HRevolution

So, what do the problems in France tell us about people?
Anyone? Hello? Well, one good thing about not publicizing your blog, you don't have to deal with other people's thoughts and opinions. Good thing too. That way I can go on believing only my thoughts matter.

What do these problems in France suggest about what it is to be human? Well, the desire to succeed is part of the human condition. We all want to thrive. Those living in a free society but unable to participate in opportunities to succeed will rebel. The rebellious activities in France have nothing to do with religion or ethnicity. Although both make the protesters easy to identify, their grievances do not stem from either issue. They are angry about their inability to thrive. They are angry about being left out of the mainstream economy. They cannot find work, so they cannot thrive. Many were born in France and consider themselves French, but perhaps the French people who have lived there for generations don't see them as French. The ethnic ebb and flow over centuries is engulfing Europe and the Europeans don't like it. Too bad for them. It will be interesting to see how they approach balancing the cultural and ethnic changes. To a large extent, this is what Europe is facing in this millenium.

So, if management by appeasement is the way France is going, what do the riots tell us about democracy?

For starters, surviving is not the same as thriving. It is part of the human condition that people want to thrive. It is part of the democratic ideal that all citizens have the right to pursue happiness. A democracy assures the right to thrive, if not the opportunity. This is the government’s job.

If the government's appeasement ensures survival, and democracy supports an opportunity to thrive, then government needs to enforce an equal opportunity to pursue happiness. When the divide falls along racial, or ethnic lines, the government has failed. To be fair, this is a tough nut to crack. We've tried it for generations in the US and still have room for improvement. I must admit, I don't mind seeing Europeans struggle with these issues given how harshly they've criticized us in the past.

What remains to be seen is whether the French can redefine what it means to be French. It’s easy to assimilate a few minorities and brag about your success. But, as Europe is finding, it is much harder to assimilate large groups with different religions, ethnicities, and cultures in numbers so large that they will reshape your culture. The challenge posed by riots has become a cultural one. Can the French people be culturally democratic? We’ll see. So far, mainstream French citizens can’t see themselves wearing bhurkas. With all the baggage Islam carries from its radical sect, who can blame them? But, even without baggage such change is difficult. To watch your society move from it’s traditional center is mind-bending. Instead of re-examining one’s identity, culture and values, it makes one want to defend them.

Again, this is a good time to not be a French politician.

So, no answers? Anyone? Anyone?...Buehler? I guess I'll answer that first question myself.

So, how is management handling it? Using their favorite appeasement strategy – give more government assistance until there's enough to keep ‘em quiet. That's what high taxes are for, right? This same strategy used is by the Saudi royal family (and other arabic kingdoms) to keep the masses from getting uppity. Basic needs are met, not more. This gem of a system is what spawned Al Qaeda. Meet the basic needs - higher needs aren't our problem.

The trouble is, once basic needs are met, we automatically desire the next level (whether we’ve earned it or not). This is part of being human, and most of us will be happy to earn it, we just need the chance. Being held out of that next level will bring all kinds of unpleasantness. As a management strategy, appeasement is a short term play. Eventually, they'll want the next level. How much can you give away? It's best for all to include this population and let them earn it.

While the French government may have good intentions, the appeasement approach is flawed from the outset. They've been caught short with a growing segment of their populace. This is a good time to not be a French politician.

The Nouvea Beaujolais has just come out. Let's talk about human capital in France for awhile, shall we? Magnifique.

What a lovely maelstrom of indignation! Cultural issues, labor issues, democracy, burning cars - all part of a charming imbroglio. It seems a significant part of the populace feels left out of the economy. It is a group with seemingly no opportunity to “do what one wants to do” in the workplace. I'll just throw a couple of questions out there for anyone reading to respond to.

First, how is 'management' handling it?
Second, what does this say about democracy in general? And France, specifically.
Third, what does this suggest about human capital?

They're going to need more than wine and cheese to make things work.

Got this in an email today. Looks like something from The Onion.


Congress today announced that the office of President of the United States of America would be outsourced to overseas interests as of January 1, 2006. The move will save not only a significant portion of the President's $400,000 yearly salary, but also a record $521 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead.

"We believe this is a wise move financially. The cost savings should be significant," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-Wash.). Reynolds, with the aid of the Government Accountability Office, has studied outsourcing of American jobs extensively. "We cannot expect to remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted.

Mr. Bush received his termination via e-mail this morning. Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time. Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India will assume the office of President as of January 1, 2006. Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month, but with no health coverage or other benefits.

It is believed that Mr. Singh will be able to handle his job responsibilities without support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night, when few offices of the US Government will be open. "Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the American Express call center," stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President someday."

A Congressional Spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be fully aware of all the issues involved in the Office of President, this should not be a problem. Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using this tree, he can address common concerns without having to understand anything about the underlying issues at all. "We know these scripting tools work," stated the Spokesperson. "Mr. Bush has used them successfully for years."

Mr. Bush will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two week waiting period, he will be eligible for $240 dollars a week unemployment for 13 weeks. Unfortunately, he will not be eligible for Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit. Mr. Bush has been provided the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a new position due to limited practical work experience. One possibility is re-enlistment in the Air National Guard.

Should he choose this option, he would likely be stationed in Iraq, a country he has visited. "I've been there, I know all about Iraq," stated Mr. Bush, who gained invaluable knowledge of the country in a visit to the Baghdad Airport's gift shop. Sources in Baghdad and Falluja say Mr. Bush would receive a warm reception from local Iraqis. They have asked for details of his arrival so that they might arrange a series of appropriate welcomes.

So, when it becomes clear that the today's hiring processes emphasize skills first and explore motivations second, we realize that asking someone why they want the job after they've applied for it we will get a political answer. Therefore, the motivations are not clear and the likelihood that they will engage in the job is unpredictable.

Our assumption that people won't apply for a role they don't want is thoroughly flawed. People regularly apply for jobs for other reasons - like a compensation package, a company's reputation, location, etc.. To believe otherwise is to put your head in the sand.

We need to build a jobseeker's aspirations into the hiring process. We need to put it at the front of our process. What would we get by doing so? Primarily, you begin to explore the likelihood a candidate will engage in the job. How hard would it be to do this? Not hard at all. All we have to do is structure in some way for a jobseeker to clarify their wants regarding a job or careerpath. Then have them apply for positions in that direction. It doesn't mean we have to abandon our existing processes. But we would need to give some structure and weight to the jobseeker's aspirations before they apply. Unfortunately, we assume this happens before the recruiting process begins. Our process begins with a focus on skills and experience, then investigates motivations. We need to put motivations first, then skills. That will improve the quality of hire in a big way.