Shortly after reading an article about ‘telling your story’ in an interview, I had the opportunity to meet with a candidate for a high level position. During our conversation I asked why he left his previous position. He smiled and politely replied, ‘It just wasn’t a good fit’. That is such a pat answer, and albeit a safe one, it tells me nothing. What wasn’t a good fit? The responsibilities? The direction of the company? What?! Too many unanswered questions, so I asked a little differently.
‘What wasn’t a good fit?’ His response? It just wasn’t a good fit. Now, to put things in perspective, I’m not being nosy or judgmental on whatever happened (unless it was theft, intimidation, violence, or any other illegal act), but communicating with me the ‘why’ can help possibly prevent you ending up in the same/similar position. So, I ask again.
‘Why do YOU think it wasn’t a good fit?’ The response: ‘I liked it there, but it just wasn’t a good fit.’ So, now I am wondering WHAT HAPPENED that you are SO reluctant to discuss with me. My mind is reeling with different scenarios, which is never a good thing.
If someone at this level cannot articulate their own thoughts, I have to question their ability to perform at said level. I’m not asking to breech any confidences, betray any trusts or talk bad about your former employer, but instead I’m asking YOU why YOU thought it wasn’t a good fit.
Telling your story can be a powerful tool. Communication your story gives great insight to the things that are important to you and indicators regarding your strengths and desires in your role. Not being able to articulate your story prevents recruiters/hiring managers from knowing what truly motivates you to succeed. In order to be in a role where you are set up to succeed is a much better place than the alternative.
I love a good story. It really helps me figure out the right environment for you. Share with me who you are and what you are all about. Let me see the real you. But please, don’t go overboard on the gesticulation. Too much animation may scare me.
There is a PS to this story, and it will be in the next blog….
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
The Counter Offer and Other Acts of Desperation
At one time or another, we’ve all heard stories about that dreaded counter offer. We’ve either worked next to the guy who stayed because he received a hefty pay increase or we’ve had to pick up the slack for the gal who laughed at their attempt to keep her and left for the new, immensely more glamorous, position. Even though these things are supposed to be confidential, word always gets out.
On one hand you have the employees who are beside themselves for not thinking of it first, but on the other, and probably the most detrimental, you have employees who see it for what it is: an act of desperation. Your weakness. You’ve tipped your hand that at the moment, you feel said employee is worth more than the rest, or at least that’s the message you’re sending. Truth? Does it matter? If perception really is reality, then we now have a problem on our hands.
The Counter Offer isn’t the only way companies scream desperation to their employees. The company who throws money at new hires? What’s that all about? If the economy supports a certain pay range for your position and a company throws money at you (in other words, it means hiring you in at a significantly higher salary then you are currently making), be sure to ask yourself the tough questions. Am I really worth this to them? What do I bring to the table that they SO want? Why is this position paying so much higher than my current one? Is this company successful? Why is this position open? And taking it further…..what is going on with this company that they need to pay SO much more for this position? It’s a desperate attempt to hire employees without examining, or revealing the issue or cause for concern.
The stories we hear around this topic can be heartbreaking. I remember one employee who was approached by a competitor and lured with promise of a pay increase of $7/hr. That’s almost a $15k annual increase. She had done nothing to warrant that increase (no further education/masters degree, management role, etc.) and looked it as a lucky break. I encouraged her to dig deeper, make sure the offer was a good one since her current position afforded her husband to stay home with the kids and paid for their medical benefits in their entirety, as well as flexibility and overtime pay. She chose to stay in her current role and three months later she read in the news that the company who tried to hire her was closing up shop and moving their facility to Tennessee. She chose wisely.
When companies honestly communicate their situation and their intentions during the interview or recruiting process, the fallout will be reduced dramatically. More than likely, the companies will end up hiring like minded individuals who just may even be able to help turn things around. I would much rather discuss the position for what it really is and not in a sugar coated, hope-they-don’t-figure-it-out sort of way. When you do the right thing in communicating your intentions, the right results will follow. Your employees, clients, and competitors will see you as a solid entity, and not as someone acting out of desperation.
A great vantage point, if you ask me.
On one hand you have the employees who are beside themselves for not thinking of it first, but on the other, and probably the most detrimental, you have employees who see it for what it is: an act of desperation. Your weakness. You’ve tipped your hand that at the moment, you feel said employee is worth more than the rest, or at least that’s the message you’re sending. Truth? Does it matter? If perception really is reality, then we now have a problem on our hands.
The Counter Offer isn’t the only way companies scream desperation to their employees. The company who throws money at new hires? What’s that all about? If the economy supports a certain pay range for your position and a company throws money at you (in other words, it means hiring you in at a significantly higher salary then you are currently making), be sure to ask yourself the tough questions. Am I really worth this to them? What do I bring to the table that they SO want? Why is this position paying so much higher than my current one? Is this company successful? Why is this position open? And taking it further…..what is going on with this company that they need to pay SO much more for this position? It’s a desperate attempt to hire employees without examining, or revealing the issue or cause for concern.
The stories we hear around this topic can be heartbreaking. I remember one employee who was approached by a competitor and lured with promise of a pay increase of $7/hr. That’s almost a $15k annual increase. She had done nothing to warrant that increase (no further education/masters degree, management role, etc.) and looked it as a lucky break. I encouraged her to dig deeper, make sure the offer was a good one since her current position afforded her husband to stay home with the kids and paid for their medical benefits in their entirety, as well as flexibility and overtime pay. She chose to stay in her current role and three months later she read in the news that the company who tried to hire her was closing up shop and moving their facility to Tennessee. She chose wisely.
When companies honestly communicate their situation and their intentions during the interview or recruiting process, the fallout will be reduced dramatically. More than likely, the companies will end up hiring like minded individuals who just may even be able to help turn things around. I would much rather discuss the position for what it really is and not in a sugar coated, hope-they-don’t-figure-it-out sort of way. When you do the right thing in communicating your intentions, the right results will follow. Your employees, clients, and competitors will see you as a solid entity, and not as someone acting out of desperation.
A great vantage point, if you ask me.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Survivors’ Guilt or Bad Business Decision?
SCENARIO: You own a business and are doing fairly well. Your friends know you are doing well, since you regularly pick up the tab when you all go out for drinks after work. One of these friends has had trouble getting a job and comes to you asking for one. You hire your friend for a sales position, knowing that there is one glaring reason that you shouldn’t have. Survivors’ guilt or bad business decision? Read on….
BACKGROUND: On the surface it seems that hiring friends might be the issue, but it’s not. There is much more to the story and as an employer, it’s up to us to do our due diligence and make sure our hiring is done with ethics and integrity in mind. The back story to this hypothetical situation is this: your friend has two DUI’s and has actually spent time in jail for these offenses. Fortunately no one was injured, but the offenses are still pretty serious. And, your friend lost their license, so you now have a sales person, in a position where they must drive to locations, driving with no valid license, AND YOU KNOW ABOUT IT.
So the question is, is it survivors’ guilt, since you have a position, and have the ability to hire your friend, or is an act of arrogance and a really bad business decision? I’m not a lawyer, nor to do I play one on TV, but I would think that there is some sort of liability as an employer, having an employee with no valid license (in a position where they have to drive) due to two DUI’s, AND YOU KNOW ABOUT IT. So, you have knowingly put someone in a position of further trouble, and have probably taken on some risk as well.
What about the clients you are sending this person to? What happens when they find out? Does that damage your reputation or increase your sense of compassion in their eyes? Will they see it as survivors’ guilt or a really bad business decision?
Regardless of friendship, I would think doing the right thing would take precedence. And by doing the right thing, I mean obeying certain laws and protocols. Hiring someone for a position which they are unable to perform FOR LEGAL REASONS seems a bit like arrogance to me. Unless they take the bus to appointments. THAT would be legal. Good thing this is a hypothetical scenario. I’d hate to be the employer in this situation.
You decide…Survivors guilt or really bad business decision?
BACKGROUND: On the surface it seems that hiring friends might be the issue, but it’s not. There is much more to the story and as an employer, it’s up to us to do our due diligence and make sure our hiring is done with ethics and integrity in mind. The back story to this hypothetical situation is this: your friend has two DUI’s and has actually spent time in jail for these offenses. Fortunately no one was injured, but the offenses are still pretty serious. And, your friend lost their license, so you now have a sales person, in a position where they must drive to locations, driving with no valid license, AND YOU KNOW ABOUT IT.
So the question is, is it survivors’ guilt, since you have a position, and have the ability to hire your friend, or is an act of arrogance and a really bad business decision? I’m not a lawyer, nor to do I play one on TV, but I would think that there is some sort of liability as an employer, having an employee with no valid license (in a position where they have to drive) due to two DUI’s, AND YOU KNOW ABOUT IT. So, you have knowingly put someone in a position of further trouble, and have probably taken on some risk as well.
What about the clients you are sending this person to? What happens when they find out? Does that damage your reputation or increase your sense of compassion in their eyes? Will they see it as survivors’ guilt or a really bad business decision?
Regardless of friendship, I would think doing the right thing would take precedence. And by doing the right thing, I mean obeying certain laws and protocols. Hiring someone for a position which they are unable to perform FOR LEGAL REASONS seems a bit like arrogance to me. Unless they take the bus to appointments. THAT would be legal. Good thing this is a hypothetical scenario. I’d hate to be the employer in this situation.
You decide…Survivors guilt or really bad business decision?
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Too much is really too much
A friend was recently telling me how cumbersome it was to apply to some positions on bigger companies’ online portals. There is so much information you have to enter over and over again, the same information in so many different places, etc. It is really time consuming, and that’s just for one position! If there is more than one of interest in that company, you have to enter the information all over again!
Really? Was it really that bad? So, I took a look. I went to a really large company headquartered here in Southfield (many of us have had to deal with their customer service department at one time or another) to look at their submittal process. First things first, I set out to find a position that would interest me.
Narrowing down the selection started off my conundrum. There are a couple of local offices, which one do I want? More than one? Does that increase my chances of being hired? OK, let’s search under all of the local offices…..
Next, which category? Hmmm, most of my background is in HR/Operations, but to not limit my options, let’s just go with all. Wouldn’t that be easier than trying to figure out which is the right category? So many companies have differing titles for the same position, I don’t know which way to go here. I’ll just do all of them.
Excellent. Narrowed it down to 35 openings. Wow, that’s a lot. More than I thought there would be! Scrolling…..don’t understand what those first two titles even mean, so scrolling…..scrolling….oh, there’s one that looks like it might be HR! Nope, some sort of legal compliance and I’m not an attorney, so scrolling.…scrolling…..
Another one that looks like it might be HR. I pull up the job description and read through. Well, at least as much as I can. Honestly, I don’t understand much of what they are asking me. I am not sure if I have that experience, since I don’t really know what it is. Bummer. Maybe I don’t have the experience I thought I did. Wow, that’s really a bummer. All these years in staffing and I don’t know what that stuff means. How disheartening.
So, back to scrolling……faster this time, since I’m pretty sure I won’t understand what those other openings are either.
Done. How disappointing. Out of 35 positions, I don’t think I’m qualified for one of them. And I didn’t even get to the submittal part! How frustrating. There is a small amount of relief that I already have a job, and one that I love, but still. What if I didn’t? What if my unemployment was running out and I had to go through this every day? Tough, tough gig at this point.
My reaction will definitely be different when someone says they have been applying on line for positions. My sympathies, for sure. Fingers crossed, you have all the key words you need in your resume if you do understand the job description. Oh dear, the resume………
Really? Was it really that bad? So, I took a look. I went to a really large company headquartered here in Southfield (many of us have had to deal with their customer service department at one time or another) to look at their submittal process. First things first, I set out to find a position that would interest me.
Narrowing down the selection started off my conundrum. There are a couple of local offices, which one do I want? More than one? Does that increase my chances of being hired? OK, let’s search under all of the local offices…..
Next, which category? Hmmm, most of my background is in HR/Operations, but to not limit my options, let’s just go with all. Wouldn’t that be easier than trying to figure out which is the right category? So many companies have differing titles for the same position, I don’t know which way to go here. I’ll just do all of them.
Excellent. Narrowed it down to 35 openings. Wow, that’s a lot. More than I thought there would be! Scrolling…..don’t understand what those first two titles even mean, so scrolling…..scrolling….oh, there’s one that looks like it might be HR! Nope, some sort of legal compliance and I’m not an attorney, so scrolling.…scrolling…..
Another one that looks like it might be HR. I pull up the job description and read through. Well, at least as much as I can. Honestly, I don’t understand much of what they are asking me. I am not sure if I have that experience, since I don’t really know what it is. Bummer. Maybe I don’t have the experience I thought I did. Wow, that’s really a bummer. All these years in staffing and I don’t know what that stuff means. How disheartening.
So, back to scrolling……faster this time, since I’m pretty sure I won’t understand what those other openings are either.
Done. How disappointing. Out of 35 positions, I don’t think I’m qualified for one of them. And I didn’t even get to the submittal part! How frustrating. There is a small amount of relief that I already have a job, and one that I love, but still. What if I didn’t? What if my unemployment was running out and I had to go through this every day? Tough, tough gig at this point.
My reaction will definitely be different when someone says they have been applying on line for positions. My sympathies, for sure. Fingers crossed, you have all the key words you need in your resume if you do understand the job description. Oh dear, the resume………
Friday, September 2, 2011
Slow Down, You Moved Too Fast......
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/man-gets-tangled-up-in-new-hire-mix-up-20110901-wpms
The attached article will no doubt strike a chord with many. The excitement of the hiring manager’s voice when they pick up our phone call…the adrenaline when they say they got the job…and the disappointment of being told they don’t like us anymore. All these are too familiar a feeling when we are in the job market.
I said I have very strong feelings about this article (please read if you haven’t already since I’ll probably address it more than once!), and I do. I was really intrigued as to the big ‘mix up’, and then really disappointed to learn it was just because the manager thought he was someone else.
Wait…what?! The manager thought he was someone else?!?
Ok, Mr. Manager, I have a concern here. Several, actually. You answer the phone and a couple of things can happen at this point: you recognize the voice of the person you are talking to since you developed some sort of rapport when he interviewed with you; you ask for clarification or spelling of the last name to be sure you were talking to the right person (you said there were three applications in front of you, all with similar names); or you say you will get back to them, when you have a minute to talk, thereby controlling the situation and making sure you are doing the right thing.
So let’s start with the first point: you recognize the voice since you developed a rapport during the interview. Oh, you didn’t interview them in person? You were just hiring off the resume? Oh dear, that is a problem. So you had no idea who you were really talking to, and for a server in a restaurant you really should. As a matter of fact, when you interview a candidate and you love them for the job, you should have just offered it to them on the spot! That would have made for an awesome story for FOX 2 to pick up!
On the second point, you ask for clarification of the last name since you had multiple applications with similar last names. The only thing I could offer to you here is to pay closer attention to detail on this one. It IS a major screw up. I’ll bet if that was one of your servers making this sort of an error, they’d have heard about it, and not been allowed to offer an ‘opps’ as the response.
Behind door number three? Taking control of the situation and calling the candidate back. This would definitely have been my choice. It would have been controlled, exact, communicated clearly and correctly and executed with finesse and a level of respect.
The article in itself is a bummer for the guy. He quit a job he already had to take this one and he’s left out on the street, figuratively speaking. It wasn’t his fault the manager made a rash decision, but he’s paying the price for it. It would have been nice for the manager to hire him anyway, or to throw him a bone on another possible position, or even made a call to the former employer. Any one of those things would have been a nice thing to do.
The bigger picture problem here that I have is with the way the whole thing came down. A hiring manager should ALWAYS know who he’s making an offer to! I realize that sounds silly, but that’s exactly what happened here. Managers, or anyone in position with hiring authority, should always be in control of the situation. Phone calls should be made within the privacy of their office (where it is quiet and well, private!). Offers of work, regardless of the role, should be done with a level of professionalism. Only their application, or resume, should be in front of the hiring manager. There shouldn’t still be a stack at this point, unless you have multiple, yet identical, openings. There should be some amount of small talk with the candidate, perhaps enough to authenticate the identity of the person you’re speaking with, if necessary! None of these things should be exempt from the hiring process. Shame on those who make hiring decisions without going through their own version of the ‘triple lock down’. My fellow recruiters will know that, for certain, and probably grimaced when they read that. Duh, triple lock down, dude!
I wish anyone who ever hires had to be trained, or certified, in the process. Not just the ‘legal’ side, but the ‘human’ side, too. It’s not a skill set that is intrinsic for everyone. For most, it’s learned. For some, it’s a talent. For this restaurant manager, it was a tough lesson learned. Hopefully. For the next guys’ sake.
The attached article will no doubt strike a chord with many. The excitement of the hiring manager’s voice when they pick up our phone call…the adrenaline when they say they got the job…and the disappointment of being told they don’t like us anymore. All these are too familiar a feeling when we are in the job market.
I said I have very strong feelings about this article (please read if you haven’t already since I’ll probably address it more than once!), and I do. I was really intrigued as to the big ‘mix up’, and then really disappointed to learn it was just because the manager thought he was someone else.
Wait…what?! The manager thought he was someone else?!?
Ok, Mr. Manager, I have a concern here. Several, actually. You answer the phone and a couple of things can happen at this point: you recognize the voice of the person you are talking to since you developed some sort of rapport when he interviewed with you; you ask for clarification or spelling of the last name to be sure you were talking to the right person (you said there were three applications in front of you, all with similar names); or you say you will get back to them, when you have a minute to talk, thereby controlling the situation and making sure you are doing the right thing.
So let’s start with the first point: you recognize the voice since you developed a rapport during the interview. Oh, you didn’t interview them in person? You were just hiring off the resume? Oh dear, that is a problem. So you had no idea who you were really talking to, and for a server in a restaurant you really should. As a matter of fact, when you interview a candidate and you love them for the job, you should have just offered it to them on the spot! That would have made for an awesome story for FOX 2 to pick up!
On the second point, you ask for clarification of the last name since you had multiple applications with similar last names. The only thing I could offer to you here is to pay closer attention to detail on this one. It IS a major screw up. I’ll bet if that was one of your servers making this sort of an error, they’d have heard about it, and not been allowed to offer an ‘opps’ as the response.
Behind door number three? Taking control of the situation and calling the candidate back. This would definitely have been my choice. It would have been controlled, exact, communicated clearly and correctly and executed with finesse and a level of respect.
The article in itself is a bummer for the guy. He quit a job he already had to take this one and he’s left out on the street, figuratively speaking. It wasn’t his fault the manager made a rash decision, but he’s paying the price for it. It would have been nice for the manager to hire him anyway, or to throw him a bone on another possible position, or even made a call to the former employer. Any one of those things would have been a nice thing to do.
The bigger picture problem here that I have is with the way the whole thing came down. A hiring manager should ALWAYS know who he’s making an offer to! I realize that sounds silly, but that’s exactly what happened here. Managers, or anyone in position with hiring authority, should always be in control of the situation. Phone calls should be made within the privacy of their office (where it is quiet and well, private!). Offers of work, regardless of the role, should be done with a level of professionalism. Only their application, or resume, should be in front of the hiring manager. There shouldn’t still be a stack at this point, unless you have multiple, yet identical, openings. There should be some amount of small talk with the candidate, perhaps enough to authenticate the identity of the person you’re speaking with, if necessary! None of these things should be exempt from the hiring process. Shame on those who make hiring decisions without going through their own version of the ‘triple lock down’. My fellow recruiters will know that, for certain, and probably grimaced when they read that. Duh, triple lock down, dude!
I wish anyone who ever hires had to be trained, or certified, in the process. Not just the ‘legal’ side, but the ‘human’ side, too. It’s not a skill set that is intrinsic for everyone. For most, it’s learned. For some, it’s a talent. For this restaurant manager, it was a tough lesson learned. Hopefully. For the next guys’ sake.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Down But Not Out
Reading through Yahoo news this morning, I came across an article, and subsequent link, to this: Down But Not Out: http://downbutnotoutletters.tumblr.com/
It is a compilation of stories (in their own words) of those who have been unemployed for an extended period of time and what it means to them; short and long term effects.
Curiosity got the better of me and I started to read through the individual stories. Once I started, I couldn't stop. Each and every story is one I've heard before; no one story stood out from the others. Not to diminish their situations, it is just that none was unique. I'm not sure what I was looking for, maybe at least one story to say, "See, you could have done something different to change the outcome!", but I never found one. Each of these letters came from someone who wanted to work, and could work, but for reasons beyond their control, weren't doing so.
Instead, what I found were some very cold employers, a market that is severly disabled due to work going overseas, negative stereotypes of people who have been unemployed and a large section of corporate America who is not willing, for whatever reason, to help out those who are trying to do the right thing (mortgage modification, benefit plan adjustments, affording day care to continue to work, etc.).
Another similarity among the stories were the suggestions made by each and every person that were very valid. There is a big difference between a program working 'on paper' and how it works in real life. If these suggestions were made to those doing the hiring, creating and executing programs, foreclosing on homes, etc., we may come to some sort of agreement and be able to help some of these people get back to work.
For any employer reading this, please don't overlook someone who has been unemployed/underemployed at any point over the past 4 or so years. In most cases it was due to some sort of downsizing, layoff, change in ownership or outsourcing. There are some very good, qualified individuals available but we are overlooking them due to our own preconceived ideas of what constitutes a 'good' employee.
So, recruiters and hiring managers everywhere, please do your part to help out. Please give feedback as often as you can to candidates who you have interviewed but didn't receive an offer from you. Please let them know if there is anything they can do next time. Education, age, drive distance, etc, are all poor reasons for not hiring someone. Take a look at their skills and their personalities. Hire people who are qualified and will fit into your company. THESE are the people who will be your most dedicated employees. THESE are the people who aren't going to come to you telling you they are going to quit unless you come up with a counteroffer. THESE are the people who will make sure your clients/customers are taken care of on your behalf. THESE are the people who truly understand the value of the job and will work extra hard to stay employed. THESE are the people on which you can grow and thrive in your business.
You know you will be able to count on them. After all, they are "Down But Not Out".
It is a compilation of stories (in their own words) of those who have been unemployed for an extended period of time and what it means to them; short and long term effects.
Curiosity got the better of me and I started to read through the individual stories. Once I started, I couldn't stop. Each and every story is one I've heard before; no one story stood out from the others. Not to diminish their situations, it is just that none was unique. I'm not sure what I was looking for, maybe at least one story to say, "See, you could have done something different to change the outcome!", but I never found one. Each of these letters came from someone who wanted to work, and could work, but for reasons beyond their control, weren't doing so.
Instead, what I found were some very cold employers, a market that is severly disabled due to work going overseas, negative stereotypes of people who have been unemployed and a large section of corporate America who is not willing, for whatever reason, to help out those who are trying to do the right thing (mortgage modification, benefit plan adjustments, affording day care to continue to work, etc.).
Another similarity among the stories were the suggestions made by each and every person that were very valid. There is a big difference between a program working 'on paper' and how it works in real life. If these suggestions were made to those doing the hiring, creating and executing programs, foreclosing on homes, etc., we may come to some sort of agreement and be able to help some of these people get back to work.
For any employer reading this, please don't overlook someone who has been unemployed/underemployed at any point over the past 4 or so years. In most cases it was due to some sort of downsizing, layoff, change in ownership or outsourcing. There are some very good, qualified individuals available but we are overlooking them due to our own preconceived ideas of what constitutes a 'good' employee.
So, recruiters and hiring managers everywhere, please do your part to help out. Please give feedback as often as you can to candidates who you have interviewed but didn't receive an offer from you. Please let them know if there is anything they can do next time. Education, age, drive distance, etc, are all poor reasons for not hiring someone. Take a look at their skills and their personalities. Hire people who are qualified and will fit into your company. THESE are the people who will be your most dedicated employees. THESE are the people who aren't going to come to you telling you they are going to quit unless you come up with a counteroffer. THESE are the people who will make sure your clients/customers are taken care of on your behalf. THESE are the people who truly understand the value of the job and will work extra hard to stay employed. THESE are the people on which you can grow and thrive in your business.
You know you will be able to count on them. After all, they are "Down But Not Out".
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Wait, what?! Did I read that right?!
Please read this article before you read this blog post…..
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43655299/ns/business-personal_finance/
OK, deep breath….First, I’d like to clarify what I just read….a CEO in New Zealand thinks that ‘menstruation makes women less productive in the workplace than men”. AND, he’s the CEO of New Zealand’s Employers and Manufacturers Association?
So, let me back up for a second. This man, Alasdair Thompson has probably picked up a plethora of tidbits throughout his career, including workplace trending and patterns, issues, concerns, and many more. He must have some sort of insight into the behaviors within the work place, right?
Mr. Thompson asserts that women earn less because ‘once a month they have sick problems’ and that women take time off to go home to look after their children. Wow. Not sure what to say about all that. Actually, he’s right in part. Women do go home to look after their children when necessary. And most have a monthly cycle (I am certainly not going to assert that they miss work due to it, heck, dare I suggest we are more productive and make quicker decisions then?). But to equate that with earning less because of it? No way, buddy.
Interestingly, he also says that women take the most ‘sick time’; presumably to care for their family. I have a suggestion for Mr. Thompson……maybe you should take a look at the amount of time men take off for things like golf weekends, or sporting events, or hunting/fishing trips, or ‘guy’ weekends, or because the fantasy football draft will take hours and they need to get started at 3:00, or to BABYSIT their kids because the wife is gone. Oh dear….please don’t get me started.
I’m not picking on the men, mind you. I just wanted to suggest that the ‘time off’ scale would be equal, if not swayed the other way, if we include ALL time off, not just ‘sick time’. Regardless, as is stated in the last line of the article, that organization needed to take action to ensure ‘businesses understand discrimination is not in their interests and needed to be addressed.”
Mr. Thompson was subsequently fired from his position. His company was right to fire him. I just hope it wasn’t too late; the damage may have already been done.
Afterthought......In irony of ironies, what if his new boss is a woman? Would his biases come into play here? More misconceptions, maybe? Demi Moore in Disclosure, perhaps? As long as it’s not Michael Douglas in Falling Down, I think we’re OK.
Exactly how far away is New Zealand, anyway?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43655299/ns/business-personal_finance/
OK, deep breath….First, I’d like to clarify what I just read….a CEO in New Zealand thinks that ‘menstruation makes women less productive in the workplace than men”. AND, he’s the CEO of New Zealand’s Employers and Manufacturers Association?
So, let me back up for a second. This man, Alasdair Thompson has probably picked up a plethora of tidbits throughout his career, including workplace trending and patterns, issues, concerns, and many more. He must have some sort of insight into the behaviors within the work place, right?
Mr. Thompson asserts that women earn less because ‘once a month they have sick problems’ and that women take time off to go home to look after their children. Wow. Not sure what to say about all that. Actually, he’s right in part. Women do go home to look after their children when necessary. And most have a monthly cycle (I am certainly not going to assert that they miss work due to it, heck, dare I suggest we are more productive and make quicker decisions then?). But to equate that with earning less because of it? No way, buddy.
Interestingly, he also says that women take the most ‘sick time’; presumably to care for their family. I have a suggestion for Mr. Thompson……maybe you should take a look at the amount of time men take off for things like golf weekends, or sporting events, or hunting/fishing trips, or ‘guy’ weekends, or because the fantasy football draft will take hours and they need to get started at 3:00, or to BABYSIT their kids because the wife is gone. Oh dear….please don’t get me started.
I’m not picking on the men, mind you. I just wanted to suggest that the ‘time off’ scale would be equal, if not swayed the other way, if we include ALL time off, not just ‘sick time’. Regardless, as is stated in the last line of the article, that organization needed to take action to ensure ‘businesses understand discrimination is not in their interests and needed to be addressed.”
Mr. Thompson was subsequently fired from his position. His company was right to fire him. I just hope it wasn’t too late; the damage may have already been done.
Afterthought......In irony of ironies, what if his new boss is a woman? Would his biases come into play here? More misconceptions, maybe? Demi Moore in Disclosure, perhaps? As long as it’s not Michael Douglas in Falling Down, I think we’re OK.
Exactly how far away is New Zealand, anyway?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)