An Olympic skier said in a recent interview, “The Law of Gravity, yeah, I try to see that as more of a guideline.” Admirable, perhaps, for someone who flies upside-down for a living. For those of us whose professions keep us more grounded, it’s good idea to follow the guidelines more strictly.

Especially when the laws of nature in our business have the force of federal EEOC requirements. And when the cold, hard ground comes up fast in the shape of an adverse impact lawsuit. In case you haven’t guessed yet, I’m talking about the somewhat misleadingly-named 1978

Do you know how they affect you? Your job? Your organization? Not just in the U.S., but in any country? Anyone involved in hiring or promotions — be they employed by a vendor or corporation, whether individual or group — who does not know the Guidelines thoroughly should seriously consider a career in the rapidly growing field of lawn maintenance.

By the way, although the Guidelines are published by the Department of Labor and are a product of the Civil Rights Act and its various amendments, I tend to refer to them as part of the EEOC. It is not technically correct, but helps makes the point.

The Guidelines are best practices. They:

No. Any organization can screw it up all by themselves by not following the Guidelines. However, if an organization is ever sued for discriminatory hiring or placement practices, the Guidelines will be used against them in court. Possibly worse, the organization will continue to promote unqualified people.

Think of hiring as a screen door. Most organizations think a mesh that screens out 50% of the pests is normal. The Guidelines show how to reduce the mesh size to out around 90%.

The testing advocated by the Guidelines only screens out diversity of skills, not diversity of age, gender, race or any other protected class. After all, the Guidelines were written to clarify the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Yes, but that is both good news and bad news. Unless you are a big-name target, few organizations "lose" hiring lawsuits. Instead, EEOC-challenged firms tend to spend millions on attorneys and settlements (see www.eeoc.gov/stats/litigation.html). And that is not the bad news.

The bad news is organizations that ignore best practices squander about 50% of their payroll each year through turnover, low productivity, shrinkage, mistakes, wasted training, and so forth.

Recruiters who think they are exempt from the Guidelines are usually the ones who broke into the business a few years ago. There is even a separate section for these folks in the Guidelines (60-3.10):

An employment agency, including private employment agencies and State employment agencies, which agrees to a request by an employer or labor organization to devise and utilize a selection procedure should follow the standards in these guidelines for determining adverse impact.

Did we mention the cost of bad hires and promotions? Let's put it another way: Guidelines = Legal Practices = Best Practices = Best Employees. Get the point?

HR positions itself as the "human resources" department. Recruiters position themselves as professional skilled-applicant finders. Both recruiters and HR gripe about not getting executive respect. So, is the engineering department no longer responsible for engineering, and the purchasing department is not responsible for purchasing?

There comes a time in everyone's life when we have to admit both Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny don't really exist. Here is what the Guidelines have to say about vendor claims:

Under no circumstances will the general reputation of a test or other selection procedures, its author or its publisher, or casual reports of its validity, be accepted in lieu of evidence of validity... Specifically ruled out are: assumptions of validity based on a procedure's name or descriptive labels; all forms of promotional literature; data bearing on the frequency of a procedure's usage; testimonial statements and credentials of sellers, users, or consultants; and other non-empirical or anecdotal accounts of selection practices or selection outcomes.

Technically, this is called "transportability." I have yet to work with a company that does not insist on the one hand that it is "unique," while on the other hand claims it is "identical" when that’s more convenient. So which is it?

The EEOC has a "suggestion." That is, do a job analysis on Job A, compare it with a job analysis on Job B, and let the data decide if they are similar. (Go figure! Your tax dollars at work.)

Which part, exactly, is too much work:

Did we mention the costs of making a bad hiring or promotion decision?

Professionals follow the Guidelines. Why? They produce the best people. They help organizations conform to federal laws. They maximize the applicant pool. They reduce turnover. They produce the highest quality people. They treat everyone equitably.

Read the Guidelines. They just might be good for business.