Last week, Jerry Jerry and I were talking about recruiting and propaganda.
This, in essence, is what he said.

The Average Recruiter is like a bore at a party. He talks you listen.

Average recruiters tell their candidates "This job is great and you're gonna love it."
The candidate is a passive recipient of information.

A Top Recruiter, however, is like a Svengali. She gets her candidates to buy-in.

After you listen to a top recruiter, you're saying
"Where's the kool-aid? This job is great and I'm gonna love it!"

Now, what is Propaganda?

According to wikipedia propaganda is not
an impartial presentation of information. No.
Propaganda presents information in order to influence opinions and behavior.

"Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission)
or gives loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational
response to the information."

Recruiters don't do that, do they? No, never!
Film: Jerry at work.. Exact Quotation: Animal - you've unwittingly stumbled upon a key difference between average/lame recruiters and those at the top. Average recruiters tell their candidate the job is great and they're gonna love it. Top recruiters help their candidates say "The job is great and I'm gonna love it!" Normally that kind of info would be available only to those sitting in a seminar or buying the training material. But here on RBC it's FREE!!!!!!

Views: 1692

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jerry, you said:

A word on deception: if anyone believes their role (in recruiting) is to deceive and trick people into taking the wrong job they are going to be overworked and underpaid.

I am not suggesting anything like trickery. I am recognizing that deception is a communication strategy that recruiters wittingly and unwittingly use everyday. The authenticity and transparency required to expose and/accept those things negates it's usefulness.

That said, I am not defending or promoting deception as good or bad. I'm simply suggesting that until one becomes aware of it the self-deception is what will lead to being overworked and underpaid.

It's a complex idea. I could be wrong.

To yours below, I defer to your self-awareness over my casual remark and stand corrected.

Honestly.

Jerry Albright said:
Hi Ami. Thanks for the compliment - but I can't accept it. Deception is not part of my tool box - noble intent or not. I'm not quite sure how the idea got started but it's incorrect.
Lies = bad business.
Amitai Givertz said:
I'm not accusing Jerry of anything, I'm complimenting him.

We seem to have a knee jerk reaction to the idea of deception because it implies "I'm being victimized!" It's a me-centric response which excludes the possibilities of understanding the virtue of deception -- given a noble intent.

Example: Camouflage is a tool of deception. Is it right or wrong?

Your nailed duplicitous. It's not the same as deception.

Recruiting Animal said:
Ami, R U accusing Jerry Jerry of deception?

(I was accused of it last week by the way. Some people think I'm "duplicitous.. Given to or marked by deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech.")
Dan Nuroo said: present your case in the best possible light by all means it's your job!

Wikipedia: Propaganda often presents facts selectively thus lying by omission

Put your best foot forward. Hide your lame side. What's wrong with that?
Tricking someone, or misleading someone into a job never works out

Of course not. No one [at least I'm not] is suggesting that is the case.
Ami - I belive Animal is suggesting lying is required.

Amitai Givertz said:
Tricking someone, or misleading someone into a job never works out

Of course not. No one [at least I'm not] is suggesting that is the case.
So, is propaganda a form of deception?

Under what circumstances is it right or wrong?

Does propaganda have a legitimate role business?

Recruiting Animal said:
Dan Nuroo said:
Tricking someone, or misleading someone into a job never works out.... But yeah, present your case in the best possible light by all means it's your job!

Wikipedia: "Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission)
or gives loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational
response to the information."
Man! To think, none of you took me up when I invited your discussion on Anarchy last week.
;)
Maureen Sharib kind of said: How come youse guys didn't read my posting? Didn't ya see all the woik I put into it?

I'm sorry Maureen. It was a smash season last week. And a man has to pick his fights. I just followed your link now and I can't see the direct relevance. Isn't it about having the freedom to explore wide-ranging discussions? And isn't this about controlling behaviour by means of persuasive techniques?
I wish I could make a living sitting around talking about recruiting. So far - the checks haven't magically appeared out of thin air.......but alas....a man can dream.
Is the point of recruiting to treat candidates as unwitting victims, as fools for the taking?
No wonder people have low regard for recruiters.
You might as well be used car salesmen - or divorce attorneys.

-sjd
Animal,
It would take too long to 'splain - you would be bored and I'm getting ready for MagicMethod Phone Sourcing Class on researching employee directories - you gonna be there or will you be late? Noon EST

Steve, Rita Ashley is asking about this (recruiter low regard) over on LinkedIn here.
It might give you guys some fodder for your anarchy arguments.
Jerry Jerry said: (more or less) Ah shore wish ah could make a livin' outa sitting round jawin' bout recruitin'. But so far - them checks ain't appearing too regularly.

Jerry is in his subtle, non-offensive way putting forward the idea that a productive recruiter should be on the phone not on line. And that time spent on social media discussion groups should be sharply curtailed.

But there's a guy on the Recruiting Animal Show tomorrow, Mr Fishdogs, who claims that social media activity should be part of every employee's daily routine.
Is the point of recruiting to treat candidates as unwitting victims, as fools for the taking? No wonder people have low regard for recruiters.

No. Who said that? You're erroneous conclusion is what perpetuates negative stereotyping not any assertion that I've made.

Also, I would like to suggest that anyone who would prefer to refashion the popular stereotypes about their profession would do well not to perpetuate the stereotyping of others. Used-car salesmen and divorce attorneys perform services to society equal to that of a recruiter. I might add they too have the same problems realizing an examination of truth is a first step to developing the trust-worthiness that marks a true professional from the riff-raff.

I shall leave it here by inviting you to read the preceding thread, follow the links and think it through. You might conclude that rather than candidates being "unwitting victims," average/lame recruiters are the unwitting victims of their individual weaknesses and self-deception.

Steve Delaney said:
Is the point of recruiting to treat candidates as unwitting victims, as fools for the taking?
No wonder people have low regard for recruiters. You might as well be used car salesmen - or divorce attorneys. -sjd

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Subscribe

All the recruiting news you see here, delivered straight to your inbox.

Just enter your e-mail address below

Webinar

RecruitingBlogs on Twitter

© 2024   All Rights Reserved   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service