>Isn't this a marker of both gullibility and unscrupulousness? Companies that take these kinds of reports seriously will usually use a second source to verify

>Isn't this a marker of both gullibility and unscrupulousness? Companies that take these kinds of reports seriously will usually use a second source to verify the information. My old employer always tried to interview 2 candidates from the same company and region so they can compare the rankings and data presented by the candidates. There was also an informal network of information sharing as everyone had worked for everyone else in the industry at some point and had contacts they could reach out to. Plus, prestigious recognitions, things like Chariman's/President's clubs for top reps, usually get listed in some publicly available form (ours was in our quarterly fluff magazine available on our website). Now is it ethical? I've noticed that there's a recognized line in sales culture between information concerning a rep's personal performance and proprietary company information. Things like stack rankings (scrubbed of $ figures), activity stats, close ratios, etc are considered kosher by everyone as they don't reveal anything that could realistically damage the company. Things like a rep's list of contacts, anything with revenue figures, etc are frowned upon as they are considered unethical for a variety of reasons. It shows the candidate is willing to damage their employer and knowing that data puts the hiring company in a bad legal position. Salespeople are judged on their performance and their performance is unique in that it can be quantified in hard numbers. Sales culture has a high level of tolerance for sharing of relevant information as it benefits everyone involved. Candidates get objective proof of their value to a potential employer and employers get objective information, making their hiring decision truly informed instead of a subjective crapshoot like you find in elsewhere.