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

Blog Network

SittingXlegged

Corporate recruitment: what works and what doesn't plus other musings.

Ethical Question when Third Party Recruiters Market Candidates follow this blog post

posted by on June 24, 2007

Here’s something that corporate staffing is faced with regularly. Often third party recruiters (TPRs) market candidates by sending resumes to hiring managers directly. Sometimes the hiring manager is interested in these candidates and asks staffing to take some action.

Here’s the ethical question: assuming that there is no agreement with the TPR to provide candidates, is it ethical for a corporate recruiter to take the presented resume and to contact the candidate directly? After all, the TPR was just marketing and has no claim to the candidate. Or do they? This wouldn’t be a dilemma if all TPRs removed all identifying information from the resumes they market. However, many don’t do that and it’s easy for the corporate recruiter to find the candidate by doing a little cyber sleuthing.

Thoughts?

Ethics

| 17 comments | flag

17 comments

Log in or register to post a reply.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Karen, over half the responses were not from Recruiters so I think they would clearly be in favour of the company but you have brought in a second issue into this argument and I think they are getting mixed up and moving away from the original question by Simon.

    Here are the two issues and maybe it would help to deal with them separately to avoid confusion.

    The original question was:

    Is it ethical for a corporate recruiter to take the presented resume and to contact the candidate directly? After all, the TPR was just marketing and has no claim to the candidate.

    My response. It's unethical, unreasonable, unprofessional and quite probably illegal. It is a deliberate misuse of the word marketing to suit getting something for nothing.

    The second question that has evolved from your discussion:

    Is it good practice for any recruiter to randomly send in a Resume to a company on a speculative basis in the hope of getting a placement?

    My response. Absolutely not. I wouldn't promote this type of activity. It's high volume, low return and very hit or miss, but however low level, or amateurish it may seem, it does work for some.

    And I still say that if the Corporate Recruiter does not wish to encourage this type of service, the bottom line of all this is simple. Don?t accept the Resume.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Karen, at the risk of repeating again what I have said, you are not sending in a Piece of paper, and then saying hey you have to pay me for something you didn't even order from me, because if they don't want it, they don't have to pay for it.

    You are sending in a piece of paper saying I have here details of a candidate that might be of interest to you. Now you can ignore it or throw it the bin, but if the candidate is of interest to you and you hire them, I will charge you my finders fee as is common practice throughout the world in recruitment.

    How is it hijacking a fee when the recipient is in fact the person that decides whether they should pay a fee or not by deciding whether to hire the candidate or not?

    And of course they have earned the fee if the client employs the candidate because they would not have found the candidate without their service otherwise.

    Bottom line is simply someone trying to get something for nothing and looking for excuses to validate not paying for it.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Wow! Thank you Karen, Anthony, Stephen, and Belinda for the great comments since my last response.

    I?m not going to address all of them but here are a few thoughts:

    Anthony, corporate staffing is a lot more than just recruiters. I?m not talking about small companies here. Staffing is usually but not always a part of HR dedicated to the entire process of staffing an organization. TPRs can certainly work with small companies and never interface with a recruiter. However, it is most unlikely that any TPR could sustain an enduring relationship with a corporate client without a relationship with the staffing org. I?m sure that there are exceptions but the best TPRs foster strong relationships with both the hiring manager and the staffing org. There is, however, a price of admission. TPRs have to earn respect. They must differentiate themselves from the pack. Most never achieve this.

    I remember a time when I worked as a contingency recruiter when a colleague became most upset because ?his? client hired ?his? candidate and didn?t pay him a fee because they said the candidate was someone they already had prior to his sending the resume. How could he possibly know what happened? Candidates often have no idea who they sent their resume to. And as Karen pointed out, TPRs often send resumes to clients without permission from either the candidate or the client.

    I?m not convinced that the best TPRs and the best corporate recruiters would prefer not to work with the other as you suggest. I have strong relationships with some excellent TPRs who I value and who provide a great service. There are many TPRs who contact me on a regular basis with whom I choose not to work.

    Much as it may pain my TPR colleagues, the bottom line is that you are far better off to forge a solid relationship with both corporate staffing and the hiring managers, to put a solid written agreement in place, and to work with each client the way they want to work. In time you will develop a strong stable of clients who respect you as a valued business partner and who will help you build a solid business and you help them build theirs.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Simon, I can't see that this type of statement makes any difference. The bottom line is still surely that if you want to hire a candidate sent to you by a recruiter, you are accepting their terms by hiring the candidate and will need to pay them.

    Can you imagine walking around with a sign saying "anyone showing me a car for sale without my permission will have to give it to me free of charge"?

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    I talked with a colleague about this subject yesterday. She told me that what she used to do is put the following notice on her client's careers Website:

    Notice to Recruiters

    Any unsolicited resumes that you send either to HR or directly to hiring managers will be considered to be a free gift.

    Thankyou

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Ive battled this problem to no end at our company. Our vendor contract must be in place with any TPR we work with. ALL applicants must be submitted via our on-line applicant tracking system for which a TPR must have a password to use. Emailed or faxed resumes will not be accepted and we dont owe the TPR anything unless they use the system we have in place.

    If the TPR bypasses the in-house recruiter and sends a resume to the hiring manager, if the hiring manager decides to accept the resume and pursue the candidate we make the department pay the fee (normally a recruiting department expense)- - this puts a stop to most of this for us.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Stephen, then surely the simple answer is don't read or accept any resumes sent in by anyone other that the approved suppliers and make sure the hiring managers know about it. Tell them, any candidate not received through the company system will be rejected however good they are.

    It's not the TPR putting the company in any situation other than trying to provide them with a good candidate. It's the company that creates the situation when they decide they want the candidate but not to pay for it.

    This is like blaming the alcohol for getting you drunk rather than blaming yourself for drinking it. (Just an example by the way)

    I think also that the original point made in Simon's article was regarding Corporate Recruiters accepting the Resumes rather than the hiring managers in which case there really is no excuse to blame the TPR.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Is it Ethical for the TPR to put the company in that situation?

    One of the reasons the Corporate Recruiter wants to be involved in the process is The Requisition. A Requisition represents a real need or opening approved by all Department Directors, V.P.'s and evaluated for a pay range by the Compensation Department. This real need or opening was also posted internally per Company Policy to ensure people within this department or related departments have the opportunity to apply.

    When a TPR cold calls into a Manager (who feels they are short staffed but has no approved open requisition)selling "the perfect candidate", they can unknowingly create problems. For example:

    Manager interviews the "perfect candidate", Manager loves the "perfect candidate" and now wants H.R. involved.

    HR gets involved to find out: 1-There is no requisition 2-If there was a requition, the "perfect candidate's" salary expectations are outside of the established range for the position (if there was one) 3-V.P. won't approve the opening due to budget. 4-Manager already made a verbal offer to the "perfect candidate" for $10K more than their current employees without approval. 5-Manager agreed to a 30% fee, V.P. thinks it's too much and won't pay it. 6-The list can go on and now everyone is frustrated.

    The Corporate Recruiter's job is to keep the recruitment cycle running smoothly. Situations like this are frustrating to the Corporate Recruiter as it takes them away from their book of business.

    Building a solid relationship will help Corporate and TPR's in the long run.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Karen, this is repeating because you have taken the conversation across to another area but like I said over there, the free sample is the resume not the person. If a company sends you a leaflet with a car on it, you get to keep the leaflet not the car. It's the same thing.

    All these examples being given are simply not relevant. Like you have every right to decide not to subscribe to the newspaper, a company has every right not to open the resume or be interested in the person it represents. But you don't expect to receive the paper without paying for it no more than a corporate recruiter should expect to interview and hire the candidate without paying a fee for it.

    Let's be honest here rather than splitting hairs for the sake of argument.

    If a Corporate Recruiter receives a resume from a Recruiter whether it's with a contract or without, the recipient knows full well that if they pursue the candidate, there will be a charge. They are either daft as a brush or devious to think anything else.

    It doesn't matter how you dress it up, the facts are absolutely clear.

    Going back to the leaflet (resume) of the car (candidate). You know full well that if you like the look of the car (candidate), test drive it (interview them) and decide you want to own (employ) the car (candidate), you HAVE to pay for it.

    It doesn't matter if you did not invite the sales person (recruiter) to send you the leaflet (resume), any intelligent person surely knows that the car (candidate) is not free of charge.

    Rather than trying to get something for nothing or "teach the TPR a lesson", just reject the resume without even opening it. That would be the professional thing to do. The real problem here though is the corporate recruiter likes the candidate and wants a way to get them without having to pay for it, but why you as a TPR are supporting this, I do not know.

    I'm surprised at your stance on this. Whether you use this technique to win new business or not is irrelevant. The facts are simple. Its one party trying to take advantage of another by attempting to devalue the service provided, whether requested or not, as an excuse because they like what they see but just don't want to pay for it. It's na�ve at best, unprofessional at it?s worst.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    "I contend that corporate staffing and TPRs are naturally in tension. Neither can exist without the other but the motivations of each group are quite different and thoughts on just about any subject will also differ."

    TPRs certainly can and do exist without Corporate Recruiters. I have never worked with a Corporate Recruiter yet. No doubt some Corporate Recruiters will say the same, especially the ex TPR's :-)

    The truth is that TPR's would prefer not to work with Corporate Recruiters but in some instances they have to.

    Whereas Corporate Recruiters would prefer not to work with TPRs but in some instances they need to otherwise I'm sure they wouldn't.

    There is a big difference between "have to" and "need to" and that's why the tension is sometimes there.

    "When I went to recruiter training at then Source Services Corporation (now a part of Kforce) we were schooled to never work with HR and to always work with the hiring manager. Why was that do you think?"

    2 reasons.

    1/. Like Corporate Recruiters, HR tend to have an anti TPR attitude. "Necessary evil", "too expensive" and all that nonsense. Why have the hassle?

    2/. The Hiring Manager knows what they really want and doesn't care who they use as long as they get the best candidate. They tend to be the real decision makers and will often overide the internally created barriers to get the best person.

    The bottom line is that if any tension exists, it is generated by actions typified in the original example. Treat people fairly and there will be no tension.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Thank you everyone for the great comments. I can see that there are some passionate people reading SittingXlegged. Thank you for your passion and for reading!

    It seems that some of you believe that there is some ownership to a candidate who is marketed to a company in the absence of any agreement or, as Deborah says, any RELATIONSHIP. I can understand this thinking, but I believe that logically it doesn?t make sense. You may want to own the candidate but you never secured permission to submit the resume. We could probably debate this one for some time but I think that Jason has it correct: ?I personally think it is crazy to submit a resume without an agency agreement in the first place. There is no real reason to do it.? There are so many better ways to market than slinging resumes.

    So let?s leave the question of ownership aside for now. How else could you market candidates that may be more effective? How about this message that could be delivered in lots of ways?

    I noticed that you?ve had a position for a Chief Bottle Washer open for six months. Would you be interested in a candidate who is currently Chief Bottle Washer for your largest competitor? He has researched your company and is impressed with your revenue growth. I have a long standing relationship with him. In fact I?ve placed many people with him over the years. When he called me this morning and asked if I could represent him to your company I, of course, agreed. Interested?

    Resume? What resume?

    And now to the cyber sleuthing question. I never have and never will cyber sleuth candidates who have been submitted by TPRs. Period. It just isn?t the right thing to do. There have been occasions when the resume looked quite good but we hadn?t opened the search up to outside help. In those cases I?ll let the TPR know that we are going to continue to work on filling the position ourselves and to check back with me in 30 days or so.

    Now if I was interested in really stirring the pot I could get everyone really riled up but that isn?t really my intention.

    There is a natural tension between certain groups in business. Think of sales and operations for example. I contend that corporate staffing and TPRs are naturally in tension. Neither can exist without the other but the motivations of each group are quite different and thoughts on just about any subject will also differ. When I went to recruiter training at then Source Services Corporation (now a part of Kforce) we were schooled to never work with HR and to always work with the hiring manager. Why was that do you think?

    So thank you again for your great comments.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    TPR lesson number 1: Never send a resume without at least A RELATIONSHIP in place with the hiring entity. It's harder for someone to go around you when they at least respect you as a professional.

    Corp. Recruiter lesson number 2: Don't be so afraid to develop relationships with one or two good TPRs...I don't care how good you might be; there are going to be times when you will be expected to work with an outside agency or even heaven forbid, need to work with them. You want them on your side. If you steal their intelligence, it will come back to haunt you. Maybe not today, maybe not tommorrow, but someday. Make sure you and your company and hiring authorities are on the same page about use of agencies. And the law is in favor of "procuring cause" in most states, as long as a TPR can prove that, he's entitled to a fee.

    Lesson number 3... Heed lessons 1 and 2.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    Why is it that TPRs keep getting beaten up with the "ethical stick" when yet again we see it coming from Corporate Recruiters?

    When I read things like this, it is either genuine naivety or another example of just trying to take advantage of TPRs.

    If the TPR sent in the Resume removing all identifying information, the first person to complain would of course be the Corporate Recruiter.

    It's always easy to find someone when you have the information to find them with. Give the TPR some credit for finding them without the information. That's what differentiates TPRs and some Corporate Recruiters is seems.

    Please give some credit to the person doing the hard work even if it does go against the Corporate grain.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    I have been on both sides of the fence as a recruiter. First I would never send a resume to a company without first having a signed contract. You are automatically opening yourself up to problems. Some companies are more ethical than others and why risk losing a candidate, there are companies out there that will steal resumes. Second from the corporate point of view I instructed all TPR's not to send resumes directly to the managers. All resumes had to go through HR so that they could be tracked in our ATS. If two TPR's sent resumes at the same time one to the manager and the other through the proper channels the TPR who followed the "rules" got credit for that candidate. And in a hot market with a hot candidate chances are there is more than one recruiter representing the same candidate. There was a TPR that constantly sent resumes to managers, 1) without have a contract and 2) after repeatedly being told not to send resumes all together. He was warned not send any more resumes. If that continued at that point you own those resumes.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    You're asking if it's ethical for a corporate recruiter to steal a resume from a third-party recruiter who has presented it? Are you serious?

    When that recruiter sends the resume with the request to consider the candidate, it is with the understanding that the candidate is represented by the recruiter. This is a way for the recruiter to show that they understand what the client is looking for and that they have a candidate who may be a great fit.

    And you ask if it's okay to steal that candidate?

    I'm truly amazed.

    Pam

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    I use agencies for about 10% of the hires we have per year (about 120-150) and although our first preference is to hire with our internal recruiters, agencies sometimes are an avenue to explore, especially in difficult searches. (By the way, I have an agency background, so some of this comes from personal experience)

    While, I see how an internal recruiter might just as soon say "Oh, I have that person in the system already" once they have "sleuthed" the person, it is very unethical. If a TPR had misled a client or candidate of a client, that would be unethical as well, just as it would to inflate a bill rate.

    What we tend to forget, is that while some companies see TPR's as a "necessary evil" and while agencies will walk away from "difficult clients" - we need to remember that we each need the other, no matter how much we try to believe otherwise. So my answer on this one is to say respect the source (in this case the TPR) and eat the fee if the person is the right candidate. In the end, you'll feel better for having some ethics, and the manager will thank you for helping to fill the position and facilitating with the agency.

  • 1 point 2 years ago

    I am intrigued by your dilemma.

    It seems that if the TPR makes it impossible to find out who the candidate is you have no dilemma but if s/he fails to remove enough that a corporate recruiter, through "cyber sleuthing" can identify the candidate you feel it is ethical to contact that candidate. Then the TPR has "no claim" to the candidate.

    As a TPR I wonder why, if it is so easy to identify these candidates with just a bit of sleuthing, your internal recruiter has not simply done so already.

    Pragmatically I would think twice as the only candidates I market are well aware of who I am calling and why, we often sit down and put together a marketing plan and discuss which hiring managers to target for best results. It may make your internal recruiters look unethical in the eyes of a potential cnadidate and future employee if they decide to go around the TPR.

    Further, don't you want to work with the kind of recruiter who sends the kind of candidates your hiring managers want to meet? (Or does your firm look at using agencies as a necessary evil?)

    Finally, I think it seems a bit underhanded. Like cheating on a test because you can see the answers of the girl in front of you or eavesdropping on a conversation because you are able to. Like winning a hand of Poker because you can see the other guy's cards. You get the idea, just because you can cheat doesn't mean you should.