« Our friends at ZOPA | Main | Goal setting 2008 »


Nick Corcodilos


Having roasted the headhunter in question in my newsletter, I'd like to offer another perspective. What can we say about employers who receive and set aside an applicant who has applied directly... only to then receive information about the applicant from a headhunter. Odds are, the company would never look at the candidate again on their own. But the reminder from the headhunter leads them to re-activate the person's candidacy. Is the headhunter owed a fee? I'd argue that, barring the kind of questionable behavior in the story I published, the answer is yes. I've been burned by employers who refused to pay a fee after I did the hard work to submit a great candidate, just because they had the candidate in their "old files". Without my "endorsement" of the candidate, the file would never have seen the light of day again. It's a matter of HR not doing its job - and benefiting from someone else's work.

The headhunter I wrote about was unethical. But employers can be guilty of a similar failure of ethics when they "reactivate" a candidate but reject the headhunter who brought the candidate to their attention anew.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

You have to read this

Blog powered by Typepad

The Team

  • Emma WMB
    Great Fosters 2005