Two diverse topics - but under one heading. These are true 'situations' that have come to our attention in just the past two weeks. Both came from senior level HR people. Their stories (with no names, of course) follow.
Confidentiality:
Because of what we do (fill leadership positions at companies), we are often approached for networking. These conversations often evolve into discussions on job search techniques, working with search firms, etc. A recent conversation with a Senior Vice President of Human Resources from a major Twin Cities company took an interesting turn.
She had been approached by a well known search firm in town about a senior leadership role in human resources. This firm, to her knowledge, only worked on retained search. In reality, this firm's main business is contingent search. They do some retained work and now provide consulting as well. She provided them her resume. The short version - she was not a fit for the opening. BUT . . . . . she got a call from a salesperson representing another part of their business. Her resume had been openly passed along as someone to pursue for business. She was horrified. The candidate assumed her conversation was confidential. The person that called her is well networked in this town and knew her entire history and reason for being open to a new role. The candidate was and is shocked.
You as a consumer or user of search have to draw your own conclusion.
New story - but, interestingly, the same firm!
Now you should know that the firm in question touts itself as one of the largest retained firms in this marketplace. They have been doing contingent work for a company in the creative space (that's as descriptive as I can get). They sent a list to my contact (the company's head of human resources) of people that they said were their (the search firm's) candidates and that any hire was to be credited to them. They went further - they explained that they had placed people at this company before and if there was any problem, they knew all of the employees and could easily recruit them for other clients.
What ownership did the firm have of these candidates? The firm had e-mailed links in candidates' LinkedIn profiles to varying hiring managers. No interviewing; no open job orders; no request for these profiles. Just links to readily available profiles.
Is there a conclusion?
Our firm has had the opportunity to facilitate discussions on
Ethics in the Search Field on numerous occasions. Facilitating means just that - we don't draw conclusions; we get our audience to make their decisions about how they want to work with a firm and the importance of communicating this information with their prospective search partner BEFORE the start of an engagement.
The conclusion here - whether you are a candidate OR client . . . . . .
Make informed decisions through asking questions and getting your key issues addressed in writing.
Start asking questions - of past search firm users (candidates of companies). Ask the same question of multiple firms - and get detailed answers. Then - you can judge how you want to move forward.
Two diverse topics - but under one heading. These are true 'situations' that have come to our attention in just the past two weeks. Both came from senior level HR people. Their stories (with no names, of course) follow.
Confidentiality:
Because of what we do (fill leadership positions at companies), we are often approached for networking. These conversations often evolve into discussions on job search techniques, working with search firms, etc. A recent conversation with a Senior Vice President of Human Resources from a major Twin Cities company took an interesting turn.
She had been approached by a well known search firm in town about a senior leadership role in human resources. This firm, to her knowledge, only worked on retained search. In reality, this firm's main business is contingent search. They do some retained work and now provide consulting as well. She provided them her resume. The short version - she was not a fit for the opening. BUT . . . . . she got a call from a salesperson representing another part of their business. Her resume had been openly passed along as someone to pursue for business. She was horrified. The candidate assumed her conversation was confidential. The person that called her is well networked in this town and knew her entire history and reason for being open to a new role. The candidate was and is shocked.
You as a consumer or user of search have to draw your own conclusion.
New story - but, interestingly, the same firm!
Now you should know that the firm in question touts itself as one of the largest retained firms in this marketplace. They have been doing contingent work for a company in the creative space (that's as descriptive as I can get). They sent a list to my contact (the company's head of human resources) of people that they said were their (the search firm's) candidates and that any hire was to be credited to them. They went further - they explained that they had placed people at this company before and if there was any problem, they knew all of the employees and could easily recruit them for other clients.
What ownership did the firm have of these candidates? The firm had e-mailed links in candidates' LinkedIn profiles to varying hiring managers. No interviewing; no open job orders; no request for these profiles. Just links to readily available profiles.
Is there a conclusion?
Our firm has had the opportunity to facilitate discussions on Ethics in the Search Field on numerous occasions. Facilitating means just that - we don't draw conclusions; we get our audience to make their decisions about how they want to work with a firm and the importance of communicating this information with their prospective search partner BEFORE the start of an engagement.
The conclusion here - whether you are a candidate OR client . . . . . .
Make informed decisions through asking questions and getting your key issues addressed in writing.
Start asking questions - of past search firm users (candidates of companies). Ask the same question of multiple firms - and get detailed answers. Then - you can judge how you want to move forward.
Path: