We’re going through a massive growth phase at the moment, which has seen us double our staff in the last few months. This spurt has been driven by our customers wanting more Frontiersmen to work on their projects. It’s a good problem to have, but it has also exposed a series of considerations.
Our growth until now has been very controlled and organic, in that we have always been reacting to our business’ needs. We have taken on development staff one at a time. This resulted in our team being stretched for a little while before we take on a new hire. For example, when we moved from two directors (and took on Mark, our first employee) it was because Adam and I were working at 150% capacity. When Mark joined us, and we could spread that 300% over three people. As we get bigger, the extra capacity a single person can supply is reduced, relative to the total capacity of the company. This is great because it means we don’t get pushed to 150% anymore, but also means we need to start taking on multiple hires at once.
Late last year we had James and Dan join us, and we’ve just wrapped up our interview process and have hired John, Jacques and Jordan. We’ve gone from five developers to seven, to ten.
Now we’re looking for a full-time designer too, to join our team and balance our logic and structure with creativity and colour.
This raises the following ethical consideration: is it OK to actively head-hunt staff from other organisations? What if they’re your competitors? What if they’re you competitors, but you’re part of a social community? I think there’s two main schools of thought.
Firstly, there’s the attitude that we live in a capitalist world where the dollar rules and everyone’s looking out for themselves. If you can offer better employment opportunities than your competitor, then that’s your commercial advantage. If The Frontier Group is able to offer a larger salary and greater career prospects than our competitors, it’s to our benefit. Is it unethical for us to leverage that advantage?
Counter-balancing that argument, I feel, is the idea that the relationship between a company and their employees is comparable to human romantic relationships. If the pretty girl at the bar has a ring on her finger, it’s not considered appropriate to hit on her. Do you thing that translates?
Are “married” (employed) staff off-limits, or is it a case of “all’s fair in love and war (and HR)”?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with seeking out the best possible employees for an organisation, even if those prospective employees are already employed elsewhere. In my experience, this occurs often. I think just about anyone would be highly flattered to discover that their skills, knowledge, professionalism, or any other work-related attributes have been noticed and are sought after by another company. I think if an employer can offer the prospective employee a “better” job than the one they currently have in any way – whether that be better in terms of income / salary package, a promotional position, a more challenging role than the one they currently have, or a more exciting work environment – then I think they should be able to offer that to the person they’re seeking. It’s then the individual’s responsibility to evaluate what’s being offered, and to make the decision for themselves.
I do acknowledge that the situation becomes complicated if the industry is a tightknit one where everybody knows everybody, or if you’re part of a social community comprised of industry members.
All’s fair in love and war.
I agree with Mags. I too think it would be flattering to find out that “my” skills were considered exceptional enough that someone would headhunt me for a position. I don’t see anything wrong in offering an individual something appealing to their needs (salary, a challenge, a change, etc…) and like Mags said, it’s up to the individual to evaluate what is best for their own personal circumstances and career and make that choice themselves.
An offer at the bar is just that, an offer to talk and see if there is something worth pursing.
People rarely leave a company for more money, they move for culture and challenge and then money is the 3rd consideration to balance their need to live the same life. A job for life is no longer a goal but people not always actively looking for a new role. In fact some of the best people might be the ones who you approach and say “yes, I was thinking that I needed to move let’s talk,” rather than the ones who are already needing to jump ship and may take anything to achieve that goal.
All fair in love and war but you need to take the chance to talk to people, they can only say, “thanks but not at the moment”. Respect the reply and you maintain your ethics and the professional relationship.
In business, there are rarely any hard feelings about employees leaving or being headhunted. If managers don’t have the maturity to understand that employees will go to the company that best rewards them in every way, then they should not be in business. Employees rarely burn their bridges, as there is a strong likelyhood that paths will cross in future, especially in a relatively closed system such as Perth. If you are looking for quality staff members then chances are, they are already employed. By training staff in multple areas there will be less disruption caused to the business if a staff member leaves.
I like your policy that all new staff must have a name starting with J
Why build your own team from scratch when you can steal someone elses? Go for it I say
At the core level, ppl only want a handful of things out of a job. Stealing people can be easy if they are not getting enough love in one of a handful of areas…find out what they’re pissed about, offer them something better in that area and equivalent or slightly better in the other areas and you’ll easily win them over.
-a degree of autonomy (varying from person to person)
-a factor of effort vs. reward
-to be paid well for something they enjoy doing and something that primarily uses their strengths
-a degree of challenge (again varying from person to person)
-stability and security
-connection/relationship/team/workmates etc
You guys work in such a specialised field, you can’t just take any Jo Blow off the street and turn him into an IT super star, and so it would behoove the success of your company to do everything in your power to get the best staff. If that is having your ear to the ground for industry leaders, and up and comers working somewhere else so be it.
In the business world it is certainly not uncommon for staff to be ‘poached’. It is then up to their current employer to entice them to stay. I would think only the most petty of employers would begrudge seeing staff improve their lives and careers with movements up the corporate ladder.
Good luck with your headhunting, and if you ever need a chef/masseuse on staff feel free to hire me. Just think of the staff you wounld entice with that! :)
I had this dilemma last year, I was flattered that I had some of Perth’s best web designers who wanted to come work for our company. I could not allow myself to hire someone knowing it would hurt the company they left.
I also look at it from the perspective of would you like it if someone did that to you? Especially in a small place like Perth.
From my personal perspective, life is too short, if someone applies and goes, give them your blessings and try and keep in touch with them, unlike what you say in your post i don’t thing employment is like that girl with bling in the bar, its more if you love them let them go!
We were lucky in the end we found someone from out of state that was a perfect fit.
Good luck with the hunting :)
@Ashul I feel like we have an obligation to ensure our staff are looked after. If they’re not, and want to go somewhere else, then how is that any other company’s issue? I understand where you’re coming from, but feel it’s only a problem because, as you point out, Perth is a small place. I think the idea of not hiring someone because it will hurt a competitor’s business is a small-town mentality.
I’m confused though – you seem to support the idea that someone with a job (or a ring) is untouchable with your initial statements, but later claim to disagree. Can you clarify this for me?
I would not hire someone that is ‘the heart and soul’ of a company because that is how I am – I believe being small town mental in a small town is a good thing!
I do agree that if one any of my staff wants to move onto something bigger and better or simply a sea change – I feel that as an employer you need to give them your blessings and support them in their decision and not try and hold onto to them, no matter how much the move would effect your business.
So to clarify the confusion: I would not do it (head hunt) but I don’t mind if someone does it to me.
@Ashul That makes sense and I agree. Though I’d have no problem approaching someone at a large, multi-national company, I definitely don’t want to cripple any other small businesses by poaching their best people.