Is it wrong to continue corresponding with someone whose solicitation doesn't seem legitimate?
A reader we're calling Leigh received an unsolicited email from someone identifying himself as an executive recruiter. The sender said he rarely contacted people he didn't know but believed Leigh's background made him a strong candidate for nonprofit board opportunities his firm was helping fill.
The email offered few specifics. Leigh wasn't sure whether it represented a legitimate recruiting effort or a phishing attempt. He replied that he couldn't evaluate the opportunity without more information.
The recruiter responded with broad descriptions of several possible board positions, still without identifying organizations or offering much detail.
A few days later, Leigh received what appeared to be the same solicitation from a different recruiter at the same firm. Aside from the signature, the email’s words were identical, including the claim that the sender rarely reached out to strangers.
Leigh wrote back to the second recruiter, pointing out that he had already received the exact email from someone else at his firm. He also contacted the first recruiter, asking whether someone had copied his message. The recruiter replied that sending identical emails was standard practice because the firm wanted consistent messaging.
Leigh found that explanation unconvincing. If two recruiters worked for the same firm, he wondered whether they should at least avoid contacting the same person twice with the exact same email after the first one had already been responded to.
Leigh repeatedly offered to schedule a conversation with the first emailer to learn more about the opportunities. The recruiter never acknowledged or accepted the invitation or provided additional details. Instead, the exchange eventually turned toward services his firm could provide to strengthen Leigh's résumé for nonprofit board positions.
Leigh suspects the board openings may simply have been a way to market résumé services, though he’s not certain.
"Was I wrong to keep responding after I had doubts?" he asks. "I never intended to buy any services, but I wanted to find out whether the solicitation was legitimate."
Leigh could have ignored the initial solicitation, but he wasn't wrong to respond. Who knows? It might have led to something worthwhile. He was right, however, to ask reasonable questions before sharing additional information.
He also wasn’t wrong to point out the two recruiters had sent identical messages. Rather than assume they were being deceptive, he gave them the chance to explain the inconsistency.
While the recruiter didn’t need to reveal confidential information about his client, he should have provided enough information so Leigh could decide whether he wanted to continue the email discussion. As the exchange seemed to lean toward aggressively marketing resume services, Leigh had little reason to continue the discussion since the emailer didn’t seem willing to provide any more information that would help him evaluate the opportunity.
When someone won't provide enough information to make an informed decision, it's OK to decline or stop responding. Sometimes the right thing is recognizing when you’ve learned enough to walk away and then to do so.
Jeffrey L. Seglin, author of The Simple Art of Business Etiquette: How to Rise to the Top by Playing Nice, is a senior lecturer in public policy and director of the communications program at Harvard's Kennedy School. He is also the administrator of www.jeffreyseglin.com, a blog focused on ethical issues.
Do you have ethical questions that you need to have answered? Send them to jeffreyseglin@gmail.com.
Follow him on Twitter @jseglin.
(c) 2026 JEFFREY L. SEGLIN. Distributed by TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC
No comments:
Post a Comment