Ethics in San Diego?

The Electronic Recruiting Exchange is holding its ERExpo 2006 Spring Conference in San Diego, March 14-16. Great show, great presentations, great networking.

What do Heather Hamilton, Jeff Hunter, Michael Homula, Dave Lefkow, and David Gebler have in common? All are part of a Discussion Panel on March 16^th entitled, Invasion of the Body Snatchers: A Look at Ethics in Recruiting. Aside from Gebler, none of them are attorneys (not that this is a requirement), Research Fellows in Ethics (very impressive), or have conducted numerous training sessions on ethics. Is a background in ethics necessary to discuss ethics? Yes and no.

No doubt all of the folks on the Ethics Panel are fine people; I can personally attest to the orange-shirted Homula as a critical thinker (those who were there at ERE Boston's post-blogger meeting at the drinking and eating establishment can attest to the fine discussion we - Homula, Steckerl, Crispin, Edge - had about recruiting ethics) and Hunter as a supreme strategic hunter and gatherer (don't know Heather and Dave well enough to add the same superlatives). But the Edge is concerned that among other shortcomings, the panel does not possess experienced ethicists who can ably handle the onslaught of questions and answers.

Let's face it, recruiting has been around as long as time. God first recruited Adam to find Eve - OK, he only recruited a rib because some cosmic friend was barking something about poaching the entire body and tortuous interference (or was it torso interference), then recruited the snake to offer an apple to Adam and Eve because some supposed cosmic force thought it better to have a third party do it. Was this all ethical?

Other fields offer ethicists who study a myriad of topics - the medical field is renowned for its centers of medical ethics (check out Boston University's Department of Health Law, Bioethics, and Human Rights - read the backgrounds of the faculty members). Let's go to business - in New York City where the ERE makes its home, Columbia University has the Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Center for Leadership and Ethics. The Edge read the faculty bios for both schools and noticed that most possess significant experience dealing with, teaching, and writing about ethical issues in medicine and business. These folks are eminently qualified to discuss ethics in their fields. These fields really do have ethical issues to confront. Does the recruiting profession need to be lumped into the same category?

Some believe we have a big problem looming ahead: One proponent of greater regulation in recruiting pointed out that less than 3% of all recruiters belong to a national or state organization and has intimated that this is the reason why ethical breaches are rampant in our profession. Sorry but the Edge doesn't see this. The sheer numbers of recruiters out there practically ensures that some bad apples will take advantage of some unsuspecting people; the sheer number of jobseekers means that no matter how many times you tell the person that their experience as a customer service rep is not sufficient to be considered for the VP-HR spot you have. Someone is going to be mightily ticked off and will call the EEOC and BBB. There's no need to condemn the profession because of the bell curve.

How about those techniques we use to identify passive talent? Tricks to get past the gatekeeper are renowned for getting the ethics police all worked up. Are these really unethical? Is not the "goal" of recruiting to identify the best person possible for the position at the company? Sure companies don't want to lose people for whom they've invested time and money but I thought freedom of choice is highly prized in the free world. Which takes precedence? How about the way in which many agency recruiters refuse to share the name of the company with a potential employee until after they have been sufficiently vetted by the recruiter? Is this nothing more than a power ploy to protect a fee or a real ethical concern for the client?

Talent acquisition is swamped, overworked, and in some instances, underfunded (I remember reading a post from the Doyenne of Recruiting Blogging that she would try and do a better job of returning phone calls). When someone in a job search feels they have been aggrieved, the litigious gene kicks in: Complaints are made, phones are dialed, lawyers arrive at the scene, and before you know it, the New York Post picks up the story, gives it a sexy headline, and Baaaaam! someone is interviewed who condemns the entire industry. Finally, an erroneous extrapolation places our profession into the same category as…dirt. D-I-R-T, dirt. Real nice.

What the profession really needs is more education and less regulation; SHRM needs to take a more vocal role in condemning anti-recruiting regulation (first they need to increase the number of EMA chapters). Surprisingly few outplacement firms effectively teach those in transition how to work with recruiters (nothing has changed since the Edge spent four wonderful years teaching job search to executives and thousands of displaced people). Further, job descriptions need to be improved to the point where they accurately represent the real problems associated with the position and the performance standards expected (no, Lou didn't make me write this) - BTW, this is one way to take care of those nasty new OFCCP and Internet Applicant regs. More education at the community level by recruiters can help turn people into better consumers.

But to start, what the San Diego panel needs are more trained ethicists, a big-time executive search consultant, a successful contingency recruiter, and someone who sources for a living. A panel that is representative of the profession. Then it can begin to discuss ethics in recruiting and more important, to debate whether there really is a problem that requires the fat hand of regulation.

Frankly, I'm wondering why the powers that be at the ERE didn't go the extra step with this one...