‘Did Real Estate transactions stop? Did stock transactions stop? Did the practice of Medicine stop? Did the practice of Law stop?’

No, but in all those other areas it seems no matter how effective they might be, unethical and unscrupulous practitioners are frowned upon.

In stock scandals like Enron and Worldcom, people go to jail. If doctors perform blatently unnecessary operations, they lose their licenses. Even lawyers can be sued for malpractice.

But it seems, at least in some corners of the profession, the more unscrupulous a recruiter you are, the more encouraged you are.

There are user groups out there where there are videos circulating with people cackling about how to make absolute fools out of shipping and accounts payable people to get phone lists.

I’ve ever heard tell of companies where they give recruiters extra bonuses if they can manage to get a candidate to come down on rate AFTER an offer has been accepted and the applicant has turned in notice to his previous employer.

Yes, there are unethical doctors, lawyers, politicians, and even plumbers - but why is it, or so it would seem ofttimes, that only in the recruiting industry are the sleaziest the most celebrated?

http://www.linkedin.com/in/ericmouillesseaux

Forgive the lengthy delay in responding. I am personally not convinced that recruiting would be brought to a screeching halt. No doubt there would be screeching…of that I am, most defintely, convinced.

I hate to answer a question with a question, so I will answer it with 4: Did Real Estate transactions stop? Did stock transactions stop? Did the practice of Medicine stop? Did the practice of Law stop?

In other words, setting standards around a profession does not preclude activity/business/commerce within that field of expertise.

Now, back to the screeching, wailing, gnashing of teeth and other noise that would ensue…

‘But, to win the competition, the corporate recruiter needs to MAKE THE AGENCY RECRUITERS..AND THEIR FEES…UNNECESSARY.’

Let me say what shocks me most about this comment: it’s from the Director of Staffing for Siemens ICN. Again, what surprises me most is not as much the levity of the comment, but rather the source.

When I see terminology and language like this coming from appointed leaders in the Staffing space for global organizations, I must admit that I am very surprised.

I’m not going to bear in on how exec search firms and internal recruitment should partner, but if I may recommend a book, please see ‘Blue Ocean Strategy’ for a new concept on developing competitive advantage. I would truly recommend it for any business leader out there - it’s a wonderful read. Viewing business as a competition is not the answer in the new economy, especially for a global organization such as Siemens.

We have always divided the world into two spheres:

1.clients and

2. providers.

Our gold mines (providers) are those firms who do not co-operate with us. We love them and need them almost as much as we need and love our clients.

Good hunting,

Rex

Yet, they are on the inside. I know why they’re calls are not being returned - but unless they are willing to hire me for $4,000 to provide a a full day training session - I’m not about to bother to even begin to explain their problems to them for gratis.

I know of one company that recently tried to ‘centralize’ its recruiting function from what was a ‘regionalized’ operation.

That previous structure included highly skilled recruiters with ten and twenty years longevity with the company that knew the internal dynamics, strings-to-pull and how to get things done.

All those ‘regional recruiters’ were fired for cost cutting purposes. As their replacements, the company hired about 30 twenty-three and twenty four year old recruiters at salaries that are probably $40k each with barely one or two years experience each recruiter. I got to see a few of the ‘new recruiter’s’ resumes. One had a degree in zoology and 1.5 years of IT recruiting and as a failure in the staffing industry she was now hired to fail on the corporate side.

Did they save money? No. Not by the manager’s feedback I’ve spoken to.

What used to be routine searches moving from start to finish in 3-4 weeks are now taking 3-6 months.

This means less accounts and greater stress induced upon the existing management as they try to serve clients.

Costs are not limited to search fees. Loosing clients valued at hundreds of thousands per year is another ‘cost factor’.

I would add (in the IT world I live in) that MOST of the time nowadays, the IT manager does in fact care about the cost consideration- since we as managers are now running our own P&L’s and are being compensated based on EBITDA,
and the profits associated with running a profit center as oppossed to running a ‘cost’ center.

As a manager who ran several large ERP implementations in the past this is what I had to balance when using TPR’s, especially if I hired 2-3 people in a month for ‘projects in the sales pipeline’ (I used to call them pipedreams)and the effects of not just the salaries and compensation, but the bench time and the recruiting ‘costs’ which hit my bottom line at the end of the month.
This is a cycle that is not for the faint of heart and one that must be managed so as to not blow out the ‘budget’

I have several large clients where even the internal HR and corporate recruiters (at least up the food chain anyway) are looking at this as well, and those of us who have been around for awhile will remember that HR was viewed many times as a ‘cost center’- ask any AP person as to what ‘bucket’ HR and recruiting usually is paid out of- and this will help define the relationship.

So, if you ask this simple question up-front- ‘Does your team run a P&L?’ (or the end user manager you are working with) then you have a whole set of reasons to understand whether YOU as a recruiter add value to the ‘bottom line’

Especially if the position you are recruiting for ADDS to the bottom line (i.e. new product development that is running behind in a publicly traded company where shareholders want to know when product X is being delivered, a back-fill for an implementation that is running behind when the daily rate is NOT being recognized to the bottom line, etc…)

I wrote about this way back in the early 2000’s and was covered by InformationWeek, but I can only write about the IT side of the house, and yours may be completely different.

‘I think a close second is that this would require a codification of acceptable behavior - and that opens the often venomous debate of ethics in conduct. Really not going there today.’

I’ll go there today … :)

Is it possible that recruiting in general would be brought to a screeching halt if an enforceable code of ethical conduct were somehow put in place?

I have worked as both an Agency Recruiter as well as a Corporate Recruiter (still do in fact). There are merits and maladies aplenty within either role which are highly dependent on the individual and the culture in which they work.

I think what troubles me the most is the very notion that there is an either/or approach. Someone made mention of the ‘default standard for success’. I suppose I could accept that the agency recruiter is the model on which the article is based, however I can’t agree that it is the ‘default standard for success’.

Perhaps therein lies the biggest problem. As a profession, there really is no definition of the default standard. We lack a harmonized standard of measure so common in other professions (think CPA, , CFA, CLU, or any other recognized Licensure or Certification). If we fail to set the standard of success, then it is easy to justify (often read rationalize), all manor of behavior. I think the number one reason we choose not set set that professional standard through licesnure of harmonized certification is the fear of fees and taxations. I think a close second is that this would require a codification of acceptable behavior - and that opens the often venomous debate of ethics in conduct. Really not going there today.

Another issue for me is the notion of competition between Corporate and Agency Recruiter. As I see it, we share a common goal - get the position filled with the best talent to solve the business needs as quickly as possible for the client. For the Agency Recruiter that means getting your billings, for the Corp Recruiter it means keeping your job (and getting strong performance ratings), and in some more progressive companies, it means bonus/incentive dollars.

If we engage an Agency, we are not competing with them - we are inviting them to partner with us to provide a solution. If we don’t engage an agency, there is no competition because the agency is not involved.

I can agree that we might be competing to land the best talent for our clients. That said, when I am working with an Agency, I am the client, so there can be no competition (see above paragraph).

There was also the question of what could/should Agency Recruiters change. How about not going outside of the client’s process when that includes working through HR/Corporate Recruiting? The Corp Recruiter as a professional, should make access to the HM easier, smoother, and often more consistant for the Agency Recruiter. How about partnering with the Corp Recruiter on communicating compensation, benefits, etc. so that no unrealistic promises or expectations are created in the mind of the candidate?

As a manager of other recruiters, when I look to add to my team, my ideal candidate has experience in both worlds.

I have more thoughts (thankfully), but perhaps I should simply put them into an article on how Agency Recruiters can better serve the needs of their clients.

It is worth noting that many corporate recruiting teams were formed/comprised by people who came out of agencies originally! The attitude that the external agencies compete is off-base to a degree, I believe that depends on the company.

Like Marketing where people flow between agency positions, independent positions, and corporate, this does NOT mean that external support isn’t to be invested in. Corporate marketing departments outsource certain support functions for cost, specialist, time, and quality reasons. Corporate marketing turns to external agencies that have a niche to help produce the end product required for overall departmental success. Training is something that marketing folks at both corporate and agency level invest in to keep up with changing environments AND promote development. Those who do not build skills or adapt accordingly, do not stay in the profession.

I view the recruiting function similiarly. Many corporate recruiting folks need to change the, ‘arrogant’ mindset that they are the best, most seasoned, top - because many, many corporate organizations (and many within the same industry) say the same thing. They deny themselves the competitive advantage of surpassing others by engaging the right external agencies or developmental consultants.

Kudos, on the other hand, to those corporate folks (and there are many) who DO bring in external help when needed (in a partnering fashion) and provide on-going training and development for their staff. These are people that will continue to grow and succeed in their profession and help their employers succeed in the ever-competitive environment.

These two groups will likely remain dichotomous for eternity. While each shares a portion of their title, the differences emerge rather quickly.

In the armed forces, there is a similar dichotomy between the infantry and non-infantry. Both have the same end in mind, but both go about achieving it in vastly different ways.

I read your article and footnoted articles, as well.
Superb.
tr

In my view there are a few common denominators that contribute to a bad corp recruiter: The key factors have to do with the persons ability to leverage technology, develop an internal/external network, and job boards. For instance the current applicant tracking system I use, Taleo, can be a challenge to use. Its an excellent tool but the recruiter has to master the use of this tool. (same goes for Brassring or any other one) The majority of my placements at Citigroup by using Taleo. If a recruiter does not master this tool they will fail or rely on agencies. If they rely only on agencies, they will be in the bad recruiter camp in my view. Otherwise what is the value of a corp recruiter if they cannot recruit their own talent?
The other factor has to do with using a local network and internal network. Does that recruiter know how to develop an internal and external network? Do they have good employee relations and know how to get referrals? Finally does the recruiter cover the job boards weekly in search for talent. If the answer is no to any of these, a corporate recruiter is ineffective.

I am sure there are just as many bad agencies as there are bad corporate recruiters. On thing I wish the agency side would understand is that we have internal customers (the hiring manager and HR) to please. We also have to please our candidates and make them feel special. Its many hats we wear and not always so simple as you might think. Managers these days are very hard to please.They are looking for the perfect candidate and as we all know there is no such thing. They won’t just settle for anyone, it sometimes takes months before they make a hire. Patience is so important.

All the best,
Eric Hoagberg

Recently I have been asked to have my own recruiting talk show.. we are not advertising for a few more weeks; Anyways, I have done several interviews with several of the Gurus of this industry, Howard included, there has been a consistent message that they all seemed to have a consistent belief and agreement on -

If TPR?s or corporate recruiters don?t take a personal look at our industry, and become accountable for our behaviors we are really going to have some problems in the future. Companies will be demanding more from us than just candidates. They will start demanding more accountability.

Your comment struck a chord with me - Is there a Default standard to recruiting? is there really a lack of information for recruiters to really become ?better? in our functions in how we work with Clients and Candidates? No, I don?t think so.. We have excellent code of ethics for the individuals who chose to find it. Just like there is excellent knowledge, education and training.. But, the problem is.. who is looking?

Recruiting is like any business, and with any business there comes Common Standards and Etiquette on how to treat people and work together.. Yet many of us who do this job seem to bring an arrogance into this industry that is like a big Pink Elephant in this industry. We feel that because we are recruiters, and Just doing our job certain rules don?t apply to us.. No, because we are just trying to earn an income..

Here is a catch 22 for this industry hen we talk about ethics, standards, and the value of excellence in our work — We are darned if we talk about it, and we are darned if we don?t. The moment this conversation gets going, and starts about ways to improve, the quicker it will disappear..

Talk about ethics in this industry and Wow, the assault will follow.. Talk about treating our clients and candidates with more honesty, candor, and respect.. and the bulls will rage

There are two sides to this coin, agencies and corporate. There are many on both sides of the coin that have a lot to learn about their industry.. The problem is, how does one convince another there are better ways? How do we come to grips that companies that we are teaching those companies to start expecting more, than just the shoving of paper, and the creation of databases? But, more instead on quality, not quantity?

Doug Beabout recently did a podcast with Jim Stroud and I, this is available to download, and he mentions some of these issues.. it is worth the listen.

Howard, this was an excellent article..

Karen

The perception field managers often get is that internal Recruiters do not spend enough time on THEIR openings, while external Agency Recruiters are focusing all of their attention ONLY on a particular manager. We who have been in Recruiting for quite a while realize that this is a false perception. The reality is that a limited staff of Corporate Recruiters have many openings to fill for a variety of different managers. The reality is also that Agency Recruiters (if they are fortunate)have many job orders to fill, but often for a variety of companies. Their time to assist a particular manager in a targeted company is also very limited, but when they are focusing on a particular manager and company, they often do a good job of making that manager feel that he/she is the only client they are working with and that they have all the Recruiter’s attention. A final reality is that managers get calls from many Recruiters and agencies, and that somehow leaves them with the underlying perception that agency Recruiters are more attentive and on the ball, and contact them more often than internal Recruiters do regarding manager recruitment needs.

Somehow we have to get the word out to line managers that our Corporate Recruiters are every bit as competent as their Agency counterparts, but simply stretched too thin when it comes to supporting hundreds of managers on a national scale. Also, until staffs of internal Recruiters can be built to sufficient levels to effectively support field management (which for cost overhead and other reasons will likely never be the case in any Corporation-even in one as excellent, people-oriented and recruitment-savvy as GMAC Mortgage), it will be important for field managers to continue their critical role as part time Recruiters and perform a majority of the recruitment duties themselves, using internal Recruiters, and occasionally, at a high cost, external Recruiters as a support and adjunct to their own recruitment efforts.