Thank You John Sumser and Heather Hamilton

A hearty "thanks" to John Sumser for being the first industry luminary to come out in opposition to Lou Adler's article (you can find John's article here or look in the archives for the October 4 entry).

John's article, in combination with Heather Hamilton's excellent article published on ERE, are a complete and total refutation of lying, cheating and stealing as advisable and advantageous methods of gathering sourcing and recruitment information.

Thanks John and Heather.

Comments

[Heather]

Thank you for the support and for being one of the people that "gets it". Kudos to John for being vocal too. My opinion is there is no such thing as an *automatic* leader in this industry. We all have to choose who we follow. And if your leaders stop being people you want to follow, then stop following them. Find another leader or be one! Ah, dang, that was deep. I am going to have to blog that.

[Lou Adler]

John - first off, have you ever been a recruiter?

Second, you missed the whole point of the article. As far as I'm concerned once you've decided to steal another company's employees all tactics are equally questionable.

Why don't your rant and rave about employees that are bribed to give names of their former employees? (Employee Referral Programs are a nice name for bribery, aren't they?)

Why don't you rant and rave about using Internet datamining to obtain the name of someone to call? People didn't post their info to have it used this way. They didn't give a recruiter permission to contact them.

Why do you only rant and rave about somebody calling in directly asking for the name of the marketing person rather than finding that person's name online? You're only getting the name to steal the person from the other company. Recruiters are allowed to do this. And I support passive candidate recruiting. What I don't support is people who are hypocrites. And that was the point of the article. Which you totally missed.

Lou Adler

[Heather]

Lou, because none of those things are lying! This whole thing about "stealing" employees doens't resonate. I can't speak for John Sumser, but, correct me if I am wrong, none of the people that have written artcles about this lately are actually the ones doing the cold-calling. By the way, I appreciate you e-mailing me and the dialog. I'm not speaking for John obviously...just little old me ; )

One other thing I want to make clear (and that I disagree with in John's article...I'll contact him directly) is the idea that David Manaster owes anybody anything. I think we make the mistake of calling "articles" what really are "commentaries". Nobody on there is paid for the article (or if so, my check must have gotten lost in the mail...hee), none are held to journalist standards. There are a number of things that David and I don't agree on (I like lively debate), but I want to make clear that ERE contacted me DIRECTLY and asked me to write an article representing the viewpoint opposite Dr. Johns (which I had made clear on the discussion boards). I may not have the name recognition of Lou or Dr. John, but I am working on it. So their intent to show "both sides" was very good. I actually think that the industry benefits from the dialog because it's visible and people can think twice about who they work or partner with. It's made me think harder about how I work (for example, if I select a TPR to represent my company, I have additional due diligence questions to ask them that I would not have thought to ask before)

The only damage I think it has done is to those people whose customers now realize they don't agree with their opinion on this issue (candidates or companies) and I appreciate the opportunity to make an informed decision.

[Jim Dalton]

Thanks Heather (and Jeff for the original posting)...great points all.

I did want to clear up one thing you mentioned though Heather. I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that ERE does not hold the articles it publishes to "journalistic standards." Well, it IS accurate I guess -- these are not news pieces we are publishing. But being the editor of ERE's publications, I never like to hear the concepts of "ERE articles" and "not held to standards" in the same sentence. ;)

ERE is much more like the NY Times editorial page in this regard -- and this is the point I think John Sumser missed entirely in the intro to his article. Like the NY Times or any other reputable media publication, we publish (or at least we attempt to publish) a broad range of opinions and perspectives. If you personally agree with every article that we publish, then I'm not doing my job. But we do very much hold every article we publish to the highest of editorial standards.

You can give yourself some credit here Heather! We get a lot of submissions at ERE, and we published your article because it exceeded those editorial standards and contributed much to this important discussion on ethics. I can't wait to do it again. :)

[Heather]

OK, Jim, the writers themselves are not held to the standards of proof, protecting sources, etc. That is what I meant. No fact checkers because people are presenting opinions not fact. I think the word article might make people think the writers are journalists, but we aren't (same as bloggers aren't). Guess I put my foot in my mouth (mmm, Bandolino..yummy).

[Susan]

Jeff - First, thank you for providing a platform to facilitate an active dialogue on talent. The dialogue on ethical recruitment practices has been fascinating. If this is the beginning of how companies might be approaching a competitive talent landscape we’re all in for a wild and bumpy ride. The essence of good recruiting is rooted in honest, ethical tactics born out of an aligned business strategy - which doesn’t have to mean the absence of creativity and innovation. But, it does mean ethical responsibility and determining at what point tactics may have moved beyond the sphere of good business practices. Operating in an ethically responsible manner in a competitive environment requires tremendous insight, discipline and respect for a company’s culture – something that is not created easily but can be destroyed quickly. Ultimately it is up to each recruiter to ensure alignment and determine which practices and tactics are appropriate for their organization. Recruiters hold a unique responsibility in representing their company. A role which allows them to creatively source, market, sell, influence, persuade and ultimately bring talent into the organization. Building trust and credibility with internal and external stakeholders is at the core of what allows every good recruiter to be successful.

I believe it was on Heather’s blog that “talent” weighed in on this topic several weeks ago. If you listen to the “customer” this is not the way to begin a relationship.

Oh how I’d love to hear our idol Lewis take this topic on!

[Critic]

Good discussion. It's interesting to me that, while we espouse ethical recruiting practices, we conveniently ignore the important role assigned to headhunters in our companies. As a recruiter, I too, behave ethically. I represent my firm with honesty and integrity. However, I recognize that for really important positions (like executive roles), the boys upstairs outsource the job to someone "better qualified" to reel in a big fish.

It isn't lost on me that the outsider is better qualified due (possibly) to an established network, and (certainly) a more casual approach to ethical recruiting practices. As individuals, we may feel strongly about ethics, but when push comes to shove our employers bias toward results. They hire headhunters, whose independence allows distance from questionable behavior, while still delivering results. Again, this happens with greater frequency at higher levels in the organization.

The bottom line is, when the hire is important, the company doesn’t care about process. An honest corporate recruiter can justifiably claim the moral high ground. But at the company level, espousing ethics on one level and dodging them at another is the definition of hypocrisy.

[Karen Mattonen]

Dear Critic,
I can assure you that there are many a company who does care how their TPR represents their company.

The TPR is the Ambassador to the Company and the client. Thus it is always imperative to maintain the professional etiquette that they too would present to the public.

Susan Says it best.. Not much need for more.

[Howard Adamsky]

Fascinating stuff!

Howard Adamsky
howard@hrinnovators.com