Is There a Babel Effect in Proactive Rapid Response?
Curtis Wray
Regional Rapid Response Coordinator, selected as Rapid Response process improvement co-team leader, selected as a Virginia Mentor, aspiring poet/motivational speaker, and founder of The Consummate Transitioner, LLC.
January 12, 2025
Disclaimer
This blog is written with the positive intent and motivation to promote new ideas and positive change based upon vision, ideas, concepts, and experiences created and espoused while conducting the professional workforce system service of a Rapid Response Coordinator, assigned at the Virginia Community College System Office and Thomas Nelson Community College (now Virginia Peninsula Community College), from 2008 – 2017.? The contents of this blog may review, revisit, or expound upon previous ideas, visions, and concepts or explore or recommend new initiatives and pathways based on previous and current experiences. All thoughts, opinions, ideas, and concepts are expressly the position and opinion of the author, expressly and solely meant to provide the opportunity to again, promote positive transformational change, strategic and operational focus, alternative direction, discussion, engagement, innovation, and thought for optimization and betterment. It does not in any way or fashion, however, expressly speak for, take a position on, or represent the intent of, ideas, direction, policies, laws, mandates, processes, or procedures already in place by the Department of Labor and the Commonwealth of Virginia’s holistic Workforce System.
Intellectual Property - Integrity
To the fullest possible effort and extent, intellectual deference and credit were given to all source and referenced documents, and permission was obtained for use, when and if required.
“The parrot makes a name for itself by simply speaking and mimicking your words but is absent your vision for a viable forward path and direction.”
In the Beginning
Genesis 11:1–9
1 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words.
2 And as they migrated from the east, they came upon a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there.
3 And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and fire them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone and bitumen for mortar.
4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves; otherwise, we shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
5 The Lord came down to see the city and the tower which mortals had built.
6 And the Lord said, “Look, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do; nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them.”
7 “Come, let us go down and confuse their language there, so that they will not understand one another's speech."
8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city.
9 Therefore it was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth, and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth.
The Moment in Time Is Now
Is there a babel effect in Proactive Rapid Response? Note…that the title does not make a statement. It asks a question. You, as the reader and practitioner, will have to decide the answer and who and what you choose to follow. As I seriously ruminated on when and how to write this blog, I flashed back to a time in mid-1970s when I was taking a religion class with my dynamic professor Mr. Byrns Coleman, at Wingate College (now Wingate University) fifty years ago. He had us read and study the story of The Tower of Babel. I never forgot that story and in getting older, I find myself flashing back to important sectors and anchor points in my initial development of things that I have done and places I have been before. Is the Tower of Babel an appropriate relevant story and metaphor for the state of Proactive Rapid Response? It depends on what you know…and maybe…just maybe you don’t know what you don’t know.
I have been involved in public workforce development for over twenty-five years and always involved in the Rapid Response Program from day one. It has been a passion for me. No matter where I was in my work career, whether in my military or workforce development career, I have always sought to improve and make things better for the good of the whole. That has always been my inspiration and my aspiration. With that context, all life is transition, and all things will end, so with each day forward this date, my time is getting shorter. To me, the babel concept is an awakening, is a cry in the darkness, a canary in the coal mine, and babel is appropriate metaphor to inspire deep thinking, to glean interest, and to develop a viable path forward.? The moment in time is now, to listen, see, learn, understand, and comprehend where we are, to generate a discussion writ large as practitioners, and forge a new direction and path forward for improvement and betterment.
Perhaps, my perspective and context are different because I have had the appreciated opportunity, gift, passion, and vision since entering the workforce system to share my ideas without seeking or attaining any benefit or personal gain to the extent that I have never publicly told the back stories…thinking that the idea was more important than the person. I started out a Rapid Response Coordinator eighteen years ago and I am still a Rapid Response Coordinator. I have given much in sharing ideas and gained nothing. For me, it is all about the invisible, innate intangibles, encapsulated in the things that you cannot touch and feel. I glean intrinsic value in doing the work, and in doing the work, I see the vision. This approach, however, has been a double-edged sword, and in retrospect, I believe not telling the true back stories was a terrible mistake. My silence contributed to the babel effect in Proactive Rapid Response, because it left a void for those who well-intentioned to read the words but were without the vision to intercede which in my opinion and determination, led to misunderstanding, misdirection, and miseducation. So…inasmuch as I see myself as part of the problem, I must also be the solution with the time that I have left. So, the moment in time is now; achievement and attainment from misdirection and miseducation are within our grasp.
The Battle of Gettysburg -The Proactive Rapid Response Journey - (The Untold True Story)
The true visionary and creator will always be able to explain the vision or the work, because it is mentally seen from start to finish. From 1995 - 1996, I attended the United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College in Quantico, Virginia as a commissioned naval officer. There I studied wars at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels and defensive and offensive postures and strategies. Sometime within that timeframe, we as a class visited Gettysburg, Pennsylvania where we studied the Battle of Gettysburg and physically walked the battleground. I was fascinated by studying that battle and have read many books on it. I came away from that experience developing three concepts that I would use in my ensuing years in a career in Workforce Development that never left me.? They were: (1) that the North won the Battle of Gettysburg, because they were proactive instead of reactive. That Union General John Buford was already in Gettysburg and had seized all the high ground before General Robert E. Lee arrived, which during that time was a tactical war-fighting advantage. (2) That General Robert E. Lee was a transitioner (not a word in a formal dictionary, but it means simply one who transitions) who abandoned his southern strategy where he was victorious and successful and went north seeking victories in Antietam, in Sharpton, Maryland and Gettysburg, Pennsylvania with the aim to demoralize the Northern Army of the Potomac in defeat. And (3) that General Robert E. Lee went into Gettysburg “in the blind,” because he was without his Calvary Commander General James Ewell Brown (J.E.B.) Stuart. Because Lee had no eyes and ears about the movements of the Union troops, “he did not know what he did not know.” I would introduce all three points at different intervals into the workforce system years later.
In October 1998, I would retire from the military and those three points would become anchoring points and integral and indelible part of my thought process and would follow me and become the focal part of my thinking in my second career in workforce development in the way that I would see and analyze workforce scenarios. ?Point one would become the basis for Proactive (offensive - taking prior action before or to stimulate a reaction or an end state) versus Reactive (defensive - subsequently protecting, responding or reacting to a stimulus or an action) in Rapid Response; and point three would become the basis for Proactive Engagement based on point two…that consistent knowledge equals awareness and awareness equals connection, because all life is always in a state of constant flux… transfer, turnover, transition, and how knowledge is diminished, so engaging, educating, and training the employer must be recurring, scheduled, and ongoing to keep them refurbished and aware of the available services, so that they will connect to the workforce system when required.
In March 1999, I was hired as a Workforce Services Representative with the Virginia Employment Commission and attended local Rapid Response sessions explaining unemployment insurance services as part of the Rapid Response Team. It was then that I started to apply past concepts to new ideas in Workforce Development and to see the complete vision. In 2002, I was promoted to Workforce Services Supervisor and the idea of Proactive versus Reactive Rapid Response came to me by simply listening to employers while doing the work of conducting Rapid Response events.? I would hear many employers say after the Rapid Response presentation sessions words to the effect…wow this is a great program, resource, asset or a great secret, but I never knew about it. I would think to myself: How do we change them from not knowing about the Rapid Response Program to knowing about it? Around 2005, I surmised that we should be more offensive “proactive” engaging the employer prior to the layoff by seizing the advantage to make them aware of the services that are available to them, so when the need arises, they will connect to the workforce system instead of being defensive “reactive” merely responding to the employer upon receipt of a WARN notice.
In August 2006, I became the Rapid Response Coordinator with the Virginia Employment Commission and immediately told the State Rapid Response Coordinator Harold Kretzler of my new concept of Proactive versus Reactive Rapid Response. Harold suggested that I pass my ideas to the Department of Labor via the Regional Employment and Training Administration (ETA) monthly meetings and trusted and allowed me to sit in for him. The first meeting that I attended was held and emceed by Jeff Gabriel, and he was there for about two months. During one of the meetings, I introduced the concept of Proactive versus Reactive Rapid Response, and it fell flat like a dud. On the conference call, it received blank silence and pregnant pauses and no traction, and I got the feeling that the seasoned audience thought that I was a newbie or a neophyte in Rapid Response having illusions of grandeur and not knowing what I was talking about. Jeff Gabriel was followed by Kenisha Davis and Davis was followed by Michael Toops who was then the Federal Project Officer for Virginia. I developed an amicable relationship with Michael Toops who was an affable person on the phone and emailed him regularly and it was upon meeting him that things started to change in a positive direction. He would listen to what I had to say. I would not physically meet him until April 13-14, 2010, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the Employment Training and Administration Conference themed Moving from Reactive to Proactive.
In 2007, in Virginia, the Rapid Response Program migrated from the Virginia Employment Commission to Governor Timothy Kaine’s Office of Workforce Development under the leadership of Senior Advisor, Danny LeBlanc and Willie Blanton became the State Rapid Response Coordinator. In 2008, the Rapid Response Program migrated to the Virginia Community College System where I would share my ideas back channel with the Vice Chancellor of Workforce Development, Virginia Community College System and I would write my thoughts directly to him as an example in the redacted email entitled Community College Workforce Development. As you can see back then, I was in the infancy stage of my thinking that would later develop into full-throated vision and strategy. It was the Vice Chancellor of Workforce Development who encouraged me to buy a computer and get my ideas out in the public domain. Willie Blanton remained the State Rapid Response Coordinator and continued to allow me to interact with the Department of Labor during their monthly meetings representing him.
Felecia McClenny, who was a Coordinator colleague, became the Lead Rapid Response Coordinator and routinely scheduled training for the Rapid Response Team. In 2009, one of the training courses she scheduled Layoff Aversion training with Ken Messina, from the state of Massachusetts, a renowned and recognized expert in Rapid Response who came to the Virginia Community College System as a guest speaker. He briefed the Rapid Response Team along with other members of Virginia Community College System Workforce Development.? Not having heard of the term Layoff Aversion before, I was intrigued with the proactive stance in his discussion about Layoff Aversion, requiring action to be taken prior to the layoff and thought it would fit well and complemented my concept of Proactive versus Reactive Rapid Response in engagement.? After Messina’s presentation, I went up to him and introduced myself and said that I have a concept that I have been trying to get off the ground since 2006 called Proactive versus Reactive Rapid Response. Messina looked puzzled as though he did not know what I was talking about. I asked him if he knew Michael Toops and he said yes. I said talk to Mike Toops…that I had explained the concept to him. About two weeks later, I received a direct call from Michael Toops back channel, and he stated that on the conference call with him was Ken Messina, previously mentioned of Massachusetts, and another member from the Department of Labor and they asked me to brief the concept to them. I said words to the effect that my first Rapid Response was a large assembly plant in Norfolk, Virginia and the layoff had numerous attached ancillary employers that provided feeder parts to support the assembly plant in making trucks. The majority of these employers were not required to submit WARN notices, so there was no way that I would have known about them, and they would have known about the Rapid Response Program without me finding out this information from the employer of the assembly plant informing me of who they were. I said the Department of Labor does not track these employers who are not required to submit a WARNs and that I conducted a year long study from 2007-2008 where I tracked all employers and found the results about fifty-fifty, found in Virginia Community College System email Rapid Response Edification, September 2008. About fifty percent of my connections were employers who submit WARN notices and fifty percent were from employers who were not required to submit WARN notices. I said, we only get involved upon receiving the submission of a WARN notice from an employer, which I called reactive, (a defensive posture of responding to the WARN requirement) and employers know or find out who we are then, but the employers not required to submit a WARN notice never know about the Rapid Response Program.? And at that moment, Toops quip…responding at single site,” and that was the first time I heard the term “at a single site.” The words proactive, reactive, and single site would become part of the national Rapid Response Initiative strategy and these same terms would be included in Training and Employment Notice (TEN) 3-10 issued on August 9, 2010. Messina asked, “How do you fix the problem? I said, you continuously make them aware prior to the layoff by engaging them to make them aware of the services available, and they will connect in the future (going on the offense prior to the layoff). They had no other questions. Since that date no one ever asked me any follow-up questions about the furtherance of the idea, vision, or its methodology and to continue the vision. Part of the reason and what exacerbated the problem was chain of command involvement. In January 2010, Felecia McClenny would become the State Rapid Response Coordinator and directed that I no longer directly communicate with the Department of Labor.? As a former military person, I complied with the order, but it had a detrimental effect. It ceased the positive free-flowing of ideas where based the relationship with Toops and Messina, I could have had direct input to continue the vision and correct any mistakes which contributed to the miseducation and the babel effect. Subsequently, the concept would be semi-introduced, because the complete vision was not there in the Department of Labor Employment and Training, Region Two Conference, on April 13-14, 2010, whose theme was “Moving From Reactive to Proactive”, in a PowerPoint presentation and in my opinion, slowly piecemealed into the workforce system over time contributing to the babel effect and miseducation of the original concept.
Regret
My only way out was to write. You will note in my white paper…Layoff Aversion: Get Your Mind Right, published in June 2012, where I tried to expound upon and add content, context, and perspective to the now new term Proactive Rapid Response after its rollout in April 2010. Again, that presentation only had one slide about Proactive Rapid Response. I never mentioned the aforementioned true story where the vision had its genesis at the battleground of Gettysburg. Neither Michal Toops, nor have I ever told the true story of Proactive Rapid Response got to the Department of Labor, publicly until now. I think I speak for both of us when I say that we both thought that the gainful impact of Proactive Rapid Response as a viable and valuable idea, creative innovation, and most of all an effective strategy was far greater than any personal recognition or gain. Having known what I had endured…languishing since 2006 trying to get the idea and concept off the runway, I always felt that the engaging, friendly, and unassuming personality of Michael Toops played a very important role in introducing the concept into the Department of Labor as I remained in the shadows. Upon deep reflection, however,I now realize that not telling the story and providing background, the proper context, and prospects were a terrible mistake, for it did not drive a stake in the ground and set a high bar for the truth, intent, and the purposeful mission of Proactive Rapid Response. Equally, in retrospect, I now realize that my white paper should never have been titled Layoff Aversion: Get Your Mind Right. It should have been entitled Proactive Engagement: Get Your Mind Right, because that is what the white paper was really all about. Proactive Engagement within Proactive Rapid Response is supposed to work in tandem with Ken Messina’s Layoff Aversion model.? Without Proactive Engagement, you have no Early Warning System. Without an Early Warning System, there cannot be effective Layoff Aversion. With this miseducation, Proactive Rapid Response has been generally accepted to mean expressly Layoff Aversion and nationally it has never been promulgated and thought of as an umbrella strategy with four inextricably linked parts. In my vision, Proactive Rapid Response was always an umbrella term encompassing four separate and holistic, but all equally important tenets called (1) Proactive Engagement, (2) an Early Warning System, (3) Layoff Aversion, and (4) Rapid Reemployment. I know that we have a semblance of a problem or concern, because I have never seen Proactive Rapid Response briefed or written as an umbrella term and called four tenets to date but understanding it that way really simplifies the concept ?This confusion and miseducation is not just local, regional, or limited to a single or group of states, it is national miseducation. In the Rapid Response Program concerning Proactive Rapid Response, we literally sit in the same room and use undefined or misunderstood language, and we do not understand each other, because we are not “as one” and we do not speak the same language. Let us examine some of the reasons for “babel” in Proactive Rapid Response.
Impetus - Babel Discussion
With that important background, context, and perspective, babel is confusion and misunderstanding that leads to stalemate or the lack of progress. Simply defined,”it is a confused noise by a number of voices.” This idea came and has been confirmed over the passage and fullness of time in bringing forth the full vision of Proactive Rapid Response.
?Babel - Usage Undefined?
The first event came to me in the Spring of 2023 when I asked the Department of Labor to confirm or provide me with all of the Training and Employment Notices (TENs) and Training and Employment Guidance Letters (TEGLs) directly concerning or indirectly involving the Rapid Response Program. I read all of them and noticed that TENs and TEGLs consistently used terms that they never defined as a baseline definition, and one could extrapolate that with fifty autonomous and independent states, you could have fifty different meanings and interpretations of a concept or idea. You could have fifty Rapid Response Coordinators in the room together and they would not be able to communicate based on fifty interpretations or misinterpretations.
The second occurrence happened in the Spring of 2024 when I was selected to be co-Team Leader as part of a Rapid Response Process Improvement Initiative, and one of my responsibilities was to write an early warning system service plan on how we would conduct early warning in Virginia. To give source acknowledgement and credibility to the terms in the document, my self-task was to define all of the terms, so I went to the Department of Labor to find and get definitions for the following terms 1. Proactive Rapid Response, (2) Reactive Rapid Response (3) Layoff Aversion, (4) Proactive Engagement, (5) Business Engagement, (6) Short-Term Training, (7) Communities, and (8) Rapid Reemployment. To my surprise, the only term that could be defined by the Department of Labor in a TEN or TEGL was Layoff Aversion defined in Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 30-09.? As I tried to articulate in my white paper over twelve years ago in Layoff Aversion: Get You Mind Right, the term layoff aversion by definition itself causes confusion and I would venture to speculate that ninety percent of the national Rapid Response practitioner workforce system does not know what Layoff Aversion is as it relates to Proactive Rapid Response…and it has two equally important parts or how to conduct it. Further, many conflate Layoff Aversion as directly synonymous and equal to Proactive Rapid Response as I stated earlier. It is true that Layoff Aversion has a proactive stance as promoted by Ken Messina in the 1990s and 2000s, but the truth is as previously articulated, Proactive Rapid Response came after Layoff Aversion, being promulgated nationally in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania April 13-14, 2010. And is why the word proactive and reactive are never mention in TEGL 30-09, which was already in the administrative chain to be to published and promulgated in on June 8, 2010.
Babel – ETA Quarterly Training Incongruence?
The confusion and misunderstanding were further demonstrated on October 16, when I conducted ETA training on the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of management and governance. ?Part of my motivation for doing so was that the Rapid Response Practitioner’s Guide espoused strategic and operational initiatives but never mentioned the tactical level initiatives. The tactical level in Rapid Response is “boots on the ground” the doers and executioners of a mission, which is where Rapid Response Coordinators exist and operate. Further, I created a slide to see if the ETA Region Two team clearly understood the underpinnings and differences between strategic and operational mission and vision statements. At the operational level, I? used?the mission statement that had proactive intent Moving From Proactive to Reactive, and at the tactical level, I put as execution in mission completion…the Trade Program, RESEA, and Unemployment Insurance programs and no one in the group understood that those programs were misaligned and part of Reactive and not Proactive Rapid Response, because to be able to participate in the programs, the employee must have attained the dislocated worker status because the layoff had occurred.? Proactive Rapid Response can only occur before the layoff. Once the layoff has occurred then it is Reactive Rapid Response.
Babel - The DOL - the Be All End All Mindset?
Per the Rapid Response Practitioner’s Guide, there are ten core principles plus one added later that should exist in any viable Rapid Response Program. The eleventh principle is innovation. However, on many Rapid Response Teams there exist in what I call the Department of Labor (DOL) mindset that they think the DOL is the know all, be all, and the end all, in policy and direction, and they refuse to embrace change of the concept of innovation and creativity at all. So, they look for the DOL to tell them what to do in policy, process and procedure about Rapid Response. And if the DOL did not say it or if they cannot find it in policy or have not heard of it, then they do not embrace it and do and want to do anything different The only thing certain in life is that we will experience constant and evolving change, and this thought process is incongruent in developing and embracing new concepts and ideas and actually encourages a reactionist mindset.? This mindset will eventually leave any program in a state of babel. As time moves forward, so do new ideas, and if you refuse to change, then you will be left behind.
Babel - Operate At Your Own Peril?
I was invited to a virtual meeting to discuss and to engage in a deeper understanding of Rapid Response with the name, time, and place not being important, and the meeting ended in frustration not just for me, but also for members of the group, because members were using and parroting terms that they had heard of, but were not familiar with in application. I had one meaning and they had another. We were not able to communicate with each other. When you do not understand the true vision and direction and purpose at the strategic and operational levels, then tactical decisions are made that run counter to the objectives, and bad things will happen.
The term Proactive Rapid Response was being used without understanding that there was a physical shift from Proactive to Reactive and since 2010. We are supposed to be going from Reactive to Proactive, but we went from Proactive to ReActive. They were using the term Proactive Rapid Response, but actually describing Reactive Rapid Response. There was obvious misunderstanding and miseducation about the terms Reactive versus Proactive Rapid Response.
The conversation then tilted towards Layoff Aversion and there was the lack of understanding that Layoff Aversion in concept has a proactive stance and is an important tenet in Proactive Rapid Response, and is only viable when supported by an effective Early Warning System (EWS), and Layoff Aversion is not Proactive Rapid Response…they are two different things. Layoff Aversion is within and under the umbrella of Proactive Rapid Response. Additionally, there was the lack of understanding that Layoff Aversion has two phases…one focused on the impacted employer in trying to prevent the layoff and the second phase centers on the impacted employee in focuses on Rapid Reemployment of impacted employees prior to the layoff. So…which phase are you talking about? There was confusion and frustration and we literally were not communicating and I thought to myself…that the only way we will be able to communicate and to be able to develop a path forward is for us all to have a baseline of universal training on terms and language by some entity that wholly understands the Proactive, Reactive,? Engagement, Early Warning, and Layoff Aversion process in a holistic sense to stop the bleeding of misdirection, miseducation, misunderstanding, and utter confusion.
Babel in Directives and Presentation - The Undefined and Unmentioned
Babel - The Rapid Response Practitioner’s Guide
Layoff Aversion: Get Your Mind Right (2012) - Revisited
Feeder Input (2010)
Diminishing Knowledge Deficits (2008)
Workforce Intelligence and Information Network (WIIN in 2010) and later changed to WHIIN in 2024 Workforce Human Intelligence and Information Network
Proactive Outreach (Proactive Engagement (2008?
Education (Diminishing knowledge deficits 2009)
Empower (2009)
Rapid Reemployment (2008)
The Magnet on the Refrigerator (2010)
The confirmation of Intelligence (2010)
Proactive Rapid Response (2005)
Reactive Rapid Response (2005)
The Reactive Mindset (2010)
“They don’t know what they don’t know” (1995/2009)
If as a seasoned practitioner, neophyte, or novice, and you are confused at this point about anything that I have said thus far, then we have the babel effect in Proactive Rapid Response…problems that we need to address as a profession so that we can professionally communicate by knowing and understanding the same term and speak the same language. ?The more things change; the more they stay in place and stay the same. If you do not clearly understand the vision and mission, then decisions are made that work against the very things trying to be accomplished. All of the terms listed above were and are terms that I used to expound upon Rapid Response in writing the white paper, Layoff Aversion: Get Your Mind Right. Again, the reason for writing the white paper is that the true vision about Proactive Rapid Response was not getting out, and when it came out in well-intended parroted presentations, who also did not have a clear understanding of the vision. I will now attempt to clear up the babel or confusion by addressing and explaining my complete vision of the umbrella term Proactive Rapid Response
Proactive Rapid Response
Proactive Rapid Response is a different way of thinking in the Rapid Response program, because it is not just about Responding to Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification (WARN) Act of 1988. Therefore, it is easier to define Proactive Rapid Response, by getting rid of misunderstandings, and myths of what it is by stating what it is not. It is not early intervention or getting involved with a company to avoid a layoff…that is what is called Layoff Aversion, the Ken Messina model (defined later), which is one of the four pillars or tenets of Proactive Rapid Response. Proactive Rapid Response does not establish long-term relationships with employers, but rather, ongoing and recurring relationships with the employer frequently as part of an established long-term cyclic training plan. The reality is Rapid Response Coordinators deal or operate primarily with Human Resources professionals in their everyday functions and duties, and because of human or personnel transfer, turnover, and transitions, most Human Resources officials remain at a company approximately 3.5 – 4 years or less. Therefore, knowledge and awareness are perishable and walk out the door when people exit creating constant knowledge deficits. I will expound this in the ensuing discussion when I introduce the Short-Term Employment Phenomenon that occurs with employers within the tenet or pillar and context of Proactive Engagement.
Workforce system partner staff also experience the same erosion of knowledge and awareness within their staff and must be continuously engaged, updated, trained, and educated on the Rapid Response Program. Viable workforce system partners are not only important in Rapid Reemployment and Reemployment initiatives, they are also equally important as frontend mechanisms of human intelligence in the Early Warning System So, to have a viable and sustainable Early Warning System, knowledge and awareness must be constantly maintained and refurbished when required, via a robust Proactive Engagement service plan and holistic and relevant training strategies of constant education that produces empowerment to take action.? By using the primary pillar called Proactive Engagement (explained later) to make them aware of the services that are available within the workforce system to avert or prevent a layoff and/or unemployment claim by having the impacted/affected employer make a voluntary connection to the workforce system. Again, the impacted/affected employer will make this connection as a viable member of the Early Warning System, because they have been educated and empowered by having attained the knowledge in advance through robust Proactive Engagement and outreach and training services about the Rapid Response Program prior to the layoff. By having this knowledge and awareness, the impacted employer, employee or workforce system partner becomes empowered to be proactive and contact the workforce system at a future date if the need arises. I called these three necessary engagements, “triangle engagement”
In summation, Proactive Rapid Response is an umbrella term within the Aversion Phase where deliberate actions are planned and taken to prevent a job loss transition or layoff and this is not to be confused with Proactive Engagement, Early Warning, Layoff Aversion, and Rapid Reemployment, which are important tenets within the context and perspective of Proactive Rapid Response. It is important to note, and I will reiterate that Proactive Rapid Response only exists within the Aversion Phase, which is prior to the layoff. Another significant point, Proactive Rapid Response has always been about two core things only, and they are the proactive engagement and education of the employer at the front end prior to the need for any job loss transition services, so that they will be empowered by knowledge and awareness to connect with the workforce system to allow the tenets of Early Warning, Layoff Aversion, and Rapid Reemployment to work effectively and optimally to get the impacted employee back to work as quickly as possible.
Proactive Rapid Response (The Aversion Phase)
The word proactive defined is a person, policy, or action creating or controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than responding to it after it has happened (Oxford Languages 2024). The goal is to create a desired outcome by everyone being engaged and understanding the total and holistic mission and vision approach. Based on my military training and background, the word proactive positively aligns and parallels with the word or term offensive of which defined is of, or relating to, or designed for an attack. (Oxford Dictionary, 2024). So…proactive becomes offensive strategies of knowledge and awareness for future connection that expressly aligned with strategies of Layoff Aversion strategies of prevention or minimizing actions prior to the layoff promoted by Ken Messina. So…to be unambiguously clear in the concept, Proactive Rapid Response is an umbrella term that has four primary tenets or pillars and they are: 1. Proactive Engagement (Outreach to affected/impacted employers and employees and viable and relevant partners), (2) An Early Warning System, (3) Layoff Aversion, and (4) Rapid Reemployment - flexible and malleable approaches and strategies to assist the affected/impacted employees back to work as quickly as possible. In an optimum system, all four pillars or tenets are interconnected operating holistically and complementing each other working in parallel “as one” complete system.
The Aversion Phase - Defined
Thinking of Proactive Rapid Response in phases makes it easier to align things and keep them in perspective and the proper order and it helps us understand when and where certain workforce services programs such as Trade and RESEA can be conducted. For example, if you totally grasp the concept just explained, then you will understand that RESEA and Trade can never be conducted in the Aversion Phase in Proactive Rapid Response, because both require dislocation (Dislocation Phase discussed later) of the impacted employee as a qualification for program services. The Aversion phase is only in Proactive Rapid Response and the through line is where there is a start point of initializing any actions, engagements, education, empowerment, policies, processes, and procedures prior to the layoff or the notification of a layoff. The end point of the Aversion Phase is when the layoff occurs, and this is the start of the Dislocation Phase. The broad and sweeping holistic flowing tenets within the Aversion Phase of Proactive Rapid Response are employer and partner focused Proactive Engagement, Early Warning, Layoff Aversion, and Rapid Reemployment. If you understand the Aversion Phase, then you will not misunderstand, miseducate, and misdirect, contributing to babel in Proactive Rapid Response, because you understand what is supposed to happen within each phase. Therefore, again Proactive Response is an umbrella term that encompasses the Aversion Phase only. The Dislocation Phase (discussed later) is just as important as the Aversion Phase in Reactive Rapid Response, but at a different time. However, the Dislocation Phase only has one important tenet and that is Reemployment within the Dislocation Phase as quickly as possible. Note…I said Reemployment and not Rapid Reemployment.
Proactive Rapid Response - Metaphorically Speaking
As a memory aid, Proactive Rapid Response is likened to “the magnet on the refrigerator” (2012), first introduced in Layoff Aversion: Get Your Mind Right. Meaning…when your refrigerator was installed, the repair person gave a magnet with his or her contact information on it (this is equivalent to knowledge of Rapid Response services) to place on your refrigerator to call for services if there is a problem or the need arises. You will never call him if the refrigerator is functioning properly, but when it is not, then you have his information to call.? “Being Proactive in Rapid Response is expressly tied to outreach and awareness training to the employer prior to the layoff, so that Rapid Response would, metaphorically speaking, become the “magnet on the refrigerator.” When they, (the employers) need Rapid Response, they will know who to call, because through imparted knowledge of the program to the employer, an element of trust has been established. This trust is key and critical in the effective and efficient performance of an early warning intelligence system. Hence outreach (proactive engagement) is a requirement or initial feeder input into any successful Rapid Response Program prior to the announcement of any layoff.” (Layoff Aversion: Get Your Mind Right, June 2012).
There is a direct converse relationship with Proactive Rapid Response and workforce connection. The higher the proactive engagements, the higher the number of job loss transition or layoff event connections. Businesses/employers, when the need arises, will know how to connect, because they know what they should know. The magnet on the refrigerator is a simple metaphor to explain frontend proactive engagement of the employer and viable and relevant workforce partners, with the expected end state of relationship sustainment and future connections.
Knowledge Deficits
?As previously stated, on April 13-14, 2010, I was in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania attending the Employment Training and Administration Region 2 Rapid Response Roundtable conference entitled: “Going From Reactive to Proactive,” at the Sheraton Society Hill Hotel.? Michael Toops,( mentioned earlier) was the Federal Project Officer for Virginia and program emcee and at the end of the conference, he asked all Rapid Response Coordinators to raise their hands and to keep them up and he asked the following question: “If you had to describe Rapid Response in two words, what would it be?” He went around the room acknowledging each raised hand, and when he finally got to me, I said…” Rapid Response to me is about “knowledge deficits.” The room went silent. He asked…” what do you mean? “I said words to the effect: We should diminish knowledge deficits by engaging and educating the employer and make them aware of the Rapid Response services that we can provide to them before or prior to the requirement for a layoff. Not all employers have to submit WARN Act notifications. So, they do not connect, because they are not aware of the services” (they don’t know what they don’t know,”( Dr. Charles McKenna 1995). Toops looked at the note taker and said…”are you getting all of this…are you writing it down.” Subsequently, my words made it into Training and Employment Notice (TEN) 31-11 (March 2012). After I made that statement, many coordinator/practitioners in the room concurred and agreed with me. I said that and provided that input to make a point and to expound upon Proactive Rapid Response, because its true intent as I saw it had not been captured in Ken Messina’s PowerPoint presentation entitled: “The National Rapid Response Initiative,” when it was rolled out at the conference.? I further explained and expounded upon this in Layoff Aversion: Get Your Mind Right, when I stated that “there must be a proactive outreach (engagement) or an informational plan to diminish knowledge deficits about the Rapid Response program. These knowledge deficits exist with both employers and employees.” ?Knowledge defined is understanding of the subject acquired from experience or education. Information comes from data put together in a meaningful way. Deficits defined are created because of the lack of specific or general training or education or knowledge that is perishable or us lost due to attrition (transition, transfer, and turnover). Understanding the importance of constantly diminishing knowledge deficits sets us up for the need for the first tenet in Proactive Rapid Response within the Aversion Phase called Proactive Engagement.
(1) The Proactive Engagement Tenet
Front end) - The first tenet of Proactive Rapid Response is Proactive Engagement. It is the engagement, education, and empowerment of employers and viable and relevant partners prior to the layoff, by educating them on the value and vitality of the Rapid Response Program and the services that are available to them with the understanding that because they have been educated and have the knowledge that if the need arises in the future, they will make connection with the workforce system. It consists of three fluid parts to be successful: (1) Employer engagement (business engagement) (2) viable and relevant partner engagement, and (3) employee engagement - a focus on the apex needs via individual customized transitions. All three parts will experience human transfer, turnover and transition where knowledge is lost, creating knowledge deficits. Therefore, proactive engagement should be ongoing and recurring as part of a scheduled training program– before any layoff or job loss transition. Again, using the mission tenets of engagement, education, and empowerment. Proactive Engagement is necessary for an Early Warning System to work effectively…they are inextricably linked. You cannot have one without the other. ?On November 16, 2010, while at Thomas Nelson Community College, I conducted the first Rapid Response Summit ever in Virginia, with a regional and local workforce partners. During that session, I had invited Ken Messina, who was in charge of the Rapid Response Initiative, per TEN 3-10 on the final program agenda. He participated via a virtual patch and provided his insights. It was during this session in my PowerPoint presentation called Quality Rapid Response that I introduce the Proactive Engagement strategy of awareness, because employers “don’t know what they don’t know, and that this engagement must be a lifelong, recurring, ongoing attempt. ?
Proactive Engagement (Back end) is also used in Rapid Response services to employ strategies to prevent, avoid, or avert the layoff or job loss transition within Rapid Reemployment and Reemployment tenets discussed later.
The Awareness Doctrine?- is an important component of proactive engagement and proactive Rapid Response. At its core and impetus, the awareness doctrine is front end engagement to impart knowledge. The Awareness Doctrine is a simple jingle. Knowledge equals awareness and awareness equal connection. Employers/businesses, viable and relevant partners may not make the connection and may not connect to the workforce system because “they do not know what they do not know.” Again, I reiterate that we must continuously diminish “knowledge deficits.” Knowledge deficits are an ongoing and an inherent part of the impacted/affected business/employer, and workforce system partners everyday life. Planned and unplanned transfer, turnover, and transition continuously occur within the workforce system. To reiterate, knowledge of the Rapid Response Program is perishable and eventually, it walks out the door over time, if not renewed and refurbished. So, we must continuously engage, educate, and empower prior to the layoff or job loss event to make participants aware of workforce services to have the return on the investment (ROI) for a future connection by having a vibrant, robust, and efficient proactive frontend engagement strategy that will provide early warning and human intelligence for future involvement. This concept is different from the Department of Labor’s quality tenet of - Active Promotion, because it espouses impassioned engagement to educate for a future reciprocity and not a strategy of hope) by informing and hoping the audience got the message.
Impassioned Engagement?- is an in-person opportunity for input, feedback, learning, and continuous improvement. It is viable and necessary in averting job loss and attaining rapid reemployment. I first introduced the term impassioned engagement in 2013, when I began writing the blog/article Impassioned Engagement: Veteran Triangle for Success, October 2013 and published it in March 2014 on the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB), in Washington, D.C. First, for clarity and understanding, there is a difference between being passionate and impassioned. Impassioned defined “implies warmth and intensity without violence and suggests fluent verbal expression.” There is learning, understanding, comprehension, civility, and respectability in conversation.? Passionate “implies great vehemence and often violence and wasteful diffusion of emotion.” ?(Merriam-Webster Dictionary) Impassioned Engagement is a form of proactive engagement, which again is the first tenet of Proactive Rapid Response. Impassioned Engagement is direct in-person engagement that espouses and enforces the awareness doctrine: Knowledge equals Awareness and Awareness Connection. It is inextricably tied and linked to Proactive Engagement in Proactive Rapid Response and is a sustainability model of future connection and reconnection. Metaphorically speaking, impassioned engagement is likened to planting a knowledge seed that grows and brings forth fruit in its season in the future…a reciprocity…gainful return on the investment. Initial engagement is not based on a need for service delivery, but the expressed and intentional need to educate with an expected future reciprocity, the magnet on the refrigerator (2012) Layoff Aversion: Get Your Mind Right (2012). Impassioned engagement has the following ten qualities:
1. An innate and intangible future purpose for the engagement not obviously known, but it can be explained by educating the audience.
2. There is education and enlightenment in the engagement (the planting of the knowledge seed) and not merely informing. This is input to the employer and not input from the employer. It is a synopsis of what Rapid Response is and how it will help and be of benefit in the future (the magnet on the refrigerator).
3. There is an opportunity for interaction, respectability, civility, feedback, confirmation, and trust that the educational message has been received.
4. There is an opportunity for measurement normally via survey for continuous improvement in the process moving forward.
5. There is expected output - an expected reciprocity…a future fruitful or gainful return on the engagement investment (return on the investment (ROI). The magnet on the refrigerator.
领英推荐
6. There is triangle engagement - engagement and education of the employer, the impacted/affected employee, and viable and relevant workforce system partners. This is a requirement, because again, there are constant transitional knowledge deficits in all three due to employee attrition (transfer, turnover, and transition). It is triangle (proactive) engagement and education of the employer and workforce partners prior to any layoff to ensure and sustain a future connection. It is reactive engagement and education (the Dislocation Phase) of the impacted/affected employee as a knowledge gateway into the workforce system and for future sustained reconnections.
7. Reconnection/re-engagement of the workforce system is the reciprocity because the employer remembered the engagement, the quality presentation, the education, the discussion and acquired knowledge (the planting of the knowledge seed) and saw value in the services/education/information provided (the magnet on the refrigerator). I created the metaphor magnet on the refrigerator as a way of simplifying proactive front-end engagement in Rapid Response. Most people have a magnet on their refrigerator with a phone number or contact information on it to be used when the need arises. Because I know about the services, I will look at the number and call when the need arises. The same process applies when you proactively pre-engage and educate the employer and workforce partners.
8. Value-added for connection/reconnection sustainment - the audience normally the employer/business, workforce partners, impacted/affected employee, sees the engagement and the product as having value and will continue to connect/reconnect in the future and spread the message and will become ambassadors and promoters of the program.
9. Is ongoing proactive engagement- is not to build long-term relationships but is because of the short-term employment relationships (discussed later) induced by employee attrition and transition; because of fluidity and constant flux in the workplace knowledge and relationships are perishable and are lost when people leave an organization. The average Human Resources professional stays with a company for not more than four years.? And when they leave the knowledge and trust relationship connection with the Rapid Response Coordinator is broken and has to be reestablished again and again through front end proactive engagement.
10. In my vision, impassioned engagement does not and has never included social media platforms and per the aforementioned points, is different than the Department of Labor’s active promotion. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, email, and texts are indirect forms of engagement and communication and not in person engagement. They have the potential to reach large and vast audiences, but that to me is quantity over quality and not a quality impassioned connection and engagement. The quality in the message is diminished or depleted exponentially due to the nature and character of social media procedures and processes. Social media platforms merely inform, but they do not holistically and intrinsically educate. Example: If I sent you a Facebook or Instagram post, email or text, how do I know that “you” actually received it? How do I know that “you” actually opened it? How do know that “you” actually read it?? And, if you read it, how do I know that “you” actually comprehended and understand it for its proper context, understanding, and perspective, which if not, would lead to continued babel causing further miseducation and misdirection? How do I know that as the receiver of the message that you have been educated by definition in that the receiver has “developed a sense of understanding, judgment, and reasoning? “(discussed in the next session. How do I ensure a future reciprocity for connection, if the aforementioned questions cannot be validated? The aforementioned social media platforms Facebook, Instagram, email, and text are devoid of nonverbal cues and human-in-person-interaction and emotion, so how do I confirm the educational message has been correctly received and confirmed? What is the legitimate opportunity for feedback and discussion?? This is why I embrace and espouse the continued in-person, human interaction of direct Proactive Engagement within Proactive Rapid Response, using the aforementioned ten qualities/tenets of impassioned engagement to spread the important message of awareness at the beginning or front end (before any layoff or job loss transition requirements) about Rapid Response services, either on-site or virtually. With proper presenter training, both can be equally effective.
The Short-Term Employment Phenomenon (2018) - The Rapid Response Practitioner’s Guide mentions long-term relationships at a minimum of eight times, but it never defines how long do long-term relationships last. I contend that in Rapid Response, it is difficult, if impossible for Rapid Response Coordinators to establish long-term relationships, because of what I call the short-term employment phenomenon that exists within the Human Resources Departments of employers. First, I sought validate my theory, so I defined long-term relationships. After an extensive search, I found the definition that “long-term is generally considered to be 10 years or more, while short-term is generally three years or less.” (Western/Southern.com. Employee attrition is defined as “the departure of employees from the organization for any reason (voluntary or involuntary), including resignation, termination, death, or retirement” (Human Resources Gartner Glossary).? Because of the short-term employment phenomenon, it is difficult to establish long-term relationships with employers because knowledge is perishable, and it literally and figuratively walks out the door.? “The typical employee stays at the job for just over four years, according to a 2020 study from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The study found that these numbers apply to both men and women and that older employees typically have longer tenure at a company than their younger counterparts,” (Indeed Career Guide, 2023), but the Baby Boomer Generation is aging out. ?The following information supports the short-term employment model. “The average tenure of an employee is 4.1 years. Workers 55-64 had an average tenure of 9.9 years, while workers 25-34 had an average tenure of 2.8 years,” (Forbes Advisor, May 2023) Rapid Response Coordinators work 99.9 percent of the time with Human Resources (HR) professionals, but they are not on the job for ten years or more. However, again it is difficult to establish a long-term relationship (greater than four years), because of Human Resources employee attrition and transition. Consider the following question: How long should you stay in an HR role? “You should stay in a role long enough to learn from the impact of the changes that you made in the role. Depending on the individual, it could be two years for one person, and it could be four years for another. It really depends on the role, (Tom Brown, LinkedIn, 2015). So, the reality is that the Human Resources Representative relationship with the Rapid Response Coordinator is short-term at best and never long-term unless in Rapid Response the parameters of the meaning of short and long-term relationships are clearly defined to decrease the babel effect.
So, in its purest form, Proactive Engagement in PractivevRapid Response is about the continuous need for and to exude and express the most updated knowledge to the employer, impacted/affected employee, and relevant and viable workforce partners through continuous proactive engagement, making it the knowledge gateway for adult career pathways.?Knowledge provides choices for a clear, concise, and unambiguous career pathway for additional and enhanced training, individual customized transitions, upward mobility, and success. When notified of an impending job loss transition, Rapid Response becomes the first touch point for entrance and connection into the workforce system, providing an opportunity to access specific needs and to cross-educate the impacted/affected employer, impacted/affected dislocated worker, and workforce partners, on the services that Rapid Response Team provides. This allows them collectively to develop a mental picture for success and make informed decisions and begin to develop relevant and important strategies on how to proceed within the context of an impending job loss transition depending on where they are in life as a whole person. This thought process must be firmly planted, nurtured, cultivated and sustained in the mind of the business/employer and relevant and viable workforce system partners in advance well before a requirement and itself serves as a connection/reconnection point in an ongoing/recurring scheduled cyclic training program.? A robust Proactive Engagement program and system buys us awareness, connection, and time for the function of an optimal Early Warning System, the second tenet in Proactive Rapid Response.
(2) The Early Warning System Tenet
Early Warning System (EWS) – The second tenet of Proactive Rapid Response is an effective and engaged Early Warning System operating with optimal efficiency. It is in Proactive Rapid Response in the Aversion Phase. A robust and effective Proactive Engagement Strategy is necessary for an optimal Early Warning System strategy. They are inextricably linked; one cannot exist without the other. During ongoing/recurring frontend engagement of the employer, trust is developed, and the employer is made aware of the importance of time, and how time is required to provide them with the highest quality of service. Therefore, early warning systems approach is a holistic and synergy of recurring training and baseline knowledge of awareness designed to detect and provide timely layoff intelligence about potential threats or risks of an impending layoff to have time to provide applicable services to the impacted/affected employer and employee.? An Early Warning System is an intangible construct. It is not a physical thing; not something that you can touch and feel. Instead, it is a mindset, a way of thinking, operating, and acting, thereby changing behavior and developing a culture of recognition, vigilance, and high-quality expectation of outcomes in placements, and rehires, which is the strategic goal of the federally funded Rapid Response Program…to get workers impacted/affected by a layoff or job loss transition back to work as quickly as possible. That is the ultimate goal of an Early Warning System…to optimize confirmed layoff intelligence (discussed later) so that the workforce system will have time to positively impact the employer and/or the employee by averting the layoff or getting the impacted/affected employee back to work as quickly possible through Rapid Reemployment.
(A)? Time – Developing an effective and efficient Early Warning System gives us the benefit of time. Time is a precious resource and commodity for providing high quality Rapid Response services. Time and protraction are required for a Layoff Aversion system to work efficiently. Workforce systems are burden with processes, procedures, red tape, and bureaucracies, and do not operate at “thr speed and needs” of businesses. Therefore, a minimum requirement of a protracted layoff of two months or more is required for optimum effectiveness and efficiency in Layoff Aversion (discussed later). Obviously, the more time, the better the coordinated effort to assist the impacted employer and employees.
The earlier the notification through established engagement, education, knowledge and trust within the system, the better the system and service delivery partners can work toward reemployment goals prior to a layoff. During this phase, this is where concurrent events and processes take place. The knowledge of an impending layoff via a system of intelligence, the confirmation of intelligence, and the timely dissemination of information are key, because time is required for notification of viable partners and coordination of each layoff based on unique needs. Rapid Response Manager’s Meetings and Employee Briefings should be scheduled; there is a transition needs survey questionnaire given to affected employees; and there is the compilation and dissemination of survey results. Workforce partner meetings are conducted to develop Layoff Aversion and Rapid Reemployment strategies, and Virginia Career Center One Stops, and Virginia Works Offices conduct job search comparisons and matchings, transition seminars, and workshops, and coordinate and plan job fairs and hiring events in Rapid Reemployment.
Through proactive, planned, and involved actions, an Early Warning System increases the certainty and relevancy of layoff intelligence and the likelihood of the identified layoff intelligence becoming actionable information as a bonafide trackable Rapid Response layoff event. The goal is to develop systems and processes that will convert human intelligence into relevant and confirmed layoff intelligence that becomes actionable information as quickly as possible. In a holistic systems approach this can be done by collectively understanding indicators and warnings (I and W) via several methods such as (1) obtaining or purchasing, and using an at-risk tool to help identify early indicators and warnings that may affect a company and make them prone to a layoff; (2) relying on the Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification WARN Act system of layoff notification submissions as required by federal law, by enhancing this submission process by training and educating the employer to provide submission of the WARN earlier than 60 days notification, when possible and practicable, to provide additional time; and,(3) using human intelligence in the catch-all Non-WARN layoff intelligence approach, which is the collection of layoff intelligence by any means other than a WARN working in tandem with proactive engagement.
(B) Human Intelligence - An Early Warning System involves people…human beings as confirmation agents that inform or feed the system with intelligence that may lead by to an employer needing or requiring Rapid Response services. Again, its primary goal is to convert human intelligence, what is known by triggering indicators and warnings, into confirmed layoff intelligence.
Human Intelligence (HUMINT) is a collection of actions, interactions, indicators and warnings from human sources. It is defined as intelligence gathered by means of interpersonal contact, a category of intelligence derived from information collected and provided by human sources. (LibGuide, May 20, 2024). By converting and understanding layoff intelligence, it can provide insights, indicators, and warnings not available elsewhere within the workforce system that warns, informs, and provides the advantage of time and protraction of potential threats and opportunities, in order to effectively respond to these layoffs threats before they occur, or at a minimum, to be able to access or predict probable outcomes, such as what may be about to happen with an employer or business based on the indicators and warnings being observed.
(C) The WHIIN (2024) formerly known as the WIIN (2010)
My previous experience as a commissioned naval officer helped me create this concept and understand the difference between intelligence and information. I created and introduced this concept in 2010 and included it in my Regional Rapid Response Service plan in 2011 and in Layoff Aversion: Get Your Mind Right, June 2012. To be intellectually honest, which is an important tenet in my character development, I must give intellectual credit to Tammy Williams Hart, one of the Virginia Rapid Response Administrative Assistants.? When I was explaining about the requirement for human interaction, she recommended that I include “human” in my title. So, in 2024, I changed the title to The Workforce Human Intelligence and Information Network (WHIIN).The WHIIN is a system that is a vital part of the Early Warning System in that it wholly exploits Non-WARN process (human intelligence by any means other than a WARN) intelligence by optimizing and taking advantage of human intelligence as a conduit to become viable and relevant layoff intelligence. This layoff intelligence becomes actionable information based on the confirmation of human intelligence with an impacted/affected employer that a layoff or job loss transition is, in fact, going to happen. This confirmed layoff intelligence will become an actionable bonafide layoff event within the Rapid Response system. It recognizes that each human being is its own free, uncontrollable, vehicle, and vector going to limitless places and therefore, a limitless source and resource of information flow about impending layoffs through the course of their professional and personal lives.
Therefore, the WHIIN includes anyone that is human being within the Early Warning System who can provide human intelligence to be confirmed and converted into layoff intelligence. To prepare and optimize the WHIIN, all members of any workforce system should receive a baseline of training about the Rapid Response program and the Early Warning System to cover expectations and then the training should be scheduled and recurring to cover personnel transfer, turnover, and transition to keep the Rapid Response Program knowledge network robust and intact. How the WHIIN works…is that again, in Proactive Rapid Response, we want time on our side, because time is our friend in Early Warning and Layoff Aversion. So, by way of example, as a human being, you are in the grocery store shopping, and you overhear two people talking about an impending layoff from an employer. As a trained member of the WHIIN, what are you going to do with this information to start the layoff intelligence and confirmation process? You should report this intelligence (human intelligence) to your chain of command, and it will continue in the process until it reaches the regional Rapid Response Coordinator, who confirms human intelligence with the employer. This confirmed human intelligence then becomes actionable layoff intelligence that becomes actionable information as a trackable layoff event in the Rapid Response program. Other forms of human Non-WARN intelligence include human action, reaction, and interaction are telephone calls, word of mouth, email, receiving a letter, text, post, social media involvement, etc., about an impending layoff. The goal is to timely confirm human intelligence via a systematic process to where it becomes actionable information to become a layoff event. The impacted/affected employer, viable partners within the workforce system, the impacted/affected employee, and all members of anyone’s Workforce Development Departments are all important members of the Early Warning System and are nodes for continuous education and empowerment to ensure that the WHIIN within the Early Warning System operates optimally. Please see the WHIIN diagram for clarity.
(D) The Confirmation of Layoff Intelligence?
Once the layoff intelligence is collected, then it must be confirmed to become actionable information used to substantiate becoming a bonafide trackable layoff event and the commitment of time, energy, effort, and resources to the affected employer and impacted employees to meet the mission of the Rapid Response program, which again, is to return impacted employees to work as quickly as possible. To best understand this concept, it is easier to understand what the confirmation of layoff intelligence does not entail. By way of examples, hearing about a layoff over the television or on the radio, or by any form of social media, or by text, email, or by word of mouth or rumor, newspaper, or any form of written correspondence is not confirmation that a layoff will in fact occur, if this information did not come directly and expressly from the impacted/affected employer. Those things just mentioned are all human intelligence tenets but are not viable intelligence that can be acted upon to create layoff intelligence and a bonafide layoff event. Hence, the only entity that clearly and unambiguously confirms layoff intelligence that a bonafide layoff has or will occur is the employer. The employer must be directly contacted to confirm layoff intelligence, so that it becomes actionable information, and that confirmed information becomes a trackable layoff event.
(E) At-Risk-Tool (Indicators and Warnings (I and W)
Purchasing and using an at-risk-tool allows for the focusing on early indicators and warnings within the Early Warning System to assist in identifying companies at risk for impending layoffs and should include such factors as an employer’s inability to pay bills or taxes, unplanned temporary layoff, declining sales, loss of contract, supply chain procurement issues, loss of credit rating, adverse industry market trends, sale of the company, and changes in management behavior or ownership by way of examples. The tool allows for early intervention, involvement, and early warning which allows for required time and protraction for Layoff Aversion and Rapid Reemployment to work optimally.
(F) Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act (WARN)
Signed into law on August 4, 1988, the WARN is a federal requirement that offers protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notice 60 days in advance of covered plant closings and covered mass layoffs. As confirmed layoff intelligence from the employer, as an indicator and a warning of an impending layoff, this notice must be provided to either affected workers or their representatives (e.g., a labor union); to the State dislocated worker unit; and to the appropriate unit of local government. Employers are covered by the WARN if they have 100 or more employees, not counting employees who have worked less than 6 months in the last 12 months and not counting employees who work an average of less than 20 hours a week.(The WARN Act 1998)? As confirmed layoff intelligence, WARNs can play a vital role in the optimal application and operation of the Early Warning System, because they come directly from the employer as confirmed intelligence which saves valuable time. In their natural and intended state, WARNs are reactive, but they can be made to be proactive through engagement and intelligence. Employers can optimize the WARN system if they are educated and empowered during Proactive Engagement sessions to submit WARNs, if possible and practicable, in advance of the 60-day requirement notification deadline. This will make? the operational flow of the Early Warning System even more efficient and give the workforce system more time and protraction to help the employer in Layoff Aversion and Rapid Reemployment initiatives. WARNs submitted by the employer are most of the time displayed to the public via the workforce system. They actually represent a small percentage of the employers being impacted by a layoff in each state. However, any employer or business not meeting the 100 or more-employee submission requirement Non-WARN, may still submit a WARN an indicator and warning of an impending layoff.
(G) Non – Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification (Non – WARN (2006)
The Non-WARN concept is communication of human intelligence by any means other than a WARN. I created the term Non- WARN in 2006. As previously stated, my first layoff was a large assembly plant of 2500 employees. The impacted/affected employer had more than ten attached as ancillary supporting employers. I created Non WARN to differentiate between those employers required to submit a WARN and those who are not. Term Non-WARN has three meanings.? It is a system that does not operate based on a requirement of submission of a notification of an impending layoff by the impacted/affected employer. Instead, it operates optimally and voluntarily when combined and working in tandem with an energetic and robust Proactive Engagement strategy and Early Warning System where the impacted/affected employer has been prior educated and informed of the Rapid Response program and valuable services within the workforce system in advance, and the gainful return on the investment is that because the employer has been educated and is aware, then the impacted/affected employer will voluntarily make contact with the workforce system at a future date when the need arises by providing human intelligence of an impending layoff. If this intelligence comes by means that involves human intelligence such as telephone calls, word of mouth, email, letter, text, post, etc., it will have to be confirmed as layoff intelligence by the Regional Rapid Response Coordinator and will become actionable information, as a bonafide trackable layoff event. The reason this is important is that as stated earlier, a large percentage of all employers in each state do not meet the WARN criteria for submission and notification by having equal to or greater than 100 employees. Instead, they meet the Non-WARN criteria of voluntary reporting to obtain layoff intelligence by using human intelligence. This point accentuates and is emblematic of the importance in establishing a robust, recurring, and quality Proactive Engagement and training program. Because this layoff intelligence is voluntary by the employer and based on the establishment of trust, the layoff intelligence is tracked within the Rapid Response Program but is never publicly shared, displayed or discussed without expressed permission from the impacted employer.
(3) The Layoff Aversion Tenet
Layoff Aversion is the third tenet or pillar of Proactive Rapid Response. An effective Proactive Engagement strategy and Early Warning System are necessary for Layoff Aversion to work optimally. It is Proactive Engagement of the employer before and during an impending layoff or job loss transition notification date. The initial goal is preventing or averting the layoff or transition. The Department of Labor’s Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 30-09, defines Layoff Aversion as “(1) when a worker’s job is saved with the existing employer that is at risk” of downsizing or closing.” This is Proactive Rapid Response in the Aversion Phase, which are any actions taken with respect to the layoff prior to the layoff.? During this phase, per Ken Messina’s model of Layoff Aversion, there is an intense focus on the impacted/affected employer in trying to avert the layoff by saving the company from a layoff action. At this juncture is where an at-risk-tool becomes a viable and valuable option in averting the layoff, because it provides triggers that may allow for early intervention. The second part of Layoff Aversion is when “a worker at risk of dislocation, transitions to a different job with the same employer or a new job with a different employer and experiences no, or a minimal spell of unemployment.”? It is in this definition that Layoff Aversion gets confusing and creates babel, and I addressed this as an issue in my white paper Layoff Aversion: Get Your Mind Right. I will attempt to expound upon it and provide more clarity. This definition unintentionally combines the Aversion Phase (all actions prior to the layoff) with the Dislocation Phase (all actions after the layoff) when in the definition it states, “or a minimal spell of unemployment,” which means that the affected/impacted employer has been laid off. Further, it goes against mentally and tangibly the definition of aversion which causes babel, confusion, and misunderstanding.? The word aversion defined is “to avoid a thing or situation.” So…taking the definition on its face, how was the layoff or job loss transition avoided, if the person was laid off experiencing a minimal spell of unemployment? Logically, this creates a conundrum and is a difficult question to answer for those trying to learn and understand the Rapid Response Program.
I was able to work through this dilemma in my vision by using the terms Rapid Reemployment and Reemployment as occurring in separate phases. As you can see in the second part of the definition that the focus shifts to the impacted/affected individual employee from the employer. Therefore, a subset and employment strategy within Layoff Aversion, within the Aversion Phase (action prior to the layoff) is Rapid Reemployment which now shifts to employment strategies (quality rehire/placement) of the impacted employee, once the employer decides to notify of an impending layoff. The best example of Rapid Reemployment working optimally and efficiently is having a terminal date, layoff, or a job loss transition date on Friday, and back to work and being reemployed on Monday. However, it is easier said than done or completed; for, there is a lot of work that goes into making this initiative a success.
(4) The Rapid Reemployment Tenet
Engagement of the impacted employee in group format before and during notification of an impending layoff and after a layoff notification and the layoff or job loss transition has not occurred.? I need to reiterate for clarity in my model, to prevent babel and avoid confusion, that Rapid Reemployment occurs in the Aversion Phase prior to the layoff and Reemployment occurs in the Dislocation Phase after the layoff. Rapid Reemployment is a system of need-based customizable strategies and methods that expressly and directly focuses on the impacted employee attaining employment optimally prior to the layoff date. Embracing this Rapid Reemployment concept supports Training and Employment Guidance Letter 30-09 within the proactive aversion stance. Understanding that Rapid Reemployment occurs before or during the layoff date the goal is for the impacted employee to attain employment prior to the layoff or to prevent the layoff from occurring at all. So, the Rapid Reemployment approach and strategies work well in all the Layoff Aversion phases where the focus is on the impacted/affected employee. ?If we are proactive in our approach, methods, and mindset, then and the Ken Messina model, we should be all about preventing the loss of job and not collecting unemployment insurance at all. In Rapid Reemployment, once a job loss transition has been confirmed, it is direct proactive engagement of the impacted/affected employer and employee prior to the layoff or job loss transition using Rapid Response Manager Meetings and Employee Informational Session, the American Job Center/One Stop Center and viable and relevant and applicable workforce partners. This is work done through robust Proactive Engagement strategies and consistent and holistic proactive assessments that includes the alignment, collaboration, involvement, and participation of the employer and viable and relevant workforce system partners via American Job Centers (One Stop Centers). These Centers will address the unique needs of the affected/impacted employer, group needs of the impacted/affected group? and individual needs?that hopefully will lead to averting the layoff through placement hires before the terminal date, which is includes hiring events, application and regular job fairs, virtual job fairs, reemployment matching, survey assessments, the Trade Act program preparation, determination/certification, training to become more employable, resume writing, interviewing techniques, and job search strategies workshops to attain? maximum placements or rehires.
?The Line of Demarcation
The line of demarcation is a very, very important memory aid to prevent mission and strategy misunderstanding, creep, and misalignment. It is an imaginary line between the Aversion Phase and the Dislocation phases that distinguishes between Proactive and Reactive Engagement and Proactive and Reactive Rapid Response in assisting in diminishing or depleting babel and confusion. If Proactive Rapid Response and Proactive Engagement are equivalent to any applied actions in Rapid Response before or prior to the layoff or the job loss transition equal to or greater than sixty days, then Reactive Rapid Response and Reactive Engagement are equivalent to any applied actions taken in Rapid Response after the layoff or job loss transition announcement equal to or less than sixty days, and/or the layoff event has occurred (a dislocation).? If you grasp and understand this, then you will understand that in this phased approach Rapid Reemployment occurs only in the Proactive Rapid Response within the Aversion Phase up until the layoff or dislocation.? Reemployment services, Unemployment Insurance, RESEA the Trade Act programs, etc. occur in the Dislocation Phase. And again, to reiterate, once the layoff occurs Proactive Rapid Response ends and Reactive Rapid Response within the Dislocation Phase begins.
Reactive Rapid Response
The word reactive over the years has taken on negative connotations, but Reactive Rapid Response is just as important as Proactive Rapid Response when phased correctly. In its purest form, Reactive Rapid Response is merely regular Rapid Response. Proactive Rapid Response morphs into Reactive Rapid Response when the layoff begins. The word reactive defined is a reacting or responding to events or situation rather than acting first to change or prevent something (Cambridge Dictionary, 2024). There is no influencing the outcome with averting the layoff or empowerment to make a connection to the workforce system prior to the layoff. Again, based on my military training and background, the word reactive parallels and aligns with the word or term defensive, which is of, or relating to protecting. So…unlike the word proactive, defensive action are protecting the impacted employee from the deleterious effects of being unemployed…at point in Proactive Rapid Response that we are never trying to get too. In Reactive Rapid Response, there are no prevention strategies…nothing to prevent the layoff from occurring.
Comparatively speaking, Reactive Rapid Response is a less desirable defensive approach or reacting and responding to the stimuli of the impending results of a layoff.? The requirements are the layoff has been announced, but notification and confirmation of the layoff is less than or within 60 days, disallowing little time to implement Layoff Aversion strategies. This is when the layoff is impending or is in motion (started and/or is phased over time) or it has occurred. If the layoff occurred, then obviously, it was not averted, so Reactive? Rapid Response involves exclusively the pillar of Reemployment and there is no possibility of frontend or early Proactive Engagement, no Early Warning System triggering, and no opportunity for Layoff Aversion due to condensed time notification. Reemployment Eligibility Services and Assessments (RESEA), Unemployment Insurance services (UI), the Trade Act programs to name a few, are reactive services, in that their trigger is the layoff will be or has occurred, within less than 60-days and the impacted worker is or will be in a dislocated worker status…losing his or her job through no fault of their own.
The Dislocation Phase Defined
The line of demarcation for Reactive Rapid Response notification is < 60 days before the layoff or the layoff has occurred (a dislocated worker status) and the through-line end point is when the impacted/affected employee is back to work or reemployed as soon as possible. The total emphasis and focus are employment of the impacted employee, so the only tenet in the Dislocation Phase in Reactive Rapid Response is the Reemployment tenet, which is to rapidly employ dislocation services, to reemploy or rehire the impacted or affected worker as quickly as possible. Dislocation services are unemployment insurance, RESEA, and the Trade Act Program, and reemployment services, which again, are services that require the affected employee to be unemployed and having attained a dislocated worker status before receiving the benefits such services.
Reactive Engagement (Backend) is exclusively in reactive or regular Reactive Rapid Response, by using a service delivery that conducts needs assessments and addresses at first the group format needs of impacted/affected group of employees using the Rapid Response Manager’s Meeting and Employee Informational Sessions. Reactive Engagement is also specifically focused on individual customized transitions, after a job loss transition has occurred through the voluntary and direct connection of the impacted/affected employee to the American Job Center/One Stop Center to address and customized individual and specific needs (customized transitions) such as supportive and wrap-around services, job and career workshops, RESEA, veteran services, registering for the Trade Act program, unemployment insurance, and career plan development for reemployment to name a few.
The Reemployment Tenet
Reemployment and not Rapid Reemployment is the only tenet in Reactive Rapid Response within the Dislocation Phase that occurs < 60 days before the terminal date or after the layoff has occurred.
In the Reemployment Tenet, once a job loss transition has been confirmed, in Rapid Response, it is direct engagement of the impacted/affected employer and employee prior to the layoff or job loss transition using Rapid Response Manager Meetings and Employee Informational Session, the American Job Center/One Stop Center and viable and relevant and applicable workforce partners. Just like in Proactive engagement, this is work done through robust engagement strategies that includes the alignment, collaboration, involvement, and participation of the employer, impacted employees, and viable and relevant workforce system partners via American Job Centers (One Stop Centers). After Rapid Response session, which are the information gateway, these Centers will address the unique needs of the affected/impacted employer, group needs of the impacted/affected group and individual unique and specific needs of each individual transitioner that hopefully will lead to reemployment through placement hires after the terminal date, with activities such as hiring events, application and regular job fairs, virtual job fairs, reemployment matching, survey assessments,? preparation, determination/certification, training to become more employable, resume writing, interviewing techniques, job search strategies workshop,? veteran services, which are some of the methods of Reemployment with again, the goal of maximum placements or rehires after the layoff has occurred.
Reactive Rapid Response (Metaphorically speaking)
The best memory aid for Reactive Rapid Response or regular Rapid Response, is merely waiting and doing nothing and letting the employer contact you via a WARN waiting to be notified of an impending layoff or job loss transition. The best metaphor to describe reactive Rapid Response is the Maytag Repairman. In this example the metaphor has nothing to do with providing a quality product, but rather, exemplifies and examples a person sitting and waiting to receive a Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification or waiting for the telephone to ring to be notified of a layoff by an employer before there is involvement. There is no frontend Proactive Engagement Strategy to engage, educate, and empower employers and viable and relevant partners prior to the layoff for the subsequent reciprocity of a future connection. Instead of knowing of the layoff in advance, and using time and protraction as advantages, relevant processes are reacting and responding to impending layoff with little to no opportunity to avert the layoff or change the trajectory of the layoff via Rapid Reemployment.
Summation
I can make the following two statements without hesitation. This blog will be my last blog about Proactive Rapid Response, and if I do blog again, it will be about my experiences on this protracted journey. Second, I will be attending the Department of Labor Employment and Training Forever Ready Conference on January 14-15, 2025. This will be my last conference attendance, unless there is something unforeseen that I do not know about. I took the time to tell the Proactive Rapid Response journey true back story, because there are some people that I want to thank who inspire me along the way. First, on the list is Michael Toops. He deserves all the credit for getting my idea of Proactive versus Reactive Rapid Response to the Department of Labor. Before his tenure, I spent years languishing in frustration just trying to get someone to listen. Second, Ken Messina, for it was the Rapid Response Initiative that inspired me to get my ideas out. And third, but in no way is he the least, I want to thank Tobby Willis, the silent, consummate professional, who always gave me the opportunity. So now I have taken the opportunity to share my complete vision of Proactive Rapid Response. And by the way, you do not have to accept that vision. but the vision is complete. I will ask you the question again, is there “babel” in Proactive Rapid Response? Do you have clarity in all initiatives? Can we do better? Can we as two professional practitioners have a conversation and understand what each other is saying? Do we comprehend what we read? You as the reader and a passionate practitioner will have to answer those questions.
Recommendations
That the Department of Labor should have a resource telephone number and email address strictly designated for the submission of ideas, so that ideas can be free flowing and not prevented due to the tantrums of organizational chain of command.
That Regional ETA Rapid Response convene a work group of seasoned Rapid Response practitioners to develop a mission and vision statement to provide mission and objective focus on its current theme.
That the Department of Labor convene a work group of seasoned Rapid Response practitioners to develop a national strategy and direction for Proactive Rapid Response and define all definitions so that we have a baseline of knowledge and understanding and are professionalized in one language in understanding and comprehension..
That the Department of Labor convene a work group of seasoned Rapid Response practitioners to conduct a bottom-up review of the Rapid Response Practitioners Guide, do that this guide is reflective of its national strategy in direction, language, and terminology.
That the Rapid Response Practitioner’s Guide be truly a living document reflective of all of the changes over the years, and those input changes are documented within the document.
That all subsequent TENs and TEGLs be reflective of the national strategy in policy and in definitions to attain consistency in understanding and comprehension.
Bibliography
Cambridge Dictionary, (November, 2024) Defined reactive. Website: cambridgedictionary.com.
Cambridge Dictionary, (November, 2024) Defined defensive. Website: cambridgedictionary.com.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 682.320, What is Layoff Aversion, and what are appropriate layoff Aversion activities and strategies), (October 2024), Website:ECFR.gov.
Curtis Wray,(2009, May) Community College Workforce Development. The Virginia Community College System redacted email. Introduced the Vice Chancellor of Workforce Development the underpinnings of the Proactive Engagement Strategy in Proactive Rapid Response.
Curtis Wray, (2008, September) Rapid Response Edification. The Virginia Community Colleges System redacted email. Explained a study from 2007-2008 on WARN and Non-WARN connections and how the interplay between Proactive and Reactive Rapid Response.
Curtis Wray, (2012, April) Contributions to Staff Development. The Virginia Community College System redacted email. Commended Curtis Wray for workforce sharing of ideas in Rapid Response.
Forbes Advisor, (May, 2023) “The average tenure of an employee is 4.1 years…” Website: account.forbes.com.
Human Resources Glossary, (May, 2021). Defined employee attrition. Website: humanesourcesglossary.com
Indeed Career Guide (May, 2023) “A typical Employee stays on the job…” Website: IindeedCareerGuide.com.
Long-Term Relationships (December, 2024), Defined Long-term relationships. Website: WesternSouthern.com.
McKenna, Charles, Dr. (1995, September) Professor, United States Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Lecture at Gettysburg Battleground – “General Lee entered Gettysburg because he did not know what he did not know.”
Messina, Kenneth, (2010, April) The National Rapid Response Initiative (power point (ppt) presentation. Introduced at the Department of Labor Training and Administration Conference. Theme: Moving From Proactive to Reactive.
Merriam/Webster Dictionary (May, 2023). Defined impassioned and passionate. Website: Merriam-Webster.com.
Oxford Dictionary, (November, 2024) Defined Offensive. Website: oed.com.
Oxford Dictionary. (May, 2023) Defined aversion. Website: oed.com.
Oxford Languages. (November, 2024) Defined proactive. Website: languages.oup.com.
Resource Folder, (2010, April) Department of Labor Training and Administration Conference, Theme: Moving From Proactive to Reactive.
Tom Brown, (2015, May), How long should I stay in an HR role? Website: LinkedIn.com.
Human Intelligence, (2024, May) Defined Human Intelligence. Website: LibGuide.com.
The Holy Bible, The Book of Genesis, Chapter 11, verses 1-9, The Tower of Babel.
The Rapid Response Practitioner’s Guide (2015), Department of Labor Employment Training and Administration, Boston Regional Office, pdf. Website:doleta.gov.
The Worker Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act, (1988) Website: dol.gov.
United States Department of Labor Employment Training and Administration. Training and employment guidance letter (TEGL) 30 – 09, pdf. Layoff Aversion Definition, June 8, 2010. Website: dol.gov.
United States Department of Labor Employment Training and Administration. Training and Employment Notice (TEN) 03-10, pdf. The rapid response initiative, August 9, 2010. Website: dol.gov.
United States Department of Labor Employment Training and Administration. Training and Employment Notice (TEN) 09-12, pdf. Layoff aversion in rapid response system, August 31, 2012. Website: dol.gov.
United States Department of Labor Employment Training and Administration. Training and employment notice (TEN) 31-11, pdf. The rapid response framework. Element 5: promoting the effectiveness of rapid response services; providing customized, collaborative solutions, and constant, quality results. Element 7: collecting and analyzing worker survey data. Element 9: collecting affected workers to the workforce system and one-stop career centers. March 1, 2012. Website: dol.gov.
Wray, Curtis D. (2018). Created, explained and used the term, “The Short-Term Employment Phenomenon.” in the article the called? “The Short-Term Employment Phenomenon, (2023)
Wray, Curtis D. (2017). The triangle for employment success, pdf, First published on Thomas Nelson Community College website.? Introduced the dislocated worker mindset - dislocated worker defined, dislocated worker status, feeder input/output model, expounded upon Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, triangle of supportive needs, asset protection, time a precious commodity, short-term training, deficit training, experiential and prior learning, condensed or truncated career paths. Expounded upon meeting people where they are - intangible with respect to training. Expounded upon a workforce of one. Website: theconsummatetransitioner.com.
Wray, Curtis D. (2012). Layoff aversion: get your mind right, pdf. White Paper. Introduced proactive engagement strategy, feeder Input, diminishing knowledge deficits, the Workforce Intelligence and Information Network (WIIN in 2010) and later changed to WHIIN in 2024.
Wray, Curtis D. (2015). Defined the word transitioner. Expounded on the terms transition and transitioner, pdf. Website: theconsummatetransitioner.com.
Wray, Curtis D. (2009). Becoming the consummate transitioner -a new way of thinking for job searchers, pdf. Unpublished blog - rejected by publisher due to length. Introduced the awareness doctrine, no-fault transitioner, job loss transition, diminishing knowledge deficits, lifelong learning, and the phrase “you don’t know what you don’t know.” Website:? theconsummatetransitioner.com