I ruffled some feathers at CQ Roll Call yesterday after referring to the newsgroup’s HR situation as a “staffing hemorrhage.” One reader wrote in to defend the publications, saying “we’ve had more people come aboard in my last six months than I’ve seen in a while.” Another pointed at the rag’s several recent hires and a third accused me of an alliance with Politico (insert laugh). Although I wasn’t convinced, it made me question if I’d been too tough on CQ Roll Call. Sure, the organization was a disaster after the merger and for a great part of this year but as one staffer claimed, “morale is as high as I’ve ever seen it and there is a sense here that we’re back.”
Wondering if I’d simply developed a subconscious bias against CQ Roll Call, I did a little research. There is no doubt that the newsgroup has seen unprecedented hires in the last six months. But this is due to the mass exodus over the same time period. However, the reader who initially combated the use of “hemorrhage,” claimed my take was three months out of date:
“I think there has been a shift these past 3-4 months from a company still reeling from a sale combined with some admittedly poor management decisions to a company that, if not yet fully returned to glory, is rebounding,” the reader charged.
Sticking to a two-month month window, I scanned emails and the blog to find out if I’d missed the publication’s upswing story. What I found was at least nine resignations in the past 60 days. Because we rarely focus on the business or ad sales, I have not included them in my tally:
In short, CQ Roll Call has seen an average of one resignation per week over the past 60 days. Kind of an insane attrition rate, don’t you think? Despite the friction caused by my diction, I stand behind “hemorrhage” – a rapid and uncontrollable loss or outflow. I’m happy to write an upswing story but I’m not sure it’s fully cooked just yet.
*Update: this post was updated to reflect one additional resignation. The original version excluded Steve Peoples.