The Best Practices of the Most Aggressive Recruiting Department

by
Dr. John Sullivan
Jul 18, 2005

This is a case study profiling the benchmark best practices and strategies at FirstMerit Bank. After a six-month study, I have found it to be the best and most aggressive recruiting function anywhere in the world. Having advised more than 200 companies in over 23 countries, this is not a statement I make lightly. The only other organization that has come close to accomplishing what the FirstMerit team has was the Cisco Systems “recruiting machine” established by Michael McNeal in the late 1990s. In addition to my assessment, their efforts were also recognized by a panel of recruiting industry thought leaders when they received the prestigious 2005 ERE Excellence Award for the Most Innovative and Effective Recruiting Process. FirstMerit earns these distinctions because their strategy and approaches are so aggressive that most corporate recruiters would shy away from even trying them ó and would most likely argue that they stretch the so-called limits of ethics in recruiting. The differences between the FirstMerit approach and that of most organizations comes down to the complete integration of two key recruiting concepts into every thing they do. The two key concepts that guide recruiting at FirstMerit:

  1. It’s a war. While corporate recruiters occasionally use the term “war for talent,” most act as if everything is business as usual, continuing to implement archaic recruiting tools and processes. In war speak, most corporate recruiters are walking into a jungle filled with the most advanced guerilla fighters using the latest weapons ó but they’re armed with homemade bows and arrows. FirstMerit, on the other hand, actually acts like they are in a real war, complete with both strategic and tactical battle plans (I’m sure, at least in part, that this is because their leader spent some time at the famed military academy, West Point).

  2. Competitive advantage. Most corporate recruiting functions do what they do in isolation. They view their job as hiring good people almost irrespective of what’s happening at other firms around them. In direct contrast, the FirstMerit team acts like recruiting is an intense “zero sum” competition between their company and all of the other companies competing for similar talent. It exhibits its awareness of what the competitors are doing by proactively “attacking” a competitor’s workforce whenever that company has a disruptive event such as a merger or layoff. Because the plan calls for victory in each and every skirmish, the recruiters at FirstMerit consistently change their recruiting approach to counter any new initiatives or safeguards implemented by a competitor. FirstMerit views recruiting a lot like an Olympic competition: Even though you win the gold medal this year, you need to realize that everyone will learn from your victory and raise the bar, such that the same performance at the next Olympics won’t even get you an invitation to attend.

In this case study, I will highlight both FirstMerit’s talent acquisition strategy as well as its many best practices in recruiting. The Company FirstMerit Bank is a regional bank headquartered in Akron, Ohio, with over $10 billion in assets and more than 3,000 employees. It is important to note that one of the things that make their benchmark practices even more spectacular is the fact that these practices were developed and implemented in banking, one of the most conservative industries. In addition, they were developed in Ohio, which in general isn’t recognized for companies developing or implementing outrageous or aggressive HR strategies and practices. The courage and foresight of senior management to undertake such a leading-edge approach should make shareholders, stock analysts and employees proud. The Recruiting Strategy The FirstMerit recruiting strategy is the most business-like and aggressive strategy I have ever encountered. Through my research, I’ve been able to identify 10 key elements of the FirstMerit recruiting strategy:

  1. “Top line” orientation. Their recruiting strategy is based on the fundamental principle that all recruiting activity should have a demonstrable dollar impact on business results. They view talent acquisition as a revenue-generating activity.
  2. A recruiting culture. Rather than relying primarily on recruiting professionals, their strategy is designed to develop a company-wide “recruiting culture,” where literally every employee, former employee, and supplier is made aware of their responsibility to be continually trolling for talent.
  3. Warlike tactics. The FirstMerit strategy is based on the premise that there is now ó and will be for the foreseeable future ó a war for talent. As a result, everything they do is designed to be aggressive and superior to the competition. They track the giveaway/takeaway ratio, a metric similar to the turnover ratio in football, which compares how many employees FirstMerit takes away from a competitor versus how many of their employees they give away (lose) to the same competitor. The results for 2004 were staggering, with 107 takeaways versus only 51 giveaways. Year to date, 2005 is looking similar ó with 58 employees recruited and only 29 lost.
  4. A competitive advantage. The FirstMerit approach focuses on making sure that every recruiting process, strategy, and tool is superior to those utilized by their talent competitors.
  5. A leadership strategy. Another foundation of the FirstMerit strategy is that talent acquisition should not merely be aligned with corporate objectives. Instead, recruiting capabilities should actually partially drive them. They view talent acquisition as a mechanism to provide the company with a competitive advantage by increasing its business capabilities through recruiting.
  6. Talent relationship management. FirstMerit emphasizes an old school, high-touch relationship recruiting approach using a customer relationship management (CRM) model. They use the terminology of talent relationship management (TRM) because they believe (rightly so) that you should want to have relationships with talent, not just candidates. Although they certainly utilize technology, clearly the emphasis is on building relationships with targeted candidates.
  7. Continual “before need” recruiting. Rather than using the traditional reactive process to fill an open job, FirstMerit instead has implemented a “before need” hiring strategy that continuously identifies and builds relationships with prospects before requisitions open up.
  8. A poaching emphasis. FirstMerit’s talent acquisition strategy is primarily a “poaching” strategy. They focus 100% of their recruiting efforts on currently employed, already trained talent (the so-called passive candidates).
  9. Referral emphasis. Because referrals help build FirstMerit’s external employment brand while simultaneously involving all employees, referrals are a key element of their recruiting strategy.
  10. In-house recruiting. Because recruiting is viewed as a primary corporate competitive advantage, outsourcing executive search or other parts of recruiting is not part of FirstMerit’s strategy.

Recruiting Leadership Throughout my 25+ years in recruiting, I have met and worked with literally hundreds of recruiting managers. Other than Michael McNeal when he was at Cisco in the late ’90s, there is no one currently in corporate recruiting management like FirstMerit’s director of talent acquisition, Michael Homula. Perhaps it is his training at West Point that enables him to take the concept of “war for talent” and actually manage it as if acquiring talent away from other firms is a war, where the goal is to help your own firm and to hurt the enemy. If Michael were a cyclist, he would make Lance Armstrong look like an also-ran. His aggressive, business-like approach is a breath of fresh air and is the benchmark standard for others to learn from. Best Practices The second goal of this case study is to highlight some of the exceptional (and yes, even outrageous) recruiting practices that have been practiced at FirstMerit. Some of them sound so outrageous that you might not at first believe that they actually happened, but I assure you that they have. I hope you will use this list of innovative practices to energize your own efforts. But don’t wait too long, because the FirstMerit team has plans for the future that are simply breathtaking. Best sourcing-related practices:

  1. Send cookies when prospects are rethinking their life. By far the most creative, yet effective, sourcing tool FirstMerit uses is sending top prospects baked cookies and cards on their birthday and on New Year’s Day. The premise is brilliant. Identify the days when people are rethinking their lives and their careers (i.e. their birthday and New Year’s) and do it with the soft sell. They have found that if you contact these successful people on any regular day, you’ll get either no response or a negative one. With the properly timed cookie, however, almost everyone responds positively with a phone call! Their strategy and approach follow a typical customer relationship management (CRM) model. They gather all kinds of data on candidates, including decision-making criteria, spouse and family names, birthdays, and anniversaries. They are even developing a database system to make better use of this “one size fits one,” personalized approach to recruiting.
  2. Recruiting on their turf. Some members of the recruiting team wandered through a competitor’s offsite seminar wearing the competitor’s lapel buttons. In addition to a goal of getting a hire (they succeeded), the primary goal was also to build morale and energize the recruiting team. It also sent a buzz throughout the industry and their firm that? this team is serious about recruiting.
  3. Buy your own offer letter. This process requires some finalist candidates to provide three names of top talent at their current firm (with phone numbers and an introduction “to us from you”) as a “price” for their offer letter. The introductions must be made before the offer letter is given. The premise is to let everyone know, before they even start at FirstMerit, that everyone is expected to be recruiting 24/7. Even a candidate’s references are considered fair game as hiring targets.
  4. Recruiting an entire team. The talent acquisition team set as a goal to “get them all” at a competitor’s branch. With some cold calling, referrals, and relationship building, they managed to recruit an entire teller team away within a two-week period.
  5. Raiding during a traumatic event. Although their primary sourcing strategy is always premised on poaching away well-trained talent from other organizations, the recruiting team goes into high gear when a talent competitor is undergoing a disruptive event like a merger, acquisition, layoffs, a change in an incentive plan, or just a business downturn. The team holds phone-in parties to inundate the firm with calls to identify who is unhappy with the uncertainty or who is just frustrated with the merger or traumatic event. The team is supplemented during these critical periods with additional external name sourcers.
  6. Most-wanted “interviewless” hires. The recruiting team developed a “most wanted” list of the five best proven performers at their competitors. Then they developed some competitive intelligence about each of them and had a conversation with these “most wanted” candidates in order to verify that they were highly desirable. The team then sent each of them, without warning or an interview, an offer letter and a cover letter that stated that they could start in two weeks! (They were essentially given a free pass into FirstMerit). All prospects called back asking if the offer to start was for real, and they were told that it was. Each one of them independently asked whether it was true that they didn’t need to even interview, and in each case the recruiter responded by asking them if they wanted to interview. Not surprisingly, each said that they should if they were going to seriously consider a change (the precise response that FirstMerit expected). The recruiter then asked the prospects who they wanted to interview with and when (I have found that this is an excellent question for any top candidate). The net result of the strategy was that the process pushed passive, high-performing talent (who normally respond with a resounding no when asked if they would like to interview for a new job) into asking FirstMerit for an interview. Although the process is brand new, it has already resulted in at least one hire that they never would have gotten using standard recruiting approaches.
  7. Competitive intelligence mixed with recruiting. The director created a recruiting roundtable with the announced intent of learning and sharing. However, the quarterly roundtables had other purposes: competitive intelligence gathering (understanding the strategies and best practices of their competitors) and identifying, impressing, and eventually hiring the best recruiters in the region. They succeeded in all of these goals.
  8. Identifying the best sources. The recruiting team regularly uses metrics to assess the effectiveness of different sources. The team has found that candidate referrals, traditional networking, and identifying and building relationships with centers of influence (powerful and influential people within companies whom they have built a long-term relationship with) have higher on-the-job performance than even the traditional best source, employee referrals. For example, although the use of newspaper ads is quite common in FirstMerit’s industry, the company has almost stopped using them entirely. “Ads are the worst source,” according to Homula. “I would rather fish with a depth finder than cast a wide net. Using recruitment advertising is like casting a net into the Hudson River for fish: You might catch a few, but you’re likely to get all kinds of garbage.” Other successful “high touch” sources that FirstMerit has found to be effective include cold calling, taking talent prospects to lunch once a quarter using the soft-sell lunch, and getting key senior managers involved in the sell.
  9. Shopping in the mall for recruits. FirstMerit’s sourcing strategy for retail positions is based on the premise that you can’t hide great performers in customer-facing positions. In order to identify and assess these individuals, FirstMerit routinely utilizes a “mystery shopper” approach to recruiting. They send recruiters out to all retail stores and watch who services the customer the best. Recruiters purchase merchandise and then look for salespeople who can effectively upsell more clothes. Next, they return the merchandise they bought to see how the targeted individuals handle it. They do a lot of hiring from the retail industry because they have found that many retail establishments overwork and underpay good talent and that the sales and service focus plays well in banking. They have also had good success because the hours in retail are pretty bad.
  10. Shopping in other banks for recruits. FirstMerit also sends recruiters to bank competitors, where they sit with the new account person to open a bank account. They then note when the person says they will follow up with a call and wait to see if they do. They also check tellers for cross selling after they open a checking account.
  11. Job boards versus the phone. FirstMerit uses job boards in an interesting way. They look at job boards as an indirect way to reach their target candidates. For example, if they are trying to hire commercial lenders, instead of placing an ad for a commercial lender, they take the indirect approach and place one for a lending assistant (a lending assistant works directly for a commercial lender). Over time, they have learned that even though there is very low turnover in the lending assistant job (and thus even though they really try, there is a very low chance of getting a hire), lending assistants typically love to talk. So they use these job board responses to ask who the best lender is in the assistant’s bank. They then take the best lending assistants to lunch and ask them to identify the very best commercial lenders they’ve ever worked for. Even though it’s an indirect approach, they find it produces vastly superior results over using large job boards, because experience has shown them that the very best commercial lenders just don’t post resumes on job boards. As Homula states, “You can throw all the technology and job boards you want at the recruiting profession, but I am convinced the best weapon in the war for talent is the recruiter. Their best tool is their own creativity and innovation ó as well as the phone and their networking skills. I tell them to get off the Internet, stop doing Google searches, and start calling.”

Next week, in Part 2 of the FirstMerit case study, I’ll share of the company’s best practices, metrics used, future plans, and results.

tags:

This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to offer specific legal advice. You should consult your legal counsel regarding any threatened or pending litigation.

  1. Brandon Ebeling Jul 18, 2005 at 6:32 am

    War Fighter or Spy?Different Job, Skills, Risks

    I?d agree with Dr. Sullivan that a lot can be learned from military strategy, tactics and operational principles. That said, even those in the military recognize the importance of the Geneva Conventions. ?Recruiting on their turf?, wearing the competitors lapel buttons is the military equivalent to being out of uniform on the battlefield, an infraction in past wars or present conflicts that makes you the functional equivalent of a spy and subject to being shot forthwith; or in today?s ?war on terror? masquerading in this way would earn you a ticket straight to Gitmo for an indeterminate term (or worse?depending on who captures you).

    What?s The Issue?

    Ethics, business standards and professional practices are not the issue. As to who should be doing the recruiting, I?m confused. Dr. Sullivan?s in this missive as well as the one on ?Recruiting, Culture and Ethics? seems to be suggesting that: (1) administrators can be trained-up to be sales people. Third party recruiting has about an 85 to 90 percent (plus) turn over?must be a tough business. Or is he simply admonishing organizations to hire top recruiters [sales people]. The first argument would have flawed assumptions about peoples ability to adapt to things they?re uncomfortable with doing (fitness for duty); and the second presumes that every organization can afford to attract, train and retain these highly skilled predators of the asphalt jungle, these recruiters that the market place calls headhunters.

    Gray Is No Substitute For Black or White?We All Know When We Break The Rules

    In Dr. Sullivan?s article ?Recruiting, Culture and Ethics?, he states that ?ethics and culture? are used as ?excuses for not acting in the best interests of the organization?. But that?s not the real problem. He identified the real problem when he noted, ?No matter what you want to do, someone in HR will find a reason why it is unethical. If these people were ?salesman? and not ?administrators?, those excuses would be gone. They?d be gone not because people in sales are unethical or more willing to break the rules, they just understand the rules differently (I?d argue better).

    I also agree with Dr. Sullivan that it is ?asinine not to do everything in your power to attract new top talent?, just be careful of inducing trade secret or contract violations or other things that do matter legally. Competition isn?t a bad thing?sales people thrive on it! Honest sales people, regardless of industry, will abide by their specific industries business practices and professional standards of behavior. Although annoying, inconvenient or putting a source company at a competitive disadvantage, offering a competitor?s employees opportunities to enhance their personal careers doesn?t violate anyone?s code. Recruiters call this sales and find nothing in it objectionable or unethical. But just remember that war fighters are different than spies, they take on a whole different level of risk where rules don?t matter. Just don?t lose sight of the fact that ?fighting? for talent, as Dr. Sullivan insists, is necessary; but, is very different than espionage?an act punishable by death.

    Personality Profile and Temperament Matter?We?re Not All War Fighter!

    Dr. Sullivan?s comment that ?companies themselves may be different, the issues they face are not? put in another way points to a basic/fundamental truth that some people are just not meant to do certain things. Organizations face every day the need to assess what qualifications are best suited to each and every position/job in their organization. A good example is in the area of technical sales. Does an organization seek an engineer whom they then teach to sell or do they seek top sales talent with the capability to sell technology. One can say that it depends, but the reality is that few individuals that enter the profession of engineering will ever grasp how to sell.

    The fact is we all have basic strengths and weaknesses or comfort zones that no amount of training or wishful thinking will overcome. The same analogy is true for those ?administrative types? that populate HR?they?re not in sales for a reason, or put differently, they?re in an administrative support role for a reason (however you want to look at it). And that?s where Sullivan?s reasoning falls apart if he somehow thinks they can be trained to recruit/sell if in fact they were selected to administer to the troops?. Most people with an administrative (socialists) profile are not going to go out and sell?ever! They?ll never have ?the right stuff? or the stomach for sales (capitalist exploitation). In fact there?s excellent evidence that people who try to do things that don?t fit their skill set AND temperament will likely end up taking time off for an emotionally related disability.

    It sounds to me as though FirstMerit has hired sales people to conduct their recruiting. If that?s true, then this functional arm of their HR department is not so different then a search firm?other than probably their income potential. If those things are true and I were Michael Homula, I?d be concerned that this ace team might just defect to a search firm where they could probably make a lot more money (unless they?re paid differently than administrators), form their own research firm (again potentially more money), or be actively recruited by a FirstMerit competitor that wants to reverse or at least even out the ?giveaway/takeaway ratio.?

    Human Resources Consultant or Recruiter?What?s In A Name?

    In the final analysis, Dr. Sullivan is right on when he observes that ?securing top talent isn’t easy, it requires great tools and great practices?, and that ?sales organizations have been perfecting the art of acquisition and retention for hundreds of years, so their tactics and approaches have stood the test of time.? Sounds like a third party recruiter to me. Recruiters are, like Dr. Sullivan, specialize management consultants who understand what Dr. Sullivan and uniformed mercenaries do?that you must have the right people in the right jobs to compete or fight. And like small countries who engage uniformed mercenaries because they can?t afford a standing army, most small and even medium sized businesses can?t afford the services of well trained, highly paid, fulltime recruiters on staff. And finally, it?s important to play by the rules, or you might be shot (figuratively of course). I?m looking forward to part II.

  2. James Rhodes Jul 18, 2005 at 8:57 am

    I am the Director of Recruitment for a Commercial Bank and really appreciate an article about our industry.

    I would probably have a hard time convincing the conservative forces at play to adopt such an aggressive approach.

  3. Michael Homula Jul 18, 2005 at 10:13 am

    James,

    Without question doing anything innovative in a commercial bank can be a significant challenge.

    You might be surprised by what you might be able to accomplish without needing senior management or executive permission or blessing.

    Feel free to reach out and email me through ERExchange and I can give you my phone number so we can chat.

    Thanks,
    Michael

  4. Ted Warziniak Jul 18, 2005 at 10:14 am

    I don’t know about others however I kind of felt ‘creepy’ reading this gushing review of a company’s gorilla tactics. Clearly most everyone will agree that recruiting needs to undergo a major facelift at most companies, but I did not find a whole lot to admire about the tactics First Merit is using. Innovative ways to contact or stay in touch are one thing, wasting another companies employees time by pretending to conduct business with them borders on the unethical in my book. Sure a phone call from a recruiter waste a bit of time but opening an account or buying merchansise only to cancel or return the merchanize is another. How does this ‘failed’ sale look to the prospect’s current employer? How about the time and money it cost the propsect employer to process the sale and return? Black mailing new hires by requiring the names of 3 people is really rank. Surely Frist Merit would not appreciate any of these tactics if played on them. Many companies have very good and innovative approaches to hiring without having to resort to deception and gimmicks. Perhaps in the new world, this is what
    recruiting will become a nasty, cut-throat, winner take all war. In the
    end it’s not how you played the game, but only that you win and let the chips fall where they may…..In closing I will probably be the only one who feels this way..but I had to say it…

  5. Karen Mattonen C.A.C., C.S.P Jul 19, 2005 at 5:07 am

    Wish there were more corp recruiters responding, unfortunately they are not.

    There is a disagreement as to what is considered ethical versus unscrupulous and it is probably logical to determine that if it helps one sleep better at night it is easier to excuse away some behaviour.

    There are more than grey lines being crossed. Posting an advertisement for a position that does not exist is crossing more than an ethical line, besides the obvious lie since it was misleading and false, it is considered Fraud and bait and switch, and it is totally frowned upon by the FTC and the IFCC

    Okay so companies have mystery shoppers, sure they do, but THEY are paying for THEIR loss, (taxes also cover it as it is a part of business) they are the ones hiring the individuals to do so and THEY make the choice, but every product returned to a company is now considered refurbished. That now creates an expense to the company since they have to re box, reship and resell at a lower cost, even if the package was unopened.

    Raiding and pillaging the same company is out of bounds especially if it done over and over. Recruiting from a company is okay once or twice a year but to do so to cause harm, well there is another string regarding the Laws (it goes beyond ethics here) about that. And Recruiting an entire team well there is definitely proof that there is intent.

    Does First Merit offer positions to Candidates who have none disclosure issues where they are not allowed to disclose or give the new company the names of the employees of their former company. If they do, do they advise them that they can be held liable? Do you even check? Call it what you want, but to tell someone that they don?t get an offer letter unless they give names.. well.. Did not realize that giving names was part of a job description? Gee I don?t get a job unless I give names, something is wrong there

    There are a lot of deceptive behaviour portrayed in this article. I do believe completely that this job can be done well without ever having to be deceitful, or with lying. A company can hire the best by maintaining their integrity.

    Yes other companies may wish they could do the same, gee, I wish I had the guts to rob a bank and get away with 10 million dollars to, but I don?t because it is wrong. Does that mean the companies that stay within their legal means will not succeed, of course they do, as long as they do the job well

  6. Ted Moore Jul 19, 2005 at 6:18 am

    For this exercise, please match the reviewer to the quote. You have 1 minute. Please begin:

    ‘Go ahead and do it, it is easier to apologize than to get permission.’
    — Admiral Grace Hopper

    ‘If you can’t learn to do it well, learn to enjoy doing it badly.’
    — Ashleigh Brilliant

    ‘Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.’
    — John Galsworthy

  7. Brandon Ebeling Jul 19, 2005 at 7:13 am

    ‘No matter how cynical I get, I can?t keep up.’ Lily Tomlin

    My previous post regarding Dr. Sullivan?s two papers on culture, ethics and aggressive recruiting offered a simple chain of consciousness regarding my thoughts on the issues discussed. After reading both of the articles and their respective comments, two things are clear to me: (1) many third party recruiters seem to think that Dr. Sullivan has very little regard for the value of third party recruiters, and (2) people, regardless of their academic or professional standing are generally confused about the concept of ethics.

    First I?m going to make a few comments on Michael Homula?s 7/19 response; and second, since quoting others seems to be the order of the day (based on other responses), I thought I?d mix some of my personal thoughts with quotes from people I consider either amusing or experts on the topics of ethics; and the value of or impact of third party recruiters:

    I found Michael?s response to be direct and courageous, giving context that I think everyone could or at least should respect, regardless of whether one likes his tactics? he appears to be a good war fighter. He not only noted a couple of my comments, but those of other respondents and he addressed them quite well. I?m glad he cleared up the issue of blackmail and that he hasn?t and won?t use the lapel pins again?it would be sad to see him go to jail or be treated as a spy?the Geneva Conventions matter in war, just as ethics, business standards and professional practices matter in business. Dr. Sullivan might want to clear up his thinking and opinions on this issue.

    As for creating strong relationships with candidates and identifying talent that doesn?t come to you, that?s what really good TPR?s do?or they aren?t good and aren?t around long. And even though some of Michael?s recruiters don’t come from sales and TPR he?s not going to hire someone without those competencies and the ability to learn and apply recruiting concepts and practices?the right stuff. And he rightly acknowledges that it?s unlikely he?ll ever hire a top recruiter who?s effective at and enjoys both order acquisition and order fulfillment?they?ll simply be out of his price range. Even so, size matters, not every organization has the resources of a financial institution and many financial institutions will never ?get it?; which means that TPR?s will be a viable recruiting resource/option for many TPR client firms in perpetuity?there is no threat to TPR?s.

    Dr. Sullivan would be well advise to acknowledge the fact that TPR?s are a valuable resource to firms that engage them as they get the services they need on an ad hoc basis for a fraction of what it costs to staff the kind of dream team that FirstMerit has put together. Such an acknowledgement would go a long way to mitigate the observations that he is condescending to and hostile to TPR?s?unless he really is.

    I don?t think the TPR responses were arrogant. Confidence can often come a crossed as arrogance. Dr. Sullivan?s paper on FirstMerit is an example of that. Michael along with his approach isn?t arrogant?it?s confident. Good TPR?s rather than being threatened are now aware of a firm, FirstMerit, where they are likely to find really good talent the next time they have an assignment in that industry?it?s good that Michael?s equation and approach takes that into account.

    Now for some more really good Quotes and observations ethics and TPR?s

    Moral Order

    The tendency to ?reduce the moral order to a question of merely personal preference?, making ?values? interchangeable with ?virtues?, has had serious consequences: Iain Benson, Executive Director for the ?Centre for Cultural Renewal?

    Shades of Gray

    As Jon Huntsman (entrepreneur, philanthropist, billionaire) writes in his recently acclaimed book: Winners Never Cheat, ?We are not always required by law to do what is right and proper. Decency and generosity, for instance, carry no legal mandate?Most ethical dilemmas boil down to the color gray.? But he cautions, ?Shades of gray are almost always outside the bounds of propriety.?

    Character Counts

    Michael Josephson is a noted attorney, academic, scholar, ethicist, philanthropist and social commentator on character. I found the Lily Tomlin quote in one of his recent ?Character Counts? commentaries (http://www.charactercounts.org/knxwk418.htm#5).

    Josephson says that the only way to combat despair and cynicism in the growing wake of corporate and political scandal?the ?steady parade of bad news about our moral ozone? is ?to realize that you are the instrument of reform, that your courage, compassion and creativity in your own sphere of influence can set into motion a ripple effect of healing actions and attitudes to make a better world.?

    ?Making ethical decisions requires the ability to make distinctions between competing choices?It’s not naive or wrong to say it all starts with you.?

    Chaos Always Breeds Chaos

    Bill O?Reilly in Who?s Looking Out for You?, says the ?solution to toxic people is simple but difficult. You must divert yourself away from them?The ?looking out for number one? philosophy usually involves screwing somebody over. The ?looking out for yourself? philosophy makes you a more effective person, better able to help others and contribute to this world. And trying to make the world a better place is, of course, why you are here in the first place despite what the ?greed is good? crowd will tell you. They are a craven, decadent bunch.

    Avoid them and prosper. Embrace them and suffer.?

    Competencies Count?One Size Doesn?t Fit All

    If one considers staffing in terms of an industry and/or profession, there are a lot of stakeholders, including executives, managers, suppliers, employees, regulators, shareholders, the media, and of course a myriad of occupational classifications?professionals having distinctly unique job duties and responsibilities.

    Each discipline has it?s own agenda, perspectives and the competencies of individuals (education/training, personality/assertiveness, abilities, skills and work history, etc.) varies widely both a crossed and within disciplines.

    Consider third party recruiters as an example. Research from a multi-year study culminated in the 200 page book: Headhunters, Matchmaking in the Labor Market (2002), by Finlay and Coverdill. The two Professors of Sociology, describes ?third party recruiters? as complex, high-level front-line service workers who occupy a dual role in an unusual sales process; and characterizes ?headhunters? as the ?visible hands of the labor market? that have a ?significant impact? on conducting business, managing relationships and in making decisions that are ?extraordinarily consequential? to ?economic and organizational sociology?. WOW !

    In the final analysis, both competencies and character matter in the workplace and performance of a job. Be very careful about who you have recruiting (or doing anything) for you.

    Making Sense of Ethics

    The Josephson Institute offers a great resource on the topic of ?MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS?. The section ?Making Sense of Ethics? defines ethics in terms of principles that define behavior, the ‘moral’ relativity of action, and how ?ethics and ‘values’ are not interchangeable; and discusses ethical decisions in terms of: (1) competing moral claims and the ability to predict the likely consequences of choices (2) the importance of Universality (3) colliding values and (4) the connecting relationships between values, principles, ethics and action.

    Anyone interested in reviewing the entire publication can view it for free at http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-1makingsense.htm or can purchase copies from a link MAKING ETHICAL DECISIONS, available for purchase here.

  8. Anthony Haley Jul 19, 2005 at 8:57 am

    Well put Ted and Ted.

    When I read this latest article from Dr Sullivan about how FirstMerit operate, it sent a chill down my spine. If you care about this Industry and your reputation you too should be concerned. Remember, we all get tarred with the same brush.

    ?The second goal of this case study is to highlight some of the exceptional (and yes, even outrageous) recruiting practices that have been practiced at FirstMerit. Some of them sound so outrageous that you might not at first believe that they actually happened, but I assure you that they have.?

    As quoted by Dr John Sullivan.

    Definitions of outrageous

    Dictionary:
    Grossly offensive to decency or morality.
    Being well beyond the bounds of good taste
    Having no regard for morality.
    Violent or unrestrained in temperament or behaviour.

    Thesaurus:
    Disgracefully and grossly offensive
    Beyond all reason

    Legal Dictionary:
    Going beyond standards of decency.
    Utterly intolerable in a civilized society (outrageous conduct)

    Clearly the only accurate thing about this article is the word ?outrageous.?

    And to think they are proud of this and believe they are being innovative and effective. Wow.

    I wonder if we will still see part 2?

  9. Michael Homula Jul 19, 2005 at 11:17 am

    WOW…what an amazing response to this article!

    I am grateful to all of you for responding to Dr. Sullivan’s article. As I have read many other articles, blogs and discussion on ERE I was beginning to think that the entire recruiting space was full of apathetic people. Your posts prove otherwise.

    I will not apologize for getting substantially better results than our competition or most corporate recruiting organizations. I realize our tactics are different but different is not unethical. It’s just different.

    While I totally agree our tactics are controversial and outrageous NOTHING we do is unethical or out of bounds. I agree the lapel pin tactic was a very grey area and something we only did ONCE. It is not a repeatable tactic of ours and I look back upon it 4 years later and wish I could have that one back. It is important to know that we NEVER represented ourselves as employee’s of that organization and, in fact, introduced ourselves to everyone there as recruiters from FirstMerit. The dialogue that ensued with the people there was dynamic and many of the comments we heard from them were ‘how innovative’, ‘that is courageous’, ‘I wish our HR people would think this way’ etc.

    We didn’t ‘pretend’ to conduct business, we DID conduct business. Most of the merchandise we purchased and returned was later purchased from the company because we liked and needed what we were buying. Not every transaction conducted was returned. Companies actually hire mystery shoppers all the time to do the exact same thing. Are the mystery shoppers wasting the companies time? If being smart, actually conducting real life job observation to determine actual performance and behaviors, is wrong than I don’t want to be right. The cost of returns in retail is the cost of doing business. They know this and build it into their business plans.

    We don’t ‘blackmail’ new hires into giving us referrals we simply engage in some friendly banter with them. Because we have strong relationships with our candidates we are in a position to ask for referrals in exchange for an offer in a way that is not threatening or ‘rank’ as someone called it. It is amazing that this point was lost on several TPR’s. NEVER has ANYONE been offered a position at FirstMerit and not received it because they didn’t give us referrals. The point to the tactic is to reinforce the behavior of referrals in our new FMER partners. We simply subscribe to the theory that ‘you don’t get what you don’t ask for’ and asking at the point of offer is just good recruiting.

    Would I appreciate any of these tactics being used on us? In fact, I WOULD appreciate it. I would respect it and probably try to recruit the person doing it to come and work for me. It would mean that HR people finally have figured out that getting great talent is not a process and that great talent does not come to you. You must go get them and you must differentiate yourself from your competition.

    In the end, no one joins FirstMerit solely because of the tactics we use to get their attention. They start talking to us because of our innovative approach. They actually engage with us and take jobs because we offer them a better opportunity than their current position/company. There is nothing unethical about offering someone a better opportunity. They don’t have to return our calls, respond to our tactics or even consider FirstMerit. The fact that they do and we are getting infinitely better results says that there is more to our recruiting strategy than just the up front sizzle. Not ‘deception’. We are NEVER dishonest or deceptive…just innovative and creative.

    Someone here said it well. Essentially they pointed out that HR types are more administrative and process driven which makes for really bad recruiting. They don’t have the skills and competencies to really be great at recruiting. At FirstMerit I have hired sales people and former third party recruiters (compensated them as such, not as HR admins), starting with me, to conduct our recruiting and give us competitive advantage. I have also taken the time to coach, develop and train some of my team to be world class recruiters. If you hire for the right competencies and behaviors you can teach the rest and have world class recruiters getting great results. They don’t have to have come from sales and third party.

    Sure they could leave and probably make a bit more money. They don’t because they feel they are a part of something revolutionary. The idea that they are actually adding value to the bottom line of a corporation instead of eating up money like most in HR do. Some of them don’t leave because they love the thrill of the hunt, the actual recruiting, but dislike the business development side of most third party agencies.

    Perhaps what has everyone so worked up is the vastly superior results we are getting. I think many in TPR, present company possibly excluded, are threatened by what we do. The fear is that somehow we have tapped into their wealth stream and we are doing things that require such a specialized skill that ONLY they can do it. To believe and espouse that these recruiting skills, competencies and tactics can only be used by TPR’s is downright arrogant.

    Feel free to reach out and let’s discuss this over the phone at 330-849-8976. I think once you have an opportunity to hear a bit more about what we do, the comments and thoughts that what we do is unethical will likely go away. Maybe not. At least we will get into some great dialogue about recruiting and the future of our industry which, in my humble opinion, is really what we are all after.

    I hope to hear from you soon!

  10. Ted Warziniak Jul 20, 2005 at 2:18 am

    The bottom line in today’s world is and always will be results, no matter what the costs or boundaries that are broached. Today almost any behaviour, ethical, legal or otherwise, is acceptable to one group or another and the saying, ‘results justfiy the means’ [or do I have that backwards] has never been more evident.

  11. Brandon Ebeling Jul 20, 2005 at 3:06 am

    Michael,

    I think that your first response ?WOW…what an amazing response to this article!? was on target. There certainly were some responses that tended toward questioning FirstMerit?s integrity, character and practices; but I think that was a minority response and to some extent justified, at least at first. A plaque hanging on the wall of a consultant I once engaged said ?CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING?.

    Paul Harvey?s ?The Rest Of The Story? points to the importance of context too, as does giving the accused a fair trial instead of lynching them first. Terms like outrageous, without ethical context leave ample room legitimate skepticism toward pronouncements that question ?evil of intentions and the most rogue thinking and practices.? in this time of escalating private and public sector scandal, the ?steady parade of bad news about our moral ozone?. At least you made it to the courthouse.

    In my opinion at least, after trying the facts on the integrity and character issues, I think FirstMerit and you have been exonerated, found not guilty on those ?2 or 3 items? that could be easily interpreted either way without knowing first what was ?under the covers??context.

    Three other quick points:

    First, you might wish to reconsider your question about there being ?no mention of the things we do at FirstMerit that are exactly what you do in TPR?? I sighted: Headhunters, Matchmaking in the Labor Market, by Finlay and Coverdill, (200 pages that cover just about everything recruiters do, including the good, bad and perceived ugly). I also acknowledged along with a number of TPR?s that much of what you do is very much like what TPR?s do. And I think that there is concurrence that neither you nor the TPR?s are much concerned about any threat, from or to FirstMerit; where, in the grand scheme of things your approach will remain an anomaly in the broad market place of corporate HR/recruiting for the foreseeable future. And even if it doesn?t, there?s a whole small business and middle market place of firms that will never have the resource to develop the type of operation that you?ve put together.

    Second, a number of TPR?s, including me; seem to be confused as to Dr. Sullivan?s views or opinions on TPR?s (not just from this article but from others). It might just be my ignorance, in that I haven?t read all of his papers and have missed it?if not it might prove to be a great topic for him to dispel bad information or incite another round of discussion in search for context.

    Third, to offer some context, I?m currently publishing a series of articles in The Fordyce Letter (TFL), that I intend to publish in ERE as well, on ethics, business standards, and professional practices in the recruiting industry with a particular focus on associations that represent TPR?s.

    Happy Hunting,

    Brandon

  12. Maureen Sharib Jul 20, 2005 at 5:24 am

    http://www.researchzilla.com/node/3527

    fun story about ?competitive strategy? over in researchzilla.

    Some of you may agree with it, some not. But all this makes for a really fun and interesting discussion - Thank you ALL for your entertaining
    opinions!

  13. Anthony Haley Jul 20, 2005 at 5:25 am

    After a 6 month study, Dr. Sullivan has found FirstMerit to be the best and most aggressive recruiting function anywhere in the world. Having advised more than 200 companies in over 23 countries, this is not a statement he makes lightly. Or is it?

    Apparently there are 750 Banks in the same state as FirstMerit alone. I wonder how many companies there are in total in that one state? To my knowledge, there are at least 192 Countries. How can this statement have any credibility?

    After this 6 month study and these wild statements, we learn from FirstMerit that Dr. Sullivan’s case study provides LITTLE detail on SOME of the strategies and tactics they use. It would be impossible for Dr. Sullivan to give every little detail of how they conduct business in Talent Acquisition at FirstMerit and yet he can make the ?best in the world?statement.

    There seems to be a U turn occurring and some distancing from the article is taking place. Dr Sullivan himself seems very quiet on this as well. Damage limitation?

    It says a lot about a company and their leaders when they have to check their activity to make sure they are not violating the law.

    They are a bank. Therefore it is just plain common sense to recruit people who work or have worked at a bank, so they say.

    Yet the original article bragged about how they poach shop assistants to work in the bank by apparently buying goods with no intention of keeping them and taking them back to see how good the shop assistant would be in a Bank. Hmmmmm

    Oh yes and then they purchase the goods back again because they liked and needed what they were buying in the first place after all. Who are they kidding??

    What is it with ex TPR?s ? If they were that good, they would still be one and working in a much more professional and ethical manner.

    Keep digging the hole.

  14. Michael Homula Jul 20, 2005 at 5:38 am

    I think what is most amazing is that so many automatically assume the most evil of intentions and the most rogue thinking and practices.

    My parting comment to this discussion is that you must look under the covers to get the rest of the story. Everything we do is carefully planned and reviewed with counsel. The details you are missing here are how we do it without being illegal and what the intentions of our hearts are. I will be happy to define that for you if you wish to call me at 330-849-8976.

    Dr. Sullivan’s case study provides LITTLE detail on SOME of the strategies and tactics we use. It would be impossible for Dr. Sullivan to give every little detail of how we conduct business in Talent Acquisition at FirstMerit. To do so would take up weeks of ERE space.

    The list is equally as long of those things he did not mention. We do not engage in all of these practices daily. Each of the more ‘outrageous’ tactics have been employed occassionaly and largely to draw attention to FirstMerit as an innovative and competitive place to have a great career.

    The focus of so many detractors here has been narrowed to only 2 or 3 items. Why no mention of the things we do at FirstMerit that are exactly what you do in TPR? Competitive intelligence gathering, referral network development, center of influence development, high touch relationship management, cold calling, social engineering (not lying and decetitful rusing) around a gate keeper, asking open ended questions to get more information, regular communication, career counseling, discussing how competitive a prospects salary is to market etc. All the very same tactics many employ in TPR. I know, I sat in your desk and did what you do.

    No, it is much easier to pick off one or two more controversial items and raise a challenge, without all the facts, than to look at the bigger picture and realize that all we are doing in FirstMerit Talent Acquisition is giving corporate recruiting the facelift it has so desperately needed for decades!

    Again, I can’t help but wonder if the intense gut reaction to what we do is out of fear. Fear of the fact that someone in corporate recruiting has finally decided to try and add value to their corporation rather than sit idly by while their company get’s hammered by a lack of proven high performing talent. The skilled labor shortage and corporate HR’s ineptitude at recruiting will ensure that TPR will be in business forever. They just won’t make much money on FirstMerit.

    The times they are a changin’ said Bob Dylan…yes they are!

    I will be commenting on all this controversy in my new ERE Blog called, It’s the Recruiting, Stupid! Stop over and check it out if you wish I hope to hear from some of you via phone soon!

  15. Deborah Jones Jul 20, 2005 at 6:16 am

    After a number of years in this business, particularly after being a part of recruiting tiers within corporate HR organizations, I drew the conclusion that if HR (administrators) were effective at recruiting, they would be doing it. They do what they do, recruiters do what they do. As long as the candidates feel they are being informed by the recruiter in an honest way about the opportunity, why they were approached, how this opp might be a the next most logical step on their career path, etc., no one gets hurt. And, Karen, companies do indeed have the legal and ethical right to advertise for skill sets and abilities they think they need in their organization, whether or not a specific ‘job order’ currently has been processed or is posted. If they find the person with all the right stuff, they will create a job for them. This is the same principle you hope your potential client will think about when you call them to market an exceptional candidate. You don’t know if a job order exists, nor should you be concerned with that. Instead, you ask the potential client HOW they may be able to use a candidate with such outstanding characteristics for the industry, etc.

  16. Michael Maisel Jul 20, 2005 at 6:39 am

    Where would we be as a civilization without pioneers who pushed the bounds of acceptability? Certainly, in the practice of recruiting where status quo is considered by so many as inviolate, pushing the bounds is no longer a threat to that status quo, it is a market-driven neccessity.

    Those who are seem content to preserve that status quo, must be finding their challenge in the creation new excuses for failure to meet the company’s talent needs.

    I don’t mean to be harsh, as this kind of dialog is quite healthy, but reality needs to be considered at some point. The law of supply and demand is inviolate.

  17. Woody Siddall Jul 20, 2005 at 6:47 am

    Great article. I can see there are not a lot of the corporate ‘bot’ THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX recruiters replying. Dr. Sullivan has great articles week in and the weak out. Bambi or warrior, one of the better articles I have read in the industry. Being aggressive and pulling from companies is not cruel or unusual. I remember listening to Dr. Sullivan in 2001 talk in Reston, VA at a recruiter summit and he talked of recruiters sabotaging building sites dumping waste on the site and calling the EPA to report them. He mentioned the tactics of Cisco and it made 100’s of recruiters shift in there seats

  18. Larry Woods Jul 20, 2005 at 7:42 am

    I have to agree almost 100% with the author of this article,and I certainly do not agree with Dr. Sullivan very often.However,I feel that the tactics and methods that Mr Homula and his team are using are not illegal nor are they unethical.Okay,the lapel pin was a bit much but hey we all get carried away sometimes.When your insurance agent sold you a policy did he ask for a referral?If not,he’s an idiot.Does your hair stylist ask you for referrals?Does your political favorite ask you to tell a friend about them?Do you ask your prospects for referrals?One young lady who is very anti-Homula has stated many times that she receives new business by word of mouth.I don’t see the difference.Illegal?I want to see the statute that prohibits recruiting from a competitor.Or recruiting more than one person from a competitor.It’s called free enterprise for a reason.Can’t pay as well?It’s cool,we’ll make it illegal to respond to a better offer.FTC? What law is being violated here?Fraud?Don’t see it. Bait and switch?Don’t see it either.If you are talking about the recruiting of people in order to get info on their bosses,it wasn’t stated (I don’t think)that they did not ever hire any of these people but that the research showed that they very seldom saw turnover at that level.My bet is that if Team Homula found a great candidate that was ready to move,they made an offer.There is nothing that they have done that makes me think this is a group of scoundrels out to pillage and plunder an industry.I just found a copy of a fairly recent book that most everybody in this industry was ga-ga about just a couple of years ago.It is ‘The War for Talent’.Having gotten more than one laugh out of this book (Enron is a heavily profiled company) I will say that there are some good things in there.Dr. Sullivan is quoted (p.78) and the three co-authors lay out a great set of programs for succeeding in the War for Talent.One of the biggies is …referrals…..ta-da.From your competitors employees.From internet resumes.From everywhere.Basically what this comes down to is choice.You can choose to sit back and mine the internet.That’s cool if that’s what you want to do and it works for you.You can wait for the tired,the sick,the downtrodden,the unemployed to come to you,and then you can get on the phone or the net and try to find somebody who desperately needs the services of the tired,sick,downtrodden and unemployed so that you can save the day.Raiding a department? Sears hired 25 software engineers from US Bank in Boise, Idaho.The entire department.Where was the FTC and the laws that I keep hearing exist against such a thing?It is not enough to succeed by working with people looking for a job,you better be reaching for the ones who are not looking for a job.There are a great great great many very able and talented people who are not looking to change jobs…at least they are not looking until that better offer comes along.
    Aggression is not bad and I can’t fault a thing that these guys have done(okay,like I said, the lapel pin was a bit much) and there certainly doesn’t seem to be anything illegal or unethical in filling a pipeline with candidates or sources for referrals. I am gonna side with Dr. Sullivanm on this one and express my admiration for the aggressive stance that these guys are taking.No matter how good some people may feel by denying that there is a ‘war’ for talent,it’s a fact.There will be those who moan,those who decry the term’war for talent’,there will be displaced employees(Oh woe is me,my job is overseas),there will be underpaid,overperforming employees who continue to plod along….and then there will be the aggressive attack force that fills positions before they become open with superstar performers who have the opportunity to shine.If we called this a Football Game for Talent,would we all sit around and wait for the other guys to let us score?Or we could do Baseball Game for Talent.Using the attitude of some ,we wouldn’t send a pitcher.Too aggressive.Chess?Monopoly?How about Life?It’s all a kind of game and the object is winning,within the guidelines of the rules and frankly I don’t see where any rules are being violated.I see a hardball playing group that has a strategy to win in their industry.More power to them and the results they seem to get.

  19. Caron Osberg Jul 20, 2005 at 8:47 am

    I enjoyed reading about the tactics FirstMerit was using because they sounded right in line with what I was taught when I sold temporary help. I shopped every competitor in town, with the only exception being a day labor firm. Did I waste my competition’s time? Yep. Was it a valuable learning experience for me both as a salesperson and as a member of the local employment industry? Yep. Did their new salespeople shop my firm - you bet they did! As a matter of fact I’m willing to bet they sent every new employee in to us to get a handle on everything we did and how it changed from month to month or from year to year.

    I charged right through the back door of more than one manufacturer or bindery (within the limits of safety) - just like I owned the place. And when I read here the tactics the sourcers use, I am familiar with almost every single one due to the training I had as a temp salesperson. I never felt unethical or grossly offensive. As a matter of fact, the motto I learned then serves me to this day: ‘To be pleasantly persistent without being overly obnoxious’ and I think that is something behind FirstMerit’s strategies. And when I recruited for a fund raising company and they wanted me to cross the line, I quit. It’s not as though people don’t know the difference between doing the job boldly and doing the job unethically.

    Moreover, I read the article expecting to learn something. I didn’t read the article expecting to criticize or be criticized. I didn’t feel jealous (well, maybe a little!) or threatened. As Michael said, you cannot strong arm people into taking jobs and giving referrals. And as a freelance journalist, I can verify that there is more than a little bit of the writer in the way anything is written. You cannot really understand the truth of anything through one article.

    I’m a fan of Michael’s group’s successes: The cream always rises to the top.

  20. Karen Mattonen C.A.C., C.S.P Jul 20, 2005 at 9:31 am

    Wow,
    Fraud, Lies, Deceit, business sabotage, malevolence, unethical and criminal behaviour, business damage, and yet it is interesting to see many of the responses here that support and condone and have portrayed many of these activities. Yet we wonder why we in this industry have such an unsavory reputation. Hard to figure huh?

    Regarding posting an Advertisment that is not a real position, well if individuals were to look at their employee booklet that they received once a year, they may learn something indeed.
    Note that Monster, and all of the Major and not so Major Job Boards do have in their Policy Fine print that all positions posted must be legit, actual and real.

    Michael my questions re your hires were not rhetorical and I am curious of the answer ? ?Does First Merit offer positions to Candidates who have none disclosure issues where they are not allowed to disclose or give the new company the names of the employees of their former company. If they do, do they advise them that they can be held liable for breach of contract? Do you even check?? One other question, does a candidate who Does NOT produce names get hired, even if they have the qualifications and skills?

    NO I don?t wish to be able to recruit this way, not in one bit jealous or envious?. Besides the fact that I do enjoy the pleasure of clients appreciating my ethics, just don?t want to be hit by a big lawsuit, like the several that Cisco has faced on their unethical business practices. Sure my insurance company would not appreciate it as well.

    Regarding being threatened? Well Yes, you bet and darn straight I am threatened, the water is dirty and tainted ? my industry which I do love (at times especially recently, even more with this post) has become infected, and it seems to be contagious, unfortunately just by association.

    There are definitely a lot of YETTT?s out there in regards to lawsuits based upon the tactics we have seen portrayed on this discussion.

    Think I will continue to keep my nose clean, continue to grow my company through the Maintenance of integrity, veracity and ethics which will continue to provide me and my company credibility and a mark of distinction to future and existing candidates and clients alike

    Always heard -never do something that you may have to say sorry about tomorrow…. Think I will keep that as my mantra.

  21. Alejandro Guzman Acha Jul 20, 2005 at 11:14 am

    Hi All,

    I am a newbie in the private recruiting sector so I tend to take things in and haven?t chimed in till now. My background in recruiting was a Marine recruiter for 3 years and a marine for 7 years before that. I learned there to listen twice as much as you talk and it has served me well since. However, with that being said, I have been following this topic and there are some very good points all around. I was browsing my news sources today and came across this article about Google vs. Microsoft in a legal battle over non-compete:

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050719/D8BEO5480.html

    I noticed it had direct bearing to some of the points mentioned. I thought the inclusion of this little tidbit would make for an interesting take on the topic. Always interesting to see how topical and on point the discussions here at ERE can be. I really must say that this is a tremendous resource and I have been learning at a fairly rapid clip.

    Happy hunting!

  22. Anthony Haley Jul 20, 2005 at 12:13 pm

    Doesn’t it make you proud to be in this profession with so many ‘pioneers’.

    All I can say is this.

    We work in an environment where our behaviour and action needs to be 100% professional at all times.

    We represent clients, shareholders and candidates and each other. We have a major impact on peoples careers and lives. In other words, people put their trust in us.

    To try and raise your own profile at the cost of your own companies reputation, innocent candidates jobs and your fellow peers professional reputation is selfish at best, narcissistic at worst.

    If your only way of competing is to be unscrupulous, unethical, unprofessional and it seems in some cases, illegal, there really is no place for you in this profession. Clearly you do not understand or appreciate the business we are in and the service we are meant to provide. Ultimately you will fail again.

    We all know what the difference is between right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical, professional and unprofessional, legal and illegal. Are we now learning the difference between most TPRs and some Corporate Recruiters? I hope not.

  23. Anthony Haley Jul 21, 2005 at 2:56 am

    Eamonn, sorry I can’t find that description of outrageous. Even my Collins Dictionary says this:

    1. Immoderate in behaviour 2. Grossly offensive to decency, morality or honour; shocking or unacceptable.

    One thing I would like to ask you though as a credible Corporate Recruiter about your business is this.

    Amongst the innovations, Dr Sullivan quoted the following statistics about FirstMerit.

    ?The results for 2004 were staggering, with 107 takeaways versus only 51 giveaways. Year to date, 2005 is looking similar ? with 58 employees recruited and only 29 lost.?

    Would your company be pleased with loosing 80 people to your competition in 18 months? That?s more than 1 every week. To consider this good is surely the only staggering thing. Maybe this is a clue as to why they have to recruit so aggressively.

    They need to employ lots of people just to stand still because they loose so many. We can only speculate as to the reasons why that might be.

    Perhaps they should be more concerned with innovations about retaining staff. But then again I don’t suppose its in their best interest to do so.

  24. Maureen Sharib Jul 21, 2005 at 4:09 am

    ‘When you start thinking about something like this,’ she explains, ‘you can’t be in the order box. You have to be wild and think in ways that haven’t been organized.?

    http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/06/skandia.html

    Interesting article from Fast Company on a company?s philosophy about moving into the future. It applies to this conversation we?re having and reminds me of something one of our esteemed members says when he challenges us to think outside of the box:

    ?Outrageous sourcing? Let’s just have a contest on the ERE- what would you really like to do to source and recruit candidates that you never tried because you (a) were too fraidy scared, (b) you were married to an attorney, or (c) no one ever gave you permission to think outside the box? Essentially, what would you like to do even if it were illegal, immoral or fattening? I’m serious- part of the creativity process is putting to rest one’s superego and just winging out ideas, what if’s, etc. Guaranteed we’ll uncover things that will become part of recruiting lore.?

    THAT?S what this forum has the potential to benefit from - getting all the ?outrageous (some would say ?scandalous?) stuff up here and having fun with the discussions. This is the real end to the means ? the learning that comes out of all this. So rather than condemn, insinuate, accuse or judge each other, and cause those on the sidelines watching these discussions to shrink from participation for fear of the same, let?s all hold our waters and practice our tolerance habits. It?s not until we see how the full Universe thinks about a subject can we hope to deliver any kind of assistance. Patience, please. You might just be surprised by what you see evolve in this incubator.

  25. Brandon Ebeling Jul 21, 2005 at 4:43 am

    In college I was taught to stay on topic.

    Any contention that ?The whole argument here is not about change or innovation or new ideas? doesn?t really stand up to scrutiny considering the fact that Dr. Sullivan wrote the article that he titled ?The Best Practices of the Most Aggressive Recruiting Department?.

    My mother, a fine church going lady was a moral absolutist who understood something else, ?Those who live in glass houses shouldn?t throw stones?.

    A careful review of this forums seventeen respondents (nine of them TPR?s) demonstrates that the harshest comments came from only four?all TPR?s. Unfortunately most of these hostile, pejorative condescending and judgmental comments relative to Dr. Sullivan?s thesis and Michaels practices were off topic.

    There is plenty of room for debate as to whether these are ?Best Practices?, but I doubt that anyone will debate that Michael?s approach to the practice of recruiting is aggressive.

    Moreover, there are significant differences ?between right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical, professional and unprofessional, legal and illegal.? Be very careful about a return to ?absolute truth?. Whose ?absolute truth would you subscribe to?that of extremist Wahhabism (if so, Karen, better start (1) shopping for a new wardrobe as chadors more commonly known as burkas are standard fashion statements, and (2) be expected to know your place, it won?t be sitten down with the men?unless you want to lose your head)? [SEE MY FOOTNOTE AT THE END FOR MORE CONTEXT ON HISTORICAL ABSOLUTISM AND A DEFINITION OF WAHHABISM?or just watch the news]

    Getting back on topic?certainly ethics, business standards and professional behavior are fair game in a discussion about best practices, but you?d better know what you?re talking about when casting dispersions on someone else?s ethics or legal practices. For example the rant about FirstMerit?s advertising practices had little or nothing to do with ethics, but rather another companies policy?a contention even the author of the comment concedes, ?Major Job Boards?Policy Fine print?.

    Be very careful when throwing about opinions as to violations of ethical behavior, business standards and professional practices. Rather than casting dispersions about a participants character, integrity or honesty, it would be better to debate or pick apart (one-by-each) why any give practice isn?t best. Before casting stones relative to ethics, business standards or professional practices do two things: (1) make sure you understand what ethics are, and (2) justify an ethics stance by citing relevant industry standards. [SEE WEB LINKS AT THE END FOR MORE ON CURRENT WESTERN ETHICS]

    And if your going to suggest a practice is illegal, you might follow Michael?s example of getting a legal opinion that cites case law (after all you don?t want to be held civilly liable for slander). [SEE A GOOD LAWYER]

    In summary, having an opinion is fine, but it?s a ?best practice? to stay on topic and know what your talking about before commenting.

    PS: ERE staff doing its job. I?d encourage you to see my 7/20 posting addressed to Michael; which many of you may have missed as it was pulled from the line up, mistaken for an ?advertisement?, do to a reference that I made to a series of articles on Ethics I?m authoring; which are being published in The Fordyce Letter. I want to thank ERE for not only doing a good job of monitoring, but for both contacting me about removing the posting from the line up and returning it in tact after a brief phone conversation. THANKS.

    Some real good resources for any budding ethicist are:

    EHTICS LINKS:

    Making Ethical Decisions (primer):
    http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/MED/MED-1makingsense.htm
    Ethics Resource Center:
    http://www.ethics.org
    A Compete Guide to Ethics Management:
    http://www.mapnp.org/library/ethics/ethxgde.htm
    Ethics Effectiveness Quick Test:
    http://www.ethics.org/quicktest/qtshort.pdf

    FOOTNOTE:

    Ethics by their very nature are situational, just look at the ethics statements of any association or business and you?ll see what I mean. As for ?absolute truths?, that?s an illusion. To test this statement just read: ?Non-State Threats and Future Wars?, by Dr. Robert Bunker, a noted historian and war theorist, who describes current events in Western civilization in terms of ?Epochal Change? (a millennium old process) and ?Fourth Epoch War theory.? He cites examples from the 4th to 8th and the 14th to 17th centuries and the period since 1648, marked by the ?Treaty of Westphalia?; which, started a ?cycle of increasing law and order?that led to prosperity for many Western nation-states, their public institutions, and their peoples?concluding that we may now be shifting away from stability toward chaos??chaos being the historical norm. And if any who still believe in moral absolutism need look no further than the lynching and witch-hunts conducted by good Christian folk in the USA.

    Wahhabism (definition): Name used outside Saudi Arabia to designate official interpretation of Islam in Saudi Arabia. The faith is a puritanical concept of unitarianism (the oneness of God) that was preached by Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, whence his Muslim opponents derived the name.? You have two choices, believe or die.

  26. Michael Homula Jul 21, 2005 at 5:11 am

    It appears that so many are just bound and determined to spin the words of everyone you disagree with into distorted meaning to suit your own needs.

    For the record, the study was exhaustive but no writer in their right mind, or of an quality, is able to relate ALL the details of a study. I have never kept our practices hidden and have remained very tranparent. I will personally make the details available to all of our detractors as a way to open up the conversation and talk about what is really most importan - how to make our profession better.

    In no way am I ‘distancing’ from the article. Again, NO APOLOGIES. I simply hoped to share some information that might give a little more detail. With the spin doctors of this group that is obviously a mistake.

    ‘What is it with ex TPR?s ? If they were that good, they would still be one…’ How arrogant is it to make comments such as this? Yet my contribution to the recruiting profession is in question by those that make these comments. Apparently some believe you must be a TPR to be a GREAT recruiter. What? No, some of us just want to make a difference and demonstrate that great recruiting CAN happen inside of a corporate recruiting function. Money is not the primary motivation of some people. In fact, I would argue that motivation by money has a tendency to distort priorities and focus on the most important things. Money is certainly not my prime motivation as I am focused on more eternal treasures.

    I have noticed that my voice mail is noticeably devoid of a message from any of our detractors. I believe we are all equally concerned about our profession yet we come at the issue from different angles and differing perspectives. To make the sweeping generalities and accusations some have made without having had conversations with the people you are making them about is, in my humble opinion, irresponsible.

    Again, please feel free to call me at 330-849-8976. At the very least it may be entertaining!

    Michael

  27. James Rhodes Jul 21, 2005 at 6:00 am

    You are right on the money

  28. Anthony Haley Jul 21, 2005 at 8:36 am

    Keep it legal, keep it professional, keep it ethical.

    The wheel is round. Why are some people trying to reinvent a square one?

    Karen, it’s a pointless argument because ignorance is bliss. Remember the comment:

    ‘The skilled labor shortage and corporate HR’s ineptitude at recruiting will ensure that TPR will be in business forever.’

    HR’s ineptitude?

    To all professional TPRs, make sure you use this article as an example why your clients and candidates should be using you rather than going direct. Otherwise they could all end up as Bankers!!! whatever they do.

  29. Michael Moretti Jul 21, 2005 at 9:08 am

    It has been interesting to sit back and watch all the furor generated by this article this week.

    Funny that Dr. John has been preaching most of this for some time. I guess most of the readers simply dismissed his previous articles as hyperbole and went on their merry way thinking ‘it’ll never happen’.

    Well here we are. It is in fact happening.

    I’ve commented on this a few times and always got some interesting feedback from people on both sides of the fence that seemd to be in line with what most people are saying on here.

    Seems to me that anytime change confronts people who fear change they react the same way. They try and dismiss it as a fad or a temporary blip that will soon sort itself out and go away.

    They come from every walk of life, not just staffing. While working as a TPR (I prefer the term headhunter because that’s what I was doing most of the time) back in the early 90’s I distinctly remember people poo pooing the fax server as a way to track resumes.
    They much preferred their 3×5 cards and rolodex linked to dozens of filing cabinets.

    They also resisted a phone system with email and connection to a network and computer system with a website attached to it. I finally got it pushed through and it still remains today as their backbone for doing business. It hasn’t been updated since 1996 but that’s no suprise to me. I’m not there anymore for a reason!

    Working for an ATS(TMS)vendor in the late 90’s early 00’s was an eye opener. Sales staff who came from the old school ERP world brushed off the idea of product training or industry knowledge because ‘They dont’ buy from me because I know product…they buy from me because I am …well, I am me!! (yes the proverbial old boys network was still alive and well even then).

    Today as an analyst it is interesting to see all of the players and their approach to change.
    Those who embrace it and evolve figure out how to answer the need to improve their value proposition to the market they serve.
    Those who fear change and resist it tend to lash out and try to discredit innovation in some misguided attempt to preserve their own sense of value to the market they serve.

    The message here is a simple one. Things change.Markets evolve and those who adapt and innovate should be applauded. Not for their actual innovations but more for the spirit of the attempt.

    Reality dictates that the status quo just won’t cut it anymore. Just because one company has figured out how they’d like to meet that challenge head on doesn’t mean that everyone should follow suit.They should however certainly stand up and take notice and commit to developing their own version of innovation and develop some creativity in doing so.

    To stand back and criticize and summarily dismiss how others react to the need for change is unimaginative at best and down right self destructive and protectionist at worst.

    So what if you don’t agree with FM and their approach to the ‘talent wars’? Kudos to them for trying to solve the problem and taking a risk to meet a challenge.

    Sitting back and accepting what may in fact ultimately may be the key to your professional demise may make you feel righteously indignant of others attempts in the meantime. But in the end playing the victim to challenges beyond your current capability to solve will get you little more than some temporary, half hearted sympathy.

    ***Getting down off of soapbox now and tucking it away again until next time***

  30. Eamonn Coleman Jul 21, 2005 at 9:48 am

    I have to smile at all the ’serious’ replies to this article.

    John Sullivan likes to create dialogue by using a taste of controversy. I honestly have no idea if Merit is the top Corporate Recruiting function, (it may be that many others just keep it under their vest) but they certainly seem to offer some interesting tactics.

    I was reading through the responses and had framed some thoughts when Michael H verbalized what I had been thinking…. ‘Again, I can’t help but wonder if the intense gut reaction to what we do is out of fear. Fear of the fact that someone in corporate recruiting has finally decided to try and add value to their corporation rather than sit idly by while their company gets hammered by a lack of proven high performing talent. The skilled labor shortage and corporate HR’s ineptitude at recruiting will ensure that TPR will be in business forever. They just won’t make much money on FirstMerit.’

    Michael has developed a set of aggressive recruiting tactics that are so far out of the box that they may be considered as never actually have been in there.

    How deceptive are his practices? Is wearing a competitors lapel pin more deceptive than having a fish bowl to gather business cards for a free lunch (without stating what the business cards will be used for), or calling in to a company to source names by saying your a ’student’ or your trying to confirm a name, or asking for a sales managers name because you might be a potential customer (when you know your not)etc etc etc… some might consider this rusing…. FirstMerit seems to have a dynamic that few organizations have, or potentially can support. (Can you imagine the grins on his recruitment team when he told them they where going to go ‘undercover’ at a competitor?s office)…

    How many companies send their recruiters to the same hotels or resorts where they know that a (prospect / competitor) company is holding its sales presidents club, with the aim of getting to know who those (top) sales people are, maybe sitting down to chat or have a drink with them with the intention of potentially recruiting them away? This may be considered OOB but its not immoral or unethical; it?s just a different tactic.

    Michaels tactics are a little different than most because most of us do our recruiting from our office, either on the phone or through our computer, some will do networking events and job fairs etc.

    If you want to talk about honesty, ethics and shades of gray.. how many recruiters actually call into a company for the purpose of recruiting their talent, and (when asked by a gate keeper the reason for the call) say ‘I’m a recruiter and I’m trying to talk to one of your ‘name of expertise here’ about their interest in a great position I’m recruiting for at XYZ company (or similar honest answer)…..

    And Anthony, while I believe you and I are on the same page and I have nothing but respect for you and your business acumen, you forget the one dictionary definition of ?outrageous? that truly fits

    Extraordinary and Unconventional: extravagant or unconventional, and likely to shock people.

    This to Michael, and in keeping with quotes from extraordinary people.. as Stan Lee said ?Give the man a Kewpie- doll?

    Kudos to you Mike.

  31. Karen Mattonen C.A.C., C.S.P Jul 21, 2005 at 9:55 am

    Larry,
    re Sears and US Bank, there was more to that story than meets the eye - US Bank had merged with 1st Bank Systems, they were unable to fiand the 25 employees did not want to leave Boise, US Bank was unable to figure a deal to prevent these individuals from moving to Chicago, Sears became aware of the dilema, and they (Sears) literally moved their facility from Austin to Boise to Accomodate the ready made staff…

    Regarging lawsuits here is one regarding SEARS ‘A landmark case in 1997 established another circumstance in which a company might have legal recourse to stop its employees from being hired away. While retailer Montgomery Ward was in the throes of bankruptcy, rival Sears Roebuck set out to hire away its managers. That’s in accord with long-standing business practice. But when Ward sued, its attorneys uncovered in-ternal e-mail circulated among Sears employees plotting to ‘put them out of their misery’ by hiring away key Ward managers. The court ruled that one company may not hire away employees of another company with the intent of crippling that company.’

    To state that TPR’S do not also have to abide by many of these Laws, well that is ridiculous, we also are upheld to the same laws and ethics. We also cannot cause or be instrumental in injuring a company as well, we too must be aware of issues that can harm another company and the contracts they have in place to protect them. We must be aware of the NLRB and EEOC and all the employmet Laws (DUH), we have not been immune to lawsuits… If many recruiters took their accredidation or certification they would be shocked as to what we REALLY are allowed to do and What we CAN’t do, and how the laws do affect us.

    Michael, this is not about YOU against US, it is about Business as a whole, business ethics, and business morale and in some aspects the law concerning ‘unfair business competion’ which is a legal term. Restatement Third of Torts Section 13, pp. 37-38. Also check the Lanham Act I am sure the banking Unions would also have some issues with this as well. They also have issues with competitive recruiting…

    If business is so bad, that someone has to improve it by behaving immoraly, unethically to the point of breaking the law, maybe they should find another line of work

  32. Anthony Haley Jul 21, 2005 at 10:00 am

    Don’t try to fix what ain’t broken or pretend you actually wrote Bridge over Troubled Water first.
    Someone else happened to beat you to it.

    I have been a headhunter for 12 years and the only thing thats different today compared to back then is the way we can communicate with information i.e. email and internet and the global reach we now have. You still need to pick up the phone and talk to people and be professional.

    I have recruited across 16+ countries in Europe, both East and West, in the US and the AsiaPac region. I have never needed to use dodgy tactics once or disguise them as innovative. Maybe it’s the only way for some to compete with TPRs.

    The whole argument here is not about change or innovation or new ideas. It’s about standards and the way you conduct yourself in business to achieve the end result.

    We can all act 21st century and try to be innovative, but not at the expense of everyone else to hit your own personal target. It is short term and it will fail because a bad reputation travels a lot faster than a good one.

    Thats the issue that some seem to be avoiding.

    I think most of us are aware of Dr Sullivans preaching but like with this article it becomes tedious. Will it all happen? Let’s hope its contained to FM. I can’t see too many TPRs adopting it and being around for long.

    Over to you Karen :-)

  33. Karen Mattonen C.A.C., C.S.P Jul 21, 2005 at 12:18 pm

    Thanks Anthony,
    have 4 responses actually -

    1 -the only difference between now and then is that the industry was regulated in America (believe it still is in England) and people had to know the industry, know the laws and ABIDE by them.. Do or lose - Thus Then one could hold your head high and without shame and disgust when you told people what you did for a living.

    2- one does not have to cross or even border any unethical or illegal lines to do this business. There are many successful companies on this network who can and will substantiate this

    3- Enron was an amazing company which won many awards, and people thought was the best place to work, till their busines CORRUPTION came to light. FYI, it is amazing that today individuals believe that their businesses are not being scrutinized.

    4- 3 old west indian phrases
    THE HIGHER THE MONKEY GOES UP THE TREE THE MORE OF HIS TAIL YOU SEE
    and
    YOU LIE DOWN WITH DOGS YOU WILL CATCH FLEAS REMEMBER -
    WhaT you do in the dark always come out in the light

    Thanks for the many e-mails and calls from the fellow ERE members who have responded to my posts. It is is nice to know that business ethics and values are still alive out there.

  34. X X Jul 21, 2005 at 12:53 pm

    Anthony, as usual, has hit the nail on its head. His sagacity and keen insight toward understanding this business is very refreshing.

    Having said that, I would take exception to the one statement, ‘We all know what the difference is between right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical, professional and unprofessional, legal and illegal.’

    Unfortunately, in this day and age of situational ethics and an absence in the belief of absolute truths, we see more and more each doing whatever is right in their own minds.

    I apologize in advance if I have said this before but I interviewed with 15 different recruiting firms before deciding to start my own. Of the 15, I was absolutely appalled by some of what I witnessed and disappointed with all but three. I didn’t work for those three so I can’t say with certainty what I would’ve ultimately found there. I can say that the two Owners, at the two firms I did work for, believed that the end justified the means and they made no bones about worshipping at the throne of the Almighty Dollar. The bottom line at those companies was ‘Get the money in the door’ and not ‘Do the right thing.’

    There is a difference between most TPR’s and most Corporate Recruiters but I think those differences have more to do with skills, abilities, entreprenurial desire/drive, and need for security than it does ethics/integrity.

    So, unfortunately, until Society as a whole returns to the belief of absolute truths, and begins to teach them in earnest, we will continue to see more and more of each doing whatever is right in their own minds.

  35. Brandon Ebeling Jul 22, 2005 at 2:25 am

    Maureen,

    Isn’t this fun? I so love to be flattered…keep it coming!

    Brandon

    PS: On a more serious note, I congratulate you as one of the more thoughtful reviewers in this dialogue (personal opinion).

    PSS: You see, I can be succinct, offering something short and snappy.

  36. Eamonn Coleman Jul 22, 2005 at 6:53 am

    Try the Oxford Dictionary or the Encarta Online Dictionary. 80 People as a percentage of what though?

    I know that Michael takes his retention as seriously as his recruiting……

    Eamonn

  37. Diane Dale Adams Jul 22, 2005 at 7:00 am

    Royce,

    Thank you for the validation. I hold the same sentiments. I have also found my networking through the ERE to be be far more valuable than the ‘help’ I received from a recruiting agency that I worked for. There are moments when I doubt my ability to persevere and make a go of it on my own, but I keep holding to the basic premise that the reputation that I am building (one of integrity and substance) will carry me through to success over the longer haul.

    With kind regards,
    Diane Dale

  38. Ted Moore Jul 22, 2005 at 7:51 am

    Once upon a time I managed staffing for the largest business unit of a Fortune 500 manufacturer.

    One of the first visitors to my office was an Engineering Manager who said, ‘I’ve had an opening for a Pro-Engineer CAD Designer for 4 months. Your department [HR] says they have no budget to pay an agency fee, but so far they’ve sent me garbage. Are you going to be this useless, too?’

    I asked, ‘Which 3 companies within 50 miles of where we’re sitting have the best Pro-E talent?’

    He responded, ‘Why do you want to know that?’

    I replied, ‘Because I’m going to get the names of all their Pro-E CAD Designers, call them all up, and try to recruit them for you.’

    He asked, ‘Is that legal?’

    I replied, ‘Do you care?’

    He said, ‘Hell no, of course not. That?s your problem. That opening’s MY problem. Do whatever you have to do to get me some decent candidates. Just keep me out of it from here on.’

    Four weeks later, the job was filled.

    The Division GM heard about this from his VP Ops and came to see me. He asked, ‘Is it true you poached [his exact term] Jane [we'll call her] directly from Acme [a direct competitor in a small town down the road]?’

    ‘Yes. Is that a problem?? I responded, a bit nervously, I’ll admit.

    ‘A problem? Are you nuts? That’s what we hired you for.’

    I later heard that the CEO of Acme [we'll call it] had called my employer’s CEO to complain that we had ’stolen’ one of his best Designers.

    My CEO’s reply?

    ‘You and I spend millions trying to steal each other’s customers. What’s the difference? Have a nice day.’

    Please note that nobody asked:

    1) How did you get the names of the people you called?

    2) How did get them to talk to us?

    In fact, in over 25 years in this business, whether in a TPR or in-house role, no client has EVER asked me either question. Not once.

    Now, I repeat (I love quotations ? don?t you?):

    ‘Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem.’
    — John Galsworthy

    And, after reading some of the other posts, I offer:

    ‘The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be sure they’re going to have some pretty annoying virtues.’
    — Elizabeth Taylor

    Happy hunting.

  39. Maureen Sharib Jul 22, 2005 at 11:17 am

    Watching these exchanges is like watching a train wreck ? both fascination and dread
    keep my eyes fixed upon them. I wince at the name calling and insinuations, I?m intrigued by the historical references and inferences Brandon brings to the table, I?m enthralled by the open-mindedness I see here but most of all I?m prompted to think about the other side of the coin. I am referring to the candidates ? the worker bee sitting at his desk doing the job for someone else you need him to be doing for you. Much of the most vociferous hurrah in here curiously seems to be in defense of the corporate mindset ? ?He?s mine and you can?t have him?. I?m curious as to why corporate thinks that way. I understand the investment issue, I understand the in-defense-of-our-secrets issue, I understand the ?it?s mine and you can?t have any? mentality. I also understand that indentured servitude was officially outlawed in this country in 1885.

    Some of the high-minded remarks in here appear to me to be in reference to what some contributors here would have us believe are murky and shady backwater ethics of some in the recruiting industry. Before we rush to judgment (always a risky practice!) let?s remember the other side of the coin; the labor force is many times the first to get jettisoned upon the distressing news of declining profits by corporate America. It doesn?t take much, sometimes only a few pennies downward in their stock prices, for the meat cleaver to fall:

    Posted 7/22/2005 10:44 AM Ford fires PR officials to trim white collar staff
    By Eric Mayne, The Detroit News Ford Motor (F) fired several senior public relations officials Thursday, a move signaling the automaker’s willingness to implement involuntary layoffs to achieve cost-cutting goals. The dismissals are part of the company’s goal to reduce its white collar workforce in North America. Ford cut 1,100 jobs this spring through buyouts and early retirements. And last month, Ford said it needed to trim an additional 1,750 salaried jobs. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Ford could lay off up to 15,000 white collar workers in North America over the next few years, far more than had been expected.

    and then, less than one hour later…
    Friday July 22, 11:43 AM EDT DETROIT (Reuters) - Ford Motor Co. (F), whose North American automotive operations lost $1.21 billion in the second quarter, said on Friday it is not ruling out deeper job cuts in its salaried work force to help return to sustained profits.

    Posted 7/22/2005 9:40 AM (MONEY) Kimberly-Clark to cut 6,000 jobs
    DALLAS (AP) ? Kimberly-Clark (KMB)…said Friday it plans to cut about 6,000 jobs and sell or close up to 20 manufacturing plants…announced the plans as it reported earnings for the second quarter fell slightly because of a tax expense…The multiyear restructuring plan will result in a net workforce reduction of about 10% and include closing or selling about 17% of its plants worldwide by the end of 2008…

    And finally, from the ?employee-friendly? company, and this one really gets interesting…
    Thursday, July 21, 2005. Hewlett-Packard Plans to Slash 14,500 Jobs
    By Matthew Fordahl The Associated Press SAN JOSE, California — Hewlett-Packard’s plan to cut 14,500 jobs and overhaul its retirement benefits not only chisels away at its high corporate costs, but also its reputation as one of Silicon Valley’s most employee-friendly firms. The computer and printer maker once known for treating employees like family said Tuesday it would save $1.9 billion a year as it trimmed its global work force of 151,000 by 10 percent over the next 18 months, a necessary step to stay competitive with efficient rivals, executives said. The company reasoned that it was expensive to keep workers employed at unnecessary or redundant tasks and offer generous retirement benefits when competitors do not. But other analysts — and HP executives — point out that a company with lofty goals and philosophies benefits no one if it is not making money. ‘We know that only by having a competitive cost structure can we compete aggressively in the marketplace, thereby growing the company for our employees, customers and shareholders,’ said CEO Mark Hurd, who has been on the job four months.

    Notice, the man said ?compete aggressively in the marketplace, thereby growing the company…?. Isn?t this what it?s all about? Isn?t this what we all should be doing?
    Competing aggressively. Hmmm….if we were to listen to the advice of some in here this statement would appear to be an oxymoron. We?re to compete, yes, but rein our actions in according to ?ethics and morality?. Whose? That?s the real question that?s being bandied about in here. The only way we can embrace a ?best practice? roundtable regarding ethics and mores is to give equal opportunity for all to express themselves and then, as Brandon indicates, discuss the pros and cons of each. Civilly, I might add.

    Like Brandon and a few others in here, I see danger in ?absolute truths?. Dogmatism threatens every organization, every society and the ordering of people everywhere. Insisting that things be labeled either black or white defies reality and leads to mistaken practices rather than enlightened ones. When they say ?Don?t do it?, why not ask why not? When they say ?It?s not right?, why not ask ?Says who?? If we don?t question authority we?re on a slippery slope indeed.

    But to get back on point about the other side. I wonder how those 6000 at risk at Kimberly Clark are feeling/I think about what those 14,500 at HP are experiencing/I marvel at the nimble veracity of Ford?s decision making process that could include the axing of up to 15,000 white collar workers over the next few years.

    How do they feel? Would they, considering the big picture, maybe benefit from someone calling into Ford, or KC or HP and ferreting out their names to be contacted by someone in the future about an opportunity that might could save the