I do not sell any kind of software – HR or otherwise. What is on my site was put there to support a large contract we were pitching for a while back with a large multinational which involved developing an automated web based recruitment system….which we decided we would build ourselves …..if we won the contract, which we didn’t.

Maybe people should just accept that there are TPR’s (such as I am) out there that see things more from the clients perspective than from their own. Maybe if more people had this kind of attitude, agency recruiters wouldn’t have to periodically keep having these types of discussions about ethics and principles?

It’s a concept, albeit a radical one.

Have a nice weekend everyone.

I’m wondering whether ‘best practices in recruiting’ include time spent online in neverending debates with other recruiters. ;-)

Honestly, I’m so busy with open positions right now that I have to remember to breathe. … How are you all finding enough time to carry on this neverending discussion?

You sell an HR software application that will help HR (hence your support of them) to cut out TPRs. It also enables the client to build their own database. So it’s okay for Corporates to build a database but not the TPR.

Your ‘inflated fees of TPRs moan’ is your sales pitch.

It’s also interesting to note that your own prefered recruitment process is advertised and then backed up by database candidates.

Is this any different to the companies working a database or job board that you would like to see out of business? I don’t see the difference.

Double standards here. I see your affiliation to FirstMerit. Possible client no doubt.

The practices are not smart or clever and certainly not innovative. They are just bad
salesmanship and will give everyone associated with it a bad name.

This is not the way forward but rather devaluing the professionalism of the industry.

How can these ways encourage trust, partnership and greater value for both parties.

These practices teach candidates never to trust anything you say again.

No TPR would ever trust working with FirstMerit and where is the value for the TPR.

You say yourself (wrongly I believe) that you think TPRs overcharge for what they do, so value for who?

Your argument is too one sided and I would love to discuss this in much more detail but maybe a different board might be more appropriate.

It is important for companies to have control of their hiring needs. It is important for companies Not to depend on TPR?s ? Those are valid and great points.
TPR?s should Not be depended on for every search w/in a company, that would and could become a economic travesty for any company. Companies must make every ethical commitment to fulfill as many of their hiring needs internally as possible. That is truly understandable.

In regards to your comments re TPR?s and Job boards, Yes I do agree with that comment as well. TPR?s must distinguish themselves from the Corporate Recruiters in regards to the Can Do?s and Unable to do?s to justify their fees.
My Personal Opinion is that a TPR should not be able to justify a full percent of a fee by modeling the inhouse Corporate recruiters methods or efforts.

But what I have a considerable problem with in regards to your comments, and I am wondering if you do understand the process or the full aspect of the Role of the TPR is the aspect of Retained Search and the level of search that a recruiter should be utilized.

Firstly there are many TPRs who choose NOT to do retained search but perform searches as a Retained Model, and will perform searches with the same professional standards and successful track record

Many of these recruiters more frequently do specialize in their client?s specific field. Thus they do have a brand.. They have knowledge, expertise and opportunity of the field. They WILL depend on their internal database for Networking Purposes which because of their specialty they have made a tremendous number of contacts and associates over the years thus allowing them more leverage and focus. They have a full and consistent relationship with the client, they have direct access to the powers that be, they are requested to do the full cycle of the search, from research, networking, headhunting, coaching, and placement. There Are TPR?s who have gained as much respect and trust, and sometimes even more than some retained searchers.

These Positions generally do tend to be the companies Core Positions and are often on the higher level of the scale due to the discreet nature of the positions, the specific skills necessary, desired location, precise specifics, the ethical issues presented, or a time restraint factor.

In these Cases the Fee paid to the recruiter is indeed well justified. The value will come from the efficiency of the search, the industry knowledge and expertise the recruiter brings to the table, the speed that the position is filled, and the talent that is presented that presents the required and desired results for a company. Take for example the Sales Guru who finally closes a companies 10 Million Dollar account within 6 mths after being hired.. Or the Manager who was able to save Millions of Dollars by determining mismanagement within his first Year.

Now regarding the ethics issues, the problems that are arising is not only due to an inhouse recruiter versus the TPR? Ethics and standards must be performed by all parties involved with dealing with the general public. It is necessary for the companies represented, it is necessary for the candidates and it is necessary for professional image.

Unfortunately I don’t see it. Nobody makes a company use a TPR. I hope they do this through their own choice and because they have a need. Even then they still have control because they can change the TPR at anytime.

Ironically this whole discussion is about bad practices of one particular Corporate Recruiting function, not TPR’s.

If bringing it in house encourages this type of tacky practice, then I’m pleased to differentiate it from what we do.

Besides, the only reason it is brought in house is to save money, not improve quality as we have seen.

However, much of what I say is related to the TPR’s working in the contingency end of the market. This is where there is the biggest need for companies to get back control of their hiring…..especially in the financial sense. The fees charged are never commensurate with the actual work done….nowhere near.

Also, when I use the word ‘control’ I largely mean in the sense that they own the process and can take control of both the attraction techniques used and the individual management of the candidates through to short-list and offer stage.

There needs to be a greater sense of transparency and greater ownership of the clients recruitment problems from TPR’s. Recruiters working in database/job board trawling need to be put out of business and taken over by retained search firms who are willing to develop affiliated practices that partner their clients to also solve recruitment issues lower down the food chain….on a retained basis. In other words TPR’s should evolve into actually ‘consulting’ on how to solve lower value (in terms of salary levels) jobs, on a retained basis for lower fees (because the ‘lotto’ type risk of placing candidates is removed).

Because this is how I envisage the future of TPR’s in general, is why I applaud Michael Homula’s team doing pretty much what agencies do (and more) for themselves. I believe that the dynamic that he has created here can evolve into a highly effective template for how TPR’s can embrace working for their clients in a different and more effective way. A way that encourages trust, partnership and greater value for both parties.

Am I making any sense here? I’m concious of writing this down in a hurry, in between doing other stuff.

You’ll need to be a bit more expansive then this I’m afraid. What ‘truth’ (perceived or otherwise) are you referring to?

Plus, if you interpret my comments about First Direct using some less than ethical sourcing tactics and them being reflective of the TPR sector as being ‘two wrongs’ that may evolve into a ‘right’ then yes, I think you ‘have made some error in semiotics here’.

The point I was trying to make (admittedly in a hurried and clumsy way) was that it is generally better for a company to wrestle back control of the recruitment process from TPR’s. If they do this by mirroring them, then I think that is fairly natural. My assertion is that because companys generally have more to lose (in terms of community relations, stakeholder perception, PR, etch…)than the vast majority of TPR’s, that how they practise recruitment in general and candidate sourcing in particular will be much easier to regulate.

Hope I made myself a little clearer this time.

It would seem that you have two main points:

1)truth is relative, depending on if you like it or not.
2) two wrongs will eventually, through the magic of evolution, make a right.

or have made some error in semiotics here?

We as a society sanction the murder innocent people in Iraq everyday, but because the enemy also does it and because we perceive our version of the truth to be the only truth, we allow it to happen.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…..First Merit are only mirroring the actions of a vast number of TPR’s out there. They are simply taking control of the recruitment process and putting it back where it should be. With them, the client. That is an important quantum leap in the evolution of the recruitment industry in my opinion. Once the trend becomes more common, concepts like coporate social responsibility and employment branding/reputation will kick in. After all, companies have a lot more to lose than the vast majority of TPR’s.

I too have a number of issues with some of the specifics of what happens at First Merit…..but maybe the bigger picture needs to be looked at first. But any TPR’s out there that try to say that the majority of their industry don’t enagage in similar tactics are either fools or liars….again, in my opinion.

I think overall, Michael Homula should be applauded for the work he is doing. It’s an important step in the evolution of how external recruitment is managed and there are a lot of stages of this evolution to be gone through yet.

I guess we know at least one of the judges.

I think it unlikely that the others will speak up because they either agree or do not want to be seen disagreeing, which is a shame.

Thanks for your contributions.

Its refreshing to see someone so positive about their company and their practices.

Jon

The problem I think that people do not realize is that the big huge Magnifying Glass is on us.

People, do we forget that ChoicePoint and Card Systems both had Secruity breaches – 40 Million+ Id’s were stolen.

What does that have to do with us – well everything.. We are information brokers ourselves.. Yes we are, we sell information of Candidates to Companies, (resumes and personal information), We are in positions that can affect peoples lives..

Everytime we submit resumes, information or names of candidates w/o talking to companies (jobs and companies may not even be real for that matter) and w/o talking to candidates and getting their permission we can ultimately affect some poor person’s life, financially,
morally, and even his job.

How many people actually even do background checks of companies to see if the jobs or companies are real.

Have you ever wondered what happens to the resumes that don’t get placed at those companies that the information was sent into w/o permission? Who do you think is liable for misuse of information?

What about everytime a company is hurt because they had a confidential position, and the candidates were informed on the position of the company financially (w/o first getting interest from the company) One company actually went Bankrupt because of A recruiter attempting to replace A ceo in a confidential position, the company who was going to make an investment into the organization found out, and walked away from the deal. The CEO was going to stay on for a year or so to make sure all things went through as promised, but they were unable to present their case.

There are people who do care what happens to these candidates and companies, even if you don’t. Do you think that those people will just continue to let us break the law, hurt individuals, and continue to risk the Public’s welfare, do you this they will let us keep acting this way w/o doing something. Really!!!???

To think we are behind bubble wrap, and that our behavior is not being reviewed well that is just plain ?????

Remember – I will repeat myself again ?If you do wrong, you damage our whole industry. You?ve done Us all wrong

‘Ethics ultimately is self-regulation,’ Imposed regulation is law, (so) in our industry, (when) we don’t self-regulate, we create laws.

We have to present a better position as a whole industry, this includes Corprate, TPR, and Staffing Recruiting. We do HAVE to do this or someone else WILL do it for US.

While there are some on here that want to bemoan how bad our image is and how soooooo many people are upset and angry with us – I just keep on getting clients that have had bad experiences in the past but now work with me (and some exclusively) because they realize as most of us do that you can’t stereotype a whole profession by what a few in the industry may do. Of course, it’s part of my job to help them realize the truth in that. I believe that’s a skill called ‘Objection Handling’ that all good recruiters acquire.

I picked up two such clients last week and just finished taking an hour preparing a candidate for his interview tomorrow. That’s about the same amount of time that some spend on here pontificating to the rest of us about how we should fall in line under the guidelines and regulations those particular people think we should all follow.

I also closed a first placement last Friday with a new client – ergo they haven’t stopped using recruiters or trusting new ones. So I want to encourage everyone out there to think positive and not fall victim to the endless negativity of some who choose to stand as high as possible on their own self-built Soap Box and cry at the top of their voice that the sky is falling and the world is coming to an end!

It ain’t folks! And it just keeps getting better and better. Moreover, we don’t need anyone else trying to impose their own business practices, regulations, or laws on the rest of us.

All one has to remember is the simply truth that one will reap what they sew. If I want apples, I just plant apple seeds and then take care of the seed until it becomes a tree. The apples will come. That much I know – and there will be a whole lot more than just one apple from that one seed. All I have to do is be careful as to what seeds I sew.

I don’t need some other farmer telling me how to regulate my planting, cultivating, or harvesting!

What about the commitment to their stakeholders, their Employees, shareholders as well as their community to protect them from loss of value through possible lawsuits, bad reputation, unethical behavior, and lack of consumer confidence.

Public Companies have a duty and do create an implied contract and Public Policy that that they will do their best maintaining values, ethics, credibility, a strong Moral Compass, not have shortsighted goals and short term earnings at the expense of long term value

What makes it more interesting is that Financial Institutions actually have Regulation, Laws and Guidelines (goes beyond ethics) and some of these do influence their behavior and actions ? where they obligated to take measures to preserve legal protection for its confidential data and an obligation to their customers to have contractual protection, and information protection training in place for their employees to protect their customers especially from the Misappropriation of Trade Secrets.

I guess Ethics are only subjective when it comes to forgetting who and what really is important

I do consider some of the tactics mentioned to be unethical or at least questionable. Wandering the halls wearing the competitors lapel was of questionable ethics (it lead other people to believe they were with the competition, not against them, and therefore they misrepresented themselves). I wonder if they would have been admitted had they not done so? Wearing their own lapels or none would have been above board and not dishonest.

I wonder how many candidates refused to give referrals and if they actually did not give them an offer letter as a result? Some candidates (ie. ethical ones) would NOT do so and would seriously question the company at that time. Definitely a risk of losing good people. Asking for referrals is recruiting 101. Demanding them is another matter. I also question the ethics of a person/candidate that would willingly damage an exemployer. It could be against the law if the candidate signed a contract that prohibited them from such actions (I’m not a lawyer but have been told you can also potentially be liable for assisting someone break a contract). I have seen contracts that prohibited taking of employees or assisting in such actions.

Agressive recruiting SHOULD be done by good recruiters, however there is a line between that and ‘sleaziness’. I suppose where that line is drawn is a personal issue that some people believe has been crossed in these articles.

First off we make excuses for behavior which hurts others and say hey it is ok, because I am a recruiter, its my job.

We argue issues about law, decorum, how we handle the privacy of people and companies by rationalizing we are doing it in the best interest of company, candidates, clients, and self, and find ways to excuse our behavior so that we can continue hurting others, not learn something new, and not find a better way. That takes too much work

We find ways to justify bad behavior to be all right.

In the Past Three years on this forum I have called righteous, Pollyannaish, boring, virtuous, pompous sanctimonious among other things. (this is the good stuff by the way) – Well many have met me, they can attest that I am definitely not boring and I prefer to describe myself more as Respectable, honest, decent, upright, and ethical?

People have argued about the law cases I have presented, stating ?it was stupid people doing stupid things, that allowed them to get caught? (hmmm, well I guess anytime one breaks a law, it is stupid people doing stupid things),

It has been stated the cases information presented were specific cases and not generalized, sometimes subjective, sometimes objective (well duhhhh!!!) That is generally what standard information is..

Arguments have been made That the laws presented were not real, that I misquoted or misunderstood ? hmm, make no mistake the edicts, bylaws, regulations (what ever you want to call them) against predatory recruiting and Unfair competition are REALLY in the Articles in the FTC Judicial ACTS, they are Real, and in most cases very ambiguous (which is generally not a good thing for the defendant).. Now though I am not a lawyer, I did even put up links to this information for education purposes,,,, which brings up another point -

I have even been warned by members off and on line that I am endangering my self with a risk for lawsuit by stating this information, because I am not a lawyer (sheesh!!!!! For Crying out loud, ANYBODY can quote the law, cite information, in any shape way or form, duh!!!! And if we could not then we may as well hang up our jobs today in HR, accounting, real estate and such like ? I look at that as another way to find a way to justify and continue specific behavior and to create less reliability to what has been presented, and take the heat off ?

People, this is Not a private forum, anyone can see what we write here, and they have. There are a LOT MORE articles than the one that Nick Wrote (to his defense, he responded after his article was written) that are providing more information to the public; The public is angry, they are expressing for the world to see why they are mad at this type of behavior. The same behavior to which by the way the Government is taking NOTICE!!!!

The public are mad, they are mad at the nefarious behavior of recruiters, they are mad at the lack of respect we have to the public, they are mad at the way we handle privacy of clients and candidates, they are mad at OUR Proven LACK of ethics, lack of principles, the are mad at the way we cheat, lie, misrepresent, discount standards, values and the law just to make a placement

There are comments about our lack of Regulation, they are warning people NOT to use our services, they are informing others to Complain to the BBB, Attorney General. Then articles like this come out and they are proven –

The spotlight is on us now, and articles like this only make it worse, especially with the issues of identity theft with regards to the recent ?breaking in? of Choice Point and Master Card, the Government is also watching.

The people are talking, and the question is when are we going to listen ? Are we going to continue to deny that this negative behavior is not damaging this industry..

The problem with this industry is that it is too darn easy to enter, lack of education creates ignorance, ignorance is not bliss, because it does allow for illegal and unethical behavior

?IF YOU DO WRONG, YOU DAMAGE OUR INDUSTRY,?. YOU?VE DO US ALL WRONG ‘Ethics ultimately is self-regulation,’ Imposed regulation is law, (so) in our industry, (when) we don’t self-regulate, we create laws.
If you wait to teach a person ethics when they’re in college, you’ve waited too long. Education alone can’t make a person ethical, he said — but ethics can be an outgrowth of, and demonstrate itself as, responsible decision making.? John Gibson, AAPG Ethics leader
Here are some articles

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/0722/046a.html

http://static.jobtrak.com/job_search_tips/agency.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXS/is_5_80/ai_74886391
http://www.recruiter.com/magazineonline/062002_feature_perm_2.cfm
http://world.std.com/~swmcd/steven/crypt/recruiters.html
http://www.rottmangroup.com/humansystem17.htm
http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers/recruiting/story/0,10801,46806,00.html
http://static.jobtrak.com/job_search_tips/agency.html
http://internet.monster.com/articles/dealmakers/
http://kkonecki.fateback.com/publikacje/publikacja3.html
http://www.dynamics-unlimited.com/faqrecruiters.html

google searches that can be used to find this information
unscrupulous recruiters, unethical recruiters, recruiters suck, hate recruiters, unscrupulous executive search, unethical executive search, unethical headhunters, hate headhunters, unscrupulous headhunters
caution using recruiters, caution using headhunters, caution using executive search