Recruiter Ethics

[WWSituation]

I apologize if this was discussed before. I couldn't find the topic.

Suppose a recruiter mentioned a job opportunity to me 7 or 8 months ago, and I checked it out, talked to them, but declined the opportunity. Would it be unethical for me to call the company contact without the recruiter if I wanted to speak with them about the opportunity now, assuming it still exists (which I have good information that it does)?

[Anonymous]

If you take a job at a company where a recruiter has previously sent you in for an interview, within a certain period of time, the recruiter will be (and should be) paid. This period may extend out for a full year depending on the company.

[WWSituation]

How would I find out how long that is? I guess I can call the compant directly and defer to their judgement as to whether they feel they should contact the recruiter or not.

[WWSituation]

I never actually went for an interview. Just a phone conversation.

[Troy McClure]

Regardless of anything you owe the recruiter nothing, only the company may owe the recruiter something.

I would call the person you previously had the phone conversation with (if he/she is not there, or you don't want to call them, call an HR contact), disclose everything, and if they still want to talk to you, it's up to the company to deal with the recruiter.

Why is the job open after months? And, why would you want this job?

[urysohn]

Oooh, I think your follow-up makes all the difference. If the recruiter had just TOLD you about it 7 months ago, I'd say you have no obligation. If you had a phone interview (or any other contact with the company), I'd think you're on the hook. If it was a different position in the same company, then maybe not.
[If your "phone conversation" was with the recruiter and not the company, I don't see a problem with contacting the company]

[Anonymous]

I think 6 months is a typical waiting period. I was introduced to a company by a recruiter and had a phone interview but decided to wait until something cooler-sounding came along.

6 months later another recruiter called me with a cooler-sounding job at the same company. I disclosed the other recruiter and it was definitely an issue. But once they figured out they were outside the 6-mo. waiting period, everything proceeded normally.

I am not sure what you have to disclose, the company's hr records will clearly indicate what recruiter was involved.

[davespencer]

Not all companies handle this the same way. They don't keep records the same way. Sometimes, HR doesn't know an interview took place. Some companies are fine with the actuary now coming direct, others frown on the practice. This is sometimes dependent on the relationship the company and recruiter have. You may lose points with the company by proceeding directly. They won't think badly of you if you return through the recruiter. Why would you not want to use the recruiter at the same company again?

[Skippy]

I thought this was a thread on oxymorons!

If I were in your shoes I would go direct to the company, tell them of the previous contact via the recruiter and leave it up to them to do the right thing.

[davespencer]

Keep in mind one other thing. If you choose to go behind a recruiters back, word will get out. Some recruiters do network. You may want to use a recruiter in the future. Play it straight.

[Anonymous]

If a recruiter introduces you to a specific company. For example, ABC life gets your resume from Joe Recruiter with your permission and ABC life wants to talk to you. You should use Joe to continue that opportunity.

Now, six months after the first contact with ABC life went nowhere. Joe's involvement is dependent upon how you found out about the open position.
Where you not interested the first time but now you are? Then call Joe.
Did another recruiter contact you? Tell the new recruiter about Joe and tell ABC Life about Joe.
Did you see the position in a public ad? This is the hard one. If your desire to respond is associated with the initial contact then call Joe. If you don't feel that way then contact the company directly. If they respond, let them know about Joe.

In summary, the company pays the recruiter. Don't do anything to put your future employer in a bad place. (They most likely signed a contract with the recruiter) Also, you owe the recruiter only what you have specifically committed to. It's just like buying a car, until you sign its all just a lot of talk.

[Anonymous]

Slightly different topic. If I have been using a recruiter to pursue opportunities, and nothing I really like has come about because of it (an offer but one I'm not that thrilled about), will said recruiter harbor tremendous resentment toward me if I now say I'm not interested in pursuing anything else at this time? I feel bad that this person spent a lot of time trying to find something for me, but the right thing just doesn't seem to be available in my area right now. Is it horrible for me to say I've decided I'd rather just stay put for now?

[Crystal Dragon.]

That's their job; recruiting. They make their money by placing people. It's like a realtor; if you browse with one and decide not to buy, that's your decision. My best advice is make the call as soon as possible and in your most polite words let them know you are pulling yourself from the race. This also frees them up to chase down other leads. (This is assuming you really are stopping the search; but not necesarily)

[Troy McClure]

Why are you not interested any more?

If it's just that you are tired of looking, by all means, go ahead and tell the recruiter. Actually, for just about any reason, my response would be the same. Tell the recruiter you are no longer interested, tell him why, and tell him that you appreciate the time he has put in, and you will be sure to let him know first when you are looking again. If the recruiter isn't happy with that, then you don't want to work with him again anyway.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I don't think you're his only client. The recruiter should realize that not every call will result in a placement. It's a basic sales attitude. Think Damone in "Fast Times."

[WWSituation]

I strongly recommend taking a job you won't like because your recruiter will feel badly if you don't. Isn't making our recruiters happy our ultimate mission as actuaries??

OK, I'm done being sarcastic for the next 10 minutes.

[Dr T Non-Fan]

I don't think you can hold out that long!

[WWSituation]

FWIW, a good recruiter (they do exist) would never need to pressure a candidate into a situation. If they did their job right, then the candidate has all the information they need to determine whether a company is a good fit or not. Any recruiter who attempts to apply pressure to get someone to take a position is not worthy of my time.

They should apply the same pressure to the employers to actually get you what you want, instead of trying to force you to submit to the employers whim. But alas, you know who pays the recruiter...not you.

My last experience with a recruiter entailed my contact having his boss (the president of the recruiting firm - a fairly requtable one at that) call me and try to strongarm me into making a move that I obviously didn't want to make.

[NO1UNO]

On 2002-03-06 13:16, WWSituation wrote:

My last experience with a recruiter entailed my contact having his boss (the president of the recruiting firm - a fairly requtable one at that) call me and try to strongarm me into making a move that I obviously didn't want to make.


That was the same experience that I had. I wonder if it was the same recruiters?

[Anonymous]

Hmmm, sounds a lot like my situation too. I wonder if this tag-team approach is the trademark of the same set of people, or if this is commonplace among recruiters?

[42]

Now I'm curious. Question for Dave Spencer or the DWSimpson Webmaster or any other recruiters: Of the people who contact you, roughly what percentage do you ultimately place, what percentage take themselves out of the market before you place them, and what percentage fall into some "other" category? For those that are ultimately placed, what is the average time between their first contact with you and the date they accept an offer? Thanks.

[DW Simpson]

Quote: For those that are ultimately placed, what is the average time between their first contact with you and the date they accept an offer?

I looked at a small subset of this here (http://www.actuary.ca/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2409&forum=14&7): "From a random sample of our Associate placements, the average time from when we first talk to an Associate about a move to when they accept a new job is around 5 1/2 months.

The median, however, is 3 months, so the variability is huge."

But I don't have readily available stats overall. I can offer this, though: the average job stays open for a shorter time today than it did, say, 3 years ago. That means that firms are finding their actuaries quicker and that, perhaps, the average time it takes from first contact to offer is shorter today than it was 3 or 5 years ago, too. But I don't have numbers to back that up, and that's an extreme oversimplication that assumes several factors remain static.

Quote: Of the people who contact you, roughly what percentage do you ultimately place, what percentage take themselves out of the market before you place them, and what percentage fall into some "other" category?

I think "take themselves out" or "other" probably belong in the same category, because the actuary drives the process (or should). It depends on how you define "contact", since we try to stay in continuous contact with everyone in the actuarial community (with a staff of 30 that still can be tough), and each contact may represent just touching base by the actuary or the recruiter, with varying levels of interest by the actuary.

So I may have to punt on this one, too. We do quantify some measurements of success, but taken out of context they can be misleading.

[42]

Thanks for the info, Claude. Regarding the second question, I guess I was basing this on my own experience. Whenever I decided that I was going to change companies, I knew it, absolutely, 100%, and so did the recruiter, so it's easy for me to define the date I made that decision each time. It sounds like you're saying that many people don't have that "defining moment" at which they KNOW they're going to change jobs - that they just move gradually from "considering a change" to "probably going to leave" to actually leaving.

[davespencer]

Responding to two posts. Tigger, a mature recruiter will not resent you for changing your mind. In fact I just went through this very situation. The circumstances causing the actuary to look changed, his motivation changed, end of pursuit. Frustrating for myself and my client, but I fully understand. Really no different then if a company freezes openings in the middle of the interview process. Part of the risk of being a contingency recruiter. Responding now to 42. I have no idea what the percentages are. I talk to hundreds of actuaries a year. The best year I've ever had I think I filled 23 positions, my worst I think was 9. The percentage numbers would look terrible. I don't keep the data on why things didn't work out because I'm a one man shop, don't need data for a boss, and I can't figure how keeping track would be of benefit.