Terrorist parties

I've been noticing a proliferation of terrorist theme parties on Facebook. As I look at the pictures of turbans, patterned bandanas across faces, fake machine guns, etc., I worry that the students promoting these parties are soon going to find themselves protested by Middle Eastern and Muslim student organizations.

This is something I remember well from my undergraduate days at Indiana.

Back in the mid-80's, the Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity chapter at Indiana had, arguably, the year's biggest and most lavish party – Arabian Nights. They had been having this party for years, and it was a well-known event. Women would come dressed in veiled garb. Men would dress like sheiks. They even rented camels. How the hell they found camels within driving distance of Bloomington, Indiana, I'll never know.

They would import tons of sand. Kegs were delivered by the truckload. For an entire week prior to the party, they would play Arabian music from the windows.

But, then one year, the crap hit the fan. Indiana's sizeable Middle Eastern student population decided to file formal complaints against the event for its promotion of stereotypes. The campus became polarized, primarily between the Greeks who defended the party, and everyone else who found it sophmoric, culturally insensitive, and a glaring example of the ridiculous expenditures of money made in the interest of reckless alcohol consumption.

It was front page news in the Indiana Daily Student for a month. Administrators got involved. Marches and protests were held. Even the animal rights activists got involved on behalf of the camels.

In the end, the party went on, but it was permanently shelved after that. The firestorm had been too consuming and the toxic repercussions outweighted the fun. I recall many sensitivity workshops that followed, lots of apologies by the Phi Psi's, and declarations of the value of the teachable moment by the campus faculty and administrators.

Which brings me back, 20-some years later, to the terrorist parties I'm starting to see online.

If you think there was an uproar about veils, turbans and camels, imagine the uproar that is coming for fatwah parties with machine guns, hostages, and suicide bombers.

I advise you to immediately confront these theme parties immediately, even going so far as to outlaw them premptively. Some dummy will have the idea, if it hasn't happened already. As a general rule, any party theme that centers on a societal subculture is a bad idea. In this case, you run the risk of pushing some very sensitive buttons and becoming the center of a huge debacle like the one at Indiana in the 80's.

It's just not worth it. Address it now, aggressively.

Be very careful not to "annoint" your successor

I know it's only September, and elections are months away. But, here's a warning. Don't get too excited and start grooming the person you think should succeed you. That doesn't always turn out well.

Fact is, many organizations like to mix it up. If you are a serious, practical person, they are likely to elect someone totally different from you in the next cycle. They'll elect the fun-loving jovial person who isn't terribly serious. If you're an emotional person, they'll probably elect the intellectual next time. If you're an extrovert, they will choose the quieter guy. If you were incredibly focused on one thing, they'll elect the person who criticized you the most strongly.

It's a "democracy" thing. Many members feel like they are exercising their right to choose when they make a more brazen choice. That's why both presidential candidates are so different from George W. Bush. People like change. They get motivated by change. They are sensitive to choosing too much of the same thing.

So, here's my warning. You would probably like to see someone succeed you who will build on what you have accomplished. You would choose someone who will firm up your legacy by validating your priorities and leadership style. That's natural. However, it you let that show to your members, it might be the kiss of death to that person's chances.

Best thing you can do is to simply stand up at a meeting and let everyone know that you will be happy to spend some time with anyone who might be interested in running for president. Be conspicuous about being neutral.

Closer to elections, when people ask you for your opinion, remain neutral, and praise all candidates. As tempting as it might be, don't weigh the pro's and con's for them. The most you should ever do is make sure people understand what the job is like.

If you did a good job and your "approval rating" is high, they might choose the person you would have chosen. But nothing pushes people toward "change" like the feeling that you've hand picked your successor and taken away their choice, so play your hand close to your chest.

If indeed your choice is the right choice for the organization, people will probably want to select him/her because you've been such a good, supportive leader.

Resumes: What stands out?

I am busy reviewing resumes tonight. There's nothing quite like sitting in front of a stack of 30 resumes to remind you why people get paid good money to do human resources work. It makes my head hurt. As I look through pages and pages, I have very little confidence that the typical resume package tells you any of the things you REALLY need to know about a person you plan to hire. It's a crap shoot, at best.

But, since I just spent the better part of three hours poring through these resumes, I thought it might be worthwhile to share some of my observations. Maybe as you do your job search this year or next, you'll keep a couple of these observations in mind.

I'm sure half of what I'll tell you here flies completely in the face of what they tell you at the career center. But, oh well. I'm the one offering a job today.

• I liked the resume packages that came in the mail better than the ones that came to me via email. They showed more effort and care. I know it's "old school," but I liked the texture of a nice piece of stationery paper that an applicant picked out. I liked that they took the time to assemble a package and mail it to me. You just don't get that in a resume that is sent via email.

• I enjoy a little color when I'm digging through 30 resumes. A few of the packages were a bit more colorful and lively, particularly when it came to the work samples. I liked that.

• Four resumes came without a cover letter. I tossed them. If you can't even bother to write a basic cover letter, then you don't want to work for me. Also, I had a couple whose idea of a cover letter was a three line email that said, "Please find my resume attached..." No, thanks.

• If you don't specifically refer to the position I'm offering and explain why it interested you, then it's obvious that you're applying to 100 jobs, and mine is just one in the pile.

• Several of the cover letters said "Dear T.J.". Hey, if you don't know me, would it kill you to call me "Mr. Sullivan?" I'm not a super-formal guy, but it seems like a good rule of thumb to refer to the person hiring as "Mr." or "Ms." until a level of familiarity is established. And, as for that argument of not knowing whether "T.J. Sullivan" was a man or woman, a quick Google or visit to my company's website would have answered that question.

• I like letters of recommendation a lot, but I like them even more when the person writing explains why you are special. It's not much of a recommendation when they just said you did your job. If you ask people to write letters of rec, make sure they dig you enough to write a letter that makes you sound like a truly amazing person.

• I had one woman who didn't capitalize "I" in her materials. It wasn't a typo. She just hates capital letters, I guess. Of all the ways to show some individuality in a resume package, that's a pretty dumb one.

• Another woman told me her salary qualifications, and they happen to be $20,000 more than what I'm offering. The salary range I'm offering is in the published job announcement. That one was a head-scratcher.

• I really, really like it when people explain in their cover letter why this job interests them. Everyone tells me that they are qualified, would be a good fit, and have lots of special skills. But, I want to know why THIS JOB. How does it fit into your goals, your dreams, your plans for your career?

• Tell me something from your life that you ENJOY. I guess there are career advising types who would tell you to keep the personal stuff out. But, I love it when people tell me they are passionate about water skiing, or writing poetry, or raising guinea pigs. It gives me a glimpse into who you are as a person, and since I'll be working with that person every day, I like these sort of things.

Who's qualified to be president?

This isn't a posting about Sarah Palin. But, all the talk about who is and who is not qualified to be president got me thinking this week about how student organizations pick their leaders.

Do your group's bylaws dictate who can and cannot run for the top spot? I find many student organizations start thinking about putting these sort of limitations in effect before election season comes in late Fall. We want to make sure we don't leave the organization in the hands of someone who's going to completely screw it up.

Some groups require that all candidates for president must have served in another officer position. Some require that those running for president be at least a junior. Others require a certain grade point average.

Others leave it entirely wide open. The group chooses whomever they think will do the best job regardless of any criteria. So, which is better?

I'm a big fan of the free market deciding. Qualifications for office are certain to come up among those voting when the discussion happens. Should we vote for someone who has a 2.3 over the person with a 3.4? Would someone who chaired a committee be better than this other person we all think is a lot of fun?

If experience is important to people, then their votes will follow the person with the most experience. Others will want change, and they will vote purely on personality over experience. That's the beauty of a democracy. People can vote based on anything they like.

I find that the more you limit people's options on whom they can select, the worse it goes. It might be tempting to lay out a bunch of restrictions on who can run for office, but that means limiting your members' choices at election time. Why do that? An organization is made up of its constituency, and to assume you know "who is qualified" more than the membership paying the dues is arrogant. The best thing for you to do is to make sure that those voting clearly understand the job responsibilities. Then, let them decide who they are going to trust with the position.

Sarah Palin is all the rage in the media again this week, and the focus is on her qualifications. Does being a small town mayor and the governor of Alaska qualify you to be inches from the Oval Office? I have a friend who calls her an "evil joke," completely unqualified. Some other friends find her refreshing because she's so different from all the other candidates.

I suppose the framers of the Constitution could have said that only past Representatives, Senators, or two-term Governors could run for President and Vice President. Nothing was stopping them.

They decided that you had to be 35 years old. After that, they trusted that the people would choose who they really wanted – based on qualifications, or based on personality. The Framers decided to let the people work it out. If you want to base it on your love of youth hockey, then go for it.

If it's good enough for our country, then I suppose it's good enough for your organization. Get rid of the restrictions. Encourage everyone to think about running. It's the sign of a vibrant student organization when you give your members the maximum number of possibilities.