3 ms·

> but poaching is not sleazy. It's recognition of worth. My impression is there's a difference between luring away researchers with good salaries, strictly acc

> but poaching is not sleazy. It's recognition of worth. My impression is there's a difference between luring away researchers with good salaries, strictly according to their talents, and effectively acquihiring an entire team (but without the acqui bit). They're paying not just for the skill and expertise of the individuals, but for the institutional memory and project state of the research group.

anthony_d 11y ago
You're right, but part of running a business is recognizing where your value/vulnerabilities are and protecting them. If you have millions riding on the performance of a team of researchers and engineers, then you spend more than you otherwise would to retain them. This is especially true if your field is in high demand. Mitigating risk is just another operational cost. Acquihires happen when the team is well motivated to remain but another company has deeper pockets. It's either cheaper to poach staff or buy the company and it can be a tough call which it is. It also feels like academics are a bit inconsistent here. Universities are run like any other business but act as though they have a special position as dispensers of education.
- btown 11y ago
  The important thing here is that universities never before really had to worry about mass poaching of their researchers. Last year, smart administrators could very reasonably go "look, we're probably paying below market, but there have literally been 0 datapoints where a department has seen an existential crisis because everyone left at once, and so if the departures of our researchers go beyond a trickle, we'll re-evaluate our packages." It wasn't unethical for Uber to take advantage of this market inefficiency, but as more and more universities are seeking private funding for projects, it should serve as a wake-up call. If you want to encourage your PIs to get non-government grants, be prepared that this comes with a nonzero risk of acquihire offers for the research group... and as the university, you don't have "board" control.
fixermark 11y ago
One difference is that they were able to acquire the research talent without having to shoulder the burden of the administration talent (in an administration ecosystem that is not of interest to Uber, while Uber already employs enough middle management to take care of the project's needs). Most companies would go through a full acquire and at least try to soft-land anyone they don't have a use for. Uber has made clear time and again that it has zero interest in individuals that it cannot use.
- pkaye 11y ago
  Most universities have way too much administrative "talent". Maybe they can demonstrate their worth the public companies to get hired.

anthony_d 11y ago

You're right, but part of running a business is recognizing where your value/vulnerabilities are and protecting them. If you have millions riding on the performance of a team of researchers and engineers, then you spend more than you otherwise would to retain them. This is especially true if your field is in high demand. Mitigating risk is just another operational cost. Acquihires happen when the team is well motivated to remain but another company has deeper pockets. It's either cheaper to poach staff or buy the company and it can be a tough call which it is. It also feels like academics are a bit inconsistent here. Universities are run like any other business but act as though they have a special position as dispensers of education.

btown 11y ago
The important thing here is that universities never before really had to worry about mass poaching of their researchers. Last year, smart administrators could very reasonably go "look, we're probably paying below market, but there have literally been 0 datapoints where a department has seen an existential crisis because everyone left at once, and so if the departures of our researchers go beyond a trickle, we'll re-evaluate our packages." It wasn't unethical for Uber to take advantage of this market inefficiency, but as more and more universities are seeking private funding for projects, it should serve as a wake-up call. If you want to encourage your PIs to get non-government grants, be prepared that this comes with a nonzero risk of acquihire offers for the research group... and as the university, you don't have "board" control.

fixermark 11y ago

One difference is that they were able to acquire the research talent without having to shoulder the burden of the administration talent (in an administration ecosystem that is not of interest to Uber, while Uber already employs enough middle management to take care of the project's needs). Most companies would go through a full acquire and at least try to soft-land anyone they don't have a use for. Uber has made clear time and again that it has zero interest in individuals that it cannot use.

pkaye 11y ago
Most universities have way too much administrative "talent". Maybe they can demonstrate their worth the public companies to get hired.