fact, one member of these groups said (in Wild, Wild West of the Online Recruiting Frontier style), “We’ll do whatever we want to do.” That includes inducing loyal members to leave under false impressions and promises that cannot be fulfilled, fomenting anarchy and disruption while placing blame on the leader, unequal application of rules, and failing to give attribution for innovations and development of others.

Some tactics used in the past are circulating proposed content for the blog swap among their numbers while delaying the publishing of the content. Then they drum up a conversation on the topic of the proposed post. Once the conversation is hashed out to extreme and dead, the post is published. There’s no real reason to read it any more. What’s more, it isn’t novel; it’s merely a repetition of the conversation so it also has no impression of being cutting edge.

Another tactic used by these groups is to diminish the validity of a blog or website by using a form of blacklisting. They find the sites that are linking to the target blog, contact the owners of the sites and ask them to remove links to the target blog/website. An alternative to this peculiar practice is to post the name of the site or blog but then include a URL that either goes to another site, such as the one pointing to the site, or else pointing to a URL that no longer works. The ultimate result is the same. There is no traffic that’s being sent to the blog or site. Again, its desirability as a link partner or business development partner is lowered because it draws little to no relevant traffic.

There’s also asking certain sites to not publish the content of a particular author. Yes, it’s outright blacklisting. To the extent that these sites cooperate, it can be effective. It’s also pretty cowardly. It indicates the one who desires to silence simply cannot compete. So rather than compete on a quality of content basis, on the basis of relevance, from the perspective of forward-looking content that pushes the envelope, there is no comparison. The one being blacklisted should survive. But the partnership dollars and traffic win every time.

There are still other tactics used by the members of these groups. One is misquoting what someone has said. Another is starting out on one track and then easing the focus onto another area that is not related to the original thought. Then the strayed train of thought is credited to the one being damned as the one going through hystrionics screams foul.

There’s an emerging tactic that’s quickly gaining ground and is similar to the Blog Swap blog strategy. It is copying what one person has said on a topic — even using their topic title — and simply paraphrase what the original post said — without acknowledging the original author.

All of these begin to approach the state of discouraging readership of certain blogs and websites which in turn depresses web traffic and business opportunities. These acts can be construed as interference with business and tortious in nature and effect, violative of the Lanham Act, according to a 9th Circuit decision. One of the good things about our United States government is the fact that it wants everyone to be able to earn a living in order to first pay their bills, support their own selves, and contribute to the support and livelihood of the national infrastructure.

So as I considered forwarding the latest hacker alert, the thought passed through my mind that this could be yet another form of unfair competition by falsely accusing someone of hacking and identity theft when they are actually just striving to build their numbers and stumbled upon a group of strangers who enjoy this blood sport. But it was sent. Today the words of a long-time friend who is very sensible and level-headed responded to the hacker alert. His admonishment read:

I won’t be forwarding this post – that in itself would be a form of spamming. It behoves one NEVER to add anyone to your facebook friends whom you don’t know.

His words ring true in many ways. These hacker alerts, when they become forwarded content on a grand scale, also become spam. They become spam because there’s little to no thought put into what’s being forwarded nor why. There’s been little to no research on the subject of the message to prove or disprove the allegation. Wouldn’t it be interesting if one of these ultimate “don’t associate with” alerts was actually about you? Have you lost associates for no explainable reason?

My friend’s sensibility also had relevance in regard to the accepting friends in a willy-nilly manner. Many in the recruiting industry are anxious to build their contact list. In order to have more contacts, they will accept as a “friend” anyone who extends an invitation to them. There is no effort at determining who the person is, developing some type of rapport with them, nor anyone associated with them, finding out where their specialities are, nor evaluating how this relationship could have future potential. They are accepted. And after the fact (and the dirty work is done), the truth is sometimes discovered.

All interesting things to consider. Far more important, however, is whether what is being advocated is actually a form of unfair competition or interference with business veiled as a friendly warning.

One Response »

 

Where Do I Start? Saturday, Mar 8 2008

Where do I start? It feels like I’ve been hit by an avalanche of stuff that relates to “ethics” that’s been having falloff for about the past four to six months. All of the underlying principles and concepts (one would think) are common knowledge and regular practice. But there are people out there who say one thing and when pressed to act, will do quite the opposite of the rhetoric they spout.

Where do I start? Maybe I should start putting my Vocabulary Builder in this blog on a weekly basis and fill it with three ethics or legal terms. No. I don’t think that would do any good. There are people out there who, like drug addicts and substance abusers, will say the word, define it perfectly, and then return to doing what they did to commit an error in the first place — as though the definition they just perfectly provided did not exist at all.

Where do I start? The concepts I’m thinking of relate to piracy, lying, misrepresentation, defamation, business slander, intentional interference with business opportunity, defamation by insinuation, fraud, stealing, espionage, confidentiality, whistleblowing. But as I survey the recruiting landscape, especially the more popular and better-known venues, these issues (along with many other things) appear to be the community standard or in layman’s terms, the standard way of doing things. These are merely the superficial tactics. They do not touch on the more colorful strategies such as staging fights in order to draw traffic and thereby justify higher advertising revenues. Nor do that reach into blacklisting (in its various forms) to prevent the competition from being seen or found and read and thereby prevented from vying along with others for similar or the same types of opportunities for business promotion and development.

Some are successful because of the means they use to achieve their goals. They wear angelic faces and excuse their actions by being the first to speak of what was done and gild the acts with enough truth that the untruths and support of them seem plausible. How unfortunate that the ones who are being harmed cannot speak in order to disclose the other side of the story. Those who we see as the successes are touted for their skills and resourcefulness. They teach classes on what they do so that others may replicate the procedure thereby preserving and prolonging unethical behavior. It also serves to hold the conduct up to most of the light of day and condone the practices as proper and correct.

If these practices were proper and correct, why would it then be necessary to lie about what was actually done? Why would it be necessary to use deception to induce the target to deliver information or make a change?

I look at recruiters (and business people) who cook up numbers and hold them out as attainable in order to induce their candidate to leave their present job for the more speculative one — the one with the cooked numbers. I hear about those who are fired because they could not reach inflated goals and are then left unemployed in a tight labor market with few resources to fall back on — and they have families.

Where do I start? It seems this is merely the scream before the discussion of the issues. And discussion of the issues needs to take place on a bite-by-bite basis. I will not even attempt to determine which topic has the most significant and deserves being in the spotlight first. But the bites will come. And I hope you will respond through comments here or in the Ethics in Recruiting forum.

Leave a Response »

 

The Information Age and Full Disclosure Sunday, Dec 30 2007

A friend twittered the following information from a news story earlier today:

“Personal disclosure..Pew Internet & American Life study ‘Digital Footprints’ 60% not worried about how much info is avail about them online.”

A few days ago, there was news reportage here about personal privacy on the Internet. According to someone’s study, an even larger percentage of people were not surprised nor distressed about the amount of information about them on the Internet. In fact, they expressed the opinion that anything you want to find out about them is findable via the Internet or through some other means. Let’s face it, we essentially live in a fish bowl.

The only thing that troubles me about the information that’s available is the reliability of the source. There are some places that will not bother to get accurate facts nor check the data for accuracy. In those cases, you gather a great deal of information that isn’t true and then act on the false information.

If that means you don’t hire or choose not to associate (or any other factor relating to being involved with the person in question), it means you’ve created your own loss. To the extent you treat them with distain, you’ve doubled the loss; once the truth is revealed, there is a huge question about whether they will be forgiving and willing to align theirself with you and your efforts.

And if their unique talents would be just the icing on the cake for whatever effort, the loss is even greater.

But the Internet is full of information. Indeed, the Internet makes information more readily available than it was before. But as with all things we use, as we gather information, we need to be careful about what we find and use. It’s important to fact check to determine legitimate information, puffery, libel.

And after all of that, we need to determine whether all that we see fits the personality, Furthermore, people will have taken a stance at one point in time, based on available information and the fever of uninformed youth unaware they still need additional information and/or forgetting to ask the probing questions that move us closer to the heart of the issue. Ten, twenty years later, with more information and seasoned reason, their perspective may have drastically changed.

But it’s all there, available and waiting to be found, as well as how we determine is the proper way to find and use it.

Leave a Response »

 

Crystals or Pieces of Gold Thursday, Oct 25 2007

This past Monday was the last session of a small business marketing class I was taking. It was somewhat satisfying. As the six classes progressed, there were some interesting dynamics that evolved. We described our business offering. I disclosed a menu of my services which includes consultation and training.

At various junctures, we faced ethical challenges on how to research a matter or gain information. One night we needed to get information about the competition’s pricing. We brainstormed about how to get the information. Someone said call in and pretend you want the services and thereby gain the information. Someone piggybacked on that idea and said identify yourself by another name. I nearly stood on a chair waving my arms about me saying, “No! No! Absolutely not!” Somehow, I think they understood that I definitely did not agree with those strategies. And I was allowed to elaborate on my objections.

Whenever you contact people for any reason, one of your primary goals is to build a relationship. They may not be the person who has what you want at this moment. But that person knows other people, they have knowledge that can be shared if they choose to do so. And there is the future to consider. If they can be won to your cause or develop an interest in it (however fleeting), it is entirely possible that they will remember you and your need when they come upon what you were seeking. They’ll get in touch and deliver.

But if we abuse people as mere expedient pawns to be tricked into giving up information that they ordinarily would not disclose, or if they are made to feel foolish in dealing with you, the chances of their wanting anything further to do with you is scant. Be honest. Tell them, “Hi [person on the phone], I’m [real name] and I’m hoping you can help me with a project I’m working on. I need some information and am wondering if you can suggest where I can find it. I was told you or someone in your firm may know this.”

In that one-minute spiel, you’ve established your identity, gained the other person’s name and contact information, stated your case and established a basis for an honest exchange. The class members clamored but got it and we moved on to the next learning nuggets.

A few weeks later, someone spoke of sending a photograph along with a resume for an open position. I nearly leapt out of my chair. [By this time, they were starting to get used to my hystrionics, so adamant am I about honesty and relationship building. That and I'm exaggerating about the leaping part.] “You don’t accept a photograph of a potential candidate. The EEOC would have a field day with that because of potentially prejudicial issues!” [Did I say I got a little animated?] About that time, a classmate was saying something about cutting the photo off of the resume and then passing it along to the distribution list. Aha! The class members were starting to get the concept of ethics.

The Trouble With Recruiting

One of the things that candidates complain of most is that recruiters are so dishonest with them about the hiring process, the availability of openings, whether they’re a viable candidate or not, lack of follow-up (even if it’s the so-called “bad news” letter). Sometimes there’s no word for months or even a year and then out of the blue there’s this missive that says something about “while there were many qualified individuals and your credentials are outstanding, . . .” The candidate is thinking, Oh, yeah, now I remember.

Worse is the recruiter who speed acquaintances, a bit like a used car salesman on a fast day. They’re trying to get to so many that they have absolutely no idea who they talked with, much less anything about the person. Give that recruiter an attitude (I’m so much better than you) and you’ve got candidates wanting to lock the door when the recruiter/sourcer is gone. But to build a relationship, one on which people can build confidence and feel they can rely on what’s said, that is the ideal.

In looking at the landscape in recent months, it seems recruiters are driven by the need to earn a lot of bucks in as short a period of time as possible. If a candidate can’t “pay off” in a couple of weeks, they’re burnt toast, i.e., useless. Candidates can tell. It shows like a coffee stain on a white dress.

There are a few who talk about building a pipeline. Some do that by placing a call to a qualified candidate about every two to four weeks. The purpose of the phone call is just to say “hello, how are you” or to pass along a news article. Not too much substance other than that but at least they’re staying in touch. But it’s obvious that the overriding reason for the contact is to turn the body into some bucks and their firm is not a meat market.

Crystals or Gold Coins

Which brings me to the last night of the marketing class. There were some concepts that came up during our discussion of the learning points. On this night, the instructor filled in the gap. “We, of course, know that we are open and honest about our representations so that we are building trust . . .” she began, and continued with the concepts of ethical marketing and representations. She also drove home the point that we don’t belittle the person we’re dealing with or make them uncomfortable but treat them with the respect that’s due a person providing us with a service. Who was teaching this class and what was it that was being taught?

It happened to be one class member’s birthday and she is Asian. One of the class members specializes in Feng Shui. That class member brought gifts for everyone. There were two choices, green or pink. The green voile sachet held three gold coins. In the chinese tradition (especially for New Year or the Tet) it is good appropriate to give a gift of three gold coins which symbolizes wealth and prosperity for the recipient. The other choice was the pink voile sachet with two pink crystals. The crystals symbolize development of good relationships and harmony.

Except for the birthday celebrant (who received one of each token), each person was allowed to choose which sachet she wanted. We all need enough money to carry us through our lives in comfort and without having to struggle to survive. But relationships are also extremely important. Which choice? Which choice? I worked through my reasoning and made my choice. The program administrator talked about her choice. We were both satisfied with what we selected and perhaps that is the most important thing here. You need to be satisfied with the choices you make and willing to live with them and their consequences.

The maker of the gifts was surprised at the predominant choice the participants made and expressed that she had expected things to go in just the opposite direction. If it were you in your life as a candidate or as a recruiter, which token would you have chosen? Would you take money and prosperity? Or would you take harmony and good relationships?

ethics, recruiting, choices, wealth, relationships, viral effect,

Search 30,000 Jobs that pay over $100,000 – Make your move now at TheLadders.com TheLadders.com

2 Responses »

 

The Ultimate Test of Values Monday, Oct 22 2007

Two Weekends of Fires

Last weekend, there was a collision in one of the truck tunnels here in Southern California. The accident caused a pile-up of approximately 30 vehicles in the tunnel as a ball of fire rolled through and engulfed everything in its path. As I listened to the reportage (and as all of us waited to learn whether the 12-year-old girl would find her father alive) I remembered the fire my law school classmates told me about that happened in the Orinda tunnel in 1989.

Recollection

It was probably the fall of 1991 when the Oakland Hills fire occurred. A phone call from home was a surprise that Sunday afternoon. Family wanted to know if I was okay. There was a report of a fire in the Oakland hills, it was being shown on the news in Southern California. Yet there was no mention of it on Bay Area news anywhere. I pooh-poohed the call and went about the things I was doing. But things changed quickly. By that night, I had the trunk of my car packed in case notice reached my neighborhood (that was destined to be one mile from the evacuation border) that we needed to leave. The grab and go gear waited for me on the occasional table next to the door. The essentials that just could not be left behind were my law books, class notes, and computer floppies with more class notes and outlines.

That was 16 years ago, so I don’t remember with precision how it went but one of my church members and I talked. She lived even closer to the evacuation zone and she was in even more of a state of shock than was I. I talked her down and had her focus on what to get ready in case she had to go quickly. We survived without having to evacuate.

Revelations

But the following week, it seemed important to go to church. To do that meant driving along the freeway and past the deluxe apartment complex set in a rustic, alpine setting where I almost moved but changed my mind at the last minute. It would have been ideal not only because of the appointments and setting but also because it literally sat just off the freeway entrance and exit. However, when I reached that stretch of the freeway the week after the fire, I nearly froze in tears and fright. The entire 10 acres was leveled and black. There was absolutely no hint of where the buildings had once stood. No bulldozers had been to the site as yet. The people who had lived there were now homeless.

There were a lot of people who wandered about the Bay Area in shock around that time and for many months thereafter. That was when cell phones became popular and their size began to shrink.

Decisions About Modifications

A consequence of both tunnel catastrophes, especially in light of a near repeat of the Orinda tragedy, is that a decision was made to no longer use tunnels as thoroughfares. Instead, overpasses, bridges and other traffic conduits will have open spaces so that a fireball does not get trapped in an enclosed space thereby engulfing everything in it. It will not spread as easily and containing the flames will be more manageable. Additionally, there will be less likelihood of exploding concrete, as is the case when it’s overheated, that then becomes structurally impaired. This then saves the State money on road repair and necessary replacement.

Weekend Two of Fires

But I mention the Oakland Hills fire particularly because of some of the reportage of the ten fires that are blazing here in Southern California today. One reporter has just excused himself from any further coverage. The area has been ordered evacuated and he says there is mass chaos with people trying to get out fast. Earlier, it seemed that another reporter was trying so valiantly to stay with the story that he was putting himself in the way of danger. Get out of there! Be careful! Don’t go after heroics for the sake of a story. You won’t get an award for this one. Not this one. I thought to myself, wishing he could hear me.

Home and Family or Work

Before that turn of events, however, one of the reporters in the studio has spoken two times about her husband sending information to the studio about the fire in their neighborhood. Additionally, both she and her co-anchor have mentioned that when she awoke this morning, the fire had started.

Therein is the ethical challenge of a lifetime. There is a fire in your neighborhood and threatens the safety of your home and family. Today is a work day. Your job is to tell the rest of the world about the news without overstating — just the facts, just the news. Can you do that? Additionally, you need to make a choice, a very difficult choice. Do you stay with your home and family and sit (as I did in Oakland) and wait to learn what will happen, if anything? Or do you go to work and deliver the information that the public at large needs in order to properly handle their lives?

If A, Then; If B, Then

In the course of the several hours of listening to the reportage, I as a listener have learned that there was one fatality due to one of the fires. I have learned that one of the fires was contained at 35 acres (roughly three or four blocks) while another has consumed 1200 acres and 500 homes are threatened. I have learned that the schools in San Diego will be closed tomorrow for safety purposes. I have learned that those who are evacuated will be given instructions on where to go. Otherwise, there is one specific site that is already receiving evacuees. In other words, because the reporters are there and doing their jobs, I am as aware as I possibly can be about the situation. And if I were one of those affected by one of these ten blazes, I have some idea of what to do.

Further, the reporters are attempting to turn in their stories via cell phones but cannot. Fire and smoke are interferring with wi-fi signals of all type. Thus, going to my hot spot will be an act of futility. This is also probably why I cannot escape the news and tune to my favorite classical music station on the FM band. There’s too much interference.

Making Choices

We are constantly faced with choices as we do things in Life. Choose Option A and things will go one way. Choose Option B and things will go another. But which is the right choice? Neither is immoral but it comes down to determining which option, under the circumstances, is the better choice.

ethics, duty, crisis, decision making,

Recruiting? Need Employment Screening?

One Response »

 

Minimizing Conflict Monday, Sep 10 2007

One of the things that can really get an argument going is poor communication. There are numerous reasons underlying the deficiency. One party doesn’t listen to the other. The other doesn’t understand what was said. Both parties are using the same terms but different definitions of the terms. They don’t see eye to eye. They don’t comprehend the values that the other holds which then begins to seem as though they don’t care about the values of the other. This leads to suspicion of motives and distrust. Few healthy things can grow from that type of environment.

A great way to keep a disagreement going for a very long time is to pull others into the audience to watch it unfold as the players interact and to fuel the situation by spreading gossip about the situation (and the other party) and couch the gossip in terms that sound like “truth and fact” rather than opinion and conjecture. Another way to keep things heated up for a long time is to carry tales back and forth to the two protagonists, thereby creating more confusion and building even more dissention and resentment.

Yet another way to not only keep an argument going but create a separate “fire” is to leap into the situation to, like the Purple Avenger, defend one of the parties (1) without knowing all of the facts, and (2) without the request or solicitation of either one, and (3) before either of them has had an opportunity to make a stab at working things out. There’s only one instance I can think of where the Purple Avenger actually works but the color isn’t purple; it’s blue.

Yes, the police will come in and quell things very quickly. Both parties will be sent to their corners while one of the Blue Knights talks with one and the other Knight talks with the other. Then the Knights will put the two stories together, mediate a small amount, and then either leave things in a tense calm or haul someone to a vacation spot for a little while. Stiff, but it’s effective.

There’s counsel from the Bible on how to handle a disagreement.

And if your brother sins, go and reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. Matthew 18:15-17

In other words, discuss the matter privately and calmly. One should listen to the other and make certain they understand the words being used and how they are being used. If that does not help resolve the situation, privately call in one or two others who can assist in working out the communication process and deciphering the meaning of the terms, where the interpretation is going astray in order to correct it. If that doesn’t help, then it is time to take the matter to a higher authority and one who has more power over the situation. If that still doesn’t work, it’s time to go your separate ways. Give respect when you encounter one another but it is no longer necessary to spend more than a minute or so in the company of the other.

There are two more characters who can add to the livelihood of a dispute and worsen conditions not only for the protagonists but also those who are associated with them. The Chartreuse Challengers of envy and greed. While envy is a function of immaturity, greed is essentially a toad, they are exacted upon a conflict in very unique ways.

Although these last two elements seem to have simple solutions, they are quite complex. Their weavings and creating of strife and discord are intricate in pulling in a bit of the truth braided with falsities in suggestions, outright statements, and fallacious logic held out to have integrity. Here, we get into more complicated issues that require more space and time than is reasonable for a blog post. But a few quick examples of envy operating to boil a situation are casting a shadow of doubt on the abilities of the Rival and their constituents in order to discourage association with the Rival. Making statements about the motives of the Rival that have a ring of authority and knowledge when in fact there’s been no investigation at all; the statements are actually opinion colored by green envy. Another example would be characterizing the Rival as a tyrant in some manner so that others avoid association with them and what they offer. Finally, the Rival can be characterized as doing things in a surrepticious manner for illegal gain.

These chargers of confusion do us very little service in the way of building meaningful enterprises that service the public good. In fact, conflict can completely destroy all the benefits that were being established by the most altruistic of endeavors or the most reasoned and well-planned enterprises. But resolving conflict by having clear communication, listening, paraphrasing, clarifying, asking for information in order to comprehend, will build not only one sound and healthy enterprise, but its competitors who have something slightly unique about their brand that may appeal to the market share that simply cannot be served by “the rival.”

What a novel concept. Communication in order to minimize conflict and have better competition!

conflict resolution, communication, mediation, disputes, greed, envy,

Get the scoop on 5,000+ employers: With Vault’s Employee Surveys, get insider info on culture, compensation, hiring, more.

Leave a Response »