3 ms·
Extending an offer is not the same thing as "poaching". Honest question: what's the difference? What would constitute poaching in this situation?
by ced 15y ago
Extending an offer is not the same thing as "poaching".
Honest question: what's the difference? What would constitute poaching in this situation?
- michaelochurch 15y agoWell, the technical definition of "poaching" is illicit hunting. Misrepresenting the company's prospects (e.g. revenue, runway, VC situation) and the person's role in the company (e.g. claiming he'll be doing more challenging work or have a more important job that he'll actually have) would be unethical. Extending an option to someone with full disclosure is not considered unethical by any interpretation I'd consider. That said, people use "poaching" in job searching more casually, so I guess we're debating terminology on this one.
- roedog 15y agoI think poaching would be making an offer that was forbidden - or that you had signed an agreement to not do. In this case, as presented, there is no such violation. (right to work state, any non-compete agreement had expired, etc). A losing manager might call it poaching anyways because they wanted to retain the worker - but that would just be hot air.
- michaelochurch 15y agoActually, I would argue that an existing non-compete is a great reason (morally speaking, ignoring pragmatic concerns) to hire someone. Bad rules should be not bent but broken into little pieces.