Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Becky Metcalf on July 22, 2009 at 11:47am

While I agree with Regan regarding having a sincere concern about placing a candidate with a company whose internal process may be broken and passing on the work if the situation is questionable, this particular situation doesn't appear to be so. Graciela indicates that there have been performance plans put into place after discussions about said poor performance. Certainly the company is doing their due diligence to allow the employee to become successful? This is simply part of business and as a recruiter for the company, you must support your hiring managers to ensure they have the strongest possible teams (which includes learning the success keys for the role and essentially what lead to the lack of success for the current employees so you can adjust for the next hire.

If you have concerns about the ethics of the company, you have larger issues to contend with than just how to handle this particular recruiting assignment...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rayanne on July 22, 2009 at 11:49am

And just to be clear, I believe Graciela is an internal recruiter - that makes all the difference in the world about where loyalty lies...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Linda Ferrante LoCicero on July 22, 2009 at 12:25pm

But if you answer that question to the person you ultimately hire, and they find out (which they will, it never fails) then you've 'lied' to them. I don't think that's the best way to start that relationship. It's much easier to tell the truth, however you present it. It's no secret that some people/positions don't work out. I would much rather start our relationship the right way than worry about how someone feels about us terminating a current employee. I don't mean for that to sound as harsh as it sounds, but the reality is that not everyone is in the position that is best suited to them, and not every position has the most qualified person sitting there. That's life in the working world!


Rayanne said:

Aww..., yes, that is a troublesome question.

I would just say, "The department is expanding a bit and there is hope that we can take it in a new direction."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Winston on July 22, 2009 at 12:31pm

My first thought after reading your post Graciela was that it must be slow on the internal hiring front for you to have to source potential candidates for positions that are not even vacant... yet. I agree with the previous poster that they should term the employees as soon as possible. It sounds like the HM is sitting on the fence...
What next, they assign another recruiter in your department to start sourcing for internal recruiters because the dept is expanding?? Or are preparing to let you go but do not want to broadcast it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mat von Kroeker on July 22, 2009 at 12:47pm

Everyone's answers are great. Sounds like you need to keep in close contact with the HM about your professional dilemma-- conduct searches for qualified candidates (no postings-- because more than likely, these "poor perfomers" are looking for other positions-- unless they're just dumb)-- and wait for the shoe to drop.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rayanne on July 22, 2009 at 1:04pm

This is a very different dilemma if you are the internal recruiter. You know, first-hand and before anyone else when changes are afoot. This will not be the only time that Graciela has to deal with this issue. Confidentiality is part of the job. It is just the way it is. I have even had the individual who we were letting go apply to our confidential search... talk about knowing the score!

As an internal recruiter, if you are not doing your job, you will know it. Your HMs will be coming at you from all sides and it will be evident and very clear that they are unhappy with your work...



Paul Winston said:

My first thought after reading your post Graciela was that it must be slow on the internal hiring front for you to have to source potential candidates for positions that are not even vacant... yet. I agree with the previous poster that they should term the employees as soon as possible. It sounds like the HM is sitting on the fence...
What next, they assign another recruiter in your department to start sourcing for internal recruiters because the dept is expanding?? Or are preparing to let you go but do not want to broadcast it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rayanne on July 22, 2009 at 1:06pm

exactly.


Mat von Kroeker said:

Everyone's answers are great. Sounds like you need to keep in close contact with the HM about your professional dilemma-- conduct searches for qualified candidates (no postings-- because more than likely, these "poor perfomers" are looking for other positions-- unless they're just dumb)-- and wait for the shoe to drop.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Ceccarelli on July 22, 2009 at 2:55pm

I would never bring into light the deficiencies of the current employee doing the job with a potential candidate. That feels very unprofessional and junior to me. There are better ways to shed light. Some of the other posts have given good suggestions in that arena.

pam claughton said:

I'm in this situation now, as a third party recruiter working on a confidential replacement for someone who is not working out. The approach I'm taking is just being honest as I think it will help find the right person. I'm saying something like this, "This is a very critical and busy position and unfortunately the individual in the role doesn't prioritize well. Instead of doing work that he is behind on, he's been chatting with his friends on the phone for extended periods of time, discussing their favorite TV shows."

This helps screen for the role, and make sure someone is hard-working and knows how to focus and prioritize.

Graciela Lopez said:

That being said, do you have any tips for me? The hardest part I forsee is responding to the "Why is this job open?" question.

Rayanne said:

I, like Peter, have had to do this, as well. It did not feel unethical to me though it was extremely difficult. It is part of the job as the in-house recruiter. It was extremely difficult when I had to replace a friend - one that I ate lunch with everyday!

Your devotion and work is for the company/person that pays you. While it may be a tough part of the job, it is also a growing experience and each time you will learn a better, easier, more discreet way to handle it. If this job were easy, they wouldn't need us. So I will take the difficult part every now and again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rayanne on July 22, 2009 at 3:36pm

yep, what he said.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pam claughton on July 22, 2009 at 5:35pm

Peter,
Each situation is different, and in this current situation, it's what the client wants emphasized so that is what we are doing. The point being simply that this kind of behavior is not what they are seeking in this role. By pointing out where this person is falling short, it makes it clear what the expectation is. Also, as you mentioned it is a more junior role as well, but I wouldn't agree that being honest and direct is unprofessional.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Graciela Lopez on July 22, 2009 at 5:44pm

No! Things are not slow on the hiring front. We have plenty of work to do which is part of my frustration with this request.

Paul Winston said:

My first thought after reading your post Graciela was that it must be slow on the internal hiring front for you to have to source potential candidates for positions that are not even vacant... yet. I agree with the previous poster that they should term the employees as soon as possible. It sounds like the HM is sitting on the fence...
What next, they assign another recruiter in your department to start sourcing for internal recruiters because the dept is expanding?? Or are preparing to let you go but do not want to broadcast it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Graciela Lopez on July 22, 2009 at 5:44pm

Thanks Sandra - this is honest without sharing too much information.

Sandra McCartt said:

Is there anything wrong with simply saying, "managment has decided to make some internal changes". I am working on one now that is a replacement. The decision has not been made as to whether the existing employee will be terminated or moved to another position. I agree with Peter that it's not necessary to go into who shot John. Sometimes i just say , "this is a replacement position so is being handled on a confidential basis from our office, it is certainly fine for you to ask the HM what problems they have had in the past with others in this position to determine if it is a fit for you".

I think most people over the age of 15 realize that people get fired or replaced every day for all kinds of reasons, they may have even been in a situation themselves where it just didn't work.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page