text: […] then human resource management, as my appreciation for both the importance and complexity of this domain grew, along with my passion for excellence in HR technology. Things will hold together just fine […]
  As always, you know that I am fan. Totally agree on a consistent HRM model. I think the first implementation is to group the different HR management outputs (as organizational structure by functional group differs too much by company). Second, would be to really collaborate on overall definitions. I still think there will be 3 different definitions of a competency when you ask 3 different HR leaders, but at least all would understand the general meaning of “competency”.
  Funny because it’s true and interesting because the solution is so complex to what seems like such a simple problem. Why can’t everyone just think like a developer? ;-}
  Great points Naomi – bringing some standardization to all the terms and definitions & etc would help everyone. The accountants have GAAP, double-entry accounting, and all sorts of financial regulations that govern their data and process definitions (or at least confine the variations to a small range). I don’t think we have that to the same extent in the HR world – so without that sort of externally-drive discipline, getting broad-based acceptance on a domain model might take a while. But I’m all for it!
  Steve, thanks so much for your encouragement. We are making progress on having a more or less converging HRM domain model, at least across the HRM software vendor community, many of which are clients and/or licensees of my domain model “starter kit,” collaborating with the HR-XML Consortium, or simply arriving at a common destination just because great modeling applied to HRM gets you there, eventually. I hope to see, in my time, the death of employee status codes, job code tables whose entries outnumber employees, mass change programs of all flavors and many more of the worst artifacts of our early days flat file, miles of procedural logic, COBOL programs.
  
  27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. 29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants5 to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:23-31, ESV)
  This passage is one that oftentimes I'll go to when discussing the fact of God's foreordination of all things, including the evil acts of men... however, today, what struck me was something that Dr. Richard Bacon reminded us of on Covenant Radio when we interviewed him last week. That is, that our normal response to persecution (however great or small) is to pray to God for deliverance from persecution, relief from the taunts, threats and violent actions of the persecutors, or something similar. However, when the Apostles faced imprisonment and possible death, when they were threatened concerning speaking the name of Christ, they did not pray for such relief. Rather, knowing what they had to do, they prayed for boldness.
  Would that we had the spirit of these in the early church when facing persecution - violent or otherwise. Rather than shrinking back and wishing eyebrows weren't raised when we claim God's Word as truth, or Christ as the only way, why not pray for holy boldness to continue speaking truthfully? We know what is true - we know what is good - we know what is our duty. Perhaps we ought to consider more carefully how we ought to pray when faced with the derision of the world and the mocking glances of unbelievers. Let us look to those who have gone before us in order to find out a better way.
  In preparing for our interview of Dr. Michael Horton on December 3 on Covenant Radio, I've been reading the book that we'll be discussing, The Gospel-Driven Life. (See some sample pages here) The book is a refreshing look at necessary correctives to the erroneous priorities the church in America (and elsewhere, but the target in this book is the church in the United States) has adopted in recent history. I'm certain the upcoming show will be an enjoyable and edifying discussion of this important issue... how the truth of the gospel must be recovered in the church, both for her health and for God's glory.
  In the second chapter, entitled "The Real Crisis", this gem of a paragraph succinctly summarizes the view of God that we in America seem to have adopted corporately. As I read this chapter, I continually found myself shaking my head and saying, silently and reluctantly, "yup. That's where we are." Here's Horton's characterization of this crisis we face today:
  "First, more like Mr. Rogers than the judge of all the earth, the sentimental deity of many Americans is incapable of wrath. Since he exists for us and our happiness, this heavenly friend may be disappointed and sad when we hurt ourselves, but he never sees sin as an offence primarily against himself and his perfect justice. Second, we may make mistakes - pretty bad ones, from time to time - but it would be wrong to call ourselves sinners, much less to imagine that we are captive to sin, helpless to do anything to will or work our way out of the mess. So, third, God brings us basically good people into a kingdom without judgment, since there is no law that could condemn and no gospel that could justify. And finally, for this sort of religious therapy you don't need a vicarious, atoning sacrifice if you are basically a nice person; what you really need is a good example." (p. 38, Michael Horton, The Gospel-Driven Life)
  And thus, here we are. Since God is love, the argument goes, we know deep down He really would just rather love us all and ignore what things we do wrong, if anything we do is really wrong at all, because things will turn out better if He does that. We can't call anything sin, because, well, some people disagree on what is sin and what is not, and who are we to call them wrong? Maybe we're wrong. Therefore sin is an outmoded and outdated concept, and we should really just be nice folks and not step on anyone else's toes. God understands.
  This is the god that is often part of our civil discourse and our civil proclamations. This is not the Holy One of Israel - not the one who sent His Son to the Cross to atone for the sins of His people, facing the wrath that they rightly deserved. A view of God that does not include His righteous anger and wrath against sin is a view that fails the test of Biblical correctness - however politically correct it may be.