See who is already coming to #socialrecruiting summit in November!

Blog Network

Blogging outside the box

otbc logoThinking does not cause mind pollution!

The Ethics Sham follow this blog post

posted by on July 3, 2007

Over on Recruiting Bloggers, we find the usual excellence from Jim Stroud and his Recruiter's Lounge (I know, because I've been there and the questions asked by Jim are right on target) in a thread entitled, "VIDEO - The Recruiter's Lounge with Ami Givertz and Call Girl Vicky." Very entertaining banter from both Jim and Ami.

Then comes the Call Girl Vicky part (no wonder prostitution is illegal in most states). Vicky and Jim role play a sourcing call into a company that’s the kind of stuff that comprises the fodder for those interminably long ERE threads that make you want to scream out loud and pray for God to “take me now.”

These are the threads that bring out the so-called ethical sourcers and recruiters from the most squalid recesses of our recruiting community. You can’t beat these people away from the Comment section. But in this case – Call Girl Vicky - are there any comments posted about the tactics used to obtain names? Not even one.  Why is that?

Could it be that the usual suspects have gone on vacation?

Nah…

Could it be that the usual suspects have suddenly realized that all is fair in love and recruiting?

Nope…

Could it be that the usual suspects have forsaken their ethical oaths to whatever recruiting association they belong to?

No way…

Then why aren’t the usual suspects up in arms over Jim and Vicky’s role play of the same tactics used by many to identify names via the telephone?

Could it be they have a connection to the Recruiter’s Lounge and SourceCon?

I’m truly interested in hearing from the SourceCon Presenters about the Recruiter’s Lounge demo and why the “hang’em – they’re rusin’ ” comments aren’t flying in like in-laws to family reunion.

You see, this issue is important because of the consistency of the inconsistency about what is allowable when telephone names sourcing. In other words, so many are just plan inconsistent about ethics. It is these very people who believe they have been anointed by the Recruiting Gods (no, not Sullivan, Adler, Wheeler, Jay Gee, or Manaster…well, ok, maybe David) to impart upon the masses “the right way to source and recruit.” It's ethics when they want it - and not when they don't.

Ultimately, it is so transparent what is taking place amidst the online banter surrounding sourcing and recruiting. If you’re pushing an “ethical agenda” but your actions are inconsistent, what does this say about the ethical agenda? Let me help you with a few words: Charlatan, Fraud, Disingenuous.

To those scratching their heads, you may not be aware of the schism that is growing on the sourcing side of our profession. And it’s a damn sham too. You see it on ERE, in the Yahoo groups, and in the recruiting blogosphere. Some even want to create a sourcing accredidation via the NAPS model that would no doubt ban the "dumb blond" tactics used in the Recruiter's Lounge demo. You know the saying - if you can't beat them, accredite them. I'm sure it will work just like licensing people to drive cuts down on accidents.

What this is really all about is a few strident recruiters who publicly denigrate everything sourcers do down to and including the role itself in an attempt to devalue the undeniable impact sourcers have on recruiting. I wonder why that is?

Now go enjoy the Fourth of July and the freedom to source any way you please. "My country 'tis of thee..." 

| 12 comments | flag

12 comments

Log in or register to post a reply.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    anyways... here's the big hype of the day... how i solved the sourcecon challenge:

    http://www.recruitingblogs.com/profiles/blog/show?id=502551%3ABlogPost%3A15279

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Robert, you asked:

    "And now one of the three is booted off ERE. Does that make you, Steven and Maureen, happy?"

    The answer to this is "no". It does not make me happy and I know it also does not make Steve happy. We take no pleasure in another's pain.

    ?I don't know if I continue, even today, always liking myself. But what I learned to do many years ago was to forgive myself. It is very important for every human being to forgive herself or himself because if you live, you will make mistakes - it is inevitable. But once you do and you see the mistake, then you forgive yourself and say, 'well, if I'd known better I'd have done better,' that's all. So you say to people who you think you may have injured, 'I'm sorry,' and then you say to yourself, 'I'm sorry.' If we all hold on to the mistake, we can't see our own glory in the mirror because we have the mistake between our faces and the mirror; we can't see what we're capable of being. You can ask forgiveness of others, but in the end the real forgiveness is in one's own self." ~ Maya Angelou

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    I have known posts to be deleted for possibly right reasons and at the most of a few members being banned by the the moderator of the group that I belive is some something for which there should be proper'application of mind'.I do not know the circumstances for 'somebody being booted out'other than that the person disagreed perhaps vehemently or brought in another point in self defence.

    This has happened on a blog furthermore which I believe are not even moderated.Am I missing something?I certainly tend to think the judgement is harsh.Perhaps warning could have been given.

    I have not seen the video and don't know if it is directed at anybody.I'd rather not see it.I do not believe in 'one upmanship at all'.For that matter I like 'good ideas' and not 'smart ideas'Sorry to dissapoint you,folks!

    Would Jeff Altman kindly elaborate on the 'censorship' that he has talked about?

    By the way I do not know Steve at all and have defended both Maureen and Karen at ERE in the past.Yes,recently I took on Karen in one of the discussions at Sourcers Unleashed.So I have no axe to grind!

    Forgive me much as I would like to read more blogs but have only read a few blogs pertaining only to recruiting and sourcing techniques etc. I think I'd better stick to that!

    I agree with Sherry Karr that all comments should be removed.I'd much rather prefer 'healthy debates'.

    Sunil

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    I respect each and every one of you, and I spend a lot of time reading these posts to gain knowledge and expertise. For you three to bash each other is not helping our cause. And now one of the three is booted off ERE. Does that make you, Steven and Maureen, happy? I hope not. I support no one in this specific post and I take no sides, but would like to see everyone help our industry out (we get enough negative press from candidates, we don't need it from each other!).

    And a side note... Jeff, it doesn't matter if you are from New York or not. Having this attitude is not geographical. I am so sick of hearing "how New Yorkers are". Give me a break. ("Ohhhh, NY'ers are so tough and mean...") I'm not scared because you guys couldn't hold a candle to me in other markets where you have to have professionalism and not just a "killer NY attitude"... That doesn't make a difference. And if attitude is how you define your process, you wouldn't survive working in another market...

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Wow - the best thing ERE could do is to remove this blog and all of its comments.

    Seriously - does this belong on ERE?

    I am appalled actually - not only to find this here, but to find this blog copied in pasted in various yahoo groups. Reminds me of 4th grade. Unbelievable.

    =/

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    There is clearly a lot of "juice" among you folks.

    Steve, we met recently, I like you. Maureen, Karen, I enjoy you two site unseen.

    Folks, take a deep breath and exhale slowly. Do it three times, please.

    I don't know the politics here but Steve, it sure looked like it was pointed at you know whom and Karen, the videos sure seem pointed at you know whom.

    It's out in the open. Fine.

    Everyone can express their disagreement with the other AND I think it has crossed a line in more than one direction.

    My concern is that voices will be suppressed by ERE and that won't help.

    I have learned a lot from Mamma Mo (said with respect and affection) and been made to think a lot by Special K (also with respect and affection).

    Steve, we're New Yorkers. It came through when I met you. I know you're a "professional killer" (said with respect and admiration--I'll explain it to you personally if it seems unflattering. From me it is a compliment).

    I hope this doesn't go nuclear.

    Jeff Altman The Big Game Hunter

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Steve - Just caught the post and happy to give my 2 cents on the subject (you know me personally and having an opinion is never an issue for me :-))

    Q: The million dollar Question: Is calling into an organization with the intent to identify names, titles and contact details illegal = No!

    Q: Is calling into an organization to identify names and pretending to be someone that you are not illegal = Yes!.

    In short IMHO:

    Social Engineering techniques - Illegal ? = YES if representing yourself as someone you are not to obtain information from a person/company. NLP techniques - Illegal ? = YES if representing yourself as someone you are not to obtain information from a person/company.

    Re Jim's Video. I know Jim and Vicky and the impression I got was they were hamming it up for the camera's.

    Rob

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Your P.S. "still" has NOTHING to do with the SOLE role of SOURCER. It merely further demonstrates your undisputed experience within the field of RECRUITING. That is not being questioned or challenged. The LACK of experience in SOURCING is what you simply cannot support.

    "P.S I ran a generalist desk, and other Niches, and also worked in staffing before I opened my company and started my niche in HVAC."

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    All I can say is KUDOS to Maureen and Steve! I couldn't have said it better myself! Everything that Maureen has said is what I have tried (unsuccessfully I might add) - to impart in the past.

    For someone who wants to "play nice" - there an awful lot of insults and degrading comments made re: an industry that is so different from recruiting day to day that those who have half a brain's worth of knowledge on the subject KNOW and do not debate.

    I have been both RECRUITER and SOURCER. I have played both sides of the field and believe me...there IS a difference. A BIG difference. I have RECRUITED in the banking/finance industry, pharmaceutical/biotech industry as well as HR, IT and several other areas.

    As a recruiter, yes I source my own people - but it is a totally different type of sourcing. It is networking and socializing and leaving messages and emails, etc.. It is letting folks know what you want and hoping they'll spread the cheer and someone will come running to you for this great opportunity. It is hard work - and indeed has many additional steps not required in sourcing.

    As a sourcer, I have sourced hundreds/thousands of names from companies all over the country and abroad. You don't do this the same way. No one is going to give you all the names of the Engineers in their pre-sales dept. if you say "Hi, I'm #1 Recruiter and I have a great oppt. for someone and would love to network with your enginers - can you transfer me to one? Or would you be a doll and read me the org chart?"

    You're going to be sitting here at the end of the day with one name or no names, and how much do you think your client is going to be willing to pay for that? How long would this method take to generate the names of all engineers in that department?

    In recruiting, you don't need the names of "all" of the engineers in that dept. - you just need a few, call, network with perhaps - and out of 3 or 4 you will get a resume...that's sufficient and you move on to the next company.

    In sourcing, the client is paying you for ALL of the names or at least as many as you can generate within each target. They don't want to hear, I've left 5 voicemails and talked with 2 and they are going to think about it and email me a couple of names this week.

    This is the difference between sourcing and recruiting. But then, anyone who does either would KNOW the difference. If you don't have experience in BOTH, you really shouldn't be speaking to the other.

    I have the unique experience of having that dual talent...I can recruit with the best of them and can source with the best of them. Therefore, I can say with complete confidence that I KNOW what I am talking about. I am not "assuming" or "anticipating" how it works on one side or the other. I KNOW. That really can't be said of the most notorious poster on this TIRED subject!

    It is ridiculous and a complete waste of time to constantly tear down and apart other's opinions on issues in this industry. It is amazing that for folks who claim they don't want to play 'tit for tat' - they CONSTANTLY have to jump in with their 2 cents. Always have to question the metrics and/or methods of an industry that they are honestly absolutely UNEDUCATED on.

    Not recruiting...we're not talking about recruiting here are we? We are talking about SOURCING. And we're not talking about the sourcing that RECRUITERS do...we are talking about the SOURCING that "SOURCERS" do.

    There is a completely different field called SOURCING - and those who work in that field are called SOURCERS. Then we have the field of Recruitment and there are RECRUITERS who do that. Get it? See the light yet?

    It's like comparing Doctors to Dentists. They both medically treat patients...if there is an infection in the person's mouth or body, the Dr. can treat it with antibiotics, but if there is major dental work to be done, he sends you to a dentist. He can do some of the work there, treating the infections, etc.. But it's not what he does overall, it's a SMALL PORTION of what he does. The Dentist knows all about the mouth, teeth and how to treat that area. He is a specialist in this area and wouldn't dream of telling the Dr. how to perform a surgery nor would the Dr. tell the Dentist how to extract wisdom teeth.

    It just occured to me that I am beating the same dead horse that has been beaten to a rotten pulp for the last couple of years...my how one can get caught up in their own ramblings.

    This is not "news" - this is common sense. It has been repeated often enough that if you didn't get it a year or so ago, you SURELY must get it now. Unless of course, you lack common sense which seems to be the apparent case.

    There are ethical and unethical ways of doing things - this is true. In "any" industry. But if you want to speak to ethics in an industry stick to your own industry. Stick to what YOU know best...and NOT what you have no experience in.

    If you want to speak to this industry - then by all means...share with us YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE SOURCING INDUSTRY. Where and for WHOM did you actually source? Again, not as PART of recruiting, but as a SOURCER? Did you ID entire dept's of co's for your client? Did you ID entire organizational structures for your client? If not, then SHUT UP. You have no real experience to speak on this industry and NO ONE wants to hear your 2 cents. We've given you your change back and you STILL don't get it.

    If there are supporters of this ETHICS and MORALITY Officer, please, speak up - let us hear your voices. Show us that the claims of mass support are not merely figments of an obviously over productive imagination.

    Anyone with half a good brain should be able to agree that unless you have worked in an industry, you really don't know all that it involves and cannot speak to it's ethics or lack thereof.

    And more specifically...those of us who "have worked" and/or "do work" in the industry of SOURCING ONLY...simply do not want to hear the random ramblings of someone who has never walked in our shoes - speaking to what is right or not right in the way we do our jobs. It is insulting...demeaning and degrading and basically just highlights for the world to see...the ignorance on the part of those who are so quick to respond with their ethical bantor about something they know NOTHING about.

    GIVE it a rest!

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Karen you can find the string here: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/sourcers_unleashed/message/8036

    You're right, several (nine, to be exact) of the original posts were deleted and then reposted, all nine of them, by me, all in one string, with an explanation ?why? they were deleted. ?Hmmm?.?

    Moving on, you can ?spin? whatever you want in any direction you want to but the fact remains, Karen, your ?disagreements? as you call them are often times desultory, denigrating and many times just plain downright insulting.

    You know what I mean. Certainly some others here do.

    You?re the mistress of twisting words, of using paradigms to suit your purposes. Let me illustrate:

    http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/sourcers_unleashed/message/8004

    You know damned well what my ?guarantee? says yet you insisted on trying to misinterpret it. This is what is meant by disingenuous. I cannot lay claim to the other adjectives and will leave to another to explain what was meant. In addition, you go on to thrash at me about how my data is just too ?definitive? when I am always one of the first one to admit that putting metrics to names sourcing is a very difficult, if not impossible, task. What I offer are the metrics FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE and yet you continue to scoff at and scold me.

    Nobody ever disagrees with your metrics because YOU NEVER OFFER ANY. You are curiously absent in your own real-time displays of experience; you always refer to the subjects as if you?re speaking from some exalted podium of unmatched (and unreachable) elevation.

    Like I?ve said to you before, disagree all you want but if you can?t stand my sharp retorts to your twisted and tormented ?tempests? then stay out of the kitchen. It doesn?t feel good to be followed around every corner and tried to be made to look like you don?t know what you?re talking about.

    Someone said to you today over on the board that you seem to be ?more concerned in promoting all that?s bad in our industry to the outside world?. That is how it appears to many and this concentration on what?s wrong with everything and most everyone doesn?t appear to be moving you very fast in the direction I know you want to go.

    None of your posts have ever been ?moderated?, meaning ?touched? on SU ? your words over there remain, intact, in their entire searing, seething and original glory. One or maybe two posts have been removed, only because you refused to obey the rules of engagement surrounding the conference association controversy, out of which all this evolved.

    Nobody is ignoring the fact that you source but it should be recognized that you source in a narrowly defined space (HVAC) and if you don?t know who the majority of the players are after ten years then you should! When you come in on us who do original, difficult names sourcing across many different industries every day of our lives for hundreds and thousands of names at a time and tell us our metrics are just ?wrong?, it defies explanation and to tell you the truth, is probably at the heart of many of the highly emotionally charged scrapes you seem to find yourself embroiled in here on ERE and in some of the other groups.

    You appear to be finally catching on when you say, ?I am still scratching MY head and wondering, who is gaining more from this?? Look at the subject header of my last post on this blog ? there?s your answer.

    You want to tell me to play nice? Learn the meaning of the words Karen. Then we can talk about ?playing nice?. Pretty is as pretty does.

    Harsh words ? but they needed saying. In spite of yourself, Karen I can't help but like you; you're FABULOUS to argue with! I see so much of myself in you, a dozen years ago.

    ?The other night I ate at a real nice family restaurant. Every table had an argument going.? ~ George Carlin

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Karen, before you continue to hint that the "Gone Shopping" post over on Sourcers Unleashed was a legitimate offering into the names sourcing industry let me ask you one question you asked Steve, followed by the answer you offered:

    Do you read my posts in Full to gain the context? Nah!

    For your enlightenment, "Gone Shopping" is the first in the soon-to-be-released Scripticals series called "The Ugly Sourcer". This first "story" was introduced to begin a conversation around mores and ethics and legalities so that some more of the "mystery" can be removed arund the arcane subject of names sourcing. It is meant to showcase problematic behaviors in the names sourcing industry and to demonstrate the effects of some of these very questionable actions. For you to even begin to intimate that they are being presented as acceptable or encouraged behaviors does the names sourcing industry a great disservice.

    I really did not want to post this but I see the warning signs of a coming tempest in a teapot.

    Maureen Sharib Telephone Names Sourcer/Trainer and Sourcers Guild Guide 513 899 9628 maureen at techtrak.com www.techtrak.com/magicmethod/magicmethod Learn how to telephone source

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Why no comments by you and others on Jim's video?

    Stop deflecting and let us know why this one is OK with the Ethics Police and all others are frisked and subjected to a body cavity search?

    Incidentally, I didn't attack you; this isn't about you.