What's that? "Don't hire people who are running dog-fighting rings." Thanks Aristotle... Is there a box I can check with my background vendor to cover that?
You've got another one? "The problem with employees having large entourages is all the access badges you
have to create." Good advice, Nostradamus...
Seriously - there are at least three strong HR takeaways from the Mike Vick saga currently showing at a news channel near you.
First, the ones that are most obvious:
1. It's always a good idea to think about whether you want an employee who has been charged with a crime still in the workplace. This one comes in a million different flavors. Misdemeanor/Felony, Violent Crime/Non-Violent Crime, Substance Abuse/No Substance Abuse, and every combination in between. Do you want the employee in the workplace while they get their life in order? Depends on the charges, of course. Regardless of the charge, your company should be asking this question for anyone who is charged with a crime. If you decide you are better off without them until things are cleared up, your handbook probably supports a suspension based on the charge, but you'll probably have to grant them paid leave to stay entirely clear of legal considerations.
2. It's nice to have a succession plan in place. John Hollon hit this topic late last week over at Workforce. The Falcons had drafted a stud quarterback in Matt Shawb a couple of years ago to backup Vick, but it recently became too expensive to retain him, so they traded him away, effectively eliminating their plan B. Now that Vick is getting ready to report to Leavenworth, they are stuck with Joey Harrington, now with his third team after flame outs with Detroit and Miami. As a result of the lack of succession, the local experts in Atlanta are already calling sellouts at the Georgia Dome a thing of the past. Who's on your bench for key positions?
Now, for the not-so-obvious lesson:
3. He (or she) who controls the spin controls public opinion. In a little-reported twist to this story, ESPN started buzzing on Thursday night about the possibility Vick would plea, but would not admit to participating in the killing of dogs or gambling. As a result of this report, the airwaves at ESPN and other outlets were buzzing about the news and focusing on what the plea would not include, which made Vick look good compared to the worst case scenario. When the plea finally came, Vick admitted to being a part of the killing of animals and gambling on the dogfights. The ex post facto viewpoint? Vick's attorney's likely leaked the Vick-friendly version, which dominated the news for a 18 hour period before the actual plea became public. As a result, countless individuals who heard the "unidentified source" story have a more positive view of Vick than they would if they had read the court documents.
The HR takeaway from #3? Spin doesn't have to be a negative term or denote lying. On organizational issues and items that can drive employee morale and organizational effectiveness, timing and the distribution of the message mean everything. No one is saying you should should lie - exactly the opposite. The real lesson is to get the truthful, honest message out as fast as you can, then reinforce it through repetition.
Those were my big takeaways, but I know you likely have more. What's your take on the HR connection to the Vick saga?
Comments