News

 

Just because the mechanism of recruitment has transformed over the past decade, it doesn’t mean that the ethics have changed with it.

 

Candidates have as much of a right to confidentiality as they ever have, and it is up to our industry to regulate itself in the face of overwhelming temptation to cut corners.

 

Just because someone’s LinkedIn profile says they are interested in “career opportunities” doesn’t give an HR Manager licence to send their profile to the MD and suggest that they are invited in for interview. Many industries are tightly-knit communities at the executive levels, and what is to say that the MD doesn’t play squash with the MD of this employee’s company. Surely the “potential candidate” should be consulted in the first instance to determine their interest in the company/role and if there are any sensitivities that should be considered. A default setting for a button on a social network can turn into an unwanted problem for an employee.

 

Some recruiters would argue that as candidates’ social media profiles are on general view, that anyone can access their details, so they are fair game. However, there is a difference between a company viewing your details on LinkedIn and actually being sent them by a recruiter (agency or in-house). That implies consent from the candidate, and if that hasn’t been given, then there are potential problems.

 

Candidates still have a right to control where their details are being sent. If you consider yourself to be a “candidate,” passive or otherwise, be clear when making contact with anyone, on any level, in any discussion related to your career and especially in relation to your personal details. Be clear to confirm with anyone who wishes to work with/represent you that your details must not be sent to any third party without first having gained your express permission to do so. I’m sure the vast majority of you have been in or heard of the unsavoury scenario where a candidate’s details have been represented by two separate parties to the same company for the same position, both claiming “ownership!” (horrible word isn’t it?). For executive appointments in particular, this situation is a lose-lose-lose scenario: (a) The recruiting company should have had tighter controls on how candidate referrals are received; (b) the recruiter should have established clearly with the candidate and the client their terms of referral and representation, ensuring no possible duplication; and (c) the candidate is perceived as being, at best, naïve for allowing themselves to be briefed and represented by two separate parties for the same role. In the ultra-competitive executive recruitment market where choosing between candidates at the pointy end of the process is often a case of splitting hairs, such naivety (real or perceived) is often a tipping point for missing out on that career-defining opportunity.

 

There have been a number of high-profile law-suits where candidates have won their “right to privacy” cases. This area of the law is sadly lagging far behind the social media explosion, but it is attempting to make up for lost ground.

 

I have moaned in past articles about the lesser members of the recruitment profession treating candidates like a commodity, but it is so true. They are not a piece of meat to be traded to the highest bidder.

 

Many candidates have complicated situations – their story first needs to be understood before it can be explained. For a recruiter to properly do their job, it is impossible to send a CV over to a client without having a detailed understanding of the candidate and their motivations.

 

The most successful recruiters in the long term are those who aren’t the subject of horror stories. I sent my CV to this recruiter, and they sent it to 20 companies without my knowledge. Those hearing the story are not likely to have any dealings with that company again, even if it was a rookie recruiter who spoilt their reputation. A few stories like this and it isn’t hard to see why the turnover is so high at the lower end of the recruitment market.

 

So, I ensure that my recruiting team are focused on the effects of what they do and what they say. They are trusted to represent the candidate, and they should do so with a high level of integrity and awareness of what and how they are communicating.

 

You should be able to trust your recruiter with your life.

 

Over a career spanning 21 years, Greg Tanna has established himself as an executive recruitment leader in the APAC Customer Contact/BPO/ICT/Consulting domain.