By Maureen Sharib
Steve Levy wrote an interesting blog post on ERE a coupla’ days back.
It’s called “The Ethics Sham” and in it, Steve remarks on those, “…interminably long ERE threads that make you want to scream out loud” whose innards contain remarks on what some might call unethical tactics to procure a “name”. The video Steve refers to in his post, Call Girl Vicky, is an example of telephone names sourcing the old fashioned, time-honored way, “…if you tell me the name, if you just say it out loud, it might jog my memory and help me remember.” Some, believe it or not, are still using it today, to source names.
Why? Because it works.
Is it an “ethical” approach? Steve asks where all the HellHounds have secreted themselves that usually come down like stink on you know what crying, “Foul, NO Fair, you’re givin’ us all a BAD NAME, this is one reason why people HANG UP on us recruiters!” when confronted with examples, or suggestions, like these.
Steve finds it curious that all the usual naysayers have fallen dumb in the face of what, in the past, on ERE has been gory red, bloody chum to the sharks, a loose, un-minded limb in piranahed waters, a foolish step on a thin, rocky gorge side, a flag waved in front of an angry bull.
“Why is this?” Steve asks, “….why aren’t the usual suspects up in arms over Jim and Vicky’s role play of the same tactics used by many to identify names via the telephone?”
It’s an interesting dilemma wrapped in a conundrum.
Steve wonders pointedly if it’s because some of the usual strident voices have ties to the upcoming SourceCon convention and rather than queer their association with the “Association” they have stilled their voices, quieted their angry tirades and, in general, decided to “let this one pass” as it stands to profit themselves. He wants to know why so many are inconsistent about ethics. Methinks Steve knows full well, as one who has gone before succinctly summed:
“More things are left undone through neglect of duty than through neglect of self-interest.” ~ Duc de La Rochefoucauld (1613 - 1680)
Steve further enlightens us when he confesses, “What this is really all about is a few strident recruiters who publicly denigrate everything sourcers do down to and including the role itself in an attempt to devalue the undeniable impact sourcers have on recruiting. I wonder why that is?”
Allow me to pipe in here, Steve, and give you my two cents, adding to the theme of what you have identified as a “schism”. I call it the “Sourcing Schism”.
Lately there has been a growing tirade against the economies that sourcers bring to the table. Why is this? It’s coming not just from third party recruiters but also there’s a rallying grumble beginning from corporate recruiters. Do you wonder why that is? Here’s my take on it, and if you think it’s crazy, go ahead and tell me. Having to defend sourcing at every turn FEELS really crazy!
There are a few (a very few) third party recruiters who have transparently exposed themselves with all the dickering and naysaying about the methodology of names sourcing. It’s as if to say, “Are you crazy Maureen? You’re telling them all our secrets – what will they need us for?” One has actually voiced this concern in words very near to these to me.
“The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.” ~ John Fitzgerald Kennedy
The other set, the corporate recruiters (again, it’s a minority) are uncomfortable with the sourcing suggestions I make. I imagine their bosses passing by their desks, slowing, looking sideways at them, stopping before pointedly asking, “Why aren’t you on the phone? We paid to bring Maureen Sharib in here to show you how to do it so WHY AREN’T YOU ON THE PHONE, SOURCING?”
It’s a tough question to answer, isn’t it?
Recently it’s been suggested that my metrics for telephone names sourcing are “aggressive”. Damn right they’re aggressive – once you see how effective the results are from telephone names sourcing in your organization you’ll realize aggressive is a mild word – they’re fierce! Aggressive, yes, I am thank you. Fierce? Yes, I am thank you. Damn right I am, and will continue to be so.
I am amused by these naysayers. They know not what they do.
Recruiting.com. Talkdigger, Slashdot, Digg, Delicious.
The BOOK OF SCRIPTICALS is ready for purchase! Telephone names sourcing scripts THAT WORK!
Looking for a talented Names Sourcer or for Trainers to teach you or yours how to names source? Look in the Database section of the Sourcers Guild!
“We will either find a way or make one.” ~ Hannibal
Maureen Sharib
Telephone Names Sourcer/Trainer and Sourcers Guild Guide
513 899 9628
maureen at techtrak.com
Well one could always review the podcasts that Jim and I had done on the recruiters lounge that was also around this very topic, before conclusions had been jumped to..
Funny how that happens - often only one side of a story get's heard, but it creates an appearance that was/is not actually the situation that is described.
RE Steve's post, what I find myself scratching my head is why every three months or so, he has to crawl out of the woodwork and start some rubbish that hold no merit, or have no basis for constructive discussion - as it is based upon a personal objective rather than facts.
In my defense, Steve Levy was offered on more than one occassion an opportunity to have a face off with me on a podcast, and both times he declined. Well I gotta say, what does that tell you, at least I was willing and able to stand to my guns because I believe in what I say.
Karen
Posted by: Karen M | July 06, 2007 at 07:08 PM