This is fantastic! Don't be fooled a company has _zero_ allegiance towards you, sure they pay you but when things go south they will drop you lickity-split. I've seen it done and I've had it done to me once.
Employees out there: don't feel guilty about leaving a company, always find what's best for you - not the company.
This is a well know political trick to shift the axis of a debate towards your position by continually drip feeding stories using loaded words so that eventually everyone tends to accept some or all of your position by osmosis.
Whatever the intention, it's still a very biased perspective - the fact that the bias is so subtle is what makes it even worse.
There's nothing to accuse - nobody's doing anything illegal or even unethical. A more appropriate line would be "[BC] has previously succeeded in hiring talent away from Google[0]", etc. "Accused" is the objectionable word - you generally don't accuse someone of something positive or commonplace.
It's similar to the effect when newspapers have headlines on how "Snowden's actions" have caused people to be more suspicious of the government. (His actions aren't the reason people are suspicious; they're just the reason people know about the facts that are what really make them suspicious)
[0] or, if they want to keep the word "poach" since the pun is part of the story, "[BC] has previously succeeded in poaching talent away from Google", etc.
I have no issues with companies courting employees from other companies; it shifts the power balance a bit back towards the individual for a change.
I am, however, a little put off by the term "poached", which BigCommerce is actively using in their campaign. It implies the sentiment that these people are simply a quarry being hunted as a prize rather people, of their own free will, deciding that the grass is greener elsewhere. Language matters.
Rich and Sexy- Front End Engineer (HTML, CSS, Javascript)
The headlines are horrible.
The postings are horrible...
We are SoMa's hottest new startup and we are building a team of badass engineers to help us take the world's fastest growing e-commerce solution to the next level.
The image (which doesn't show anyone working) is horrible...
If someone harassed me while I was waiting for the subway and tried to get me to quit my job, I definitely wouldn't want to work for them. I'd probably go out of my way to never use their product, actually. I don't see how this is any better than the "do you have a minute for ____" clipboard people that prey on tourists for donations/signatures on the sidewalk.
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.
Okay, 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.
I 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?").
I 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.
Two 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".
Poaching 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).
No, that's not accurate. "Poaching" is a strategy used by employers in which specific companies are targeted from which to acquire employees. By your definition of "poaching", virtually all hiring of software engineers would be "poaching", because most software engineers are already employed.
Company X hiring an inbound lead that happens to be from company Y: not poaching.
Company X hiring a recruiter-based lead that happens to be from company Y: not poaching.
Company X instructing recruiters to draw up a list of employees of company Y and target them individually by persuading them to leave their jobs: poaching.
This is a good clarification. I should have been clearer. In partciular, I should have specified (in my articularion) anyone employed under contract (not at-will).+
The #3 case here is probably the best reference here for a definition of contemporary usage.
The frission around the ~negative connotation may be hard to understand without the context of entymology. Poaching indeed has a long history in the English language and its "literal" meaning involves the taking of "other's property" by way of hunting. The nexus of "others property" here is important. Originally this was birthrights to game and chattle rights to spouse and since this was before the industrial revolution, employment would be similarly duty bound.
So, to poach is to hunt, or to head-hunt, against other's formal (eg contractual) rights. It has been along time since then and the term is now idiomatic. So, if you want to understand the "subtlety" or the "frission", it probably helps to understand the entymology.
But, as noted above, this doesn't help you to understand contemporary usage as much as somthing more detailed on that subject. So, defer to the above comment.
This is a good example of HN comments getting all the points out on the table from different views.
_________________
+ Years ago, when head-hunting was "executive recruiting", most of these folks would have been under contract, for example. Or be partners in a law firm or bank. Again, the world has moved on and recruiting now is not limited to high-level execs, or people in company careers that might otherwise be 30 years long or whatevs.
That usage + slang is the source of the concept what i'm referring to...
Some of this stuff is archaic.
Hunting/Fishing laws in europe were restricted to the nobility for hundreds of years.
And at the same time: "Most European noblewomen were party to chattel marriages" {etc}
Anyways, that's all different than poaching in Africa today, for example (personal vs state "property"), but it's likely the source of the term... so i agree.
I 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.
I tend to think of poaching as a bit broader than that, but not just cold calling someone because you know they work at X.
For example, if someone leaves the company, and then there is a concerted effort to recruit other members of that team or based on their recommendation that is poaching. If you've signed an agreement that forbids this, and you actively take part in it, I think it is wrong; otherwise it is fine.
Alternatively, if you've engaged a companies services and then try and hire away the people doing the work to disintermediate the service providing compnay, that would probably count as poaching in my book too.
I consider both scenarios you described to fall squarely under my definition. Think about it, in both cases you learned about the prospects through their employment at said company.
My 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).
yes, but you get first shot at the ones who were thinking of leaving, before they have turned that thought into actual action and you have several other companies to compete with.
The recruiter of Bigcommerce, Steve Donnelly, will ask the guys waiting for the Facebook bus whether they were interested in changing the world of e-commerce. But to his disappointment, many of them replied no.
Obviously, they are going to reply that in a situation where they are together with their co-workers.
Are you saying there are people out there that want to change the world of e-commerce? Maybe someone who owns a large share of an e-commerce firm will feel this way. Some guy waiting for the bus to go to work to pay the bills definitely does not give a shit about changing e-commerce. A more apropos question is to ask if the person wants to become financially secure quickly and not have to take the bus to work every morning. Alas, there's no company that makes that as a goal for its employees.
Employees out there: don't feel guilty about leaving a company, always find what's best for you - not the company.