Groups
ASK Maureen (Sourcing/Research HELP) Discussions « back to group
-
Listening to Penelope Trunk?s (AKA Brazen Careerist (I wouldn?t want to miss any trackbacks/chances by leaving anything out) riveting ?Catfight with Penelope Trunk? interview in the Recruiting Lounge I was amused to hear her assert that the really cool twenty-something females at the top of their games handle sexual harassment in the workplace from their bosses by saying, ?Whatever. This coming year I expect a $150,000 raise in my total compensation package.? I bet they get $75k with that attitude. You go, girls.Which made me think of the ?What Have You Done [To] Me Lately? syndrome in human nature. Penelope suggested that smart women turn situations to their advantage, as in my demonstration above. I suppose it?s a kind of blackmail, but hey, who pointed the gun? Penelope further states that those who don?t agree with this theory are in need of therapy. Tough sister love but it makes a kind of weird sense.
You go, girl. ****** Do something today you don't think you can do.
Maureen Sharib Telephone Names Sourcer/MagicMethod Trainer 513 899 9628 TechTrak.com, Inc. maureen at techtrak.com http://www.techtrak.com
38 replies
Log in or register to post a reply.
-
Very insightful Joshua, thank you.
It is true what you say about maximizing utility - on an individual level at least and it goes hand in hand with maximizing liberty but that is another discussion entirely.
Have a Merry Christmas.
-
David, yes, Sun Tzu is back! I was waiting for him to make his appearance, fashionably late as he is. He must have come down from some "precipitous heights" to bear down on our harrassment subject!
Thank you and in all honesty, Merry Xmas. I'm always amused at your posts which involve an Economist's take, much which revolve around maximizing utility. Personally, I'm not an Economist, but I am a believer in much of Keynes's work. Outside of that, Steven Levitt's book, Freakonomics, is pretty awesome . . . plus a great stocking stuffer!
I'm sold on his new book coming out, SuperFreakonomics, for the simple reason that it will include a study of the use of money by capuchin monkeys.
-
Joshua,
You hold up these women and question the relevance of them addressing women in their 20s. Are you trying to say that people can only hold a legitimate opinion on situation in which they are directly involved or on groups to which they presently belong?
Can only drug addicts discuss the perils of substance abuse? Can only young women proffer advice to young women? Perhaps only former military can have an opinion on war? Do I have to be a murder victim to have an opinion on homicide?
I find you are most interesting when you address the substance of the debate rather than question the credentials of those involved. I will concede- that was text book "ad hominem" followed up with a well executed "argumentum ad verecundiam". Good form.
This being the holiday season, I am delighted to grant your request for a Sun Tzu quote relevant to the subject at hand:
- Ch 4
In ancient times, those skilled in warfare make themselves invincible and then wait for the enemy to become vulnerable.
Being invincible depends on oneself, but the enemy becoming vulnerable depends on himself.
Therefore, those skilled in warfare can make themselves invincible, but cannot necessarily cause the enemy to be vulnerable.
Therefore it is said one may know how to win but cannot necessarily do it.
One takes on invincibility defending, one takes on vulnerability attacking. - (http://www.sonshi.com/sun4.html)
-
Penelope is 41? Wow. So, we have (2) 40s females and one Baby Boomer. My apologies to everyone for mis-stating Penelope's age :) I admit this is surprising! Since I have made this mistake, let me try to correct this. It looks to me like we have 3 women (Karen Mattonen = early 40s, Penelope Trunk = early 40s, and Maureen Bauer-Sharib = mid 50s) . . . meaning we have 3 women over the age of 40 talking about whether sexual harrassment is a big deal for women in their 20s? Somebody call the WSJ - this is great!!!
I'm still sitting here waiting on a Sun Tzu quote on sexual harrassment :) Doesn't he have something to say on this? :) The suspense is killing me!
My guess is that Minnijean Brown-Trickey, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Anita Hill, Susan B. Anthony (and maybe even Hillary Clinton!) would be (or would have been) more than willing to debate you on this ;) You think you have it bad on ERE within the female recruiter community that disagree with you? Imagine if you were to step into the big leagues with the above women who fought for your rights as a woman in the first place! (and thank God for them, by the way).
-
As a new member of this group I have read this discussion with great enthusiasm. I am hearing many emotions and professional opinions all justified in their own right. What I am not hearing in this discussion is that this article should be viewed as a learning piece of information. As Recruiters we all are aware different generations have different ways of handling specific situations. But we all know this right?
What is being missed here is the freedom of speech. Whether we agree with the language or the way a 20 year old handles herself in a Sexual Harassment case or the ethical implication, we should never suggest that a subject should not be written about or discussed. Voice your opinions and believes so we can learn from each other.
Thank you for this forum where I can voice my opinion! Gina Lupo Senior Recruiter hrgl@optonline.net 631-754-0473
-
You're seeding misinformation, Joshua. In this age of transparency and authenticity it seems absurd to not tell you my real name. My real name is not Penelope Trunk. Well, in fact, it is Penelope Trunk. Sort of. At any rate, my name is definitely a lesson in personal branding. My name started out Adrienne Roston. It?s fun to write that because if you Google that name, you will find only professional beach volleyball statistics. Adrienne Roston United States Vital Statistics Birth Date December 10, 1966 (41 years old) Resides Los Angeles, CA Height 5'10"
She's 41, Joshua, not in her late 20s.
For those of you interested in further reading about this subject, and in respect to those here on ERE who are tired of this vituperative string, go here.
-
Maureen,
I'm glad you have tried to set the record straight. I think you have two separate issues here. You have a group that takes exception to the content of the interview. You have another group, of which I am one, of the people that don?t think it has anything to do with this forum ?Ask Maureen (sourcing/research HELP).? I don?t personally know you and can?t begin to speculate on your motivations but the topic clearly had no reason to be included in this discussion group.
I don?t think that as a group member I should be subjected to something so clearly ?off-topic.? I value membership to this group and the advice and information it has provided and I hope it gets back on topic. To those who think that since you started the group you have some right to take it where you want, they are mistaken. I also take exception to those that think you have every right to continuously self promote for the same reason. The community you created is now larger than that and we have the right to ask that the content be pertinent to the membership.
Maureen, you seemed to endorse illegal behavior. To me, you put your personal ethics and as such, your business ethics, in question. Now, I for one minute, don?t believe you to be unethical but why even go there? Let?s get this discussion back on track and provide the value this group once provided.
If you have the overwhelming need to talk about things unrelated, set up a new discussion group and let people subscribe to that. If you choose to continue to dilute this discussion group, then those who don?t want to be associated with it can certainly start their own, I hope that doesn?t become necessary.
Have a Happy Holiday!
-
In a hopeful attempt to flip this conversation to something positive, here's a thought on Penelope's discussion with Karen:
I find it disturbing that Penelope states over 70% of females in their 20s have been harassed (what is the sample size and demographic makeup of the data set?) When I hear these kind of stats, I wonder how harassment is defined these days among the different generations. In all honesty, you won’t find too many situations where you have generations agreeing absolutely in our society – in Penelope’s and Karen’s discussion, it was more about Penelope saying that it didn’t bother her personally and that women “should just get over it”, while Karen did not think that this mentality was a move in the right direction for women as a whole. What I find interesting is we have 2 generations (Karen in her early 40s and Penelope in her late 20s), with a Baby Boomer (that started this post) here agreeing with Penelope. I do know that most Baby Boomers I know would side with Karen - Baby Boomers that think sexual harrassment is normal and should be benefitted from would be a good topic for a WSJ article! Mark my words that if a Baby Boomer were to write an article of this nature, it would get printed somewhere. I would comment on this, but I’m not a woman and therefore, who am I to state how a woman should feel?
That being said, this situation here reminds me of an HBO documentary I recently watched on Little Rock, AR’s continuing racial problems (“Little Rock Central – 50 Years Later”). Minnijean Brown-Trickey, one of the nine African-American students (‘Little Rock 9”) who desegregated Little Rock Central High School in 1957, has a part in the end where she is speaking to a group of students – she explains how much that she went through (you may have seen the video clip of her walking into the school), and how many lives of the African American community were lost for civil rights and the desegregation of our schools. She breaks down into tears in the end as she looks upon a class that has naturally segregated itself, in spite of all her efforts and all that was lost to change this (black students on the left side of the room and white students on the right side of the room). The children are obviously oblivious to why she is breaking down, as they cannot appreciate what she is truly saying. In a post interview with HBO, she states, “I wish I hadn't known how inequality had consistently been built into all social relations from 3/5th persons, Dred Scott, Plessey v. Ferguson. With that background, Brown didn't stand a chance against white-only suburbs, Jim Crow or the other aspects of society that persuaded us all that this thinking was "natural" and simply was the "way things are."
What I’m getting at here is that the younger generation cannot always appreciate what previous generations went through to establish equality. I think we’re walking a fine line here to say that sexual harassment “is just life and women need to get over it.” My statement is not gender-specific, it’s more societal in nature. To quote Minnijean, I would hope that young women haven’t been taught to think that harassment is “natural” and simply the “way things are.” I’m also happy that in this society, women have the right to vote, don’t have to wear a Burka, and don’t have to walk 5 steps behind me in fear of being stoned to death if they don’t.
As a sidenote, everyone here should keep in mind that we need to follow the money trail – Penelope makes money by going against the grain and letting the chips fall where they may. Her role is to seed controversy – she might not even agree with what she’s saying as she’s often laughing when she finds a hot topic. If you find yourself posting personal reasons that Penelope or the original poster here are “good people”, then you’re drinking their Kool Aid and being manipulated once again. They’ve got you right where they want you . . . and you don’t even know it.
-
I have enjoyed Maureen's participation and sharing of her vast knowledge of sourcing. I found her willing to refer to other sources and other professional sourcers - I think she is fair and open. Maureen is a great writer, keen oberver, and a creator of learning modules. Who else has those qualities and is contributing to these forums?
I have no problem with her self-promotion of her talents in sourcing - she is a visionary and constant contributor to tips on telephone sourcing. Wihtout her self-promotions, I would not have known to use her services in the past.
If you don't need her services, you can ignore her promos and move on to Maureen's other posts in the forums - which are always helpful. She helped me (offline) with some problems with my teenage grandaughter.
"Let the lady sing. Buy a drink for her... and the piano player."
Howard Frankel
-
I have been reading these posts and this is one of the most ridiculous discussions I have ever read. I really did not want to put my "two cents" in until I read Melissa's comments this morning.
Yesterday, I called Maureen to give her my support. I love this group because Maureen writes well and gives information that is pertinent to my business.
Has anyone ever spoke with Maureen? If you did you would know she is one of the kindest, warmest people you will ever meet. It is not surprising that she is one of the best sourcers in the industry.
This group is called Ask Maureen; guess who started it?
Maureen is a small business owner and of course, she uses this as an advertising venue... Why not? You can ask her any question and she will you an answer for free !
I don't think it is fair to judge Maureen's morals and ethics on this sexual harrassment posting. Perhaps she was off track; but I think it would have been more fair to ask her what she was smoking that day.... but to attack her on a professional level is not justified.
I think is time to move on from this discussion and focus on a Happy New Year !!!
Warmest Regards,
Jody Davis Jody Davis and Associates
-
Allow me to set THIS record straight. I thought that interview was extraordinarily good and was why I posted it. ****** Do something today you don't think you can do.
-
Mark,
I think that is a stretch - nobody listened to the interview. Karen is something of an expert on the subject and can handle herself just fine - which I thought was apparent after listening to the interview.
-
What everyone seems to be missing here...completely...is that the original post in this thread was nothing more than another feeble attempt to use ERE to somehow portray Karen Mattonen in a negative light, without mentioning her name, and as usual, without her having an opportunity to reply or defend herself in anyway. Those that know me know I tend to stay out of these frays. They are time-wasters, are counter productive, and really have nothing to do with recruiting or sourcing, however, whenever I see something like this going on I always think...can?t we all just get along???
-
Stephanie,
That is a very good point except that is not at all what Penelope is talking about. The problem with this thread has been that people are having an immediate reaction to the "b-word" when really, as described by Penelope, it is more of a euphemism than an overt action.
Look - there are similar situations that we already find socially acceptable because we use a different word:
1. Debt collectors: Pay your bills or we will sue you / damage your credit. 2. Police: "we know you did it - name your conspirators and we will give you a break, otherwise, you go down for the whole thing." 3. Unions to employers: give us a better deal or we strike 4. Plaintiff: settle out of court or we will add a couple zeros and take you for everything 5. Cold War: Don't nuke us or we will nuke you 6. (just for you HR people) HR to Riffed: sign away your right to sue us and we will give you a nice severance package!
So a hypothetical incident between a Sales Manager and an Account Executive traveling to a convention:
SM: I hear the hotel has a great bar... AE: Thats great, but I don't think I will have time, I have to finish this presentation and get to bed. SM: Yeah, sounds good - you know last time I was here, a big ice storm knocked the heat was out and it got pretty cold at night AE: wow, I really hate cold weather SM: don't worry, if it happens again, we can... find a way to stay warm at night... AE: whatever (eye roll, head shake) AE: Look, I have been meaning to ask you about the Hyperion account - ever since Todd left, it's been floundering and I think I should take it over. SM: uh... you have to be a Senior AE to take on a house account that lar- AE: -yes, but you have seen my work in the office and in the field and [just a hint of derision] I think you will agree I have earned it by now - especially after this trip.
Felonious Blackmailer? Not beyond a reasonable doubt. Assertive employee exploiting a boss in a weak moment?
Now, what is there to report? That the boss was concerned for the comfort and safety of a subordinate? Perhaps the subordinate was... too assertive in seeking advancement (terrible quality in an AE!). Of course not - if they were, the boss would just say no.
That the kind of power play we are talking about. If you blink, you will miss it. Not 1 in 10 people are likely able to pull it off so there will still be plenty of those who go the traditional route.
Some of us here need to learn that it is entirely possible to entertain and discuss an idea without agreeing with it.
-
I think its not that "you go girl" is slang, its that it is encouraging illegal (blackmail) and immoral behavior. I can't ever imagine being connected with a company that would allow such behavior. As part of Human Resources, its our feduciary responsibility to protect the organization from lawsuits. Accepting the terms of blackmail and cutting a check like this is incomprehensible to me. I would resign my position before the ink on the check dried.
Steph
-
Welcome back Joshua, while we do not always agree, I appreciate your insight and point of view, you always have something interesting to add.
Melissa, I appreciate that you did not care for the phrase "you go girl" - it might be slang, but slang can be a legitimate form of communication, even in a professional setting. I guess we will have to agree to disagree - I am sorry you felt you had to move on because of this.
Sometimes the most difficult, delicate and controversial topics are the ones that we can learn the most from - both about ourselves and about other people in the industry. I hope we can continue to have thought provoking discussions on ere without getting too personal when we do not see eye to eye with others.
-
After a long hiatus, I have returned to ERE for the awesome content and outstanding contributors. Then, I saw this . . . a representation of why I needed a break for a little while.
Which, after thought, made me think of the following post a few months ago:
"ERE.net is home to a large professional community - today there are over 50,000 members of the ERE Network, and they come to the site for the amazing professional education and networking opportunities that the community and ERE staff have developed over the years.
Too often, what they find are personal disputes and squabbles, and it is usually a small group of people at the center. These beefs take up huge amounts of time and energy for those involved, and sometimes the personal history and recriminations go back for years.
The arguments between our members are none of my business, as long as they take place in private or on other web sites. They become my business when those personal arguments disrupt the conversations and flow of useful professional information to the community on ERE.net.
The thing is, the other 49,990 members of the network don't care about these personal disputes. At best, they find them uninteresting. At worst, they regard them as annoyances that distract from the true reason that they visit ERE - to learn about the profession of recruiting. Put another way, the silent majority wants to talk about substance, not get sucked into a few members' personality conflicts.
Last week - for the second time in ERE's nearly nine-year history - I made the decision to ban one of our active members from our site because she demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disrupting conversation and engaging in personal disputes on the public discussion boards on ERE.net."
The two lines that stick out to me are: 1. "Too often, what they find are personal disputes and squabbles, and it is usually a small group of people at the center." AND 2. "I made the decision to ban one of our active members from our site because she demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disrupting conversation and engaging in personal disputes on the public discussion boards on ERE.net."
This made me remember why I needed a break: Some individuals have carte blanche to market, say, and do whatever they want with no fear of repurcussion. Call me crazy, but it still looks like there is the same "small group of people at the center" and an ongoing "pattern of disrupting conversation and engaging in personal disputes on the public discussion boards on ERE.net" Maybe it's just gone unnoticed once again, but I doubt it as this post is the #1 'Active Discussion Topic' on 'What's Hot on ERE'.
That being said, this is still an incredible place to network and gain exposure to the 99.9% of good content and people here.
-
Andrew:
What's worse? The actual time people spent responding or the time you took to read them all? :-)
Have a great holiday season.
Jim
-
It's amazing to see how much free time everyone has to reply to this topic over and over and over with such lengthy responses.
-
Other LinkedIn discussions related to this subject:
Whistleblowers' motives - sources of information. Do you know good ones?
Harassment in the US - what options do we have?
I'm interested in knowing how many companies do employee compliance training (e.g. sexual harassment, diversity, customer service)? If not, why? If so, how do you go about delivering and managing it? Thanks all!
What is office appropriate clothing?
-
Well said Leron.
Again, not advocating blackmail which is illegal.
In this topic we address 3 standards of behavior: legal, moral and ethical. I think we can agree that some actions fall within 1 or two of those spheres while falling out side of others.
It is not really helpful to cry for moral action without talking about cost. Oh yes, we can all act with moral, legal and ethical integrity when it does not cost us, but how much are you willing to pay to adhere to those standards?
A promotion? A relationship? Your freedom? Your entire net worth? Your life?
I think it is hollow to cry for blind adherence to any standard without thinking things through.
The classic example is that of course it is wrong to steal, but would you steal to feed your starving children? If you say yes, then you agree that all of those values are situational and conditional.
Am I some kind of "if it feels good, do it" self serving moral relativist? not even close, I hold myself accountable to a strict code and I believe there are things are worth losing everything for.
I will stop, I am already sensing the stern looks from the absolutists.
-
David, your thoughts are correct but misplaced. You said:
"....I am personally very disappointed that of all people, those in staffing are, by and large, unwilling to discuss this subject.....Of course it is controversial, of course it makes us uncomfortable - it is not a pleasant subject and there are now winners when sexual harassment happens....So far, all I have seen is derision without any details. I think this topic is interesting and professionally relevant."
I don't think anyone is arguing that the TOPIC of sexual harassment isn't relevant in our field, of course it goes without saying that IT IS RELEVANT.
The contention is the obvious condoning and even outright endorsing of a position within that topic, which in my estimation is one which is significantly lacking in morality.
I know what you're going to say...that the harasser is being just as immoral if not more so by committing the act in the first place, right? That may be true. But I ask you:
Does someone's immorality CAUSE yours?
Are your actions not YOUR choices?
Does someone else's unscrupulous morals justify bankrupting your own?
If you decide to take the low road, is it really not your fault?
If you decide to bankrupt your morality because of something someone did to you, are you just using that excuse to make you feel better about yourself while looking forward to the payoff?
If you decide to take the low road, at least admit to yourself that you know it's the low road.
Be honest with yourself if nothing else.
-
Melissa,
Sexual harassment is a civil tort, not a criminal offense. The only recourse is through civil action and the only means our legal system has to administer civil justice is to do it financially. If someone did experience sexual harassment, they might have their career interrupted or destroyed or they might be otherwise unable to work - all situations which result in actual financial damages and situations which warrant financial penalties since we can't throw people in jail or administer an equivalent level of emotional trauma as retribution, we have to live with mere restitution.
Mario,
I am not advocating blackmail of any kind, merely counting it in the small inventory of possible responses to harassment and trying to understand under what circumstances someone might take a given course of action so please do not put words in my mouth.
The one thing I would like to point out is that HR departments currently own the voice of this topic and what is never mentioned is that HR does not have the best interests of the victim in mind when they deal with sexual harassment.
That is an absolutely indisputable fact. HR exists to serve the interest of business. The VP of HR has a fiduciary duty to serve the interest of the corporation first and the interest of the victim only to the degree that it... helps the business.
Seen another way, the ideal outcome for the victim is justice and restitution. The ideal outcome for the business revolves around cost containment, damage control and PR/image management.
If the harasser is a high performing employee, not only does the business stand to lose money to a lawsuit, but they also stand to lose a high performing asset (some sales people bring in millions in revenue).
As a corporate recruiter, corporate employ and member of HR, many of you are ethically bound to act accordingly. This is not to say that corporate recruiters and HR people do not find this just as distasteful as everyone else, of course you are all decent people, but it is very possible you could find your ethics at odds with your morals.
I would not envy someone in that situation.
-
I signed up on ERE last week and am speechless over this forum. I am not sure what is more disturbing, Maureen's original post or the response by David Rees!!
I gather by reading this string that Maureen has a good reputation - but maybe due to my bad timing, I am considering unsubscribing from this discussion board.
As far as David Rees' post, blackmail is not acceptable no matter how you are "wired"...HR professional or not. This is a recruiter's website. Believe it or not, recruiters are part of the HR function of any organization and are expected to behave ethically.
I am, however, pleased to see that many others feel my viewpoint and have rebutted these two posts. I am glad to see that many of the people on this forum ARE "wired" correctly.
-
There are several issues I have with this discussion.
1) It has nothing to do with the blog.. "sourcing/resarch. Please stick with what this thread is supposed to be. There are other on-line venues where this is more appropriate. I think this is really the point everyone is making. We don't read this thread for this subject matter.
2) The action advocated here is illegal and I don't mean to seem provincial here, but I was raised that "TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT".
3) Maureen, if you want to play politics or labor law get your JD or run for office.
4) The sexual harassment thing runs both ways. I've been in a work place where it was reversed. Yes it is uncomfortable for those involved (directly or collaterally), but you are either part of the problem or part of the solution.
Semper Fi!
Let's keep future discussions on-topic and professional.
-
LinkedIn Q&A discussion on sexual harassment here. ****** Do something today you don't think you can do.
-
I think the confusion here might be that just a small part of this interview is highlighted above, and doesn't really reflect the entire conversation or Penelope Trunk in the best light unfortunately.
Listen to the podcast before making any judgements. It is actually a fascinating, lively and well thought out discussion between Jim, Karen and Penelope. Good points are made by all and I think it was a valuable discussion.
-
This is a forum for recruiters and HR people and those who are interested in understanding more about how careers are built so that we may properly advise and direct those we work with.
I am personally very disappointed that of all people, those in staffing are, by and large, unwilling to discuss this subject.
Of course it is controversial, of course it makes us uncomfortable - it is not a pleasant subject and there are now winners when sexual harassment happens.
Suppose you are recruiting someone and you develop a level of trust with them that confide that one reason they want a new job is due to sexual harassment of some kind. What would you tell them? How would you advise them? Are you aware of the social, professional and legal consequences of the different options they could pursue?
So far, all I have seen is derision without any details. I think this topic is interesting and professionally relevant.
Michael Cowon - you said: "This post was unnecessary. It's the equivalent of a male recruiter posting information on how to trade personal services for placement. NO?"
It is absolutely NOT the equivalent to a male recruiter posting how to obtain (lets be grownups here) sexual favors for placing someone.
If we are doing analogies, this is like someone trying to mug someone and ending up disarmed and beaten up with their own weapon.
Sexual harassment victims do not choose to be put in that position - a position which, if you will read my previous post, has no good options for an acceptable outcome.
In my opinion, when someone is being victimized, the minimally acceptable outcome is one where the victim is unharmed and the assailant is not enriched. The optimal outcome is one where the victim recovers actual and compensatory damages and the assailant pays actual, compensatory and punitive costs.
Given that standard, I do not see any acceptable options for a person who is sexually harassed.
Do you?
-
Ah, David, the voice of reason... ;) ****** Do something today you don't think you can do.
-
Wow. As someone with only 5-6 years in recruiting, I come to ERE on a daily basis to feed the information pipeline in my office. Generally it is anecdotal, informative or sometimes mind blowing (in a professional, ideas, kind of way).
This post was unnecessary. It's the equivalent of a male recruiter posting information on how to trade personal services for placement. NO?
Maureen, do you seriously condone this? I'm glad to see the rest of the forum does not because if that was standard I would start looking for another line of work.
Proof reading isn't always about spelling . . . .
-
I am downloading the podcast to listen to before I comment in detail.
It seems she is advocating turning sexual harassment into career leverage and it seems that idea is offensive to some or many people.
It occurs to me that if you are experiencing sexual harassment , you have the following options:
1. give in 2. quit your job 3. try to ignore it 4. file a lawsuit/complaint 5. leverage/blackmail
Are there other options I am not thinking of?
In the great scheme of things, I think we would all prefer that it never happen. We would also like it if when it does happen, the victim reports it and the corporate and civil outrage results in the destruction of the oppressor and the vindication (and 6 figure compensation) of the victim.
I think that in reality, the victim faces a very difficult dilemma because even when a case is handled properly through HR and legal channels, the victim is still stigmatized (and considered a hiring risk) and there are those that believe that some victims just use sexual harassment as a tool to get back at a boss.
So for the hard driving career professional who wants to make it to the top, the complaint option is probably off the table. Giving in and quitting might not damage your career, but you will pay the price with dignity.
That leaves the "turnabout is fair play" strategy. If well documented and properly executed, having evidence of harassment is probably one of the most powerful positions you could be in to blackmail someone. While most of us will hardly recommend that path, its hard to fault the victim and hard to sympathize with the mess the harasser has got them self into.
We do not all seek the same things. Some want harmony, some want security and some want power. This move is clearly for those who prioritize the acquisition of power above other considerations. I don't think most people in HR and recruiting are necessarily wired that way.
-
?So the best way to change corporate America is to gain power and then wield it. To get power, you have to stay in the workforce, not the court system, and work your way up. Unfortunately, this means learning how to navigate a boys? club. But when you know the system, you then are clear about the root of its problems, and you know how to initiate change.? ~ Penelope Trunk
Isn?t change really what we want? Don?t get mad, get even. It?ll teach them faster than any moribund and risky court action. ****** Do something today you don't think you can do.
-
Though I thought this viewpoint was demented and lacking maturity, I originally wasn't going add a response to this post assuming that it was actually the norm and accepted. Sufficed to say, I'm glad it's not.
-
I have to agree with those that find this post disturbing. I fail to see the relevance to recruiting, sourcing, or professional behavior. I don't condone sexual harrassment of any sort, but this post shows a lack of professional judgement that damages the credibility of the person cheerleading this type of response.
You go girl. Quickly. To the bookstore. John Maxwell has an excellent book on leadership. As the leader of this discussion, you have a responsibility to your profession and the readers of this newsletter. You've built a reputation here. Treat it with respect.
-
THIS IS THE POST THAT I AM REFERENCING!
I have always admired you Maureen - Best to clarify exactly what you mean here! So sad that you feel this way. Do you think misoginists care about money. Maybe you would like to visit some abused women in hospitals this holiday season to see just how hilarious this is.
DATE: 12/13/2007 6:39 a.m.
SUBJECT: What Have You Done [To] Me Lately?
MESSAGE:
Listening to Penelope Trunk's (AKA Brazen Careerist (I wouldn't want to miss any trackbacks/chances by leaving anything out) riveting "Catfight with Penelope Trunk" interview in the Recruiting Lounge I was amused to hear her assert that the really cool twenty-something females at the top of their games handle sexual harassment in the workplace from their bosses by saying, "Whatever. This coming year I expect a $150,000 raise in my total compensation package." I bet they get $75k with that attitude. You go, girls.Which made me think of the "What Have You Done [To] Me Lately" syndrome in human nature. Penelope suggested that smart women turn situations to their advantage, as in my demonstration above. I suppose it's a kind of blackmail, but hey, who pointed the gun? Penelope further states that those who don't agree with this theory are in need of therapy. Tough sister love but it makes a kind of weird sense.
You go, girl. ****** Do something today you don't think you can do.
Maureen Sharib Telephone Names Sourcer/MagicMethod Trainer 513 899 9628 TechTrak.com, Inc. maureen at techtrak.com http://www.techtrak.com
-
I am talking about the post regarding women asking for a 150,000 K raise when they have been sexually harassed!
-
This post is so disturbing and cruel on so many levels I can't even begin to elaborate.
What's next Maureen pedofiles with a big wallet. Take it back now while you have the opportunity. This is just demented.
-
I'm not sure how this conversation topic is relevant or professional to sourcing or recruiting. Surprising and diappointing.
-
