Respect vs. Transparency

Follow the beginning of this exchange here.

Recruiting Animal Said:

Oh Becky, I wish I had you on my show right now. I'd go after you like there was no tomorrow.

I know you're a gutsy broad, one of Rayanne's amazon women, but you can't even see that you're evading the question.

You told us that you don't give candidates any direct information when their personality is the problem. Instead, like Jerry, you use codewords that they might not understand - and you pray that they won't press you on what you mean.

Oh, come now! I'm not dodging anything here, it's not code when you say "it wasn't a good match" It's in fact, very cut and dry. (and to be honest, I hope I'm not dealing with candidates who "don't understand" this type of "code") If they press, I'll tell them the manager didn't think the opportunity was going to be a fit. Is it vague? Sure. What they need is to know we respect them enough to let them know we are passing.

Also, a poor personality match DOES NOT mean that the candidate has a "bad" personality.

Let's talk this out, what do you think?

*****Disclaimer***** the goal of this call for recruiters on the corporate side and TPR side are not the same, there will be differing opinions here and I want to hear YOURS!

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jerry Albright on March 27, 2009 at 8:39am

I am implementing a new policy as of Q2 '09. I will no longer send candidates who are not going to be offered the position thus eliminating this most unpleasant part of our jobs.

I only wish I'd come up with this years ago............

Permalink Reply by Becky Metcalf on March 27, 2009 at 8:49am

Animal, maybe you are right, maybe I've painted myself to look like more of a model citizen than I am (not on purpose, I'm just trying to improve everyday... That's why I'm here...). Really we may just have to agree to disagree here as I just don't understand why you would choose to make a rejection that much harder on a candidate (and you are fooling yourself if you think that they don't feel it) by laying it out so bluntly when it isn't constructive - you may not mind when someone tells you point blank that they just don't like you, I'm not sure everyone else has such thick skin. I'm all for not sugar-coating to keep from providing for false hope, but a little something sweet mixed in isn't hurting anything.

You call me a cop-out artist, which is exactly what I am trying not to be when I make the call. It would be a cop-out if I made my day easier by sending a rejection letter instead of making these heartfelt personal calls. Maybe I should consider it.

Thanks everyone - INCLUDING you Animal - for your thoughts here, this discussion has been quite an eye opener. But, I think I'm about done with this one...

Recruiting Animal said:

Lisa

A. that's not what I really say.

B. You missed the point.

Becky was setting herself up as a model of integrity. But she isn't. She's a cop-out artist just like everybody else.

She makes a courtesy call to the rejected candidate -- and that's just swell. But if a candidate wants to know the ugly details she starts talking about the weather.

It would be more honest to say: "I can't tell you" or "I don't know".

I'm not saying that honesty is always the best policy. But the truth in this discussion would be:

"I don't always tell candidates why they were rejected. But I do call and tell them that they didn't get the job."

It's usually easy to tell them they were rejected if it's a technical issue like lack of a designation. But it's hard to tell them the truth if it's a personality issue.

And Becky - just like everyone else - doesn't tell the truth in those situations.

-------------------------------------------------
Lisa Offutt said:
It seems to me that Becky and Animal are really doing the same thing. When Becky says, "It wasn't a good match" and the candidate asks for more, what they're telling her is that yes, they'd like it shoved down their throat please. Except with Becky's approach, the candidate gets to save a little more face. And assuming they were a decent candidate (or you wouldn't have presented them in the first place), it might be a good thing if they weren't too chagrined to work with you again.