Groups
Ethics in Recruiting Discussions « back to group
-
In another topic discussion thread, someone noted that they believe "all great recruiters ruse".
I DO NOT believe this is true and would like to encourage other great recruiters to add their testimony that it is not necessary for a recruiter to resort to ruse tactics to succeed in our business.
I have done pretty well in this industry for a good number of years and have succeeded in doing so without having to ruse. By my standards, that makes me a pretty good recruiter. Have I gotten rich doing this? No. But I do pretty good financially, enjoy what I do and the candidates that I talk with respect me for my honesty and professionalism in how I work with them.
So, if there are other recruiters out there who disagree with the statement "all great recruiters ruse", please let us know so there is a testimony that rusing IS NOT the norm to succeed in this business.
47 replies
Log in or register to post a reply.
-
My opinion is split down the middle. At times a good ruse is needed - and others it will hinder your efforts. I guess it all really comes down to what each persons definiiton of rusing is.
Situations where it can help: Low-level name generation - when I first came into this industry I did a large number of restaraunt and retail name generation for assistant managers, store managers, District and Regional Managers. I found a ruse to be the best and quickest way to obtain the information I needed. It was simple and effective - I used a quick 15 second story of how my wife was in the store yesterday and had a great experience and wanted to write a letter to management to make the aware of it. It almost never got questioned and always produced almost every managers name in the store. Total call time was less than 1 minute in most cases. Would I have been able to get the names by just asking the cashier? Not very likely. Usually only two type of people call a McDonalds or a Retail store 1)complaints 2)more complaints - especially if you are asking to immediately get the name of their manager. Talk about red flags (and alarms)
When you don't want to give out all of your information: Best example - compensation. With the level of detail that I get into (I currently source and have just an initial conversations with candidates to ensure that they are a good fit) I do not talk specific compensation. I ask for their specific compensation but even though I know exactly what this position pays but will not tell the candidate (I will let them know if its worth their while or not). Is it a ruse to tell them that I do not get that information at this stage or that it is "commensurate with experience" when I know they want to pay only between 70 and 80k?
Situations it will not work: Name generation with anything over the 'low level' candidates. Will a ruse work when you are trying to find a director of engineering? doubt it. Senior Business Analyst? yea right!
In most situations a ruse will lead into another ruse into another and you will spend too much time keeping up the false context of the call that you can't spend any time recruiting them. Also - if a McDonald's cashier catches you in a ruse - this will not harm your work - but if a higher level candidate for a hard to fill requisition catches you - you might have just lost your placement.
-
...well...4th grade recess I started working in this industry in 1976. I have seen it all. HeadHunters who wear White Hats are few and far between. Clients who wear White Hats are few and far between. It is my opinion that our personalities attract like. Therefore, to each his own. Everyones needs will be met. Disagreements, agruments will continue..we are free to do the best we can for our beliefs. We do not have a "Big Brother" watching we are self governed. But, I think the obvious disagreement expressed here is, well inappropriate for all of us Not even a good Food Fight--just blatant ugly and 4th grade level school yard fist fighting is all that is happening here. This banter is just wrong--find another place to throw mud It is embarrassing--I would hope none of our clients see this behavior
-
Scott, with all due respect, these forums are for discussion and the great thing about them is the freedom each of us has to post our opinions as well as the freedom each of us has not to read them if we don't like them or can't follow them.
Your comment is a bit like watching a tv program you don't like and then complaining about it rather than turning it off.
I absolutely respect Joshua, Jeff and anyone else that posts on this discussion because at least they have an opinion and that's how we can all learn.
Your opinion on Rusing would be of more interest to hear, seeing as you are in the business of Sourcing candidates yourself.
-
Joshua, I made the argument about length of tenure.
I have been in search for 35 years. Let me compare myself with someone who has been in search for 5 years.
I suspect I have connected with many more people than them, my data base will be be larger; I may have probably created more tools to work with than someone with 5 years.
I understand the argument that volume may not equal quality ye (OPINION COMING) few of us can truly discern quality as our client would. Hence, try though I might to become expert in true assessment as each and every client I have might, I consider myself "pretty good" when evaluating skills competency and extremely good when evaluating "fit" (I;m an MSW, did years of institute training, am a practicing therapist plus have done quite a few other trainings that allow me to make that statement).
So, to me, through my lenses and the lenses of my clients, I do a good job AND I know there are tiems I fail.
I just know I succeed far more often than I fail.
Respectfully,
-
Can the three of you please take your bickering off list? We have moved past the point where we are are talking about the issue at hand and who knows where we are now.
-
Brenda, I couldn't agree more as I'm sure we all think the same.
I, like most others, thought this subject had been finished but if you look it was restarted by Yvonne after 9 days of silence. 3 days later it is again Yvonne that was asking Brendan to close the thread down and move it to a new thread. Quite why this happened, only Yvonne can answer so maybe she will. Up to this point I thought Yvonne was the moderator of the group anyway so quite what occurred I'm not sure.
We should all just agree to disagree and be strong enough to ignore the urge to post when someone tries to stoke the flames again. I know I'm one of the culprits that finds it hard to resist but I will not post again on this subject on this thread.
Joshua, there is no hard feelings from this side either. Never has been. Let's just call it healthy discussion. I won't ever mention the military again if you don't :-)
I look forward to a new discussion subject.
-
UGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH....
When can this subject die off from discussion in this forum?
There are 2 camps - ruse or no ruse... We have opinioned it every which way but Jesus...
Can we just let it go gracefully with there are 2 camps on the subject?
I am sick and tired of seeing this subject debated with no real value at this stage.
Can we just archive this debate for awhile?
I am sooooooooooooo- tired of seeing this message thread...
Is there anyone else out there that is tired of opening this forum every morning to see another re-hash on this subject that has been hashed out over 63 times already?
-
Joshua, it never is personal with me against anyone. I only comment on what you write. You keep mentioning the military and you keep writing as though you want to fight everyone. "Let's man up outside this forum" Whatever next.
You try to intimidate with sarcasm and smart alec comments when it's really not necessary. Myself and others will only respond to the level you take it.
For the record I'm based in the UK and I have spent the last 10 years working for myself.
If 14 years experience in Search isn't good enough for you, do the last 10 years running my own Search Company in Europe count for anything or is there something else I need?
It's not about superiority. That's your world not mine. Experience counts where I come from, good and bad, and ERE is all about learning from each other, not one upmanship. One day you will realise that actually tenure in this industry IS essential. Only the good can survive thank goodness.
-
I think the whole Rusing subject is somewhat of a proxy for a lot of unsavory practices that go on in the industry.
Some people may be making a concious or unconcious connection to situations where recruiters misrepresent candidates, clients, the status of a position, their candidates salary requirements, etc.
There are also plenty of hacks that just sling resumes as fast as they can find them. It is interesting to me that so many companies have notices on their web sites that unsolicited resumes from recruiters without a contract are essentially free and no fee is owed. These notices would not exist but for some bad experiences on the part of the employers.
I am sure everyone else runs into candidates who do not have a good opinion of our profession or who see us as a necessary evil. Why is this?
Personally, I don't ruse. I am not against it in principle, but so far I have not needed to try it and I would not know where to begin. Actually, my first attempts at cold calling were clumsy and embarassing attempts to ruse my way into engineering departments. After multiple crash and burn results, I tried a more traditional approach.
What I like about this thread is that it shows what kind of people work in this business. Competitive, proud, opinionated, people who like to do things their way. Lots of posturing and chest beating mixed with polarizing comments, alliance building, subtle insults and "backhanded compliments" it's a good cross section of some of the more colorful personalities that make up the profession.
Nice to see that I am in good company.
-
This conversation has become a shoving contest on some many levels. I would ask that each of you pushing back to look at themselves in the mirror, and figure out if this has debate has gone on long enough. I am taking responsibility for some of it, having made the statement that all recruiters ruse. I might have made this statement to abruptly, as I had not taken into consideration that rusing may have a different meaning to everyone. I look at rusing as sourcing and name gathering as a way to find qualified candidates.
The reason that I need to employ name gathering tactics has more to do with the industry that I recruit in then anything else. In the healthcare industry, websites like Linked-In, Broadlook, and Zoominfo can only get me so far, and I and my staff, need to employ these tactics in order to even find a name to call let alone recruit them. The name of a Nurse Manager for the Labor and Delivery Department is rarely going to be listed on a hospital?s website.
The level of professionalism that began here has diminished to a level that I don?t understand. No one can seem to not have the last word. No one can say, ?ok, he or she makes a valid point and now lets move on. Although I have enjoyed watching this shoving match while bunkering down this weekend to avoid the rain, this conversation can go on forever and will never end.
Steve Levy, Yvonne, and I discussed this topic to great lengths the other week, and she had asked for summary of this discussion. Several were provided, but it appears that this has not been enough to move forward. Joshua has discussed regulating bodies for recruiters, and there really aren?t any, and I don?t know how one would develop. I and my company are members of NAPS. I am certified, but I don?t see this is not the answer, The Ethics Board of NAPS is a more a myth then anything, and is really quite ineffective. If you ask the Board of NAPS how many times a company has been brought up on an Ethics violation, they can probably count this number on one hand. This is simply because the committee truly holds no weight. The fear of being kick out of NAPS isn't so scary, because as I see it, it can't affect a company?s bottom line. Does this mean like an organization like NAPS or ASA are useless? I don't think so, if nothing else, they do give us a guide for how to conduct better business, and I would rather have a guide then walk around blind. Especially in this industry. So where does this leave us? Is it the internet that has caused such a divergent in ethics? I doubt that. Mind you that I have only been recruiting for seven years, and make no mistake, I still consider myself a rookie, but I do think believe I have the answer for where things have gone awry. Greed and fear. This industry is based on hungry people and hungry companies, and there are a lot of companies that don't take care of their staff. Joshua feels that the Owners and Leaders have been falling on the Ethical Side of the fence, yet many take too high a percentage from their staff and this causes recruiters to essentially drown in their own draw...this is when fear comes into play. A recruiter who is drowning will do anything to stay afloat, anything to keep their job, and that when ethics get throw out the window, and at the end of the day, there are a lot of owners and managers who don't care how the company makes money, only that the money is coming in. I am fortunate enough that I don't work for a company like this. I am also fortunate that I have established a stable career, and that I no long fear a turned down offer or a fall off...this is just part of the business. I truly believe that good management and mentors in a company are the best way to curb unethical behavior. Personally, I would fire any one of my staff if I felt they were doing something that was representing me or my company poorly. Also, I believe that guiding staff and making sure that particularly in the beginning, they don't focus so much on the money, and just on doing their job properly (The placements and money will always come).
On a final note, we clearly all have varying opinions on this topic. I would remind everyone replying that even though you are amongst your peers on the ERE, you are representing your company and yourself, and many have crossed the ethical line to make their point. If I found out that one of my staff was responding in the way that some on here were, I would have a serious problem with it, and there would be repercussions.
Remember when you point a finger at someone, there are always three fingers pointing back at you?We are all accountable for out actions.
-
Joshua, you really should join a military forum where you can vent all your obvious frustration.
You said:
?Jeff has the best argument so far - that results are all that matters. This is a very valid argument . . . and one that I agree with! ?
Actually I said it. Jeff was quoting what I had said so if you agree with that, I don?t understand why you are so against using rusing where necessary if it means giving your clients the best results.
Owners have to produce as well you know otherwise they don?t have anything to own or eat.
The way we all work is a personal and professional thing. I know some of you want to establish standards to control others but I think that is just borne out of fear of being left behind. Why else worry about what others are doing or how they operate?
You also talk about barriers to entry now you?re in of course, but who would decide these barriers to entry? The same people who are so afraid of competition?
I?ve been in this industry considerably longer than the few years you have, but I would not try to dictate to you my personal opinion on how you should work or operate. I think you should keep a much more open mind to recruiting outside of your own safety zone. You might be pleasantly surprised.
-
Jeff, if this is what you believe then I wish you every success but let?s clear up one very important and clearly misinformed point that you raise. Being able to ruse, i.e. using a pseudonym or similar disguise to identify the right candidates is very different to buying a dodgy directory or falsely interviewing someone to get org charts or other names. I have never done either and would not promote these practices any more than the next person. Like many others, you seem to put rusing in the unethical and bad practice camp. It is not. Consider it no more than a bit of fun acting because that?s all it is. The other practices that you and others try to compare it with are unethical, deceitful and should have no place in our profession.
I have been recruiting since 1993 and specifically in Telecoms since 1996. I would consider myself very well connected in the European Telecoms sector. In Telecoms, a week is a month and a month is a year and there is too much movement and change for anyone to believe that they are so well connected that they don?t need fresh ideas on research. Maybe the sector you work in is more static. Spending money does not come into it either. It?s about moving with the changes and finding new creative ideas to find people that existing contacts and techniques simply will not find.
I?m not convinced that some people really understand what rusing is or the benefits it brings, hence some of the anti rusing feeling being vented on this forum. You seem to think that rusing takes longer than other techniques? Rusing is without doubt the quickest and most accurate way of finding the right candidate first time. Often one phone call is all it takes.
Maybe it?s the sectors or the levels we recruit in that vary so much but I rarely speak to any candidate whose resume is on a job board. I am not interested in this type of candidate for the positions I work on. Over 90% of candidates I talk to are not looking for a new job as they are being very successful where they are. That makes them passive. I have to convince them to consider an alternative job which is why my clients hire me.
I rarely receive a Resume quickly. In fact I would reject it if I did. I educate my candidates to tailor their resumes to the opportunity I am working on. Sending in the first generic resume you receive will result in a high level of rejected candidates, but that?s another subject for another forum, but all this suggests that we are at cross purposes on the style and levels we both recruit at.
If I called up one of my clients right now and told them how I find candidates, they would laugh and ask why I was telling them. They don?t want to know any more than I want to tell them.
If they were that narrow minded, they would not use headhunters, and before you disagree with this as I?m sure you will, who do you think is the first person they call when they want to consider a new move? They don?t seem to worry too much about the way I work then either as long as I continue to do a great job for them.
-
Customers want results, they don't want to tell you how to run your business. It is none of their concern or business whether a recruiter ruses or not. They are just not interested. Besides, how do they know?
Of course no one has to ruse when platforms like Linkedin can make us lazy and give us the perfect excuse not to do. But whether you like it or not, effective and harmless rusing will find you unique candidates, rather than the same ones as everyone else. It's a personal choice. Nothing more nothing less.
> I am of the opinion that rusing, for lack of a better term, is a young recruiters game because us old war horses have more contacts and techniques to find people. It is also (again an opinion) a rationalization by company managements that either don't have the money or the willingness to spend money on the resources to make it unessential. After all, rusing takes far longer tahn using other techniques.
And the rationalization that rusing results in candidates that are not looking onl;y holds water if you really really believe that that candidate you found didn't already have their resume on the boards (if they didn't have it there, how did they get that resume to you so quickly?).
You see, rusing often doesn;t find the pasive applicant; it finds the active applicatnt through a different means than advertising. Which often means your referral gets to your client later than someone who is advertising for resumes.
As for why does anyone care and that our clients don't care, try this experiment, Anthony. Call up one of your clients and tell them you bought a directory or that you asked someone in for an interview and sourced them for their managers and for an org chart or mayb, just maybe, you want to tell them that you bounced around a company's voice response system to find someone. Tell me their reaction.
Oh, someone wants to keep the "mystique"? OK.
Respectfully,
-
Theron, spot on. Peoples views on rusing seem to be very selective and that has always been the point I have tried to make.
Anyone that says they never lie or has never lied however small, is a liar.
Anyone that?s married has rused to their partners at some point along the way.
Anyone that has children lies to them unless as adults they really believe in Father Xmas or the Tooth fairy or any other make believe stories you want to think of,
Of course the military ruse. It?s how wars are won or lost, depending on how good each side is at it.
Of course the police ruse. Ever seen the film Serpico? It?s all based on fact. Corruption in the police force and undercover Cops to try and stop it.
Rusing is irrelevant and quite why everyone makes so much fuss about it is beyond me. To oppose it has become a bit of a bandwagon to jump on for a few, and it is only a few.
Like I said before, it makes no difference to anyone else whether some choose to Ruse or not and I believe that most recruiters do ruse at some point. But so what?
It has nothing to do with ethics either. Linking the two is misunderstanding either one or both.
Let's stop trying to create a problem that doesn't exist and move on.
-
"It's quite comical for me that in the virtual world, every man with a keyboard considers himself a key executive, an Ultimate-Fighting champion, or a movie star. However, where the rubber meets the road, this is a false-self created virtually. Just like every military guy I ever meet was "prior special ops", every guy on a message board is 6'2", 220 lbs. at 6% body fat. What's most comical for me is that this is definitely the case on ERE. At the end of the day, the only thing constant in this world is change itself."
Joshua, this is macho bull**** again. Pot & Kettle certainly comes to mind here except you forgot to mention the raging testosterone. This is a business forum, not a battlefield.
We all know that you are ex military as you seem so keen to mention something about the military in just about every posting, so I have a couple of questions for you. This is an extension of the point that David is making regarding the Police.
In battle, do the military ruse to fool the enemy or do they announce that they are coming and play fair?
In your military days, were you ever, or would you have been comfortable being involved with this type of ruse?
Now I have to be honest and say that the only battle experience I have ever had was with my ex wife and there was plenty of rusing going on there, but please either tell me that the military would never be so unfair to their enemy as to ruse or that if they did you would not have anything to do with it. Or can we move on?
-
But whether you like it or not, effective and harmless rusing will find you unique candidates, rather than the same ones as everyone else. It's a personal choice. Nothing more nothing less.
It is curious Anthony, why those who see this as a self corrupting and self defeating practice are so passionate that others not do it!
Even a modicum of strategic insight would suggest that you all encourage rusers to ruse - to their own well deserved demise.
I wonder how the anti-ruse people feel about the ruse being used in other professions such as police work?
The police regularly lie to people as an effective means to gather information and capture criminals. In fact, not everyone realizes that while it is illegal to lie to the police, it is not illegal for them to lie to you.
They regularly "ruse" as prostitutes and drug dealers, they sometimes stage fake lotteries and inform fugitives they have won something so when the fugitive shows up, he is captured. On and on it goes.
Since Art of War is regularly thrown around as one of those valuable business text books, anyone who subscribes to Sun Tzu ought to be in favor of rusing as he counts deception as the being integral to "The Way"
http://www.sonshi.com/deception.html
-
Round and round and round and round.
How did this discussion get started again?
Okay a question to all you anti rusers?
Why do you care whether others ruse or not? Surely it's good for your business if your competitors ruse and you believe that customers won't deal with the ruser brigade.
Or is that just wishful thinking because you don't like rusing yourself?
Customers want results, they don't want to tell you how to run your business. It is none of their concern or business whether a recruiter ruses or not. They are just not interested. Besides, how do they know?
Of course no one has to ruse when platforms like Linkedin can make us lazy and give us the perfect excuse not to do. But whether you like it or not, effective and harmless rusing will find you unique candidates, rather than the same ones as everyone else. It's a personal choice. Nothing more nothing less.
I think everyone should get over it and move on because it will never get resolved. Those that ruse will continue to ruse because they know how effective it is and those that won't ruse will continue not to for whatever excuse they can think of not to do it.
Life goes on.
-
Hi Everyone:
Wow...this thread seems so wide-ranging it makes you dizzy. I think I will be the odd man out and try and stick to Carl's original query:
"please let us know so there is a testimony that rusing IS NOT the norm to succeed in this business"
No, Carl, thankfully in this day and age, in my humble opinion, rusing is not a requirement for success in the recruiting industry.
Long ago, decades ago, we were all taught how to ruse. It part of our initial recruiter training, such as it was back then. If you didn't do it, you didn't have any leads for your job orders, especially if you were a new recruiter. As our skills advanced and we got more connected, the need for rusing dissipated. We actually used the telephone and called the people we knew and asked them for names. Go figure...
These days with the Internet at everyone's fingertips and the wonderful tools that can scrape websites for names, conduct competitive intelligence, offer lists of companies and more lists of people, and social and business networking sites galore, the need for a strong rusing methodologies in most recruiting offices is no longer necessary.
I can see certain situations where a good ruser could be of use but I think those situations are few and far between. Personally, I never felt very comfortable doing it. I was good, however, at building my contacts network and after a while just didn't need to ruse any longer for good, placeable candidates.
Since this is the Ethics in Recruiting board, I wonder if Carl's question should have been is rusing an ethical way to obtain candidate data???
Mark E. Berger Swat Recruiting mark@swatrecruiting.com 314/962-7515 www.swatrecruiting.com
-
Joshua,
Whats this about the falling GDP? Two consecutive quarters? Here in the USA, we are seeing GDP growth - every quarter and every year in both current and adjusted dollars.
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
As for your idea that employers are going to step in and demand rigorous ethical standards in the recruiting industry, I see nothing to indicate that is anywhere near happening and I can easily explain why.
First, over the last year such large names as Wal-Mart have been busted for (allegedly) using "extra-legal" labor sources
Second, in case anyone on here has not read, the Boomers are all lining up to begin retiring. Generation X is way too small to fill their shoes and Gen Y is still a little wet behind the ears to take a lot of the leadership roles that will soon be vacant.
This single trend is projected to create a massive labor shortage that could last decades.
While much of this has yet to be played out, I can say with confidence that as resources (labor) become scarce and demand goes up, the people who want that resource become more desperate and willing to pay.
In this case, the payment will be partially in money - we are going to make so much money! The other way that people will pay for resources is in standards.
Qualifications will be relaxed. There will be intense pressure to open up additional immigration channels and companies in desperate need of human capital going to ask as few questions as possible.
Look, I live in Austin, we have a lot of organic and natural food stores here. I shop at them sometimes and they have extremely high quality food. Shoppers can be assured that their produce does not contain added chemicals and the animals used for meat were treated humanely. People in this city like that.
However, if there were a famine, if food was scarce and we all had to live on what we could get, I guarantee things would change. Starving people just do not care if the potato was produced with or without the use of pesticides or how the meat was harvested.
Imagine the spectacle of 100 starving people in a time of famine going into ADM to demand that their food be produced in the most environmentally sensitive way possible.
Fishes and oceans aside, if the law of supply and demand is going to do anything, it will further marginalize the ethical issues involved in our business. Clients will press for results while demanding a level of insulation from less savory practices. Regulation is a possibility but if US firms are bound by strict regulations, of shore recruiting operations not bound by those limitations are likely to spring up.
We are living in interesting times.
-
Joshua,
What is your point exactly? Are you for rusing or against it? It's not at all clear to me, especially this last post with the ocean info.
I guess I just don't see what the point of the debate here is. Seems like a lot of circular talk that is going nowhere.
Here's my opinion, for what it's worth. Some recruiters ruse. Some recruiters will always ruse. Great recruiters do not necessarily ruse. I tend to believe that good recruiters don't need to ruse, as they have all the candidates they can handle through referrals. I don't ruse, am not comfortable with it, never have been. But, if others choose to do so, that's their business. I don't think the market opinion is going to have much of an effect on it.
As Bill Belichek would say, "It is what it is."
:) Pam
-
Man, this discussion is like a multiple car accident - very messy, yet, you can't help but rubberneck as you go on by.....
-
Theron:
I've read most of the posts on rusing and can summarize and infer definitions from those posts.My conclusions are as follows:
Rusing is: 1) not being nice 2)telling bad lies 3) not sharing 4) not being nice (but less nice than #1) 5) not being nice ( but more nasty than #4) 6) something that utterly, utterly destroys the recruiting profession for ever and always. 7) not being nice (even less nice than # 1 or 5) 8) something that causes the rainforest to be sad 9) cannibalism, necrophilia, eating endangered species 10) telling bad lies (but more bad than#2) 11) something that will cost you the respect of all liberal arts majors who have been in recruiting for less than 10 hours
And to Laura I would point out that it is the cookie jar that is proverbial, not the hand.
-
Theron,
Well said. I think that pretty much sums it up.
All Laura's summary did was to allow some of us to feel more smug about how "right" we are while making some in the middle feel grossly misunderstood. Those on the far extreme (the hard core "rusers") probably tuned out in the 2nd or third line. Even though I basically agree with her, all she did was add one more post to one side of the argument/discussion.
Again ... Let's drop this and move on. There's not going to be a winner in this fight.
Tim
-
I was asked to summarize the issues discussed in this thread so here goes.... my two cents worth!
I think that some of the areas that were brought out through this thread still fall under the same umbrella of "some recruiters feeling the need to lie to do their job."
I find it outrageous that they then take it a step further and claim that "everyone does it" which is one way that they justify to themselves that what they are doing is somehow OK if others are believed to be doing the same thing..... does that make gang violence OK...because some other people ALSO do the same thing?
Phony Resumes, sham candidates to get hierarchy info..... are these recruiters so unskilled that they need to lie to people to do their job? I ask my candidates for referrals and make it a point to get their permission to disclose to that individual WHO gave me their name. Many times, people are willing to give co-workers (and Management) contact information but they DO NOT want anyone to know that they have talked to a recruiter. So if they are assured that the source of the info will remain confidential, they are happy to give it.
With all of the networking sites that are available, I don't understand the "need" to lean on candidates to get an org chart. Recruiting has become much easier over the years due to the tools that are available today that weren't around 10+ years ago.... I just don't get it.
Phony resumes.... WHY?!?! You are telling a potential client that you have something they need and that you can't produce and then making them feel that it is somehow their fault that they can't have them.... they didn't move quickly enough, or didn't choose your search firm in enough time. The reality is that the credibility of the recruiter and unfortunately, the industry as a whole suffers. While other recruiters are using these unethical practices to gain some kind of erroneously perceived edge... I am openly and honestly dealing with clients and candidates. REALY.
Submitting real candidates that are looking for other opportunities right now, and getting interviews set up while those other recruiters are then forced to scramble to search for someone that MIGHT be a good #2 person.... and I'm closing the position before they are able to rebuild credibility with a good AND more importantly "available" candidate.
It takes LESS time to do the job right than it takes to lie to clients and candidates. You'll always be spending more time covering your tracks than placing qualified candidates.
On the subject of Flipping, it sounds to me more like networking. If you are able to use a reference as a potential candidate for another position... why not? Provided that manipulation and or deceit is NOT being used, then it sounds to me like a passive candidate. I can't stress enough that if a recruiter is being untruthful and or manipulative to do their job, believing that doing so is THEE only way to be successful in this industry, they have graduated to lieing to themselves and really should look into another line of work that doesn't require such UNACCEPTABLE behavior.
Given the venom that flows when people are caught with their proverbial hand in the cookie jar, I'm not sure that we can self police this issue. A standard may be necessary to regulate how we do what we do across the board. I may sound pessimistic here, but it has been shown time and time again that you can't legislate morality/ethics AND the existence of and enforcement of a "law" doesn't mean that people are not STILL going to break them. (we wouldn't need labor laws if people did the rightthing(s) simply because it is the right thing to do!!) At least it would give us something to work from. I think more people would comply with a standard than not... once one is established. I also think it would stop the incessant justifications..."everyone else does it (where is my mom when she is needed!!!) .... or if I call it something else to soften the reality of what I am doing then it isn't so bad" or my personal favorite... "you HAVE to... to be successful." I look forward to a day where so much time is lost in endless debate over what people, if they were first honest with themselves, KNOW is wrong.
I think the bottom line is obvious, it is wrong to lie. Trying to obfuscate the issue at hand by saying "what about a white lie to avoid hurting someones feelings?" To that I say first, that IS NOT what we are talking about here... unless you think that lieing to a client and saying that you have this great candidate when in fact you do not will somehow hurt their feelings if you didn't tell them that... or cold calling a company and intentionally misrepresenting your self to the "gate keeper" by saying you are someone you are not... would again somehow hurt the feelings of the person on the other end of the phone had you NOT called them out of the blue and lied to them. Secondly I say.... white lies to avoid hurting someones feelings is STILL a lie and is wrong. Have the courage to tell someone the truth. If someone asks you a direct question and you feel obliged to lie in response, learn tact but speak your mind, also realize that sometimes, the truth might hurt, but in the long run, it IS better than being lied to. If your friend asks you how an outfit looks on them and you think it is awful... why not ask them if they like it, and if so... then THAT is all that matters, or tell them that it isn't YOUR favorite, but then again You are not the one wearing it...or even tell them it isn't the best cut/color/style you've seen them in... but WHY would you tell someone you care about and who obviously trusts your opinion that something looks good on them if you think it doesn't?
The trainer in me has always liked the rule of thumb to follow when you are defending your actions or deciding if you should say/do something. Ask yourself.. would I do/say this if my (pick you favorite) mother, father, grandmother, wife, husband, partner, child, boyfriend, girlfriend religious leader, was standing right next to you.....or better yet, what you said/did was going to be aired on TV news later that night? If the answer is NO...then you shouldn't say/do it when they are not around.
-
Jeff, this statement is simply not true and in fact is a ruse in itself. How ironic.
Why mislead new recruiters into thinking this?
This is precisely why I don't understand the argument against the need for rusing when in fact we all do it so naturally, we don't even realise it.
It's only a matter of degree.
-
Joshua,
Thanks for your additional thoughts. I hope I wasn't one of the ones you felt was attacking you for your comments.
The point I was making relates to a point you just made: "At the end of the day, the results are what is important."
My point is that results certainly matter from the percpective of the client. However, I would also argue that how you achieve your results also matters. It says a lot about who you are.
I still would argue that you don't have to "ruse" which I take to mean pretending to be someone you aren't, to get names of sources. For example, I have often gotten names of people on the Internet, called them and pointedly identified who I was and what I was calling about. If they aren't interested, I ask if there's anyone else they feel comfortable recommending. I'll suggest former coworkers as possibilities. I might not get as many names as I might through rusing, but on the other hand, the names I get are people who are being personally recommended to me as solid candidates.
I agree with you that we've probably beaten this dead horse long enough. Everyone with a point to make has probably made it by now.
Best of luck in your recruiting efforts.
Tim
-
From your posting with my comments interspersed
My ethics in recruiting is very simple. My job is to find the best candidates for my clients. In doing this I NEVER lie to my client, I NEVER submit the "perfect" candidate to a new (or old) client and then tell them that they got another job, but I have 3 others you might be interested in seeing, and I NEVER lie to a candidate or ask for organizational chart. This one seems a little ridiculous to me.
ME:> We are in agreement
Although I see nothing wrong in asking if there is anyone else in their company that they think would be interested in moving. I have even asked if there is someone in their office or department with similar skills that they don't like and would love to see them leave (you can use this, you'd be surprised how many great candidates you get by asking this question.
ME:> Me, too. This is called asking for referrals; you add the part about getting rid of someone they detest which may or may not make the referral well-qualified. My experience with that is the dead weight is referred.
FYI, it's usually their manager). However, I always ask for references (10 seems extreme), and in the past have converted some into candidates. If you have a job that you think they would be perfect for, then why not tell them about it. People are all free thinking individuals, if they aren't interested, they will tell you. No harm, no foul, but this has nothing to do with rusing or the heart of this conversation.
ME:> You're right, it has nothing to do with rusing. Rusing is deception (I'm at the airport and they lost my luggage and I was supposed to stay at the home of this person, last name begins with "S". I think they are a staff accountant). You are being direct.
At the end of the day, it seems like people are uncomfortable with the term ruse, but if they call it sourcing or name gathering then they are much more comfortable. It's all semantics to me. If you sleep better calling it something else, then call it something else, but don't criticize someone else for doing this. It's just hypocritical, because you are doing the exact same thing.
ME:> Again, I've given an example of rusing. With time, experience, and relationships, it becomes completely unnecessary; you develop a ton of contacts and relationships to go to who will point you to people.
The rusers or deceivers don't have the contacts yet.
Best wishes,
-
Joshua, it?s nothing to do with being touchy feely but rather keeping the discussion on subject rather than being personal.
If you read some of the previous articles on ERE you will see that most people are ethical and professional in the way they conduct themselves and their business. There will always be a few exceptions of course but in general I would say that the standard is high.
For me personally, your attitude towards rusing is misinformed. Rather than mocking the magic of sourcing, maybe you should book yourself on one of the courses. After all, you are looking for insight and the person responsible for running these courses is likely to have been successfully doing it for a lot longer than 2003.
I don?t know Maureen personally but I can confidently say that she contributes more to learning in this industry than probably anyone else and she really is regarded as THE expert in sourcing, both doing and training.
You mention referrals but don?t you think we all get referrals? I?ve been doing it of over 10 years, long before anyone could hide behind social sites because they didn?t even exist. It?s probably every headhunters number one way of sourcing candidates so you?re right, no innovation there.
Using and relying Linkedin, Spoke, Jigsaw or any of these platforms is just a little bit more advanced than trawling the job boards for candidates, which is the least reliable method of finding candidates.
As I have already said, my clients want me to find the very best candidates and not to be limited in my methods of doing the best possible job for them. They are not interested in how I find candidates as long as I do.
I?m no less ethical that you like to think you are in the way I conduct myself, but I?m certainly being a lot more honest with my clients when I tell them that I really have found them the best candidates out there, and that for me is what matters most because they are the ones that pay me.
Remember, you?re only ever as good as your last deal and if you?re not truly finding the best candidates out there, your competitors certainly will be. I prefer to try and stay ahead using methods that are quick, direct and accurate.
-
What comes around goes around.
I am disappointed in some of the responses here.
"Mature candidates know that there name got to the recruiter by unscrupulous means." Huh??
I worked for a large staffing agency for several years. I transferred to another branch of that company and my new supervisor tried to "train me" to ruse. I refused. She pulled rank. I gave notice. I placed first in the nation in recruiting numbers at a competeing firm in 2000. I never rused. I don't need to.
I called a guy a few months ago that I had placed several years ago. He said he had me in his "Recruiters Hall of Fame" for the awesome position and rate I had negotiated for him. It was a great fit.
I can live with knowing there are people who will say and do anything they can get away with if it lines their pockets. I listened to it in the next cube when I was in the staffing industry. But please, enough with the "everyone does it" and "those that don't like it just don't know how"...
I would not be where I am professionally if everyone in this industry were striving to deliver top notch service with the highest level of professionalism and integrity as possible. If that were the norm, I would just be another recruiter.
-
Name gathering is name gathering, sourcing is sourcing, flipping is flipping and rusing is rusing (lieing or purposely deceiving another to get what you want).. there is nothing, in my opinion, unethical about tracing voicemail trees after hours, or talking to references and flipping them into candidates OR clients... I worked for a company, for a short while, that encouraged rusing, and TRAINED new hires how to do simple ruses to get past receptionist, to elaborate ruses to set-up candidates for interviews (who were not candidates)...
It seems like the word "ruse" is causing the biggest confusion and grayness to the waters... I have always recruited with the simple thought in mind, if I don't feel comfortable saying it, or I feel greasey after my presentation, than I did something I personally should not have... is this to say that when I call a company and ask for the controller I tell the receptionist I am a recruiter hoping to recruit the controller??? hell no... I just tell them it's a personal matter, or I wanted to catch them at their desk to discuss a business matter.... I have in fact, when the receptionist has been extra tough, told them they are exceptional at their job and inquire if they would be interested in hearing from a recruiter....
At the end of the day, it's all good... odds are if you've been in the business for a while with continued success, you're doing what works for you and are doing a good enough job that the people you recruit and place are working out - so, kudos.. you're probably NOT a sleazy recruiter built solely on ruse after ruse, but you actually are building your career and practice around relationships and integrity.. (of course, if you're still not sure if you, or someone you work with, is of the sleazy rusing type, take a look at their clothes, if they (or you) dress like Herb Tarlek from WKRP in Cincinnati http://www.rheostatics.ca/images/tarlek/herb_tarlek.jpg - well, enough said.. :)
-
You pay LI, Spoke, etc. for names that push you in the right direction?
What you're paying for are the same names that every other recruiter gets access to as well. Except the smart one don't pay anything and the really smart ones don't need to use them at all.
Joshua, your personal attacks on people are not necessary.
What exactly are you afraid of.
-
Joshua, when you posted "unless you were willing to trade it off for some element of personal gain?" to what are you referring? Please enlighten us - and me - because if I'm missing out on something, I'd really like to know.
No wait a minute, let me first speak with her husband, a Marine and Vietnam Veteran (he's real big, hairy and from Brooklynn). Oh Joshua, just fuhgedaboudit...
-
Joshua, you really must read my posts or stop listening to the people who have been calling you - you'll never gain this time back. Ethics overrated? Would you mind pointing out to the readers of his thread, where I said or intimated this? Puh-lease?
I'm glad you brought up testicular atrophy - to those who don't have it, can you puh-lease explain what it feels like.
lol
-
All I have to say is where was everyone last week when I got chastised for making the statement that all great recruiters ruse?
I had decided to stay out of this conversation for a while because it began to turn ugly, and someone began to question the integrity of not just individuals, but of the company they work for, and that is where I draw the line. I found it disheartening that what started as an ethical debate turned into name calling.
If anyone remembers how this whole conversation began, it started with a recruiter who was rusing, name gathering, sourcing (I don?t care what you call it), and got caught by the person because they never blocked their caller ID. This is really more a stupid mistake then anything else, and probably a lesson learned by the rookie recruiter.
So where does this leave all of us. Truthfully, exactly where we started. Third Party Recruiters on one side of the street, Corporate Recruiters on the other?a virtual West Side Story?Jets and Sharks always fighting to prove the other is wrong. I?ve never seen the movie, but I?m pretty sure that no one really wins in the end.
At the end of the day, this conversation has gotten out of control. I ruse, name gather, source. Whatever name you call it to make yourself feel better. Corporations are now hiring sourcers to do the same, and truth be known, they will probably have a don?t ask, don?t tell policy with them as well. At the end of the day, the results are what is important. The metrics are what is important: Time to hire, time to interview, time to present a candidate. My first job in recruiting, I was told that recruiting is like war, you have to fight for the best candidates, and I have always believed this.
I?ll make another statement that I?m sure I?ll get hell for. ALL GREAT RECRUITERS ARE AGGRESSIVE. THEY DON?T BACK DOWN, AND THEY NEVER QUIT HUNTING.
This is why a great Third Party Recruiters don?t typically go corporate. The energy is not there. The excitement of the hunt is not there. What Corporate recruiters don?t seem to understand is that we (Third Party Recruiters) are only paid for results, we are paid to hunt. This does not mean that we are unethical. Most often, it just means we are very good at what we do. A great recruiter doesn?t need to compromise their ethics to make money. The bad rep that Third Party Recruiters generally get is from those who are struggling in the industry and just trying to stay employed. When people are desperate, they will do just about anything to stay alive.
My ethics in recruiting is very simple. My job is to find the best candidates for my clients. In doing this I NEVER lie to my client, I NEVER submit the ?perfect? candidate to a new (or old) client and then tell them that they got another job, but I have 3 others you might be interested in seeing, and I NEVER lie to a candidate or ask for organizational chart. This one seems a little ridiculous to me. Although I see nothing wrong in asking if there is anyone else in their company that they think would be interested in moving. I have even asked if there is someone in their office or department with similar skills that they don?t like and would love to see them leave (you can use this, you?d be surprised how many great candidates you get by asking this question. FYI, it?s usually their manager). However, I always ask for references (10 seems extreme), and in the past have converted some into candidates. If you have a job that you think they would be perfect for, then why not tell them about it. People are all free thinking individuals, if they aren?t interested, they will tell you. No harm, no foul, but this has nothing to do with rusing or the heart of this conversation.
At the end of the day, it seems like people are uncomfortable with the term ruse, but if they call it sourcing or name gathering then they are much more comfortable. It?s all semantics to me. If you sleep better calling it something else, then call it something else, but don?t criticize someone else for doing this. It?s just hypocritical, because you are doing the exact same thing.
-
Just how frightening and bad do we think rusing really is? It?s not about getting away with what you can or about lying if you get caught.
Here is my definition of rusing.
Rusing is used to identify the names of the candidates that would potentially be right for the position to be filled. The person the ruse is used toward is generally the switchboard operator or receptionist but never the candidate.
A simple and quick ruse like using a pseudonym and/or an acronym and/or calling yourself a consultant is harmless, effective and quick. No one gets hurt, no one is intimidated and most importantly, NO ONE KNOWS.
This method is also used by many of those that claim to strongly oppose rusing which is rather ironic. They delude themselves that they are not really rusing but they are.
Imitating a real person and/or a real company is where the line is crossed from harmless rusing to harmful rusing and should not be used.
Lying to candidates is not rusing, it's lying to candidates. Never lie to candidates. Marketing fake candidates to clients is not rusing, it's marketing fake candidates to clients. Never lie to clients. Lying about background checks, tricking junior candidates into drawing org charts are not examples of rusing. They are examples of poor and sometimes deceitful practices.
So why do some continually try to drag this simple but effective process into the ethics debate? Here?s why.
Because rusing is the enemy of those that cannot do it. It?s easier to call the practice lying and cheating and all those nasty things rather than master it. It?s the same with sales people that don?t like cold calling. Discredit it rather than do it. It all comes down to fear of failure. Some even try to discredit the companies that specialise in sourcing because they don?t understand it or are afraid of them.
If some people prefer to use the internet and platforms like Spoke or Jigsaw then that?s fine but the clients can do that. They don?t need someone else to do it for them and where is the value proposition? My clients pay me to find them the best candidates in the marketplace and they want no stone unturned. I could not look my clients in the face honestly and say I have found them the best candidates out there when what I really mean is that I have found them the best that happened to be registered on Spoke or Jigsaw.
Rusing is here to stay. If it means using a little white lie then get over it. No one can say they never lie either in business or personal life. Those that do simply lose the meaning when it?s convenient or they move the line of acceptance when it suits them. Call it exaggeration, bragging, negotiating, whatever. It?s all the same and we all do it.
The great ethics debate will never get resolved because it?s fluid. Whose ethics do we follow? Yours, mine, someone that doesn?t get it, someone that doesn?t recruit, the governments, religious beliefs? It will never get resolved because ethical does not equal illegal and we all have our own standards.
We can only control the way we personally work rather than everyone else, so let?s not try. We can only work at our company being the best and that?s all any of us can really do.
-
I've trained, hired and managed sourcers on both the primary (phone) and secondary (Internet) research side. I've assembled highly effective and "clean" teams for big companies who can't be seen anywhere near unethical or questionable practices.
So what who cares?
Well, I thought I would pipe in for a moment to offer a simple thought:
Names Sourcing can be ethically done via both Internet and phone, and in fact is most effective when both methods are combined.
What is ethical? Well, I don't have the answer to that and based on the many valuable opinions expressed here and elsewhere on just this subject its clear there is no concensus out there about this "controversial" topic which tends to polarize our industry.
All I can do to assist in getting closer to an answer is offer this:
My opinion is that what ever technique I use to find candidates should be something that I would feel 100% comfortable with putting down as the source details in an OFCCP tracking log with my name as the author. If I can't write it down then I may be thinking twice about doing it.
NLP is an example of ethical techniques I practice and teach: http://recruitinganimal.typepad.com/recruitinganimal/2006/06/the_svengali_of.html
My favorite post (or "repost") on this topic is Dave Carpe's: http://www.passingnotes.com/archives/2006/02/17/287/
Also check out some of the discussion on Sullivan's two year old post on this: http://www.ere.net/articles/db/B8C236EEF50D41188902425F21998005.asp
Cheers, Shally www.jobmachine.net
-
Josh-
I?m sure you?ve heard of imprinting ? where the early social behavior among birds (and of course other species) is a result of the newly hatched becoming rapidly and strongly attached to social objects such as parents or surrogates.
As a Marine (I?m also sure you?ve heard that there?s no such thing as a former Marine ? or a former Jesuit or engineer), you were imprinted quite strongly with the values critical to life and success (FYI I?m a COI for Armed Forces recruiting ? and in fact, am headed today to Brooklyn VA Hospital for a number of reasons).
Fact is Josh is that your initial foray into recruiting was - sadly ? a bad one. I know you know this but not all K Force offices are run by self-absorbed managers ? sure TPR offices may all use similar metrics and some may push the envelope (OK, so this may be an understatement for a ?few? of these groups) but in my twenty years in recruiting, MY engagements with the "enemy" can be tallied on less than the five fingers on one hand. You have clearly had some unfortunate experiences since you started recruiting ? outside of sales and marketing - in 2006. Very bad imprinting I would say.
Recruiting is big on metrics so let?s talk about metrics and ethics. You offered Tony some examples of things that ?only [scratch] the surface of what I've seen and heard done." What you?ve seen is very salient and most of us know what you?re talking about (not sure how a ferret would describe what you?ve seen but we?ll leave that to ferret owners to talk about).
What was interesting to me was one of your examples where you note that ?pushing candidates for 10 references so they can be flipped to candidates? is a ruse. This is a gray area: Flipping references into candidates as a tactic is world-class recruiting to most, me included. Ten references pushes the envelope but as long as the original candidate gets a fair chance, I might scrunch my nose a bit but I?ll let this one go. If the one reference you call is hired and everyone is happy, where's the beef? With the previous employer whose employee you recruited away? And if a candidate happens to include their references with their resume this too is fair game.
Back to metrics? do you know what percentage of recruiters use shady techniques to source and recruit candidates? Not estimations by professional associations or by some expert with 20 years of recruiting but real numbers? Can you find anyone who can state ? in a reasonable empirical fashion ? that X percent of the Y annual recruiting transactions are cooked with an unsavory ingredient? Better yet what percent are contingency, retained, and corporate? How do you know the profession has a problem? From the squeaky wheels that continuously criticize?
As far as Maureen, before you criticize her and her methods, you should speak with her and see what the magic ? her number is 513-899-9628 (this would be a challenge and I know how much Marines like challenges). Your rusician example is so far off the mark ? which is why it?s so funny. Call her.
Actually, we all have changed ? it?s a benefit of being part of this community. But rusing is too gray an area whose definition is varied and personal, and most of all, where's the data?
And Thoren...admit to what? That telephone names sourcing works or that some still use the lame MBA student ruse? Or that the MBA student lie still works - which really speaks volumes about the skills of the gatekeepers who fall for it?
The numbers in the sourcing group are potential indicators that recruiters aren't particularly skilled in these areas and want to learn - to get over their fear of the phone, their uncertainty in how to construct a good Boolean, secret stashes of people, etc.
What do people want - a level playing field where even those less skillful can prosper? A profession where people who are experts at pulling resumes off job boards can make a living?
Talk about puh-lease...
-
If you need specific examples, you must be trying to find ways to poke holes and explain away what your cold-calling techniques are..
a classic ruse: "Hi receptionist, may I speak with the controller, cfo, blah-blah..? I am a student at XYZ University doing a research project for my MBA, etc... you get to the person you are trying to reach and say, "hi, I'm a recruiter and I was told to contact you" - that's a ruse..
Or, contacting a potential client and saying you have a great candidate - here's the resume, the client says "love the person let's bring him/her in" and you respond, unfortunately, they just pulled themselves off the market, here's some other candidates to consider"
I disagree that bring people in a developing an org chart from the interview is rusing, and I also disagree that turning references into future contacts is rusing.. as for your clients being aghast at how you gather candidates - puh-lease... next time you go to the store to buy something, are you going to ask the manager how the product was produced?
A ruse is simplying lieing - it has nothing to do with developing a list or org charts - if you have trouble with the receptionist, call after hours and try to get a voicemail tree - or, do a search on resumes for direct phone numbers...
-
I have not found it necessary or desirable to deceive people in many years. As much as we rationalize the behavior, if we were to tell our clients how we obtained the applicant (Hi!. I called up the receptionist and pretended to be a salesman t get their name OR I bounced around the voice response system to collect names for an hour and then called all of them OR I brought ina group of beginners, asked them to diagram their departments and then called everyone) they would be horrified.
Frankly, the best data mining tool I have (and this is now what we do to locate people [obviously we evaluate, assess and refer, too]) is a good desktop search tool. Often, I find ideal people in my own inbox or data base without having to do the kind of stuff that would make my clients ill.
Respectfully,
-
I would still like to see an example of what anyone thinks rusing actually is. There are some who say they don?t agree with it, whatever they think it is, but please give an actual example.
The postings from Joshua and Joseph do not provide examples and in truth continue to demonstrate my growing theory that people don?t understand what rusing really is.
8 hours calling to get 100 names? That?s not rusing, that?s name gathering.
Relying on platforms like Spoke, Jigsaw and presumably Linkedin instead is not exactly a great idea or creative. Is Jigsaw even legal? I?m not convinced it would be in the UK. Rusing is certainly not illegal.
Relying on these platforms is na�ve. It?s the same pot as everyone else has got. Hardly creative and what happens if these don?t work? Do you give up?
And what does rusing have to do with having relationships? I don?t see the connection or the relevance. If ever you need the ability to ruse effectively, it is during an industry slowdown, surely.
Let?s not have definitions. We can all look up the word. Let?s have some actual examples of what you think rusing actually is, anyone please.
-
American Heritage Dictionary defines "Ruse" as: "A crafty stratagem; a subterfuge"
Call it what you will - it is a way people use to get to candidates - I am not a fan of rusing, and frankly believe there are better ways to get the information across...
In my experience, I have found recruiters who are very successful utilize rusing and those not utilizing rusing - the biggest difference I have found is that during industry slow downs the ones who DO NOT RUSE have relationships that get them through - the ones who utilize rusing start from square one and see they have no pipeline to draw on - and usually bounce from agency to agency...
-
It's interesting to see how black and white some people are on the subject of rusing. Do you really think that someone that uses rusing to get a name is a blatant liar in everything else they do and say? Can anyone really say they have never lied in their lives without lying about it? I doubt it.
I would ask any of you to explain exactly what YOU think rusing is, who the person is that you think is being rused to and the purpose of the ruse? Could you please give examples of what it is you condemn so readily?
Once we understand what your issue is, only then can we surely decide whether it's acceptable or not.
I think this is worth exploring deeper before being too judgemental to soon.
-
Nope, all great recruiters do not need to ruse. I would go so far as to say if you are a truly great recruiter you do not need to ruse.
I have worked third party, corporate and now public sector. Yes, there are those waiting in line for these jobs. Yes, you still have to actively hunt and court the best, most highly skilled candidates. Yes, I am a great recruiter. No, I do not ruse.
-
I have been in HR and recruiting for over 15 years and have never NEEDED to lie to do my job and for the sake of conversation....do it well. I find it interesting how far people will go to justify doing something they know is wrong... even renaming the deed, notice that the term of art is "Rusing".... easier to accept I guess than calling what you do by its right name...lieng
If you have to "LIE to do your job WELL", then it seems to me that you are in the wrong line of work. This is why the recruiting industry has such a bad reputation. The lack of ethical behavior(and I think it could even be argued),lack of talent... by some within the industry, makes the rest of us suffer. It amazes me how vehemently people will argue there perceived right to be dishonest, and further claim that the ONLY way to be successful in recruiting is to lie (oops, did I forget to soften and spin what is actually being done by not calling it rusing?!?) is preposterous.
There are several ways to rephrase lieing to make a profit... some call it a con, others call it fraud, and some refer to it as deception, or my personal favorite, theft by deception...... me I like to keep it simple, it is a lie. I was raised to believe that there is a pretty clear line between right and wrong and that it is wrong and unethical to lie, especially to get what you want.
As far as recruiting is concerned, once you get wrapped up in lieing to "get ahead", you end up lieing to everyone. Your clients, candidates, other businesses... which if you follow your actions to its logical conclusion, means potential future clients and candidates. You even end up lieing to yourself, calling what you do "necessary to succeeds" and renaming it so it doesn't sound like what it is.
-
I think the comments are sadly funny that imply that the original recruiter in the story messed up because he wasn't slick enough. The implication being that if he had been better at lying, then everything would have been OK.
I'm reminded of my past life as a HR manager when I was sitting in on a training class for our software sales people. The trainer began telling them that they could connect with the client better if they could make up stories about having vacationed in the same locations as the client, or done other things that would connect their backgrounds. I could hardly believe what I was hearing and I told them so. I added that behavior like that is what makes the average Joe (or Josephine) mistrust sales people implicitly.
The same hold true of recruiters. Those of you who are spoofing are the same ones who give our profession the reputation roughly equivalent to used car salesmen.
Seriously, we all DON'T do it, and there are many of us who are very good, and we WON'T do it. I have a client in San Francisco that regularly calls me with exclusive orders because I have proven myself. That relationship has lasted through several HR Managers ... because I can deliver the goods. ... And I have never met any of them in person. My point isn't that I'm all that great. It's that you can do your job well and still maintain your integrity.
-
At the end of the day, it is all about ethics. Personal ethics, professional ethics, what ever you want to call it. Although I have not been in the business long, I believe that being successful is based on the relationships that you build with your candidates and hiring managers. It is against my personal code of ethics to lie.
I want to feel good about myself when I go home, and lying does not do it for me. If money is what motivates people, and many great recruiters are motivated by money, many have been able to do it without lying!!
-
I take credit for the comment that all great recruiters ruse. I will not retract this statement, because if you ask any great recruiter they will tell you the same thing.
This, as usual, has become a debate between Corporate and Third Party Recruiters. To make things clear, I have never lied to someone when presenting a job to them or have I ever misrepresented a client. However, to track down the perfect person for a position, I need to find out who that person is, and at times, it can be as easy as ask for the name of the person at other times, it takes finesse and creativity.
There are people on ERE who have written articles about Name Gathering, and refer to themselves as professional name sourcers. What do you think this means? Do you truly believe that they are nicely asking for the names of every sales rep. in the company or are they digging deeper to get the results that their clients (which some of you probably are) need? There are even great HR people who do what it takes to get the job done. I had a long talk with one of the ERE premier authors about how he has been know to hang out in the parking lot of his competitors and introduce himself to people as they get in their cars. He has also been known to go to a bar across the street from his competitor?s office and slip the bartender twenty dollars to point out the people who work there. Even I draw the line there, but maybe just for now at least.
I have always cared about how I present myself, how I represent my company, and how I represent my clients. As a third part recruiter I am only paid for my results. I will make another ALL statement. ALL great recruiter are motivated by results and the goals they set. We don?t sit around waiting for people to come to us. We are hunters and not gatherers. We are aggressive individuals who are ALWAYS viewed as a necessary evil to HR, and will never be truly respect or appreciated, especially here on the ERE.
Have a great weekend everyone.
-
