I read with interest the blog article posted by Laurie Buettiman on Punk Rock HR. The blog article is entitled, John Edwards and Human Resources. The article and the responses address some interesting points in an intelligent matter, something you don’t see every day when discussing politics or social mores.
I tend to agree with the overall theme, meaning that moral standards should not be the overriding force in either holding public office or holding a serious job. I think there are limits to this notion. I believe most of us would view a person with a more jaundiced eye should their sexual practices occur with children or should their sexual proclivities become obsessive and out of control. But most importantly, it is a question of judgment. It shows character flaws that could lead to ruin. It is not merely a question of moral standards but an issue of potential catastrophe.
As for the garden variety infidelity, perhaps it shouldn’t matter so much. But it does. People frown upon it. But in John Edwards’ case it is not so much a matter of sexual infidelity as the fact that his hypocrisy seems to know no limits. Edwards has billed himself a family man, and then he strayed, as they often say, when his wife and family probably needed him the most. With his wife dying of cancer, it is not the most opportune time for Honest John, the self-proclaimed family man, to gain the trust and favor with the American public by having sex with a woman whom at her best is labeled as a ditz.
Even author Jay McInerny, who used her as a subject in one of his books, claimed she out distanced most party girls and laid new title to the label. But that is her and not Edwards. But Edwards was taken in by her, which is not what most Americans consider a display of good judgment. Here the Aw Shucks Family Man went off the deep end with a relentless party girl, and then had the temerity and stupidity to run for the highest office in this land. Even recently, knowing this was skeleton was tumbling from the closet, Edwards was campaigning for a cabinet post, should Obama win the Presidential election.
If nothing else, and even beyond morality, this is really stupid. If you have a job candidate or senior executive that displays this kind of poor judgment you are compelled to wonder where else will he make such lousy choices. In Edwards’ case should such incredibly poor judgment splash over into foreign policy decisions, then he can hurt the country. For employers, that kind of judgment among their senior executives can damage their business. So, talented or not, anyone who would flirt with this destruction is not someone you want in a position of responsibility.
With Edwards, had he been nominated as the candidate, he would have ruined the Democratic Party’s chances for President. A person in business behaving like that, can cause that business to loose hard earned accounts. Personally, I may not care what someone does with their spare time. But my clients may care. They may care enough that they look elsewhere for another vendor. It’s nice to say, “so let them,” but the practical realities of a down turned economy, especially, being what they are, most sane business people will seek a more strident solution.
I agreed with the article in terms of priority in the news media. In fact, that very night Edwards came to light, the same night Russia invaded Georgia, I was laughing with friends over the fact that Edwards gets an hour and change of discussion while the Russian invasion received passing mention. The fact that the Liquid National Gas and Oil piped through Georgia and former Russian Satellites pose countless consequences and ramifications for Western Europe and the United States was lost on those that provide us with what they so loosely call the news.
As far as infidelity is concerned, I think it’s safe to say it will be around for awhile. Like forever. With infidelity being eternal, or close to it, it is clearly a subject that will engender a great many different opinions. And as a background checking company, Corra conducts a variety of employment background searches, but we will not engage in monitoring the social networks. We have been asked by certain companies to add the search that will qualify their candidate in accordance with her or her behavior on MySpace or FaceBook, whatever. We politely refuse. They are not running for public office. They are not maintaining that their moral standards are among the highest achievable by mere mortals. In fact, some of their social network sites will tell you quite the contrary. That’s up to them.
And it’s up to you, the employer, to determine whether your candidate’s talents supersede any concerns about their personal behavior. We only say, check them out before you hire.
