Job Seekers Beware!
The big buzz in the staffing industry right now is around the definition of aggressive recruiting and "best practices". Specifically, the debate centers on whether some recruiters go too far by misrepresenting themselves (impersonating competitors employees), strong-arming candidates to get referrals (withholding offers until the candidate provides names and numbers). There's more, I'm just grossed out.
The debate started with some articles written by industry expert, Dr. John Sullivan; someone I know and like but completely disagree with on the topic. I'm sure that many in the industry are watching the spectacle though only a few have commented, either on one side or another. You can read the articles here, here, here (click on the discussions link at the bottom to review the commentary). I'd really like to see some other leaders in our industry take a stand on this. I honestly believe that the reputation of the Staffing function is being maligned by a few (this is nothing new, by the way).
My opinion is best summed up by Nick Corcodilos at asktheheadhunter.com. He provides advice for the job seeker, which I highly recommend that anyone in the market right now read (or anyone that will ever be in the market...this means you), lest you cross paths with a recruiter utilizing less than *honorable* practices.
My opinion is that lying is never a "best practice". And that even the most *strategic* of recruiting initiatives that produces results can harm an employment brand beyond repair. In my opinion, honest and aggressive are not mutually exclusive.
My blog, my opinion ; ) Honesty is a best practice.
Comments
- Anonymous
September 01, 2005
Wow - This was eye-opening to me. Being on the other side of the fence (the so-called "talent" being "acquired") I was unaware that these types of practices exist. I was particularly disgusted by the example of interviewing a lending assistant to get information about who they really wanted to hire (the commercial lender.) That's just heinous. I have always thought that the interaction one has with a recruiter is, in many cases, the first interaction a candidate has with the company and set the tone for that relationship going forward. If those are the tactics the recruiters are encouraged to use, I have to wonder about the overall ethical stance of the company, quite frankly, and whether I'd ever want to work at such a place. - Anonymous
September 01, 2005
That was a disgusting article. I kept returning to the first paragraph, because I was certain I must have misread it and what he was actually describing was a bad example of recruiting practices. - Anonymous
September 02, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
September 02, 2005
Paul, I totally agree with everything you said (well done). I know Dr. John professionally, not personally, and my interactions with him have been positive. He is extremely knowledgable and I don't want to dismiss the great things he has said because I don't agree with him on this (I may be compartmentalizing, but the man has a brain full of good stuff and is a thought leader in our industry). Yes, it does bother me that he endorses this kind of behavior which is why I felt compelled to write about it. You know me...I'm an open book. By not saying something, I felt guilty by association. - Anonymous
September 02, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
September 09, 2005
A case study of FirstMerit Bank and its world-class recruiting practices
Warlike tactics. The FirstMerit... - Anonymous
September 12, 2005
Heather you are absolutely correct in your comments.
I've had interviews with Microsoft in the past and always found the organization to be professional and courteous in the process. But then I had the pleasure of being one of the former Entex employees that used to support Microsoft's hardware and software in the regional offices in the 90's.
Keep up the excellent commentary!
Jerr - Anonymous
September 12, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
September 13, 2005
The comment has been removed - Anonymous
September 15, 2005
Ok, good points. Just wanted to clarify in case it was missed. I think that some of the "bad" recruiters aren't bad intentionally, some just need more education, and others unfortunately get more motivated or caught up by money, meeting quota, pride rather than service.
Yeah, you are right, not all good recruiters are members of an Association, but it does help a candidate know for sure that their recruiter is aware of the industry standards. It kind of reduces the risk.
Your blog is helpful though for candidates to be aware if their rights. Nick also does a great job as well.
I wonder do you think that they were for real? I mean, could they have been that dumb to put this information on the internet for the world to see if they had really done this behavior? Maybe there is an ulterior motive, like trying to set themselves up for something in the future?
I am surprised that their company has let them get away with this.. Gee the Bad press must not help. - Anonymous
September 16, 2005
Sara-thanks for the comments. I guess I have a problem with the association thing bc I don't think it's a direct indicator. Many great ethical recruiters are not members of associations like that.
I agree that education is key for many people. Some should know better. Big difference between some over-zealous new recruiter who does something "stupid" and a recruiting manager that turns it into a "program". Yes, they are actually for real. I thought the same thing about why they made it public. I was talking to someone about thatyesterday. Usually when people do something that others think is shady, they don't put it out there. So I honesty think that Dr. John and FirstMerit were surprised by how big the negative reaction was. I think the damage to their employment brand would not ever be worth what could be coming. They have been pretty quiet lately so hopefully they have rethought some of their programs. I hope.
Well, I guess one good thing about all of this is that I got to meet Nick and other people that share the same feelings ; ) - Anonymous
April 25, 2007
2-years after the last post and I have no idea if this bank is still around, much less using these "tactics", but I'll tell you what- I was certainly disgusted by what I read in the article. There is no question as to the ethical violations involved in pretending to be a competitor or "mystery shopping" competitors or other non-competitors. As somebody mentioned in the feedback from the article, sure businesses use mystery shoppers, but they use them to evaluate themselves not to steal employees from other companies or to gain anything from the competition. You can steal from yourself all day, but when you violate somebody else, there is a serious problem. A FirstMerit employee commented that they sometimes returned to these businesses and made permanant purchases- so what, you used them and wasted their time and money to begin with, you aren't going to erase that by purchasing a few sweaters at the mall. if JCPenney's or Sears or whatever businesses these were had volunteered to help FirstMerit in their recruiting efforts- sure, no problem, but why would they volunteer up their best employees, right? The FirstMerit employee also explained that the practice of blackmailing new recruits for contacts was only an effort to show them that a recruiting effort was part of everyone's job. But wait a minute, these were not employees, offers had not yet been extended to them because they hadn't turned over their contacts. tsk tsk. I will never ever ever bank with FirstMerit. That is a given. Why would I want to hand my money over to such a blatantly inethical organization?