Oct
A Question Of Ethics

On Monday we shared with you the way the sales team that was the subject of our last So You ThinQ Can Sell contest overcame it’s challenge. I then had a call from someone I know asking me if I thought the solution used by the team was ethical?
Interesting question, I had not thought of it in that light, my first reaction was yes why not? She then told me of how she was once recruited away from a job, but the intent and results were very different than for the team we discussed.
She was working for one of two or three major players in the sector, and was doing quiet well. While we don’t often think about it, our success is someone else’s failure, someone else’s declining revenues and margins. As her success mounted so did the frustration level of one specific competitor.
Turns out the competitor had their own little meeting and decided to also engage a recruiter. Not unusual, the team in the contest did it, and you can also see the comment from a recruiter on the winner post.
But here is where things went dark; it seemed the intent of the competitor was not to hire talent, but to stifle it. Once they brought her on board they limited her ability to work with clients, especially the ones she had relationships with. It wasn’t long before it became clear that their intent was to keep her as a trophy in a case. This move went far beyond undermining a competitor, which I think is ethical, talent is often hired away. But curtailing the ability of the individual rep to practice their profession and earn their rewards seems not only punitive, shallow and very unethical.
The question I would ask you the readers, is do you think what our team did, that is have a hand in getting the DSS a new job, a job very he was productive and able to grow, an ethical or unethical approach. I’ll go first; I think it was ethical because it did not negatively impact the individual, as it did in the other case above, which I think is clearly unethical.
What’s in Your Pipeline?
Tibor Shanto















This post has 4 comments
October 29th, 2009
Tibor,
I agree with your view. The approach taken was ethical because it did not negatively impact the individual. The reason why I see it this way is that DSS was presented with a real and honest career advancement opportunity which he decided on his own volition to take. The other situation described is ‘dirty play’ in my eyes. I sympathize the the ‘new hire’ victim who had their career seriously side-tracked there.
Tony Johnston
President, Compass North Inc.
http://www.CompassNorthInc.com
November 4th, 2009
Clearly unethical. They lied to the recruiter. They talked up the DSS, suggesting that they thought he would be good to hire, but they themselves thought the opposite.
Also, it won’t pass the openness test. If they told the recruiter, the DSS and the target company what they were doing, all three of them would object. Since this approach can only be used in secrecy, it fails the test.
November 4th, 2009
Good points, thanks for your input.
Tibor
November 4th, 2009
Danny,
You’re reacting like there’s a victim here but I don’t see who got hurt!
Take a moment to step back, put aside your indignation over the self-interested facilitated-outcome that occurred and consider how DSS is now happy in his new position, his new employer is happy to have a really experienced person on board, the recruiter is happy with his placement fee earned, his old employer is better off without DSS because he was acting in illogical, unsupportable and unproductive ways (maybe because he hated working for the old employer for some personal reason), and the selling company is happier because they were able to make their sale once they were able to deal with someone who brought an open mind to the situation, not a closed one.
Remember, the selling company did not lie to the recruiter – they only “talked up DSS, his skills and capabilities, and encouraged the recruiter to consider him for any files he may be working on for senior level procurement professionals.”
I consider the result achieved a facilitated solution that produced a winning situation for everyone involved. It was only too bad that this all started as a result of such a negative sales situation rather than a positive one.
Now, if your issue is truthfulness, you should remember that more often than not, that hurts more. Better to focus on positive motivation and positive outcomes and not so much on how they get achieved.
Tony Johnston
President, Compass North Inc.
http://www.CompassNorthInc.com
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
October 29th, 2009
does the end justify the means #sales #ethics #trust http://ow.ly/xpQy
This comment was originally posted on TwitterOctober 29th, 2009
RT @Renbor: does the end justify the means #sales #ethics #trust http://ow.ly/xpQy
This comment was originally posted on TwitterOctober 29th, 2009
RT @Renbor: does the end justify the means #sales #ethics #trust http://ow.ly/xpQy
This comment was originally posted on TwitterOctober 29th, 2009
RT @Renbor: does the end justify the means #sales #ethics #trust http://ow.ly/xpQy
This comment was originally posted on TwitterOctober 30th, 2009
A Question Of Ethics http://bit.ly/2Xf6pO
This comment was originally posted on TwitterNovember 2nd, 2009
RT @Renbor There is often a fine line between brilliant strategy and unethical business http://ow.ly/xgL4
This comment was originally posted on TwitterNovember 2nd, 2009
RT @shanegibson @Renbor There is often a fine line between brilliant strategy and unethical business http://ow.ly/xgL4
This comment was originally posted on TwitterNovember 3rd, 2009
RT @Renbor There is often a fine line between brilliant strategy and unethical business http://ow.ly/xgL4
This comment was originally posted on TwitterNovember 5th, 2009
Now it's getting interesting: http://ow.ly/zkMc
This comment was originally posted on TwitterNovember 5th, 2009
RT @Renbor: Now it's getting interesting: http://ow.ly/zkMc
This comment was originally posted on TwitterTrackbacks