5 ms·
Well yes, by definition, you can only poach employees from a company who at some point think of leaving the original company. Seriously though, to your point,
by dasil003 13y ago
Well yes, by definition, you can only poach employees from a company who at some point think of leaving the original company.
Seriously though, to your point, why do you say "but"? Are the ones who think of leaving somehow less valuable than the ones don't think of leaving? In my mind, those who never think of leaving probably tend to be the weaker talent. That could just be my unsubstantiated bias, but either way, I think the point is that they all got hired by Facebook/Google at some point which is a pretty good signal as far as tech signals go.
- smoyer 13y agoIt wasn't supposed to imply you were getting lower quality applicants BUT rather that you were getting some fraction of a bigger pool. It's entirely possible I use the word "but" too much or that I don't need a conjunction there at all - would two shorter sentences be better? Or maybe I'm just a butt?
- dasil003 13y agoOkay, that reasoning makes sense. I would never read it that way though, because when you're hiring you're always getting some fraction of a bigger pool.
- smoyer 13y agoI usually associate the idea of "poaching" employees with convincing those that weren't thinking of leaving that they should join you (I'm not saying my impression is correct). Think about Jobs "poaching" Sculley from PepsiCo. Jobs didn't even give him an egg sandwich (just the famous line: "Do you want to sell sugared water for the rest of your life? Or do you want to come with me and change the world?").
- dasil003 13y agoI see, so you were originally saying that you don't think the campaign would cause anyone to consider leaving Facebook or Google that wasn't already thinking about it? I think it's really hard to pinpoint the moment in my own head when an idea like leaving my job first crosses my mind, probably even harder for an abstract class of people such as Google or Facebook employees. To me, poaching is more concrete, it means going after someone you know works at a specific place.
- smoyer 13y agoTwo good points ... it's also interesting that the word "poaching" has negative connotations [1] but if you read those definitions the impression is that poaching employees is somehow wrong rather than being a facet of a competition-based economy. How can an at-will employee be considered "another's property, rights, ideas, or the like". [1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poaching http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poaching
- 001sky 13y agoPoaching is going after anyone employed currenty, IMHO. Taking applicants from un-employed job seekers was traditional "hiring". World has moved on, presumably tho. Switching contexts, ou would be "poaching" someones significant other (~negative connotation). vs Just "picking up" a single person you met at a bar (~fair game connotation). TLDR english is a loaded language
- maxerickson 13y agoI would think the allusion is rooted in hunting, where poaching is taking something you don't have a right to take.
- dasil003 13y agoI disagree with you both because as the GGP said, companies don't own employees. In the business world I see poaching as hiring a person who you learned about solely through their employment at the company in question.
- maxerickson 13y agoMy reply was to phrasing in the GP comment that has since changed (It talked about poaching being a literary allusion to dating or marriage). I definitely think some business use of the word poaching is intended to stir up the idea that some sort of trespass has occurred, but language also tends to like such cute usages (regardless of the presence of an underlying agenda).