Thinking does not cause mind pollution!Just wondering (was just reading one of Barry Geiman's "What would you do?" threads) ...what happens when a recruiter uses "ethical" sourcing techniques only to present a candidate who is found to have lied on their resume?
| 15 comments
|
flag
15 comments
Log in or register to post a reply.
-
Maureen, I prefer not to be on either side of the fence. I speak only for myself and as I see it. I respond to what?s posted by others.
The industry we all work in is the best and I take great pride in trying to be professional, be good at my job and provide both clients and candidates with an excellent service. I am not out to beat my competition. I do not want to harm them. I do not worry about them. I prefer to let them worry about me.
Like you I believe in the survival of the fittest but that is not the same as a war.
Survival of the fittest is about self preservation whether we are referring to the recruitment industry as a whole, the companies we work for or ourselves as individuals.
Steve mentioned recruitment evolving and that some people don?t want it to.
I agree that recruitment is evolving. It has to. Evolution is a continuous process. When anything stops evolving, it is dead. When water stops moving, it stagnates. The rules of natural selection are clear, it's the survival of the fittest.
But it's not only those that don't evolve that die off. It is also those that evolve in the wrong direction and become weak and eventually die.
It's no different to bad business ideas or bad business practices.
Recruiting will only evolve successfully if it is in the right direction. In others words, we get better at it to achieve a better result. But it's the getting better at it bit that matters. When you are only focused on the end result rather than getting better, you will not survive. Achieving the end result does not mean getting better.
Going back to Steve?s Math?s problem, if 2 students arrive at the answer of 49, it does not mean therefore that they are equal. What about the one that looked at the other one's answer, or used a calculator, or guessed.
In recruitment, achieving the same result through unethical practices does not make the practices ethical or better, no more than robbing banks is the way forward to get richer. Even the bank robbers believe they are right before they get caught because they are richer.......for a while anyway.
Anyone that says they never lie to anyone about anything is lying. We all lie. Nature lies. The world is built on lies. But the issue is, as you rightly say is why do people lie in? People lie because they can or because they have to.
It?s also about what makes people lie? Pressure. Pressure to meet targets, pressure to earn money, pressure to keep their jobs, pressure to look better than they are Etc.. etc.. It?s human nature to lie. Some people find it?s harder not to.
My suggestion regarding the levelling strategy was not necessarily what I believe. I was just trying to make the point that things can be looked at differently.
-
Steve, when did I say that anything but networking and Internet research was unethical? Besides, I?m not even an advocator of internet research as I have stated on several other forums because I think it?s lazy and it also means looking in the same pot as the rest.
Back to the beginning of your questions. I just felt compelled to clear the above one up first. How bad do I think this unethical problem is?
Nowhere near as bad as some would probably like us to think it is. This whole discussion started because of the article about one company?s practices, not the whole industry. Everything has blown out of proportion since.
Some would have us believe we are in moral decline but I am not one of them. If your morals are too rigid in this industry you are in danger of becoming the constipated recruiter who cannot function effectively. I?m sure we have all met one or two of them in our time.
I have only ever responded to what other people post on ERE. Therefore my comments have only been based upon the facts as presented by people.
Is the problem more prevalent on the corporate side or TPR end?
I don?t think the two are related. The functions of each are different. What drives each is different. The services offered by each are different. The typical size of the companies are different. The pressures on each are different. The objectives of each are different.
For example. What is the objective of a TPR? To make money. What is the objective of a Corporate Recruiter? To save money.
The only thing we all have control over is our own behaviour and if we all take responsibility for the way we personally behave, we will all be better off.
I don?t have an issue with rusing. I never did, providing it does not have an impact on anyone else or requires activity whose legality needs to be verified. I agree that it is a part or this profession but some of the rusing tactics originally quoted do cross the line.
For example, speaking to a switchboard operator and using a story to get names is harmless. Interviewing candidates for a job that does not exist just to get names of others crosses the line. How is it possible that some cannot see it? The difference is huge.
Although we are in sales, this part of the recruitment process is not sales related. We are not trying to sell anything to anyone. We are gathering information. This is more the prospecting part of sales which is pre ? gifts, relationship building, networking. In sales, offering inducements is common place. In life, offering inducements is common place.
Giving out company pens is different to giving an envelope with $1,000s in it. One is an inducement by the seller, the other is bribery by the purchaser.
Getting names through a ruse on the switchboard is different to withholding a job offer from a candidate to get names of others. One is harmless, the other is bribery.
In business we give inducements to get the order because of the demands of the purchaser. Do we give candidates inducements to join a company or give inducements to a company to employ a certain candidate? We certainly don?t.
Steve, being successful at this job is down to attitude and desire. It is not rocket science and you do not need to push the boundaries of ethics or legality to be successful. You do not need ?ologies? coming out your ears to understand this business. It?s common sense and common decency.
My desire is to do the job well. As a result I will be financially rewarded. Too many people desire the reward and will do anything to achieve it. That is what differentiates opinion.
-
Tony, this is so great - you say potato and I say pototto -it what makes all of our worlds go 'round, small things these worlds may be. Facilitation, fair-play, obstructionism, destructionism - however you see it, usually, if you break it down, depends on which side of the fence you're on. And sometimes that's a hard thing to fathom.
-
Maureen, Steve suggested in his earlier posting that although some may not see it, taking away many of the "unethical techniques" is a leveling strategy.
I am suggesting that perhaps some people introduce these unethical techniques in the first place as a leveling strategy.
In others words, they need to introduce them because it's the only way they can compete.
-
The one size fits all is an overarching concept. It sounds all nicey-nice, this hopeful attribution to holistic learning:
?A holistic way of thinking seeks to encompass and integrate multiple layers of meaning and experience rather than defining human possibilities narrowly. Every child is more than a future employee; every person's intelligence and abilities are far more complex than his or her scores on standardized tests.?
It?s the feel-good generation. But in the rough-and-tumble world of commerce another ferocious concept comes immediately to the forefront: competition. What happens to these tender souls awash in the rough water? Competition is the natural path in the world; it?s what makes each of our responses to discussions like these unique.
Every profession has its peccadilloes ? ours being no different. Making the strong weaker and the weaker strong is an unnatural process that will not cure society?s ills ? it will only make the strong, who have the ability (and responsibility) to help the weaker, less able to help anyone, including themselves. Are we really doing the whole ecosystem service when the parts are encouraged to function regardless of the natural laws?
Lie ? to not tell the truth. Who doesn?t agree that lying to candidates is wrong? Who doesn?t agree that lying to your customer is wrong? Much of this ?gone awry? in these discussions is because people are talking about different things. They?re taking ONE concept and applying it against many subjects. Recruiting in its easiest grasp is a Rorschach test with all the accompanying interpretations one can imagine.
And talking about the black/white subject of lies: maybe we can approach this lie business by trying to understand the reasons people lie. What are the reasons people lie? The ones that come to mind for me are that people lie for several reasons, one being so that they may receive something, another being to hide something and another being that they are afraid to tell the truth. Without flying in to condemn or condone, can we explore these reasons and how they?re impacting our profession?
And just when I?m ready to post this thing, Tony offers a tantalizing subject ? maybe ?unethical behaviors? are contributing to the field?s leveling. At first glance, I think what Tony?s proposing is that ?unethical behaviors? are rounding the corners, being used to gain an unfair advantage in the game. If that?s the case, I disagree. Bringing any concept like ethics and its sister morals onto the playing field is the leveler, it?s akin to being handed a 10 handicap in golf. But before I tar that canvas further, I?m going to wait for Tony to explain what he means.
I?m sorry guys. I believe business is a WAR (I?ve been in it too long to believe otherwise), I believe in the survival of the fittest, I believe that the namby-pambies finish last. I agree with Steve when he suggests that much of this recent hysteria ?sounds like a deep rationalization for poor performance on a critical strategic task?. I do not believe that Steve is suggesting that lying is permissible; I do believe that Steve is suggesting that WAR deserves stringent applications that may not appeal to the feint-of-heart. So be it. It has always been that way.
-
Didn't say better but from this side of the pond, it just sounds better with the accent...
Tony, on a serious note, how bad do you believe this unethical problem really is? Where is the data - not apocryphal nor hearsay - that demonstrates that we are a profession in moral decline? Is the problem more prevalent on the corporate side or TPR end?
But no - use of what some call unethical techniques (rusing comes to mind) has LONG been part of the profession (to answer a potential thought of yours, no this doesn't make it right but...). Let me flip this a moment - and offer a leveling strategy in another function...sales. Shouldn't the skills of the sales person and the attributes of the product be sufficient to make a deal? What do steaks, cigars, and golf have to do with selling? Perhaps some might say its part of the relationship building/networking process but I contend its just a way of rationalizing the art of buying a sale. Others would say it is part of the cost of doing business. Or a leveling strategy for a company with a lesser product.
Tony - I have always stayed away from rusing techniques until I've exhausted my relationships and natural charm (!)...then Detective Columbo kicked in. Knowing I had superior opportunities to offer - because I had done my research - made it a reasonable thing to do. Never hurt a soul, didn't impact my journey to heaven.
Here's a Q I don't believe you've been asked - at which point in your recruiting life did you conclude that anything but networking and Internet research was "unethical"?
thx.
-
The concept about unethical practices being the leveling strategy?
-
Steve, have you ever considered that maybe introducing unethical practices IS the leveling strategy?
Have you ever been to the UK? Why do you think your problems are any better than ours? :-)
-
Tony - I'm not kidding... there is a major case for holistic education in this country wherein the effort is often rewarded as much as, if not more than, the result. Obviously, I was kidding a little (I really mean just a little) about the math problem to make a point.
My understanding is that the goal of holitic education is to make the student feel good about himself rather than be made to feel inadequate for not knowing the answer to say, a multiplication problem.
If folks think we have issues in recruiting, I encourage them to take a look at other professions.
Tony, I suppose you feel a bit isolated in the UK because you can't experience the same problems as we do? jk...
-
So do you believe that any student that thinks 7 x 7 = 52 deserves an A and should be put in the same class as the the student that knows the real answer?
-
Representative excerpt from John Sumser's archives...
(November 25, 1998) What an odd world. In Recruiting, a "passive" candidate is someone who is doing well in their job and is not thinking about leaving. The very way we describe our scarcest resources denigrates them. Like a disease, job hunting is either active or passive (in remission). The only way that passivity becomes a desirable trait is when it describes the fact that a person is not looking for a job. It's Recruiting double talk. It is used to cover a multitude of sins.
In a recent Computerworld article (called "Those Flipping Recruiters"), the "ethics" and general tactics of "site-flipping" are discussed at length:
The reaction of IT recruiters to the "flipping" technique ranges from outrage to acceptance. "I don't think that's the way to do business," says Carol McLysaght, a personnel counselor who hires IT professionals for Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co., the Chicago-based chewing gum manufacturer. "That's like stealing a company's information. It's kind of like saying if I leave my wallet on the photocopying machine at the library, someone else can say it's theirs and use it. I just know that if she were stealing my qualified people that I worked hard to recruit and retain, I'd have a hard time with it."
While we certainly appreciate the "moral outrage", we wonder if Ms McLysaght's CEO would buy the notion that the company should go out of business because of her unwillingness to aggressively pursue passive candidates. We somehow doubt it. The idea that recruiting so-called "passive candidates" is stealing sounds like a deep rationalization for poor performance on a critical strategic task.
Do you know what holistic education is? It has effectively leveled the playing field and given every student a chance for an A. It's 7 time 7 equals 52 receives an A because the teacher believes the student at least tried hard to work out the problem. The answer is still wrong. Recruiting is evolving and some folks just want it to remain as it is.
Some may not see it, but taking away many of the "unethical techniques" is a leveling strategy; heck, there are some who still don't like the Internet - do we take that away too?
What was that John? "...we wonder if Ms McLysaght's CEO would buy the notion that the company should go out of business because of her unwillingness to aggressively pursue passive candidates. We somehow doubt it."
Sorry Heather, it ain't over.
-
Seriously, Steve. You know a lie when you tell it. Time to put this topic to rest.
-
But at what point does stretching the truth become a lie that would necessitate not hiring the person? What if a recruiter uses what a few may term unethical techniques (or perhaps there's a gray area in there somewhere) to source a good-as-gold person?
I'm just being the Barry Geiman of ERE Blogs...
Scott - does being lied to include but is not limited to never recieving an inkling of the status of one's candidacy?
-
Surely you jest. The answer is don't hire the candidate.
Did you think that the answer was that since the candidate lied, you should too?
-
Does anyone think that a big part of why candidate lie is the fact that the market has been so tight for so long that they feel like they need to say whatever they can to get an interview or hired?
OR
Is could it be the fact that so many candidates have been lied to by recruiters that they now feel honesty is optional when dealing with recruiters?
