Dilemma: Sourcing efforts by 3rd party, AFTER candidate was contacted by employer's recruiter

I recently proposed this very real hypothetical to a few recruiters within my network. The results were somewhat varied. The hypothetic would go something like this:

Employer's internal recruiter contacts candidate directly via Linkedin whereby a job description. is shared.

Upon review candidate elects to stay put and pass on the opportunity. Via email the correspondence ends with a "best of luck in your search" and passive call to action from the company recruiter, "...should circumstances change, please let me know."

Fast forward 2 weeks. An agency reaches out to the same candidate. Candidate informs agency recruiter that he has already been contacted by the employer. However through the power of pursuasion the recruiter convinces the same candidate to apply through the agency.

*Candidate was never entered into the ATS and was submitted via the hiring manager.

What say you?

With whom does candidate ownership belong?
Are there ethical concerns raised after agency recruiter was told by the candidate of previous correspondence with employer?

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Sandra McCartt on February 9, 2011 at 4:53pm

Some smooth selling of a new candidate might be in order. It's not over until the fat lady sings. Another good candidate levels the playing field fast.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bob on February 9, 2011 at 5:23pm

amen ....i see them on this board all the time they remind me of the Claude Raines Character in Casablanca always amazed and never under scrutiny

Sandra McCartt said:

Jody,

I am a third party recruiter. I own a recruiting firm and have since tennis balls were square 1979. I am in fact a pretty smooth talker myself. I was making an attempt at humor(obviously missed that mark with you)

My point about getting all twisted up was all the flurry about ownership when who owns the candidate or referral is of no consequence until they get hired .

I have in fact had some bad experiences with some of our esteemed colleagues and am weekly amazed at the number of obtuse individuals who loiter in ranks of recruiting.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by bob on February 9, 2011 at 8:44pm

this just happened to me this week .. a Local Power Company asked for my help in identifying candidates for them [thats the first clue identify not hire] i wanted a retainer they wanted to see paper [flag 2]After a discussion on fees and while I was waiting for them to sign the contract [I had a verbal one] I sent in the resumes with full identity as per our agreement....ouch I was told in a' 30 sec' conversation that they had these people from three years ago and didn't require my help anymore [birddog Bob ]therefore no retainer' no check etc...
So What did BOB do 1 I contacted the candidates and they pulled themselves out of the search, 2 I called the Director of HR at the Power Company my exact words were.' watch the front door every time someone leaves in the next three months think of ME... I did not mean to 'threaten' him as he said i did I just made him a promise.... If anybody needs heavy Power engineers i have the roster lol what would any of you had done......
bob said:

amen ....i see them on this board all the time they remind me of the Claude Raines Character in Casablanca always amazed and never under scrutiny

Sandra McCartt said:

Jody,

I am a third party recruiter. I own a recruiting firm and have since tennis balls were square 1979. I am in fact a pretty smooth talker myself. I was making an attempt at humor(obviously missed that mark with you)

My point about getting all twisted up was all the flurry about ownership when who owns the candidate or referral is of no consequence until they get hired .

I have in fact had some bad experiences with some of our esteemed colleagues and am weekly amazed at the number of obtuse individuals who loiter in ranks of recruiting.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike on February 13, 2011 at 3:07pm

This sounds like something only the U.S. Govt would accept. I don't see how this is similar. In the original premise the candidate definitely has all the facts and has decided to go through the 3rd Party. Nice to imagine but, in real life, the client HR person should over rule the candidate's decision since the personal contact has already been established by the client's representative and it was the candidate's decision to withdraw. Sounds like the candidate faced an ethical dilemna and flunked the ethics test. The only time I benefited from this type situation was if my relationship with the client was strong enough that they gave me a portion of a fee for my efforts after the candidate accepted the position's offer and started.

Tracey Logan said:

I am an IT Recruiter for a government sub-contractor (mainly USAF) which means the contracts we are on involve many other sub-contractors and this situation comes up often. But there is already a teaming agreement established making it clear on handling these types of situations.

My answer to your dilemma - It is the candidates choice. No one owns the candidate, not in my world anyway. And the way I handle it when I find out a candidate has been previously submitted for a position and/or is currently talking to another sub-contractor is to give the candidate all the facts to make an informed decision. I tell my candidates that only one sub-contractor can represent them on the contract and it is ultimately their decision as to what company they decide will represent them. I also make it very clear the benefits and salary flexibility we offer as well as our longstanding relationship we have with the prime contractor. 9 times out of 10 they choose my company.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tracey Cress on February 14, 2011 at 11:12am

Mike,

Point taken.

I understand that dealing with government contracts, primes and sub-contractors requires a unique approach which is clearly spelled out in our teaming agreements, as I stated in one of my earlier posts. So, I agree that the hypothetical issue would be handled differently.