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.

No Responses »

 

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.

No Responses »

 

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

No 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?

No Responses »

 

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.

No Responses »

 

Employability and Misuse of Power Monday, Aug 27 2007

Michael Vick. Alberto Gonzales. Two drastically different people. Two high-profile individuals. Same gender but different ethnicities. Several things in common.

Both held press conferences this morning and made public statements about their professional actions that have come under scrutiny. Neither lingered to answer questions from the press. One resigned from office; the other anticipates that his career is essentially over.

But there, the similarities end. One announced he has found God. (Move over Paris Hilton!) One averred that he takes complete responsibility for his lack of discretion and needs to be more responsible, especially as a role model for young people. The other took no responsibility for the violations of which he is accused. One spoke of self-introspection and reflection indicating a need to discern where his errors in judgment occurred and why. Contrition was the tone in his voice. The other had no contemplation of such an endeavor. Bitterness was the tone in his voice. One acknowledged his position as a role model for youth who will be our future foundations of business and industry.

There was a third party in this morning’s press conference drama. That press conference bore many similarities to the first two. It was conducted by a high-profile personality who is male and is of yet another ethnicity. (It seems diversity was an underlying standard.) President Bush (the younger) had words to say about the resignation of his Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Bush’s voice held agitated bitterness. He expressed resentment that his chosen one had endured such difficulties and questions of how he conducted himself in his role. He seemed to imply that both he and Gonzales are above scrutiny and answer only to theirselves — not to their employers. Bush also declined to wait for or answer questions from The Press.

Neither Bush nor Gonzales see theirselves as potential role models. Neither feels the term “accountability” applies to them.

Sports pundits project that Michael Vick will be out of sports for a time but will probably do a short stint in jail. They feel his sports career is not over. Indeed, the Falcons have chosen not to fire him but have put him on indefinite leave. The thing of it is, Vick can afford a protracted leave given his position and the millions of dollars salary he commanded. Provided he stays in condition by exercising and practicing in some manner during whatever length of leave he must serve, Vick will be able to return to the gridiron a little older, a lot wiser (if he is sincere with his spontaneous expressions of this morning), and ready to do a better job of managing his life.

With regard to Vick, it sounded as though he had several long conversations this weekend with several people who have a lot of influence over his life. Their counsel was obvious in the choice of words and phrases that emanated from the young man. A father’s voice could be heard. A coach’s utterances could be deciphered. A religious leader’s counsel could be discerned. And the judgment of a lawyer was also laced through his statement. It is obvious that he listened. Unlike Michael Tyson, Vick understood the essence of the advice from all. The apology was not empty. But the cynic inside of us wonders whether this statement (made minutes or hours before appearing in court today) were designed to gain a more lenient sentence in December. There is a sufficient span of time for that speculation to be sorted out.

Of more importance are the statements and lack of contrition, lack of self awareness, of Gonzales and Bush. No doubt Gonzales will be able to find another law firm where he can practice. But he will not be snatched up as quickly as he would like and he will have too much time to reflect on his actions. He will have time to rue the re-actions to his acts not only during his two and a half year tenure but the years of his association with President Bush (the younger).

Bush faces a similar time of introspection and reflection. Given the personality we’re dealing with, the consummate refusal to hold himself accountable to anyone, it seems his lessons will not be learned in even this lifetime. Again, given his position and pedigree, Bush will have no concerns about his retirement years.

But this leads to the next consideration. Although there are some who will probably be willing to take Gonzales as “of counsel,” how long will it take for him to become among the employed once again. And with regard to Bush, will he spend the remainder of his life as a retiree or will he have any type of career left?

Let me turn these last thoughts over to you. Would you hire any of these three men? If so, which one(s)? and If so, for what type of role in your organization?

ethics, accountability, self awareness, responsibility, discretion, power,

Need employment screening? Get a 20% discount on your first order!

No Responses »

 

Life in the Black Sunday, Aug 26 2007

The subject of blacklisting comes up in a lot of inquiries on the column. It forces consideration of what is actually being sought. That could be how to identify when blacklisting has occurred. In the alternative, it could relate to how to handle things in case blacklisting is happening in your own career, what alternatives are available. Or it could relate to how to manage your career in order to sidestep being blacklisted in an industry that is wont to use that practice.

Whatever the case, I’ve addressed the question of blacklisting once while I had a column on AskMe.com. That question related to how to ascertain whether the potential employer company had been blacklisted and therefore would not be as lucrative an opportunity as another. From that question (how to identify a blacklisted company), came an article discussing the matter. Otherwise, I’ve said nothing about blacklisting since then, especially in relation to one’s career. Maybe it’s time.

It’s a difficult topic to cover, especially for those who are passionate about certain things. Suppression of enterprise and advancement, restraint of trade for petty reasons, qualify as just those “things” that deter discussion. And as was said before, there is no formal list of people or companies that should not be used. It’s imply word of mouth, as with the McCarthy era.

In addition to the negative, blacklisting has a positive influence. When the social norms are being pushed outside of acceptable boundaries, ostracism induces the offender to move back toward the community standard in humbled conformance or acceptance of the standard, leave the social structure, or die so that normalcy can be restored. It depends on how it’s being used as to whether it is a positive social dynamic or not.

The interesting thing about blacklisting is that it does not happen in a vacuum and its effects are not isolated to one place. As discussed in many articles about the McCarthy era (which is the most publicized of blacklisting practices), the ripple effects reached into issues of unpaid debt, housing, neighborhood demographics, emigration, and (of course) the war for skilled talent, as well as the cost of labor.

What blacklisting does when used for the wrong reasons or to enforce a social standard that is against official public policy is it shortchanges the community of talent and innovation that could be used for profoundly empowering endeavors, not just for the one who has the knowledge but for the community at large. The consequence of that suppression is that things continue in the same manner without innovation and bereft of the potential for increased efficiency, cost savings, adaptation to higher uses.

What is interesting is that those who use this method of suppressing talent and competition have not thought through the consequences of their acts and how this can (and does) reach back to bite the one implementing it. The motivation for blacklisting does arise in a vacuum. There is only one erroneous view that rejects all other possibilities, a bit as a child or one who is poorly educated would do.

For those who are being impacted by this dynamic, there are many alternatives for survival and modified success. But those need to be discussed in a different venue.

blacklisting, social engineering, community standards, suppression, social correction, restraint of trade,

No Responses »

 

Who Decides What’s News? Saturday, Jul 14 2007

It was two years ago on August 7 that we learned of Peter Jenning’s death. For me, it was a major blow (but not as big as the one that would hit that coming December). This man, journalism public figure, model, was one of my news reporter ideals. His cutting edge work throughout the decades put the issues in front of us and made us think about what they meant. Then he allowed us to put the pieces together for ourselves. He covered the news in the remote areas of the world. He covered the schisms of our social fabric and the tragedies compounded by tragedies.

Jennings was the ABC World News Tonight anchor. But on his death, he was remembered by the media, on rivals CNN, CBS, in Newsweek, and on the BBC, to name a few.

Hearing of his death and short-lived illness on the night of August 7, that I was struck motionless. As the special announcement played out the milestones of the icon’s life, the reasons why it was such a blow became increasingly apparent. It was reporters like Jennings who served as the models of my inquisitiveness, stabs at journalistic integrity, and an insistence on looking at the world and the meaningful issues rather than the tried and trite.

The final blow was learning that Jennings was born on July 29. No wonder! I thought as the pieces fell together. No wonder there are so many similarities, so many common roads and endeavors, the same fire.

So in reviewing Jenning’s life, and the other hallmarks who are, or were, models for me, the question begs asking. In media, who is it who decides what the news is? Is it the Managing Editor, the publisher, the advertisers, or the public? Who decides what is newsworthy and how long is it newsworthy?

In asking these questions, the events surrounding the Paris Hilton detention become striking. The fallout of poor little rich girl having to stay in that horrid jail with all of those jail people. Not able to use nail polish remover. Having to endure a constantly buring overhead light and an unsheathed toilet. House arrest in her 4,000 square foot house would have been much more civilized. But where would the time for contrition and genuine remorse have emerged?

For two weeks, we endured the Paris Hilton comedy as she used the legal system to do whatever she wanted, all the way up to determining that the last court hearing should be done via teleconference. She even doctored up her release after serving a scant two and a half days in jail. And all of this was news — matters of importance to the general public for the sake of their betterment and social welfare.

But the pivotal question looms before us as the Paris falling action subsides. Delgadillo, his governance, and his family have suffered some interesing public revelation while sweet Paris (who he prosecuted to the fullest for serving her full time) sat quietly in her confines. Who determines what is news and how long is it newsworthy?

Perhaps the answer to the questions were answered on June 26 during the Los Angeles County Supervisors Hearing. The area behind (and also in front of) the plexiglass was filled to overflowing with all manner of media. One of the reasons for their presence was the Supervisors’ deliberations concerning closure of the King-Drew Hospital. Another had to do with Sheriff Baca’s handling of the Paris Hilton incarceration.

Cameras were poised. Microphones were wrapped and held to just the right position. Notepads and pens were held at the ready and hasty notes were made about the proceedings. Sheriff Baca entered the auditorium and cameras panned then returned to the focus on the Supervisors and their witnesses.

After a time of sitting in the auditorium, The Sheriff left the room. The media quietly filed out behind him as public testimony regarding the closure of King-Drew Hospital was being offered. A ripple of amazement was quieted in short order as Supervisor Yaroslavsky announced, “Now you see who ranks as far as news coverage. Paris Hilton is being released from jail and the media need to cover that.” The audience was assured that there would be a one or two minute break while the media filed out and the hearings could then resume.

NOTE: Baca’s stress and strain showed through his need to acknowledge each and every person he passed as he made his way to a seat in the auditorium. His condition became acutely obvious as I left the Hall. I doubt that he recognized or even remembered me from the past, yet he had gracious acknowledgements for me. His voice was strained. His eyes seemed to look at the person but they merely saw an image before him as the two attendants ushered him back into the auditorium. He seemed like a person going before a firing squad.

What is newsworthy? Who determines what captures the intellect and attention of the public? That moment in the Board of Supervisors auditorium seemed to answer the questions. The most important issue of the day was the poor little rich girl who gets whatever she wants. The general public’s consciousness and urging toward critical thinking about meaningful issues that affect local as well as global welfare gave sway to whether Paris Hilton lived in a jail cell or walked out of a detention facility.

I look forward to those who follow in Jennings’ footsteps. I crave the days of consuming the news for the value of the information it provides and its informativeness. I yearn for the questions the media will force me to ask and spur me to research. Meanwhile, we have a duty to ourselves and our information driven needs to demand that we receive true news that is full of the information. And we also need to demand that the answers not be spoon fed to us — as though media has the right opinion and is telling us what to think. We need to demand that the facts be laid out in a clear and unbiased manner and allow us to draw our own conclusions.

Who makes the decisions? Those who cause the news wires to survive with our consuming dollars because we who watch the news also drive what is considered “news.”

No Responses »

 

Shakespearean Plays Wednesday, Jul 11 2007

Any of you enjoy The Theatre? I know I do. Shakespeare is touted as the master. Yes, he captures the attention and holds it. But as I moved through seeing or reading his plays, whether drama, comedy, or tragedy, there is one thing they all have in common. It’s the same story line. There is the villain (what good story doesn’t have someone to hate?). There is the hero and the heroine who get totally confused and blomoxed by the villain’s machinations. There are the hapless and the stalwart colleagues who move the hero/heroine pawns along on their path to the outcome. And the audience becomes rapt in the horridness of the villain but ever clinging to (usually) him to see what will happen next, how he will wrap the thread of intrigue even tighter about the H&H’s necks.

After a while, it becomes obvious that all of the characters are the puppets of the villain. Even the audience gets threaded into the fabric of the play because they simply cannot tear themselves away. They stay riveted to their seats. They cringe with ire; they hold their breath with anticipation. No matter what, they keep watching and urge others to watch with them. The audience grows.

We’re approaching Fall recruiting conference time. There are some venues that will do what they can to draw attendees based on the high quality information and presenters they will have at their venue. They boast of the great connections you’ll be able to make by coming to their conference and expo.

There are other venues that have been attempting the Shakespearean approach to attracting attendees with a touch of the traditional thrown in for good measure so that the tactic doesn’t blare like a police interrogation room lamp. There’s the ill informed who spouts off all of the time on every subject and rankles the sensibilities of everyone who passes by the name. How they would love to avoid this person. But like the villain in the plays, the person cannot be ignored. There’s just one more look at what they’ve said just to see, perhaps, if they’ve said something that actually makes sense or whether they’ve been consistent and ethical in their stance. There’s the desire to see whether something is said that is not self-effacing in some way.

This latter tactic works. Who says we have to offer quality anything when there’s this Shakespearean play running in the background all of the time. It draws good site traffic. And when conference time comes along, it’s worth it to attend just to see whether all of the players are there and what sort of drama they’ll provide during conference — live and in person.

The trouble is, these are such cheap shots that they should be seen for what they are by the average anyone. The trouble is, they are seen for what they are, even if it is a subconscious recognition. But the purported minor characters are there to spur the action and draw the audience back into the machinations of the play. The arguments are fueled by the ragings and bombastic logic spouted by the minor characters (don’t let their positions fool you; they’re in no way minor characters). And there’s just enough logic that you nod your head and say “Yes, that’s right,” as the conversations and arguments evolve.

These dramas happen in many milleu — the family, workplace, clubs and organizations, online communities. Good leadership will nip it in the bud lest the bile overflows and poisons the environment, turning one upon the other where there could be cooperation and growth. Good leadership will let everyone in on the fact that it’s simply pretend play. Good leadership will not savor the growth and the price that’s paid for it. Strong leadership takes subsuming other things that we think are important in deference to the health of the whole.

Step back for a moment. Ask yourself why are these conversations and arguments happening? If they’re running against the grain of what the site rules discourage, why do these things occur? And if it’s the same, or nearly, characters in nearly every situation, why are they allowed this continuous role? Someone is gaining a tremendous benefit from these dramatizations. And in that case, check the backs of your hands, top of your head, and so on. There may be some strings attached to them. In fact, you just may be one of the puppet characters being manipulated by the play’s villain.

Need some scissors?

No Responses »

 

Who Moved My Blog? Sunday, Jul 1 2007

So there I was, racing about doing this and doing that, striving to meet this deadline and that, overcoming what appeared to be insurmountable obstacles and hardships — and doing it! — and all other manner of super-human accomplishments. And then, just as when you’re running at beyond record-breaking speed and trip and fall, I came to a sudden halt. It was like having all the wind sucked out of you. It was like hitting a brick wall. It was like trying to run through a metal restraining wire in the middle of the night. You go nowhere but bend over in half from the abruptness of the stop.

The last time I was at The Desk of Yvonne LaRose, was on May 30 and I’d posted something to do with changes. Then Paris Hilton started with her spoiled brat, priviledged child shenanigans. The ultimate was learning that the very forward-thinking matter of having a court hearing via teleconference was Paris’ idea and not that of the court. It was time to express the outrage at her audacity. Oops! That blog post could not be made. Well, it must be that the hussy, Paris, moved my blog. Hmmmph! How dare she?!? I’ll just give her a piece of my mind, that’s what I’ll do. That is, that’s what I’ll do after I find my blog.

Well, since that date in early June, I’ve attended to the business matters for which I was being held accountable, done my webinar, completed the finishing touches on the wrap-up, thanked numerous people, followed up on pending messages, addressed the County Board of Supervisors regarding the conditions at Harbor General Hospital, and sent inquiries to several places about where I might find my blog.

In response to one inquiry sent to Jobster’s support desk, I received a response saying if there was any further information they could provide, I could feel free to get in touch. There was no answer to the question about the location of the blog. I searched the Recruiting.com website for a name of some human to contact about blogs or a phone number or email to use to make an inquiry. None could be found. I did the same with the Jobster site since Jobster took over Recruiting.com. I had the same results with searching the Jobster site.

It must be that I’m not very good at what I do — research, stealth searches for elusive and arcane information that will unlock the truths of the generations. At least, that’s how this situation feels.

I was warned back in mid-April (I think), that the Recruiting.com subdomain blogs were not going to be supported any more and that I needed to start moving my blog. The message was acknowledged with a response asking for reminders when time was running out and speculating on when the cut-off date would be. There was no response. There were no reminders. But when I made that last post, there was a notice splayed across the entire face of the template. It said something about the upgrades that were being made for the sake of the blogging satisfaction of the constituents. It went on to talk about the servers were going to be moved. Then it instructed that those whose blog was being hosted should use a CNAME tag to redirect the URL but if the blog was a subdomain, the blogger need do nothing. Yes, I’m smart. I sent a note to Support asking what that message meant. I acknowledged that I was a subdomain and asked if I still needed to do the CNAME tag and redirect. If so, I said I needed instructions on how to do that. There was no response.

Could it be that brat Paris posted that warning message just to throw me off guard? Stinker! She’s probably hiding my blog until she can con me out of several million dollars and my undying admiration for her whatever. Nope. She’s not getting it. But in the meantime, there were posts that people were searching for. There were posts that brought readers to the blog from the U.N. There was information that university professors pointed to and recommended their classes consider. There was content that related to some of the business that I needed to complete. There were guest posts that were really outstanding.

This isn’t the first time I’ve had content get zapped. So the effect wasn’t like having polar ice water sprayed in your face in sub-thermal temperatures, making it feel as though you’ve got microscopic pins striking like ouzi bullets. This is definitely not the first time I’ve needed to make a determination about rebuilding and then doing so (what a waste of time moving backward is!). But I’d really like to move forward and stop this foolishness.

What am I going to do? I’ve already taken the second step. The Pundit is here. It will have some of the content from The Desk of Yvonne LaRose. Other parts will pobably be put on my other two blogs. The career and coaching posts will go to The Desk. Case studies, reviews, and maybe things that relate to ethics will go to The Consultant’s Desk. Or maybe things relating to ethics, management, communication, leadership, and the many other issues discussed on The Desk of Yvonne LaRose will come to The Pundit. Or maybe I’ll just put all of that stuff into a book and profit off my laboring and love (such drama!).

Yes, I still know how to laugh at Life’s situations and at myself.

Welcome to The Pundit. We’ll see how the fate of the content from The Desk of Yvonne LaRose evolves. Meanwhile, this is where my “fair comment” house has moved. Enjoy and talk back.

One Response »