The Word Is “Green”Peace

Irrespective of what I’m attempting to complete of the articles and blog posts started as far back as April and May, Greenpeace representatives are dotting the landscape around downtown L.A. to raise awareness. I’ve been accosted by six of their people in the past two hours and within a distance of two blocks.

The first representative has a clever way of capturing her audience and overcoming “No.” She opens by asking if I have a minute to talk about Greenpeace. The response is “No.” She replies with something on the order of well we’re already talking and that’s part of the minute I’m asking for and proceeds to start speaking about Greenpeace.

Her words are actually quite interesting. There’s something about companies that aren’t being socially responsible with the environment and how Greenpeace is making an effort to encourage them to be more responsible in regard to the way they’re doing business. But I have yet to get to a place where my laptop and I can become symbiotic in order to record this information as it’s delivered. So I simply walk away while saying I don’t have time.

The representative has been effective in persuasive speaking. She has put an issue before me and caused me to think about it. As I make my way to the next bus stop, I peruse the concept of how many companies have indeed gone green, to what degree, in what ways, and how much more effort is required to satisfy such organizations as Greenpeace. I’m already quite aware that the new marketplace for jobs is in the “Green” industry. Thus, answers to these and other questions begin to develop predictors of tye number and types of jobs that will grow out of this effort.

Will getting people more involved in being socially responsible as it relates to the environment actually make a meaningful difference in our quality of life? Will this renewed effort actually create jobs for our slagging economy?

I finally reach a Starbucks and put out of my mind that this is one corporation that is making “green” efforts by supporting ethos water and fair trade coffees which are independent coffee grower cooperatives that develop and sell at a guaranteed fair market market price.

It’s possible to learn more about becoming responsible and “green” by going to the Green America Business Network. In perusing the many facets of being green, you can literally be knocked off your feet as you see the simple, short list of suggestions for becoming “green” and responsible. Is it any wonder that this is the new burst of energy and burgeoning industry of the New Millennium?

We may think that jobs are shrinking and being cut out but that is not true. What we need is a good crop of these New Millennium babies who can be creative with the ways we do things. The ones who enjoy the earth and appreciate the give and take relationship that needs to be maintained in order for us to retain the essential balance between industrial progress and using the most responsible means to achieve progress.

I’m accosted by the Greenpeace workers a second time as I step out of Starbucks’ frigid house so that I can rewarm my body to it’s normal temperature. This time, it is I who wants information from Greenpeace and they are the ones who are backpedaling. Which corporations are being responsible, is what I ask. The response contains easily recognized names such as Apple [Green], HP, Microsoft. But I press the issue. In what ways are they being responsible? There’s some hmm’ing and hawing and one of the three comes up with an excuse to not speak with me any longer because they’re not allowed.

In order to overcome the objection, I reveal my identity as a journalist in the recruiting industry and that I’m very interested in the new “green” industry that holds so much promise for employers and recruiters. But the cluster of representatives say they are not allowed to talk while they are in uniform. I overcome the objection by telling them that I’m working inside the Starbucks and I would like to interview them, to record what they have to tell me about the corporations that are being responsible and what other methods can be used to do even more. But the objection comes up again that they are not allowed to do that.

“That” is quite nebulous. I assure them that I would not be having them do any solicitation. I merely want to interview them in order to capture their words about the green policy. Again, they say they’ll have to check but they’re not allowed to do interviews while in uniform.

Well, it seems to me that as long as I was a mere ant in the ant trail of Life I was fair game for being captured and pulled into the hyperbole about being green and the benefits of supporting Greenpeace. But when I became a person who would listen attentively and then report what I learned, they could no longer speak to me. In fact, the cluster of three or four representatives disappeared about five to ten minutes after I returned to my table at the Starbucks.

Let me leave you with these thoughts. The Green Industry is very definitely here. There are many types of jobs available in this new industry. Take a look at the Greenpeace home page to see the many inroads that have already taken place and what they have to say about what can still be done to open up new ways to save the environment and the economies of both this and other countries. Just considering those last five words makes me feel we don’t have to be in the economic depression if we use the Green initiative to pry open those doors.

Oh, that’s right. There are all those other considerations that also get in the way of hiring the best. But this is at least a start.

Back in the Trenches

Yes, it’s been a while since there were regular posts regarding any subject on this blog. The absence has been even more protracted on each of my other blogs. You’d think that I’d be much more conscientious about keeping up my writing schedule in light of the fact that I’ve been invited to blog on at least two other sites. But there are only two posts on Talent Management Tech and nothing published as of yet on Toolbox for HR.

Just to let you know, the blog on Talent Management Tech is called “From My View” and allows me to do my forecasting on various topics as they relate to talent management issues from many perspectives. Toolbox wants my words on the “how-to”s and best practices of HR. What I’ll be providing are some past words of advice and observation as reminders for all of us and then some new recommendations.

To that end, it’s time to tell you that one of the reasons for the silence is that I’m back in the trenches. This time I’m looking at the pool of talent that is available, observing practices in various types of companies, taking note of communication systems, and noting what works and what is misleading.

There’s so much grist for comment that it’s overwhelming. Broad brush strokes simply cannot be used at this time. Compounding the observations is the fact that they’re made about systems that exist on Los Angeles’ Skid Row. It isn’t the easiest of places to be in any sense. Nor is it the healthiest place to be. But Skid Row teaches one profound lesson: You have to take everything on a cases-by-case basis. There is no single statement that can be made about the collective whole of the denizen. Likewise, it would be imprudent to take the public relations statement about the organizations here and use that as gospel pertaining to what can be expected. In that regard, diversity is definitely a key word.

In this environment, it is possible to see how parents are using their skills and where skills are needed. From that emanates an appreciation of why so many of our youth are focused on the superficial aspects of tasks and seem to feel a certain entitlement that has not been earned through endeavors to merit privilege, advancement, or acknowledgment.

There are deep pockets of lack when it comes to good leadership skills. Because of the deficiencies, there are people holding responsible positions over people who are in need of many forms of services and support who simply do not have those skills but use their positions in improper ways in order to flaunt their power.

My different blogs touch on different perspectives of the management and hiring processes. The posts that deal with those topics will be placed on the appropriate blog. However, that is another explanation for why there has been such a period of silence. With so many issues wanting their time of discussion, it becomes not only confusing but overwhelming as to where to start first.

Compounding the where and what issues are also the dynamics of being in the environment. As I said, abuse of power is nearly everywhere. It attempts to compensate for the lack of skill in that area. That abuse slides into situations that then become questionable ethics, things such as intentional interference with business opportunity, harassment, and discrimination. Another thing that begins to emerge into the light of day is the fact that in many instances the untrained leaders and ones in positions of responsibility are found to word documents and reports in ways that cast a pall upon the subject of the report. In turn, the person is refused services or opportunities to which they actually have. Some call these statements “misstatements.” I have called them lies; but then, I tend to get excited when it comes to abuse for the sake of abuse and without appreciation of the short- and long-term consequences.

Out of all of these negatives, is it possible to find value-adding human capital? There are training programs here that purport to train and ready people for various types of jobs. Again, it is impossible to make a blanket statement about the population because it is so profoundly diverse. It is nearly mandatory that you take the time to become acquainted with nearly every person who completes an application in order to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. There are some pearls, there are some who are the underpinnings of any organization, and there are some who will prove to be excellent for seasonal or contract work. The ages for the talent run the spectrum. Many of those over 50 are quite desirable but pushed into the background for various reasons. You have to hunt for what you want.

Nevertheless, there has been a long lapse of time since I last talked with you about anything relating to the employment industry. The silence is being broken.

When’s the Right Time?

When’s the right time to make a profound disclosure?

We all have self-created images of another person based on their writing(s), their phone voice, the content of their resume. These are all innocuous media that are EEOC approved because they tend to not disclose the race, gender, age, physical disabilities that the other person has (or does not have).

Sometimes things will be given away in small ways. They are not that consequential and we accept that the matter will be disclosed. Essentially, it’s a time saver for people to realize “Wallace” is a man, not a woman; that Chin means the person with whom we’re corresponding is Chinese.

Most things become very obvious when we finally meet in person. But some things are still obscure, even in person. So when’s the right time to reveal that you have a disability and will need an accommodation? Some employers (and HR folk) get very nervous when they learn that their candidate or applicant has a disability and will require an accommodation. Or you tell a recruiter that the applicant will need a special keyboard and their voice begins to quaver as it becomes distant. They’re visualizing front office appearance and the negative of that. Then they either say they’ll get back to you about the applicant or tell you the position has been pulled. They’re loss. But did they really need to know about the disability at that early juncture?

Perhaps the disability doesn’t need to be revealed at all. No accommodations are required. To bring up the disability is to gild the lily and call unnecessary attention to something that’s a non-issue. But when there are unnecessarily burdensome requests and demands made that go beyond the necessities of the job being performed, it’s more than appropriate to put the other person on notice that they are being obtuse and a more reasonable and efficient way of doing the job (in addition to more cost effective) is available. Did I say anything about revealing the disability that’s being tolled? Why would it be necessary? Maybe to get sympathy; but that isn’t the goal here.

Normally, I give advice through these blog posts or merely express my opinion or vocalize my stance. There are times when I actually leave the final call up to the reader and wait for the conversation to start. This is one of those instances.

You are smart people. You have valuable thoughts that deserve being communicated so that others can know you and consider your perspective as they formulate their own opinions.

Back to our subject — when to talk about a disability. What about when the subject of favorite activities comes up? Do you say, “Boy, I just love reading my braille notes during a dark and stormy night.” Or when the topic turns to outdoors activities, do you talk about things you used to do but only partake as a spectator now? Maybe an explanation (more or less an apology) isn’t necessary; just saying that it’s a fav spectator sport. Another option is explaining that you were merely curious about the other’s activities and interests and whether there are any matches.

Actually, I don’t think it’s necessary to walk around with a placard saying “Feel sorry for me, I’m disabled.” It might if you have a tin cup, but that isn’t what you want in the workplace nor in the social world. Pity and handouts always come up short. You have an identity. It may not be as attractive to you as you would like it to be. But then, we’re always our own worst critic. Be proud of who and what you are (if there’s integrity) and don’t apologize for your own perceived shortcomings. You just may be a lot more attractive and desirable than you give yourself credit for being.

As to when is the right time to disclose the disability. How about when it’s absolutely necessary — “I never learned to swim” — and everyone is required to dive into the water on “Survivor.”

A Stand-up Guy

A couple of months ago, some interesting mail came to The Desk. It was a request for a recommendation to be published on LinkedIn. That is a fantastic place to have your recommendations and testimonials published. They’re in a tabbed section so that they’re segregated and easy to find. But they’re also part of your entire profile so that they can be viewed in relation to all the rest of your history.

The other reason this was interesting was because it forced me to consider the why of my respecting someone in the recruiting industry. In a few words, I was being called upon to talk about the work we’d done together, their ethics, their personal characteristics that make them strong in what they do.

Finally, this was interesting because it was from one of those I thought would always be with the same employer for all of the years that I know him. It goes to show, some industry giants do move, but not too often.

The request came from Craig Silverman.

Now Craig is one of those people you don’t get a chance to meet very often. He’s an executive, and an extremely busy one. He’s constantly putting people together, building and maintaining relationships, building business, and doing outreach. He makes excellent presentations. I’ve attended several of his online meetings. He made them sound easy and spontaneous yet I had the impression there were a lot of tools on his side that needed to be managed in order to keep things going smoothly and the audience engaged. And I’ve responded to a few of his calls for content and been very satisfied with how my contributions were handled.

The other thing about Craig that impresses me is his ethics. He doesn’t seem to have a lot of difficulty with making the right decision for the right reasons. His decisions are based on good logic and reasoning. When faced with a challenge he will not compromise his principles. I can rely on his choices and behavior; it is predictable. Even when I see him aligned with a group whose politics and practices are repulsive, I realize his choice of association is a prudent move because it keeps him included and connected in order to know what is happening in the indusry. His association means he’s aware, not that he’s sold out.

Craig is one of those people who deserves quite a few words of affirmation and I was delighted he thought of asking me. The trouble was, I could not submit the recommendation for him. It seems LinkedIn will only allow one recommendation per evaluator and I’ve already written one assessment of Craig. Not to be outdone, I determined that the next thing I could do was to send what I’d written about him to Craig so that he could publish it where he wanted. The other thing I could do is publish the evaluation here on The Desk.

Here’s what I said in my second evaluation of Craig Silverman:

I’ve known Craig Silverman since the early days of my return to the recruiting and staffing industry. Although it seems like that may have been since 2000, it may have been a little later. However, I do know that whenever I read his words in a discussion thread, they were the ones among those that made the most sense. He quickly became one of the strong voices in the industry that for me was most sound and reliable in terms of how to effectively get things done.

Craig is a fount of information. He knows his subject. He knows how to work with people at every level in order to get good results for everyone. Craig is thorough, detail oriented, and it appears he knows how to quietly wear a lot of hats and keep things under control.

It wasn’t until the 2006 ERE industry conference that I finally had the opportunity to meet Craig in person. Even then, as well known as he is, he demonstrated something that has always impressed me about him — always closing. Craig humbly reminds his audience of who he is, his accomplishments, and abilities. This is a very positive attribute. Our memories tend to be too short.

I hope in this lifetime I have an chance to meet and work with a lot of people like Craig Silverman. He’s reliable, trustworthy, and extremely astute about a large number of business situations.

And here’s what I had to say about Craig back in September 2006. It felt good to realize the assessment was so close to the other. According to a recent notice, Craig will shortly be starting a new situation.

Don’t Do This at Your Day Job

A couple of days ago, a Starbucks supervisor came to me asking if we could talk. She seemed a bit distraught and nervous. Since she’d already invited herself to sit down, we merely commenced our conversation with her nervously trying to find a starting place. She asked if I’d be interested in working for Starbucks. I tossed it aside, noting that it would be considered heavy duty work for someone like me, without defining what “like me” entailed.

I was down with a cold yesterday; I needed to return today for Internet access and to catch up on pending projects. The same supervisor is on duty tonight. Her attitude is changed. It seemed appropriate to follow up on the previous conversation in order to evaluate the intentions and scope of the offer.

With a break in duties, there was a window in which we could talk. Her attitude was changed. It was flippant. Upon asking for more information about the offer she made, the subject was brushed aside as just joking. However, the demeanor that I remembered was not joking but discomfort. It was also a person still trying to sort through how she would broach the subject of offering a job to a person who was overqualified for it.

For the Day Job

I allowed the cover of “just joking” to live as it let me off the hook for refusing the offer. But the lesson is when you’re about to make an offer to someone who isn’t looking, make certain you start on balanced ground. Have a good, neutral opening in order to establish rapport for the ensuing conversation. Feel the person out in regard to their potential interest in a situation that may be available. If there are some open ends, ask whether there are some aspects of a job that would make a seasonal situation more appealing. (Mind you, this may not be a feasible move.) Start moving into conversation about the situation as you discover more about the potential positive interest.

Not for the Day Job

It seems obvious that this supervisor had never been on the opposite side of recruiting and hiring. She’d never asked someone if they wanted to work in her store. We should learn from her mannerisms.

Do not:

• invite yourself to sit down
• just blurt out an offer
• laugh at your candidate the next day and make fun of them to you subordinates

Stop and think about it. This failed candidate could be your ally at some time in the future. Don’t burn bridges.

Making Matches in a New Way

Circulating among the recruiting sites these days has become a tad boring. Always the same topics. Always the same answers. Always the same voices shouting down the others. And everyone in search of the better mousetrap to find the best talent for the job in the shortest amount of time.

There are all sorts of assessments to determine whether the applicant will become a candidate. And there are all types of assessments to measure the quality of skills the candidate has. Then the subjective stuff gets smushed in — the recruiter’s judgment — as to whether (according to the resume) this person or that has the right qualifications.

I have a feeling many of these recruiters simply do not read the cover letters that accompany the resumes wherein the lateral experience is delineated for them. And I also have a feeling that some of these recruiters simply do not understand what it is they’re searching for because they don’t want to show their ignorance. They’re ignorant because they don’t understand the terms used in the job req or the position description. What they do instead of asking for clarification or saying, “To me, this means . . .,” is they just blow it off as something that everyone does and should know, and they wonder aloud why no one else understands what the terminology is saying. You know, they use psychology.

Well, I’ve turned somersaults and cartwheels in this post and not gotten very close to saying what I’m thinking about. But after looking at all of these factors that go into finding the ideal slate of candidates and many times not coming up with the right answer, why are we not using the techniques employed by eHarmony or Match.com or Yahoo! Personals (or similar matchmaking sites) in order to get the right match?

These personals sites claim to have a very high match rate and that they connect people who wind up as enduring relationships. They start with the basic premise that social networking sites and job boards use — a profile that gives a thumbnail version of who You, the person, are. There’s the section for likes and dislikes, what you want, your ideal situation. You tell a bit about yourself and your background (is that called a “resume?”). Buried within all of that is something that brings out a bit of your personality (can someone say “cover letter?”). You talk a bit about why you are the best thing since sliced bread, look things over for glaring errors and little tweaks that may be needed, and the click “Submit.”

Once that Submit button is clicked, each site starts its processes for sorting and sifting. eHarmony has 29 dimensions through which it sorts. Yahoo! Personals checks for the body type you’re looking for, while Match.com sifts through what your friends and acquaintances say (references), it double checks places where you’ve been — or want to go. Yahoo! Personals delves into things such as body type, ethnicity, and education level. There’s really not that huge of a difference between the job boards and the matchmaking sites except for the fact that at one you’re looking for employment and business, at the second, it goes beyond business into the personal side of life and perhaps sex. The other isn’t that type of business.

But each one goes through filtering, looking for keywords, assessing whether there’s a match and if not, continuing to sort and sift until there’s a hit. The recruiting and job board side of this matchmaking process (we’ll just refer to it briefly as the “recruiting” side) seems to be filled with land mines that are set to detonate at the slightest glimmer of a potential match. The recruiting side of the process is destined to ruin because there is so much that’s at the mercy of subjective decision making. However, the matches are supposed to be just right for the company and guaranteed to work out. There are all sorts of instruments that are used to make certain the candidate is just right. As I said before, there are personality assessments, interest assessments, skill assessments, psychological assessments. You name it and there’s a screening assessment that’s been invented to handle it. These recruiting assessments are a bit like finding the right application to use on Facebook or MySpace. That is, there’s lots of stuff but only a few that really do the job.

Well, the personal sites would seem to have a higher percentage of good matches than the recruiters. People at the personal sites seem happier and better adjusted for the transparency of the process. People using the personals sites don’t find theirselves interminably left on hold. They get results or they get refunds. So why don’t we just dump all of these recruiter-type assessments and matchmaking?

In fact, why don’t we just get rid of recruiters? What we would use instead are the personals sites. They seem to be much better at figuring out people, what their likes and dislikes are, who they get along with, and the sites help people communicate and meet! They have a better record of matches that work.

This Isn’t Kansas Anymore

There are some things in Life that just flat out scare me. They leave me with knocking knees, chattering teeth, and whites of the eyes the size of half dollars. While “Aliens” may have qualified for this category the first time around, it no longer deserves that position. It was fiction. Movies have an ending. Even when they’re part of a series, there’s always an ending to the one you’re watching. And, it was fiction. It was make believe. It wasn’t real.

That’s why there are some things in Life that just flat out scare me. They’re real and people actually believe what they’re doing is not only right but laudable.

Recruiting Bloggers Are Journalists

Let’s look at the first thing that scares me. It’s blogging recruiters. It looks like time is passing faster than I can keep up. It was almost a year ago that the California Court of Appeal held that bloggers are journalists. That is to say, bloggers are purveyors of news. Because of that status, they are entitled to protect the identity of their sources.

Randy Dotinga of the Christian Science Monitor put the issues precisely in the eye of the reader when he pondered whether bloggers have the same responsibility as journalists with an “obligation to check facts, run corrections, and disclose conflicts of interest? Or are they ordinary opinion-slingers, like barbers or bartenders, with no special responsibilities – or rights?” Dotinga’s analysis was written a year before the Court of Appeals decision. Notably, Dotinga ponders whether along with the rights of a journalist, bloggers will also take on the responsibilities of one.

Eugene Volokh looks at the Court of Appeals decision and sees that it is a victory. He discloses his conflict of interest perspective by stating outright that he was one of the amici briefs in the Apple case. Apple argued that bloggers “are not members of any professional community governed by ethical and professional standards.” Excellent point, Apple. But I’m getting ahead of myself in regard to things that scare me.

To be sure, there are good recruiting blogs on the Net. There are good HR blogs out there, as well as consultants, and other parts of the employment industry. Some are written with care and consideration of the thoughts put forward as well as the quality of the information and its value. There are others that seem to challenge the reader to keep up with the syllable count. Things are dashed off for the shock value. And in some “communities,” what you find is a lot of gossip among a bunch of buddies trying to top the other, without regard to the consumming readership (except for the numbers).

Judge Volokh instructs us that “Under the California journalist’s privilege, all those who communicate to the public in a relatively regular way (as opposed to speaking only occasionally, or speaking only to a few friends) are protected, and are covered by the language ‘newspapers, magazines, or other periodical publications.’” The act of a recruiter who maintains a blog and keeps it updated makes them a journalist. The court sidestepped the issue of whether the content is legitimate or illegitimate news. the issue is that there is a regular communication to the public. It doesn’t matter whether it makes sense or not nor whether others are able to interpret what it says. And as to “illegitimate” news, I guess that could be considered lies? Not valid information? Gossip and conjecture? The court refused to address it.

There are those who care about the content that they publish and its value to the public that reads it. There are those who are not cut from the “give me the money” cloth. They apply critical thinking to the concepts they ponder and provide usable information. It is, therefore, the public’s responsibility to do careful reading in order to find the legitimate news and patronize it. Perhaps it is encouraging to realize that 34% of bloggers see what they’re doing as having journalistic form and strive to uphold those standards.

As controversial as my words have been deemed to be, perhaps I, especially, should be glad that my status is that of a journalist for several reasons. And I am allowed to draw the analogies I do from other situations in comparison to recruiting, staffing, retention, and all the other disciplines that go into the employment industry formula because of my status as a blogger and therefore as a journalist.

But I’m still scared. It appears there are not many in the recruiting industry who are capable of drawing analogies. This fact was unequivocably demonstrated earlier this month as a Bush press conference made its impression on me and I shared the thoughts and equivalencies with the larger community for discussion. The response was essentially, “Don’t rock the boat!” I’m scheduled for beheading very soon.

Recruiters Are Ethical

For every single negative, it takes ten positives to compensate for it. That is to say, a 1:10 ratio is necessary in order to maintain a status quo.

There are recruiters who are driven by numbers and only numbers. The numbers may be amount of bodies they took from one location and put into another. The numbers may equate to how many days it took to make the transitions. The numbers may be dollars and cents that were derived from getting the warm bodies into the new site. Or the numbers may equate to how many times they were able to get their words and name published on a particular website. It’s just about the numbers and nothing more.

There are some recruiters who don’t care what they have to say in order to win. If it means they need to lie in order to be in the front of the pack, then that’s what it takes; it will be done. If it means manufacture some loose translation of history as fact in order to get what they want, then the cloth will be woven. Some recruiters will create a distraction in order to make it seem that they’ve been wronged and therefore deserve the award. After a time, the purpose of the antics is lost and there’s just a drive to keep up the behavior because it’s become the accustomed thing to do. To the extent there are those who will support this or else pander to it in order to just shut up the noisemaker, there is encouragement and the system will spread.

Not all recruiters are like this. But it makes you wonder if there are sufficient numbers to not only maintain the status quo but also tip the scales to the positive side. So I guess I’m not really scared in the traditional sense of the word. Unethical recruiters do not scare me. They disgust me.

Unethical leaders do not scare me. They disgust me. The reason is because they counsel their selves and their followers to do unethical things to the detriment of anyone and everyone in their way. They care not the consequences of their actions. They care about the big payoff that they gain. The payoff could be money, power, prestige, control, website traffic, advertisers with more revenue, money, power, prestige. Oh, I’m repeating myself. If these leaders cannot show others how to follow the very rules that they have set out for their organization, how is it that they can in any sense deem theirselves to be ethical and good leaders?

There are some who would say they believe in diversity. Yet when it comes to hiring a person with a disability, that person is passed over in deference to one who has no impairments. The person of color is negated but the person of the leader’s ethnicity is hire even though not as qualified. Women are in the organization but in support roles. And women are encouraged to be petty and sniping; professionalism is discouraged. Skimming is encouraged and stealing log notes so that candidates can be claimed who are actually part of the Rolodex of someone else.

Yet another example of poor ethics is taking content and shopping it around a community before publishing it. Thus, it looks like an also-ran rather than the original content that was intended. Meanwhile, the shoppers have had time to opine on various aspects of the content and appear to be quite insightful and astute. Yet another is pretending to be a student and asking for help on a project. It’s actually a means of getting someone else to do all the research while the fake intern gets credit for the work. Have you seen someone ask for a project and then prevent the person who is to do the work from learning about the process? It’s a little difficult to write a report when there’s no knowledge and barred access. But it’s easy to point a finger and say that the person who was to do the assignment failed and didn’t follow through. What a reference!

So what scares me is the thought of having the negative side of recruiting be in charge of setting the rules and steering the recruiting ship. What scares me is leadership that doesn’t understand the very rules they’ve written. What scares me is that the negative side of recruiting is very capable of using all the tricks in the bag to defeat those who are ethical and then leave us in a jungle of snakes, venom, and flying bullets. If that’s the way the system begins to work all of the time, then maybe it’s time for us to abandon the system and not use it at all.

journalism, blogging, professional standards, ethics,
recruiting leadership,

Books on Recruiting and Journalism from Amazon.com