py anyplace for long.
I agree with Peter. I want a person to be quietly confident. I use the expression that someone has their ego in order. It has been my experience that the people who can check their ego at the door make much better employees than the narcissistic super stars.who make a lot of noise and irritate the people who have to work with them to the point that no matter how good they are the team suffers.…
re forcing me to be the good guy just so I can be opposing something too.
Point #1. Your first line makes it sound like JD sent out a mass mailing about Josh and Dave's exchange. It sounds like a good idea since people love a train wreck but THERE WAS NO MASS MAILING.
Point #2. I don't know either Josh or Dave that well. But I like Josh Letourneau. He was a fun guest on The Recruiting Animal Show and he was nice to me in our personal conversations. And I like Dave Manaster too. My main conversation with him was a joint call with Jason and Anthony two years ago and he hit all the right buttons for me. I thought he was very diplomatic.
So, I don't think that either of these guys is mean or nasty. However, decent people often find themselves in conflict and Josh is obviously mad at ERE. He wrote:
"I don't post too much on ERE nowadays as I question the site's objectivity, propensity to allow members to be publicly blackballed, and the fact that I too often see people's ideas pulled from a post and then winding up in a 'feature article' shortly thereafter."
That's a pretty serious accusation so Dave would be at fault not to reply. And he did so -- like a gentleman, it seemed to me. He left his phone number so that Josh or anyone else could call him (and I did).
I don't see that as high jacking the conversation. Or taking it off topic. You can call me an asshole any day of the week and I'll publish it on my About page as a victory because I'm so happy that you're paying attention to me. But that's not everybody's cup of tea. So Dave has a right to protect ERE. And Josh has a right to complain about any malpractice he sees. However, I suspect that there is room for a rapprochement here. Though of course a fight would be more interesting for the community.
As far as Recruitingblogs compares to ERE on editorial policy. Rbc has been in business one year. Right now it's in a freewheeling period and it won't have any guidelines until the unconscious ones are challenged. And it's only then that we'll find out what they will be. But it has to have some. Are ERE's guidelines being followed fairly. Dave says yes, Josh says no.
That's probably something that can be examined objectively in the context of "What was censored?" and "Should it have been?"…
ts me to represent him.
I don't think the other recruiter was at fault in this, other than he or she was a cowboy recruiter. What I did not understand was that how is it "doing the right thing" when the other recruiter spent less than a minute with John and I spent all that time but he wanted to go ahead with commission R us merely because they had called him at some point prior to me even though he had already said no to them.
Had I sent his details based on his verbal permission, may have either resulted in a placement that was worth a good $16 k AUD or it would have damaged his reputation (if the other agency represented him as well) so that I could have place another candidate, since comission R us had already given up on the role. Ah well.…
I recently presented a candidate for a position and he made it to advanced rounds of interviews before the client decided to go in a different direction. He took the news well and was impressed enough with the process that he stayed in touch with me. In fact, he asked if I could advise him on a deal that I was not a part of. I asked him if he had another recruiter he was working with on it and he said that he did, but he wasn't getting any value out of that relationship. I felt like it was ethical of me to give him a hand without any expectation of a quid pro quo and I with no intent to negatively interfere with a colleague's placement. I liked this guy and thought he was a winner.
After an extended coaching call this morning, he thanked me and before we hung up, he gave me a lot of information about other companies where he had been interviewing and had decided to take a pass. I knew that he had been actively looking when I presented him at the first place but I had respected his privacy and didn't press him for info on these other firms at that time. He volunteered this client info with the understanding that it might open a few doors for me, which it very well might. So even if you're not looking for a direct incentive to network with someone, good things could drop in your lap.
The other huge benefit (to me) of networking and coaching/advising is that it serves to expand and enrich my personal knowledge base. I find that creative problem solving gets easier with each case study I'm exposed to. Candidates and clients love it when we're able to offer a different point of view on a "problem" and it opens up the potential for a host of positive outcomes for all involved.
Good post, Bruce. --Chris…