The Desk of Yvonne LaRose, Consultant

It's interesting that we talk about harassment. It's interesting because we simply do lip service to the matter. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of the thing, few actually do anything about it.

At last year's ERE Expo, a fellow attendee and I shared a bench outside one of the workshops. As we traded quips about the few words of the presenter that oozed into our space, we also talked about many things. One was how to identify the abuser. He said there was a pre-screening test being developed that seems to hold a high degree of accuracy in identifying the abusive personality.

In the years that I've been developing expertise on this subject, I've started seeing how the abuser turns the tables so that it appears their target is the offender. They then gain sympathy from their audience and support. The outside parties then join, in some way, the punishment and add to the persecution.

So well do I remember the words of one supervisor who told their employee to simply ignore the abuser and not to have any contact with them, not to even talk about them. (I guess the situation was supposed to evaporate.) There was never an investigation. There was no attempt to get to the truth of what was happening.

Yet another situation arose where a worker was extremely poor at communication and even worse at follow through. They would promise to do something and then simply wander off into the ethosphere. They would return and follow up on what was supposed to be done; but instead of within the designated timeframe, performance was delivered some 8 hours (or two or three days) later. Meanwhile, the person relying on the promise to perform missed some personal and business deadlines, some of which became life threatening. Again, the supervisor defended the lackadaisical worker and blamed the one who relied on promised performance. No investigation was made into what happened. Excuses were made to endorse the failed performance.

Now, to later collect a reference check from these managers, it would appear that the dim light bulbs were stellar performers. On the other hand, the other worker involved in the situations was a problem and caused undue hardship on the other. We have a responsibility to make certain of the veracity of references and the validity of the one giving the recommendation. It could be that the evaluator has an agenda.

It seems that harassment and abuse are to be tolerated and even accepted in recruiting offices. (Both of the above scenarios were in a recruiting industry environment.) They are part of the standard culture for the recruiting industry. So much for duty to maintain a safe work environment. It appears recruiters are exempt from negligence laws.

I don't understand this. We have AB 1825 that talks about training supervisors (albeit in companies of 50 or more) and staff about harassment. And the harassment issues are more than just sexual harassment -- it's all forms of the abuse. Yet we simply cannot bring ourselves to face the fact that it exists in this industry. Apparently this is part of the "big game" and no matter where a person goes, it's expected that abuse and harassment will thrive, like mold and fungus in a shower, and just take over anything and everything.

It's also difficult to understand how individuals in this profession who choose to overlook abuse and harassment can truly deliver on the promise of presenting a qualified candidate, especially one of executive skills, if the recruiter is not capable of discerning that the candidate should not be a person who will drive away (or kill) the team instead of the enemy. If we in the recruiting industry cannot keep hostile, inept, and toxic personalities out of our own offices, how in the world can our clients expect us to do so for them?

ethics, harassment, safe workplace, hostility,
Small Business Health Insurance Quotes