erence between age discrimination and the other protected classes is that it is much more subjective. It is more than valid that some candidates are overqualified no matter how old they are. The older a candidate is of course they have more experience so the non hiring is really due to overqualified. Sure ageism is real we sometimes can influence and we should if possible.
In some situations too old is 45, in others it's 55, in others it's over 60. In any situation black, hispanic, female, disabled does not change so it is certainly more clear cut than the age situation.
Don't put your moral template over someone else. Nothing is ever accomplished by playing the morality card.…
that isn't pleasant. (Garlic comes to my mind immediately.)
I have also been called to a client in the past to address this situation. I had to have a one-on-one conversation with the employee and let them know that there were some complaints about an unpleasant odor on a regular basis. His feelings were really hurt and I felt bad for him but asked him to take corrective action, whether it be more hygienic habits or toning down the spicy food.
It is also not appropriate behavior for coworkers to leave personal care products or air fresheners on the coworkers desk. That can be seen as harassment or bullying.…
really, at least not in a black & white sense - sure, we may fall on either side of the fence more often than not, but I think we have to be careful with this subject as you can often be blanket-branded either an "angel" or a "devil". The truth is that we're all probably both from time to time - it just depends on the situation and who is doing the 'judging' per se. In fact, I like to think I'm a more 'ethical' person than 'unethical', but it all comes down to the eyes of the beholder. Being ethical in some situations is unethical in someone else's eyes and vice-versa.
That's why the ethics issue can divide so many, but it shouldn't - we all have different paradigms and different frames of reference . . . and truthfully, I believe no other issue divides our industry more than 'ethics'.
I only toss that out there because I've seen (time and time again) people get branded as "saints" or "criminals" based upon how some may perceive their answer to a given question. The Penelope Trunk issue on ERE was a much different one that illicited a great deal more flaming than this particular situation, and in fact, that's why it was put out there - to stimulate conversation and flaming in the first place. As they say, "sex sells" and the easiest way to ratings is through a little skin!
I ask all of you as my recruiting brethren and brethrenettes to withhold immediate categorization or judgment against anyone for how they answer an ethical issue given any one particular situation. One sound bite doth not a person make :)…
y are seeking in this role. By pointing out where this person is falling short, it makes it clear what the expectation is. Also, as you mentioned it is a more junior role as well, but I wouldn't agree that being honest and direct is unprofessional.…
than ever. Why?
People are stressed. And when people are already focused on security as their primary concern, they tend to react any time that security is threatened. Take the recent public flare up between National Post technology reporter David George-Cosh and Toronto marketing consultant April Dunford on Twitter.
Dunford tweets: “Reporter to me “When the media calls you, you jump, OK!?” Why, when you called me and I’m not selling? Newspapers will get what they deserve”
George-Cosh tweets: "what the f*ck. I called you for comment two days ago. What did you expect when you called me back? Don’t post that sh*t online"
Unbelievably, it degrades from there.
At first blush, most people would conclude that Dunford handled the situation well. But reading her blog tells a different story. Since, she has followed up by berating the incident with lessons that George-Cosh might learn and concluding the dead horse has been beaten. But not dead enough, because she continued two days later, dubbing it "the incident."
I'm not saying George-Cosh was right. He was not. But it is also difficult to call her handling much more than baiting, especially after she followed up with something that resembles something in between smugness and over justification on her blog.
For most people, blog dramas seem challenging enough with response windows occurring over hours. On Twitter or in real time, the response requires seconds, opening up even more room for meltdowns. They are all mini-crisis situations. Treat them as such.
Situation Analysis. Evaluate the situation or event, with an emphasis on collecting all known facts. (What is this really about?)
Determine Impacts. Determine the potential impact of these facts, including public perception. (What is at risk?)
Synchronize Messages. Define and synchronize messages specific to the crisis or event taking place. (What do I need to communicate to everyone listening?)
Designate Spokespeople. Designate a spokesperson, recognizing that the messenger is part of the message. (Am I the right person to address this?)
Collect Feedback And Adjust. Provide for mechanisms that collect immediate feedback and adjust communication. (What do I need to do next?)
There were many opportunities for both George-Cosh and Dunford to change the communication, but neither seemed capable. The end result was a communication breakdown unrelated to what happened first. In the follow up, neither performed well.
None of this is meant to say I haven't had my share of situations that I thought I could have handled differently. Instead, consider it a reminder that a recruiter's online communication (or while taking calls from desperate people) needs to remain balanced.
Your daily success will sometimes rely on how well you can make minute-by-minute situational assessments and avoid being sucked into a self-made crisis. If you take even a minute or two to ask the questions above, you'll likely handle the situation differently. You'll also be more likely to respond instead of react.…
o with the VP of IT. He/she has probably gotten the word from another employee who worked with your candidate or knows someone who worked with your candidate in the past. They either do not like your candidate or they believe what they have passed on. Whateve the situation is it appears that the company has chosen to believe whoever passed on the backdoor reference. Tracking it down, stirring things up or whatever the result might be would not seem to be a help to anyone.
Also consider the possibility that your candidate may have some other flaws that you are not aware of and they have used the "not hands on enough" excuse when it may be something else.
I would suggest taking your candidate to a more friendly environment which is in his best interest and finding another candidate for this company which is in their and your best interest. It is always a temptation to tilt at windmills but it hardly ever helps anyone involved to try and force something in a situation where a backdoor reference has caused a problem. Somebody somewhere has an axe to grind. Why chop off your own foot with someone else's axe?…
m situations. I would not view situations like this as opportunities to "find" revenue but rather as a way to "refine" the process moving forward. The win will come over the next few years, not with the next placement.…