Many of our longtime Intramuralist readers are aware that my professional background is in human resources. I was privileged to spend several years consulting after a career working for a highly respected hospitality management company. While the “semi” of my oft repeated “semi-humble” status would never allow me to say I was “the best,” I do believe I was trained by them (… thanks, JG).
Over the course of the last several years, no less, consistent with the progression, digression, or whatever of society you wish to call it, the HR field has changed significantly. There was always a plethora of forms… taxes, immigration, demographic info, etc. HR directors ensure the company has all their ducks, details, and doctrines all in a row.
Human resources also oversees all new hires. We meet, greet, they apply, we interview. Sometimes there’s a second interview. In the hospitality industry, typically the first interview is with HR alone and the second with the probable future supervisor. If all looks good, we would then check the person’s references, ensuring they are who they say they are — or are how they represent themselves.
But a funny thing happened during these years of progression/digression…
It used to be when I’d call former employers, I’d ask them to tell me a little bit about the their former employee’s performance record… What is this person like? How’d they do? How was their performance? What were their strengths… weaknesses? How did they interact with their peers? … supervisors? … subordinates?
And near the end of our call, I would ask, “Why did they leave? Are they eligible for re-hire?”
This process was always helpful — gleaning information in order to best discern who to hire and who to not. Every HR professional wants the right person in the right position — making sure skill set, gifting, and experience are commensurate with the job. If the person excelled in a recent job, it makes sense to know that, thereby potentially affirming a perceived future fit. If a person struggled, it made sense to know that, too, discerning any applicable relevance.
This process, however, is no longer routinely, fully in use. Due to the subjectivity that may enter into an assessment of past performance, companies found themselves liable if their record or perspective painted any picture of a past employee as anything less than positive. Even if the assessment was true — that the employee, for example, struggled getting along with others, was late, rude, had a temper, stole, refused to follow the rules, etc. — even though this would be helpful for a future employer to know in discerning fit — applicants sued past employers because this made them look something less than wonderful.
That’s one thing I perceive in this progression/digression of society… we have trouble when we paint a picture of something less than wonderful.
We keep feeding a festering culture that is fearful of making another look bad. We like to paint the picture — often making it more positive than it really is.
I chuckled last week receiving one of those “proud parent of my honor roll kid” stickers from my son’s school. Yes, my son, JT, does very well academically. The sticker, though, was for my youngest — the one with special needs on a modified curriculum.
I love it — I’m thankful they want to honor each of my kids, but it’s ok to be truthful and accurate about the strengths and weaknesses in each of our lives. There’s no need to worry if he looks something less than wonderful (…I, for one, find him incredibly wonderful!). But there is no need to omit details and be so politically correct.
In our society, unless a person is perceived as a bigot, racist, or some other derogatory, socially unacceptable position — our progressive/digressive culture can’t always handle the truth.
Why does it matter to call something what it is and respectfully share something perceived less than wonderful? Because then we can wrestle with reality — and can make a better assessment of what should happen next.
Respectfully…
AR