ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, November 29, 1996 TAG: 9611290073
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: B10 EDITION: METRO
DATELINE: NEW YORK
TYPE: ANALYSIS
SOURCE: JOHN CUNNIFF ASSOCIATED PRESS
When a search firm finds a high-caliber executive for a client company, it agrees not to re-recruit that person for a certain period of time, generally a minimum of two years.
That has been the standard for 36 years, part of the ethics code of the Association of Executive Search Consultants. In fact, the standard further limited the search firm from recruiting anyone from the client firm.
Not any more. Under the new code, disclosure of a hands-off time period is optional, and it has raised more than eyebrows. Blood pressures, for instance, and among both members and clients.
One AESC member, Robert Heidrick, suggested it could result in a free-for-all, with valuable executives being recruited away soon after arriving at the client company, which generally pays a hefty fee.
It may surprise search firm clients, said Heidrick, head of The Heidrick Partners, ``that despite today's renewed focus on business values and ethics, the executive search profession recently lowered its ethical standards.''
Outraged, Heidrick surveyed 100 corporate executives and found they felt pretty much the same way. Sixty-one percent thought the hands-off period was especially important during these days of restructuring and re-engineering.
The association's executive director was said to be ``unavailable.'' So was the public relations adviser it recommended. Other sources suggest that the association believes a rigid code is unenforceable, and does not wish to pretend otherwise because the association is a standard-setter but not a regulator.
Heidrick, for one, is hardly in a mood to limit his criticism. ``This is not the time to lower standards and begin a descent down the slippery slope to `headhunter-ism,''' he said.
The term ``headhunter'' is anathema to most executive recruiters, who consider themselves the elite of the business, dealing as they often do with corporate chiefs, directors and others in the executive suite.
Since they are often privy to corporate secrets, they take pride in their reputations for discretion and discernment, qualities that are not easily won and that could be damaged by controversy.
In Heidrick's survey, 73 of the executives said ``no'' when asked if they agreed with the change in the ethics code, and 70 of them indicated it would hurt executive recruiter reputations.
Asked if they would be more or less likely to hire a search firm that did not observe an off-limits period, 94 executives responded ``less likely.'' Responses to other questions also confirmed their desire for off-limits periods.
That being so, Heidrick suggests that clients protect themselves with formal written agreements that spell out the ethical standards that previously were assumed to be common practice.
Why should Heidrick or any other company observing strict ethical standards be so concerned they seek repeal of the new code? Wouldn't their own high standards make them stand out as the industry's elite?
No question about it, but at the same time they think there would be a general erosion of the industry's reputation that would dull that eliteness, and sort of package them all as headhunters.
LENGTH: Medium: 63 linesby CNB