Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

RECRUITING / EXECUTIVE SEARCH pros...Please Help!

Nov 17, 2007 12:16AM PST

How do I hire and train without people then leaving and starting their own business?

My business is recruiting and I currently work on my own, never had employees. I would like to hire other recruiters to grow my business. But since this is a knowledge based business, the success of a recruiter relies on training. So after they?re trained, how can I keep them from leaving and becoming my competition? Are there specific systems, procedures, or technology that anyone knows of that would give me some insight. I know that there are very large recruiting companies out there that are successful with this.

If you own, manage or work for one of these companies as a recruiter and understand the procedures that could help me, please write.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
I'm not in that business, but
Nov 17, 2007 7:26PM PST

in the general sense I have a few observations;

1] This is a common problem in any business where they train staff and there is no easy way to halt it.

2] Could you draw up some sort of legal document, like a contract of employment, that specifies either a long notice of termination of employment, eg the trainee is obliged to give 1 year's notice of their termination?

3] Similarly, a legal document stating that the person cannot engage in similar activities for a specified time after leaving your employment?

4] Working conditions. It is perhaps a consideration that good working conditions make it less likely that an employee would leave. I don't make any assumptions about your own business setup, but the more attractive the conditions are and the more attractive the contract of employment is, (pay, health insurance, pension, holidays, etc), then the harder it becomes for an employee to lose all that.

Just some initial thoughts. I don't see that any technology exists that would prevent employees from leaving, except handcuffs and leg chains, perhaps.

Mark

- Collapse -
One more note:
Nov 17, 2007 8:30PM PST

Since I specialize in construction recruitment I will not a competitor to recruiters in other industries, so feel free to help...I would be grateful. Further, recruitment processes are very similar no matter the industry. So if you have recruiting experience, even if from another industry, please tell me of your experience.

Perhaps there is a separation of duties/roles, or limited access to data, and if so, do you use certain technology for this? Please be as specific as possible so that I can look into your suggestions. Thank you!

- Collapse -
The "no compete" clause.
Nov 18, 2007 12:21AM PST

In one of my jobs I had a no compete clause I agreed to. However this could be a liability in some states.

Bob

- Collapse -
RE: The "no compete" clause.
Nov 18, 2007 12:52AM PST

Yes, I already understand non-compete clauses, treating people right so they wont leave, golden handcuffs and such. If I have to enforce a non-compete clause that means the employee has already become my competition. I'm not asking for a solution after the fact, I'm asking for a way where it could NEVER GET to that state.

What I'm really looking for is a BUSINESS PLAN or OPERATIONS RELATED process which removes complete control of the recruiting cycle from one person so that an employee could NOT become my competition because he lacks all the information needed. As I see it this can be achieved by a separation of roles or by limited access to information/data. There may be others? I've been in the business world for quite a while, so telling me about non-compete clauses isn't really stunning me at this point. Can't anyone help me?

- Collapse -
This is the first time....
Nov 18, 2007 3:41AM PST

you have defined parameters. "so that an employee could NOT become my competition because he lacks all the information needed. As I see it this can be achieved by a separation of roles or by limited access to information/data"

Thus I am a little confused at the comment you made that telling you about non-compete clauses isn't really stunning you. Until your definition we had no idea you wanted your employees to work with one hand tied behind their back. I now see you are also not looking for a solution after the fact, so treating employees properly, good employment conditions, attractive salary, once you've trained an employee is not what you are looking for.

You say you have been in the business world for quite a while. So I see there is no need to wish someone with your knowledge luck in your search for solutions that precisely fit your needs.

You need employees who are trained to be fully efficient in their work, and yet you want to limit their knowledge so they do not become competitors. That seems like a contradiction to me.

Mark

- Collapse -
RE: This is the first time...
Nov 18, 2007 4:35AM PST

I have a good friend who's the CEO of a medical equipment distributorship. He has great employees. They do the job they are assigned to do, and no, just because they aren't responsible for the entire operational cycle of the business, their hands are NOT tied behind their backs. For example, his sales people have no idea who his suppliers are or his product costs are. Just because an employee isn't in charge of or knowledgeable of the entire business cycle doesn't mean they're working with their hands tied behind their backs.

Since he's operates a product-based company rather than a service company, it's easier to control that type of thing. So again I ask, is there anyone with actual experience operating a firm like this who can give me some practical insight?

- Collapse -
There are laws about creating monopolies.
Dec 6, 2007 10:47AM PST

Business is tough isn't it? Maybe too tough?

This thread is untracked