As member-owners of NPAworldwide, we value professionalism, honesty and integrity, knowledge, and teamwork. Ethics are important to our membership. Our most basic tenet is the BUT FOR rule: What caused the action that resulted in working a candidate or job order.
Anytime a member owner or recruiter has called or emailed me about an ethics question, I try to lead with two thoughts – How would YOU like to be treated if you were on the other end? Put yourself in the reverse position before you decide your course of action. Second thought – what information prompted you to the action you took?
Best Practices/Communication
Candidate ownership – who to acknowledge that caused an interest in candidate then the interview and subsequent placement.
It’s been a long-time practice of NPAworldwide members that we give a member or recruiter the right to work with the candidate recruiter who creates the interest in working a submitted candidate…the “But For” rule applies here.
Just because a candidate was submitted first doesn’t mean that the information provided prompted the action. The interview notes, additional details and correspondence may very well prompt action, rather than just the resume.
When more than one recruiter submits a candidate, the decision of which recruiter to recognize may also be based on past relationships – knowing that other recruiting partner will aid in the entire interview/placement process by eliciting feedback from the candidate or providing reference checks or other information.
This is also WHY prompt feedback when a candidate has been submitted from one NPA member or recruiter to another is essential…to affirm which NPA partner is recognized as causing the action.
AND a final reminder: WHENEVER candidate contact information is released to a client company, immediate full disclosure of all information concerning the position must be communicated to the member supplying the candidate, including the name of the client, job location and other pertinent details such as fee and guarantee.