Posts belonging to Category background checks

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is still wading through testimony gathered Friday during its briefing to determine what impact the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidance on criminal-background checks is having or may have on the employment of black and Hispanic workers.

At this point, there doesn’t seem to be a precise timetable for an ensuing report and/or recommendation from the civil rights commission, or specific plan for the guidance, which the EEOC issued on April 25. But safe to say, one overriding theme of the Dec. 7 testimony – taken from 17 different individuals, representing employer groups, advocacy organizations, screening groups and providers, and employment sectors across the country – came in loud and clear: Businesses need to continue screening for criminal histories and they need some clarifications on portions of the guidance or they will remain, as one testified, “between a rock and a hard place.”

In the words of the USCCR, in its announcement about the Friday briefing, “the commission has initiated this investigation to determine whether the new EEOC guidance policy or other prohibitions or limitations on the use of criminal background checks results in lower job opportunities and reduced employment overall among minorities, including non-offenders.”

In other words, the commision’s concern – as raised over the past year by one of its commissioners, Peter Kirsanow – is that, for employers to either remove or not rely so heavily on the criminal-conviction question in a job application, as the EEOC has recommended, they might be creating a hiring system that, in turn, encourages discrimination of black and Hispanic males due to the sheer larger incarcertaion rates for these minorities.

As Rich Mellor – vice president of loss prevention for the Washington-based National Retail Federation and one of those testifying – told me in a follow-up phone call, “without that confirmation that an applicant does not have a criminal background,” an employer might be prone to try that much harder to hire a non-minority.

Even with such a confirmation, or disclosure of a criminal record and the chance to explain, minority job applicants are often hobbled by still-pervasive racial bias in hiring, according to testimony from Glenn E. Martin, vice president of development and public affairs for The Fortune Society, based in New York. He cited a Princeton University study of the low-wage labor market in New York that showed black and Latino applicants with clean backgrounds fared no better than white applicants just released from prison.

“Moreover,” Martin testified, “the positive outcomes for black applicants, when presenting evidence of a criminal record, were reduced by 57 percent.”

Mellor, in his testimony, raised an additional red flag about the transparency of this crucial criminal-background conversation. The EEOC guidelines, he said, ”were enacted without giving retailers or other employers a chance for input,” according to an NRF release issued just after the briefing. “Hearings,” it says, quoting Mellor, “were held only with a ‘select group of predetermined stakeholders’ and actual text of the guidelines was released only the same morning that they were approved and implemented by the EEOC.”

The EEOC gave me this response today to the NRF’s release:

The NRF and other business groups communicated their views to the EEOC, and we considered them during the development of the guidance. Representatives of employers, individuals with criminal records, and other federal agencies testified at public EEOC meetings in November 2008 and July 2011.  The [EEOC] also received and reviewed approximately 300 written comments from members of the general public and stakeholder groups that responded to topics discussed during the July 2011 meeting.

The stakeholders that provided statements to express their interests and concerns include prominent organizations such as the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Society for Human Resource Management, the American Insurance Association, the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, the NAACP, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and the D.C. Prisoners’ Project, among others. Additionally, throughout the process of drafting the guidance, individual commissioners and staff met with representatives from various stakeholder groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, SHRM, HR Policy Association, College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, the National Employment Law Project and the Equal Employment Advisory Council to obtain more focused feedback on discrete and complex issues.

Many of those organizations listed above had people testifying Friday before the USCCR as well, in addition to employment lawyers Jackson Lewis and Duane Morris, screening provider EmployeeScreenIQ, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and many more.

Duane Morris’ Jonathan Segal, who testified Friday on behalf of SHRM, told the commissioners that some state and federal laws require employers to conduct background checks for positions such as daycare providers and firefighters. EEOC guidance, he said, puts employers in the tenuous position of “losing their state license if they don’t comply with a state law mandating criminal background checks and risking a class-action lawsuit if they go forward with criminal background checks and base hiring on the results.”

In addition, he said, the guidance’s interpretation of disparate impact appears to make employers “vulnerable to an EEOC investigation any time they take an adverse employment action against individuals of certain races or national origins based on criminal background checks regardless of whether they have conducted a valid individualized assessment — seemingly making criminal convictions a new protected status.”

Rest assured I will be following this and will report developments as I catch wind of them. Pretty packed with pressing issues for employers, I’d say.

Share on Facebook

Came across an interesting just-launched website devoted solely to providing employers and their HR teams with, as the site says, “expert, creative, and cost-effective solutions for managing the burgeoning risk of workplace EEO disputes.”

A bit too focused, you might ask? Au contraire, says Merrily Archer, an employment attorney and founder of Denver-based EEO Legal Solutions and it’s brand new site. Here’ how she describes “the gathering EEO storm” on her home page:

The number of EEOC charges will hit 100,000 in 2012, with increasing prevalence of age, disability, retaliation and systemic (‘disparate impact’) charges. In-house counsel now report that employment matters, both administrative activity and litigation, rank first in amount and frequency. No doubt, the ‘face’ and frequency of discrimination has changed markedly since the Civil Rights Act of 1991, ranging from pro se individual charges to full-blown EEOC systemic investigations and class-action litigation. Given the variable risk inherent in EEOC charges and EEO litigation, employers must master claim avoidance, evaluation, and resource allocation to avoid defraying expensive external ‘solutions’ to comparatively minor EEO problems.

Archer, a former attorney with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, know’s from whence she speaks. She’s been a key and outspoken source for HRE on the EEOC’s aggressive systemic push of late, in this piece, this one, and this, to share just three. She also contributed this byline for us on how to fight back against the push.

Her new site, she says, offers employers’ existing HR and legal teams coaching and training ”to reduce reliance on outside counsel and by extension, expensive ‘solutions’ to more minor EEO problems. Through lean litigation, EEO Legal Solutions proves that employers can still afford to fight when they’re right.”

For your frame of reference, and an understanding of what the EEOC is after, here is the agency’s selected list of systemic hiring resolutions and filings as of April and a full rundown of the systemic focus when it was initially proposed years ago.

I especially like Archer’s blog post on her site itemizing the reasons “Our Workplaces Don’t Work”:

Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, our workplaces have become ‘overlawyered’ regulatory quagmires in which employers balance competing laws and risks on a daily basis: the risk of a negligent hiring/entrustment/supervision claim versus the risk of an EEOC systemic investigation over use of pertinent criminal background information; the risk of retaining an underperforming employee versus the risk of an EEOC charge; the risk of workers’ compensation claims against the risks of claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, and the absurdly complicated Family and Medical Leave Act; the risk of financial collapse versus the risk of individual and systemic EEO claims arising from a necessary reduction-in-force; the risk of going out of business versus the risk that the EEOC will impose its judgment regarding what constitutes ‘successful’ job performance … and on it goes … employers have become stuck in this ‘damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t’ EEO regulatory maelstrom, sacrificing basic management considerations of employee accountability, reliability and even competency.

William Tate, president of Chicago-based HR Plus screening solutions, talked about that first risk when he and I met at the Society for Human Resource Management conference this past June. He likened the EEOC’s background-screening mandate to a kind of “Sophie’s Choice” for his clients between following the new rules and keeping their workplaces safe.

The cost alone of retraining recruiters to conduct and document individual reviews for each former convict, he told me, threatens many (especially smaller and mid-sized) employers’ survivals.

And he didn’t even mention the legal costs Archer says she aims to spare employers.

Share on Facebook

With the Jerry Sandusky trial under way in Bellefonte, Pa., this week, it’s been impossible to avoid (even if you wanted to) news reports about testimony and other court proceedings – including yesterday’s airing for jurors of the videotape of Sandusky’s interview with Bob Costas in November.

Most pundits agree that the most horrific and damaging moment of that interview was Sandusky’s hesitant, repetitive response to Costas’ question, “Are you sexually attracted to young boys?”

Weighing in on that very issue today is the SingleSource Services Corp., in this release about an online assessment tool called the Diana Screen, a tool it claims can scientifically evaluate “those individuals at high risk to violate sexual boundaries with children and teens.”

As Donald J. Dymer, president and chief operating officer of the Jacksonville, Fla.-based background-screening company, puts it:

Child sexual abuse by those individuals entrusted with their care has once again taken center stage as the Sandusky trial unfolds. And yes, we are taking that opportunity to remind the public that a powerful prevention tool is available that would most likely have prevented Sandusky from being hired. An assessment that identifies those adults who do not recognize the appropriate sexual boundaries that should exist between adults and children.”

He cites studies from the Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute showing 6 percent of adults are sexually attracted to children. “You won’t be able to recognize them without the Diana Screen,” says Dymer, “but they will recognize your children … .”

The release says the screen — consisting of 120 questions — is already being used by departments of juvenile justice, church diocese, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, mentoring agencies and residential homes for youths. Companies and organizations that put any adults into positions of trust with children and youths are encouraged to consider its use.

Dymer, a background-screening professional and longtime law enforcer, says it fills the void left by criminal background checks because it measures behavioral likelihood (such as a lack of sufficient social boundaries), as opposed to relying on past events.

We’ve been reporting for some time now on the changing face of the screening and assessment industry, whereby companies can now measure — through behavioral and psychological assessments — likelihoods that certain job candidates will succeed, learn quickly, be committed, be ethical and honest, present threats to a workforce, etc. etc.

Should a screen such as Diana join those ranks and become as widespread as Dymer hopes, my only concern would be that its accuracy is as failsafe as he says it is and that none of those 120 questions leaves room for doubt or interpretation.

Share on Facebook

Yet another reminder for HR to not only be diligent in verifying a job candidate’s credentials, but to also be diligent in monitoring any outgoing communications from their company regarding their executives’ backgrounds: According to the Associated Press, Yahoo shareholder Daniel Loeb–who owns 6 percent of the company and is trying to replace its board of directors–is now questioning the integrity of the company’s leadership after he revealed that it posted inaccurate information about CEO Scott Thompson’s educational background.

According to a recent filing by Yahoo with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Thompson has a bachelor’s degree in computer science from Stonehill College in Massachusetts. There’s just one small problem, as Loeb discovered: Thompson does, in fact, have a degree from Stonehill, but it’s in accounting, not computer science.

Loeb also cited Yahoo for inaccuracies involving the educational background of board member Patti Hart. Yahoo’s SEC statement listed Hart as having a degree in marketing and economics from Illinois State University; in fact, Hart has a degree in business administration from ISU, with specialties in marketing and economics.

On Thursday, Loeb wrote a letter to Yahoo’s board calling for an independent investigation, questioning Thompson’s ability to lead and citing the company for poor governance:

 If Mr. Thompson embellished his academic credentials we think that it 1) undermines his credibility as a technology expert and 2) reflects poorly on the character of the CEO who has been tasked with leading Yahoo at this critical juncture. Now more than ever Yahoo investors need a trustworthy CEO.”

Yahoo’s stock price has languished between $10 and $20 for the last three years as its performance has severely lagged competitors such as Google. Thompson, who before joining Yahoo in January served as president of eBay’s PayPal division, laid off 2,000 Yahoo employees–14 percent of the workforce–last month in a cost-cutting move. Loeb is trying to have himself and three allies elected to the board, asserting that they have the expertise to turn the struggling company around. Yahoo acknowledged the inaccurate bios but it is sticking by its CEO, releasing a statement that said:

This in no way alters the fact that Mr. Thompson is a highly qualified executive wiht a successful track record … Under Mr. Thompson’s leadership, Yahoo is moving forward to grow the company and drive shareholder value.”

Share on Facebook

To mix a couple metaphors, the fallout from today’s updated enforcement guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — specific to employers’ use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – has just left the gate.

The EEOC voted 4-1 today to approve the guidance document and also issued a question-and-answer document about it. Both documents can be found here.

“We had excellent testimony from two public meetings and hundreds of written comments submitted by a diverse group of commenters to inform our deliberations concerning the new guidance,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien in announcing the vote. ”The new guidance clarifies and updates the EEOC’s long-standing policy concerning the use of arrest and conviction records in employment, which will assist job seekers, employees, employers and many other agency stakeholders.”

The guidance appears to have many supporters, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. In a letter to the EEOC prior to the vote, the Conference, joined by 54 other organizations, said that “due in part to racial profiling and discriminatory sentencing schemes, racial and ethnic disparities persist at all stages of the criminal justice system. … These inequities in the criminal justice system only magnify the discriminatory barriers already experienced by minorities and low-income individuals living in the United States.” (The link includes the full letter if you scroll down.)

I’m still waiting for a flood of legal alerts about today’s decision to balance out the applause and kudos. I’m sure they’ll be coming. In the meantime, advice issued Thursday by White Plains, N.Y.-based employment law firm Jackson Lewis gets to the heart of what employers might expect and should be doing in light of the new guidance.

“It is expected that the EEOC’s new guidance will substantially modify existing EEOC guidance on criminal background checks, which has been in existence since 1987,” the Jackson Lewis post reads. “Employers seeking to avoid Title VII litigation risks anticipated from the new guidelines may have to reconsider and refine their use of criminal background checks in making employment decisions, and individuals posing increased risk to co-workers, customers and the public, and to employers, may be hired or retained.

“Employers should review and modify, as necessary, their current criminal background-check practices once the new guidance is made known,” it reads.

That’s today, folks. Let the reviewing begin.

Share on Facebook

With the timing of their actual issuance still hanging in the balance, two widely anticipated background-check guidance documents from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are fanning some major flames.

Just last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget saying the EEOC “is now preparing to approve” the two guidance documents — one pertaining to credit-history information and the other to criminal-history information — “without making them available for public comments and without seeking review by the OMB.”

The letter strongly recommends the OMB be given a chance to review them, as it does other complex or controversial EEOC guidance documents. It also notes that, while the EEOC has held public meetings on the two topics at hand, the guidances themselves have not been addressed in a public notice or been afforded public comments in and of itself.

Here is a brief report from the Society for Human Resource Management about the letter, which includes concerns that the documents “will remove or significantly limit the use of two important tools that employers use in hiring and related decisions.”

Here is what we posted on HREOnline^™ back in August 2011 after the EEOC held hearings on the role arrest and conviction records should and shouldn’t play in the hiring process. That story, by Dave Shadovitz, is chock-full of comments, some in favor of addressing the negative consequences criminal records have on employment opportunities and some stressing the need to tread ever-so lightly on employers.

I found this alert, posted on the Squire Sanders website just Monday, illustrating that latter concern quite well, including fears the new guidance “will significantly curtail the practice of checking a job candidate’s criminal or credit history, placing the burden on the employer to demonstrate a legitimate business need.” The alert also urges employers to “take this opportunity to ensure that their background-check practices are compliant with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and with state-specific laws and restrictions.”

I did reach out to the EEOC as well and got this note back from Christine Saah Nazer, acting director of communications: “I can tell you that we did receive the letter from the Chamber. The fact is, the Commission has held public meetings on employer use of credt and criminal-background checks and has solicited input from all stakeholder perspectives, and will continue to do so as we examine these issues. I have no information about any new guidance.”

I did not take her last sentence to mean this was all much ado about nothing.

Share on Facebook

Panelists at the 3rd Annual Cornell University Executive Summit took up the issues of “changing demographics” and “social media and HR” — the two topics selected from a list of 12 by attendees at the HR in Hospitality™ Conference for a wide-ranging discussion.

There were lots of opinions by the group of 11 HR leaders and attorneys on the panel about the use of social media for recruiting, engagement, training, screening, to reconnect with alumni, you name it.

There was little controversy about its use for recruiting; using it for screening candidates was another story.

A.J. Kamra, corporate director of HR at Dow Hotel Co., said he questioned the judgment of candidates who posted inappropriate information that was visible to him – and he wouldn’t want to hire them.

Some others, including Alan Momeyer, VP of HR at Loews Corp., said they had better things to do than “trolling the Internet” looking for such information. “What is extremely offensive about someone in their 20s having a drink?” he asked.

Even when you’re not looking for information, however, you can sometimes find it — such as discovering from a Facebook status that a supervisor is dating a subordinate — but many of the panelists said HR professionals should forget about the medium. Just treat the matter the same as if they had learned the information otherwise, they said.

“Technology is just the means that exposes and creates that conversation. … It could easily happen over email or any other form,” said Robert Mellwig, senior vice president of human resources at Destination Hotels & Resorts.

As for social media policies, two attorney panelists — Paul Wagner, a shareholder at Shea Stokes Roberts & Wagner, and Gregg Gilman, a partner at Davis & Gilbert – disagreed on whether such policies should include any reference to the right of employees to criticize the company via the Internet, per recent National Labor Relations Board rulings.

Wagner thought HR should include a provision that requires such criticism to be “done respectfully.” Gilman disagreed, saying “respectfully” was too “ambiguous” a term, and that “at the end of the day … [the issue will devolve to] ‘did the employee go over the line?’ ”

Patricia Smith, senior VP of organizational design and HR at The Leading Hotels of the World, said HR should not take an “unempowered approach,” which results in being reactive instead of proactive in regard to social media.

“It’s here. It’s going to happen. It’s happening. Why not take an empowered approach?” she said.

Greg Smith, executive vice president of HR at Denihan Hospitality Group, agreed: “If you don’t embrace it, you risk losing your competitive edge.”

When talking about the changing demographics of the workforce, the discussion focused on the diverse needs of all ages, from Gen Yers beginning their work careers and those pre-retirement workers who can’t afford to retire, to mid-career employees who don’t want to uproot their families and relocate to continue their career progressions.

Mellwig said his organization has explored a “teacher pay model,” in one area that needs seasonal managers, so they are paid for nine months of work instead of 12 months. The flexibility suits the managers as well as the organization, he said.

Debbie Brown, VP of HR for the Americas at Four Seasons, said there are 11 moves generally required before an individual is made a general manager, but her organization has been looking at a “compressed career path,” which would require only four, providing for some of the progressions to take place without a relocation.

Several of the HR leaders spoke about the need to customize jobs, as well as the need to forget generational stereotypes — and focus on the individual and his or her career aspirations and abilities.

“We sometimes typecast our team members” said Momeyer, “… and we don’t look at them as individual talents … .”

Share on Facebook

Starting tomorrow in Philadelphia, which is just a short drive from our office here in Horhsam, most employers will be barred from asking job candidates about their criminal history . . . but only until after the first interview.

According to the story on Philly.com:

The ordinance prohibits any business in the city that employs more than 10 people from asking job-seekers either on their application or during their first interview if they have any criminal convictions.

Courts, prisons and the Police Department are exempt from the law.

According to the story, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter said last April when he signed the bill into law that its intent is to give ex-offenders a fair shot at being considered for jobs for which they’d otherwise be qualified.

More from the story:

The ordinance, introduced by former Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, notes that one-fifth of Philadelphians have criminal records.

“It gets your foot in the door, but it doesn’t guarantee employment,” said Deputy Commerce Director Kevin Dow, who’s been reaching out to business leaders across the city to explain the new law.

Employers are allowed to perform background checks on applicants and ask whether they’ve been convicted of a crime once they get beyond the first interview, said Rue Landau, the executive director of the city’s Commission on Human Relations.

Employers who violate the law will at first receive a warning notice from the commission and be given 30 days to rectify their error.

Recalcitrant employers could face a $2,000 fine every time they violate “Ban the Box,” the story concludes.

One commenter on the story, steelmanpa, says the law is protecting the wrong people:

This [law] is so wrong. It is a waste of employers time and money in a cash strapped economy for the few that will hire. Its always about protecting the rights of the CONVICTED criminals, never the victims or the potential victims they prey upon . . .

But another commenter, thatbawl, takes a more literary view of the law:

This is a catch-22. I understand why people do not want to hire ex-cons but if they cannot get employment, won’t they just go back to committing more crimes? Everyone has to have a means to live.

While the spirit of this law is admirable, I admit my own skepticism about how effective it will be in ultimately getting more ex-cons back into the working world, given the dim view most of us hold about convicts.

So, will this law eventually be seen as a real first step in getting convicted criminals back into the workforce, or just another Band-Aid on a broken leg?

Only time will tell . . .

Share on Facebook

Wow! The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has added yet another wrinkle to the hiring process and has taken us that much further away from “the way it used to be.”

In this informal letter, issued Nov. 17, the EEOC has warned that requiring a high-school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act because the requirement could effectively screen out anyone unable to graduate because of a learning disability.

“Under the ADA,” the letter states, “a qualification standard, test, or other selection criterion, such as a high-school diploma requirement, that screens out an individual or a class of individuals on the basis of a disability must be job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.

“A qualification standard,” it says, “is job-related and consistent with business necessity if it accurately measures the ability to perform the job’s essential functions (i.e. its fundamental duties). Even where a challenged qualification standard, test, or other selection criterion is job-related and consistent with business necessity, if it screens out an individual on the basis of disability, an employer must also demonstrate that the standard or criterion cannot be met, and the job cannot be performed, with a reasonable accommodation.”

This legal alert from Ballard Spahr points out that “the informal letter, although not an official opinion, demonstrates that the hiring process can present a minefield of obstacles for employers.”

No kidding. I can only imagine what the job applications I filled out “back in the day” would look like if all discriminatory ”mines” were ommitted. Name, address and Social Security number perhaps?

At least this would cut down on all the frantic phone calls to parents from teens and 20-somethings sitting in HR offices: “Hey, what month and year did I graduate high school again???” Oh, you didn’t get those? I did.

Share on Facebook

For some post-candy, pre-turkey goodness, we’ve got a lot of interesting — let’s even say, colorful, since we still have some beautiful fall foliage here in the East — blog posts for you to read from this, our first hosting of the Carnival of HR.

I was putting this together while listening to tunes on my iPod, thus the subheads, which are all songs — although only one of them is on my playlist (and it’s probably the one few of you know; hint: it’s by Randy Newman).

Since this is the season, I guess the first post should be about the flu. Nancy Saperstone of Insight Performance’s Workplace of Choice Blog points out HR’s vital role in keeping employees healthy and productive.

Speaking of vital roles, should HR be skilled at gathering information on competitors? Mark Stelzner at Inflexion Advisors offers up some thoughts — but no simple answers — on capturing competitive intelligence.

Maybe it’s a cultural thing, like respect. John Hunter at Curious Cat Blog writes about practical ways to respect co-workers and colleagues, while Ian Welsh at HR Toolbox says employee relations is the key to HR success.

 Everybody’s Talking at Me

Tim Gardner at the HR Introvert explores the “cult” factor in a company’s culture and Doug Shaw at Stop Doing Dumb Things To Customers just wants to sing about work and not in a good way, as evidenced the title, Crap Engagement.

Maybe you’re not into singing your heart out, but still want to communicate? Steve Roesler at All Things Workplace suggests you take your communication cues from your audience and “meet people where they are.”

One critical skill, writes Trish McFarlane of HR Ringleader, is mastering the art of negotiation — and she offers some practical tips to successfully enhance that competency, while Jennifer V. Miller at The People Equation writes that HR’s role in the workplace is similar in ways to curating an art competition.

 Leader of the Pack

Moving from the art world to the workplace, Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership writes that managers must enjoy enabling workers — if they are to be effective at their jobs. Want much more detail? Tanmay Vora at QAspire Blog provides 25 ways to effectively facilitate business strategies.

To create high-performing organizations, Laura Schroeder at Working Girl offers a list of questions that HR should ponder before making any workforce decisions, and Jon Ingham at Strategic HCM writes about human-centric management.

Humans are not created equal, I guess, as Ben Eubanks at upstart HR looks at some gender preferences for male and female bosses.

There’s also a difference, writes Dan McCarthy at Great Leadership, between leaders and managers. And there’s a difference between good succession plans and bad ones, writes Lois Melbourne at Aquire Blog.

Lonely at the Top

Carol Morrison at i4cp’s TrendWatcher writes about leadership competencies — and if companies are taking aim at the right ones or missing the target altogether — while Mike Haberman at Omega HR Solutions explores five powerful leadership lessons.

One of those lessons, writes Linda Fisher Thornton of Leading in Context, should point out the important reasons to engage in social media.

We can segue from there into HR technology, which is where Naomi Bloom at In Full Bloom puts on her turban and does an imitation of Carnac the Magnificent by providing answers to 2011′s unknown questions. (Full disclosure: I met Johnny Carson once and she doesn’t look anything like him!)

 On The Road Again

John Sumser at HR Examiner, on the other hand, did an imitation of a nonstop traveler, and even though it lasted only seven weeks, it pointed him to some insights about mobile recruiting.

The insights offered up by Paul Baribeau at Workplace Tribes Blog involve those impacting HR strategies at a game development start-up.

Paul Smith at Welcome to the Occupation says HR can do better when it comes to recruiting disabled job candidates; Joe Jones at The Rainmaker Group’s Maximize Possibility Blog says ditto about leveraging the sales-talent selection process; and Mike McCarty of Safe Hiring Solutions says ibid on adding value to employment background checks.

We will close out this section on recruiting with an infographic from Joseph Fung at Tribe HR, exploring whether job boards matter anymore to the recruiting process and we’ll close out this issue of Carnival of HR with a blog post by Lynn Dessert at Elephants at Work on the importance of saying thank you.

So, thanks to everyone who participated in this Carnival of HR — and to everyone reading this. I hope you find this HR bloggy goodness is something to sing about.

And while you’re here, please scroll around The Leader Board. Some of our recent posts include this report from The Conference Board’s Human Capital Metrics Conference; the induction of three new Fellows as well as the induction of IBM’s Randy MacDonald as a Distinguished Fellow of the National Academy of Human Resources; and a bit of Romance, HR-Style.

Share on Facebook