Comments on: The most overrated trait of the decade

By: not political

not political — Wed, 30 May 2012 21:19:09 +0000

Loyalty can be cyclical. Imagine the profit employers made from employees that stayed with the business 20 or 30 years before the 80′s. Now, imagine the cost of “brain drain in today’s climate. Loyalty prevented lots of this. Employees are no longer loyal because they do not feel the security that used to come with their employment by working hard and following the rules. Quality and Quantity of work never seem to be enough. Employers are afraid they cannot find loyal employees. Everyone wants the prize, however the real issue is how can employers and employees trust each other in a way to secure the future for both?

By: not political

not political — Wed, 30 May 2012 21:13:56 +0000

Loyalty has truly disappeared from both sides. If we maintain the narrow view expressed above, then the employer is only responsible for providing a paycheck for work. Then the employee only gives what they feel they are worth. Before the 80′s an employee and employer could count on 20 or 30 years of “loyalty”. Now employees who are with a company more than 5 years are considered “old timers”. Why not take some of the greed out of the equation and understand that the employee and employer give equally. Isn’t this what we learned by the guide of honesty in our culture?

By: Common Sense

Common Sense — Tue, 29 May 2012 18:04:19 +0000

@MMAN Why do you ask: “How is diversity detrimental to an organization?”
You answer your own question: “I know the obvious implications are hiring un/under-qualified minorities for the sake of diversity” I never said that diversity in and of itself is illegal. Whether or not it is a legal requirement matters not. My point is the same. (My point is your answer).
I stand against stupid unproductive behavior whether or not it is illegal.

I ask you one more time to not make assumptions about my character to which you can not possibly know. You say “if you were in a minority group that has been discriminated against in the past, you would probably be more likely to support diversity initiatives on a different level.” I believe I would be a man of the same character and would hope to have the same values no matter what my skin color. Their are plenty of strong minority leaders who have great character that oppose quotas, affrimative action and the over-emphasis on diversity matters.

By: MMAN

MMAN — Fri, 25 May 2012 12:23:39 +0000

@Common Sense…no doubt diversity has been up-played in recent years. However, I feel that if the shoe were on the other foot, you would probably feel differently about it. In other words, if you were in a minority group that has been discriminated against in the past, you would probably be more likely to support diversity initiatives on a different level. Take for instance the four fifths rule which requires the selection rate of minorities to only be 80% of the majority. Even if these numbers are met, minorities are still getting the short end of the stick. Let’s reverse that to say that the selection rate of the majority should be 80% of the minority (no doubt this couldn’t work but theoretically I hope you know where I’m going), now here you would have so many people crying foul it wouldn’t be pretty. Why not say the selection rate of minorities should be 100% of the selection rate of the majority? So with that said, I don’t feel we should take diversity initiatives lightly. That’s all I was trying to say. You also say that most institutions have already achieved a fair amount of diversity sometimes to their own detriment…how is diversity detrimental to an organization might I ask? I know the obvious implications are hiring un/under-qualified minorities for the sake of diversity but we both know that this is not a legal requirement and if organizations are doing this then it is their fault not those who are promoting diversity initiatives.

By: Common Sense

Common Sense — Mon, 21 May 2012 22:17:45 +0000

@MMAN. I don’t take a lackadaisical view of diversity, but do view it’s hype with a fair amount of skepticism. Especially since most institutions have already achieved a fair amount of diversity (sometimes to their own detriment). Diversity is an admirable goal, but should not/need not interfere with productivity. (Just ask the NBA) With that being said I am not going to get up in arms about a father/owner making his son the c.e.o. of the company or a “ma and pa” shop using the “good ole boys” referral network to find a mechanic.
Please don’t feel you need to “lay low” when responding to my comments. I am a big boy and appreciate honest, insightful, constructive feedback and lively debate. But you are right that I do become defensive when I feel my character is being maligned.

By: MMAN

MMAN — Mon, 21 May 2012 19:07:10 +0000

@Common Sense…O.K. I can give you that what you said in your previous post may have been correct regarding my “interjecting pearls of wisdom” and that things I say may very well be common knowledge in the HR field. But my question is then why are these principles not used in many companies and/or espoused in HR (there’s no excuse in 2012 why diversity would be kept out of an organization whether intentionally or unintentionally)? No doubt that diversity is not an automatic key to, as you said, greatness, but I feel you spoke very negatively regarding it and by those comments I was lead to believe that you have a lackadaisical view of diversity like it doesn’t really matter. I apologize if I had misjudged you though, but it seemed from your statement that all that matters is the bottom line for organizations. However, I will lay low in responding to your posts from now on because you seem to not take it too well. I feel that everytime I post something even as an afterthought, you become critical and defensive and somehow try to debase everything I post. From here on out, although I will continue to post my thoughts as I know you will, I will not post them in specific response to yours.

By: Common Sense

Common Sense — Mon, 21 May 2012 17:15:38 +0000

@MMAN You have made 4 false statements/assumptions in one paragraph. A lot, even for you. You said:
1)I think more highly of myself than what I ought.
I have never placed any value on my self. (I simply voiced opinion and insightful facts)
2)I “obviously know it all” because I stated you were wrong.
I never implied I know it all (just the obvious). If I stated you were wrong, it means I think I know more than you on that particular point, no more, no less.
3)I don’t consider others view points.
Quite the contrary, I welcome/encourage vigorous debate as it helps me form my thoughts and opinions.
4)I feel the need to share my thoughts on everything.
I comment on a small fraction of the HR Morning stories. (Far less than you.)

Don’t pretend you know my character, because you really have not the foggiest notion.
Let’s please not go any further down the road of taking offense to criticism and replying with character assassination.

By: MMAN

MMAN — Fri, 18 May 2012 16:56:24 +0000

@Common Sense…you do think more highly of yourself than what you ought. So you obviously “know it all” because you state that I am wrong, in other words you apparently don’t feel that there are any viewpoints other than yours to consider. Sorry Charley, you must also feel you need share your 2 cents worth on everything too, but I for one have not criticized you for doing so because that is what these threads are for.

By: Common Sense

Common Sense — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:51:23 +0000

Nobody’s statements needed to be said. I simply wanted to voice a new/different opinion. Contrary to what you may believe I welcome feedback. However, I do grow tired of your usual need to interject “pearls of wisdom” that are known to the entire H.R. universe (Hardly what I would call elaboration). The implication is that because I did not mention it, that I must not be aware of it.

When I refuted your comments it is because I disagreed with you or you were flat out wrong. When you “refuted” my comments it is not because I was incorrect, it was because you have some sort of constant need to share your “extensive knowledge” with the uneducated.
Thanks for not going there. (sarcasm intended)

By: MMAN

MMAN — Fri, 18 May 2012 12:12:25 +0000

@Common Sense…if my statements did not need to be said then yours didn’t either. You act is if you are the only one who should be allowed to comment on anything on this website. When you post something on here, you are in fact inviting support and/or criticism of what you say and yes even elaboration as I have done in many cases. I don’t deny very often refuting your comments but a few times I have agreed with them. However, what you said about me in the previous post, I could then turn around and say the same about you if you’ll take notice, but I am not going there.