Ethical dilemma: motivation for remuneration has the potential to cloud the judgement of talent spotters.
The recruitment quandary
Dilemma: You are employed by an executive recruitment firm that has been retained by a large corporation to find appropriate candidates for a CEO position. If the corporation hires one of the candidates you find then your firm will receive one-third of the CEO's remuneration $350,000 plus salary package. Several weeks into the recruitment process you become aware that the candidate you are proposing has not been totally honest about why they wish to change their employment. You have heard rumours about the candidate that may impact on their suitability for the position. You discuss these issues with your manager, including whether to disclose the information to the client. Your manager says that your firm bears no responsibility if a candidate it presents is hired and subsequently proves unsuccessful in his position. And, given the intensely competitive environment for executive search firms, it would seriously disadvantage your firm if you were not able to offer a candidate for consideration. What should you do?
This dilemma raises a number of competing issues, including your obligations to your client when providing such a recruitment service, any bligations to your firm in terms of complying with company policies, and minimising the risk of damaging your firm's future reputation.
Filling this key position with the best quality candidate is of critical importance, not only to your firm but also to your client. Your client therefore has the right to demand the highest level of service, as well as the highest level of trust, from your executive search firm. Any service provided to clients should be undertaken with integrity and objectivity, making every effort to conduct recruitment activities on the basis of impartial consideration of relevant facts.
There is some comfort in that appropriate procedures have been followed, namely:
A search has been conducted for suitably qualified candidates consistent with a search strategy agreed with the client.
Potential candidates have been thoroughly evaluated before presenting them for an interview with the client. Such evaluation has included in-depth interviews in person with appropriate preliminary inquiries into references and background.
The client has not requested extra reference and background checks to be performed.
Information about the candidate has been presented honestly and factually, and any reservations concerning the candidate that are pertinent to the position have been advised, although unsubstantiated rumours have not been disclosed.
As you are aware of the rumours, it may be appropriate to do further reference and background checks to address the concerns. The primary obligation is to the client and any relationship should be characterised by honesty, integrity and objectivity. Before undertaking further checks, it may be appropriate to discuss these rumours with the candidate, providing them with an opportunity to challenge the rumours.
If the response is to do nothing, this may be seen as a lack of ethical behaviour that can lead to a lack of trust and suspicion that your firm is only interested in the substantial fee rather than finding the best candidate. You will need to discuss these issues again with your manager and agree on an ethical solution.
Dilemma resolved by Tiina-Liisa Sexton, CPA Australia's ethics adviser.
