Hiring a recruiter to poach an employee from your own company?

[zolotiyeruki]

I heard an intriguing business idea today.  We're all aware of how much companies try to poach each others' employees.  What if a company wants to do the opposite--get rid of an employee?

Let's say a business has an employee they'd like to separate, but they don't want to deal with any of the downsides that come from firing them (unemployment claims or severance, hurt feelings, burned bridges, potential sabotage, etc).  An enterprising recruiter could offer a service where, for a fee paid on success, they find opportunities for that employee and attempt to poach them from their current job.  If the recruiter succeeds, all parties win--the employee leaves of their own accord (hopefully to a more suitable job), the old employer loses the employee they no longer want, and the recruiter gets rewarded above what they'd normally get for a job placement.

Does such a service exist?  What could go wrong?

[yachi]

I think the new company loses.  They get someone’s problem employee that for whatever reason couldn’t be properly fired.  And what recruiter wants to be known as the guy who always finds the worst, laziest, or most problematic employees?

I witnessed a situation where the boss said find a new job, and allowed the relatively new but high level guy to job search during the workday.  He was really terrible for the job, but he worked for his previous employer for a long time, so I can see that it was a sad situation (at the time though, I was relieved because I didn’t want him above me anymore).  The job he found had a bad commute - I think he ended up having to rent an apartment during the week.  I highly doubt he’d have taken that f offered by a headhunter without knowing he’d be soon kicked out.

[cool7hand]

Very creative idea! Here's how I think about it.

Many jurisdictions have common law (judge made law) that state an employer has an implied duty of good faith to their employees (or something similar), as well as an amorphous public policy catch all. In practice, what these common law doctrines allow is for courts to protect employees where an employer does something that isn't violative of any statute or obvious common law doctrine but that otherwise doesn't feel right.

I think most judges and juries would find this creative idea to be contrary to how they'd like to be treated. I think most people want to know when things aren't working out so that they can try to do better or otherwise control their own destiny. The employee might very well choose a different course if they had all of the information, which they don't as I understand the idea that you shared. A business policy that isn't per se illegal but that somehow smells funny usually creates a bad legal result for the business.

In addition, there's a new cause of action where newco alleges that oldco committed a tort by failing to disclose knowledge of poor performance. I don't think this tort has a single name yet, but I've been FIREd for a few years now and my knowledge is stale.

I'm curious how it all shakes out.

[Villanelle]

If the recruiter is known for that, what company would want to take their product?  They'd know they are taking someone that another company dislikes so much that they are willing to pay money to be rid of them.  So unless that person's skills are incredibly specialized and rare, why would anyone want to take that on?

I just don't see it working out because simply by being associated with that recruiter, a person is labeled as badly damaged goods and no one would want to hire them unless truly desperate. 

[nereo]

From a practical standpoint, most people won’t voluntarily leave their job unless they think they can get a “better” offer. Generally that means higher pay, or perhaps a better work emvironment

So… how likely is any recruiter going to be at finding a better job for your worst employee?  If you think it’s possible, then you are probably drastically underpaying your better employees.

Which is all to say I’d fear a mass exodus if the recruiter was successful.

[zolotiyeruki]

I think there's an assumption here that the employee is bad.  What if it's just a bad cultural fit, or a mismatch between the employee and the role they're in?

[MustacheAndaHalf]

In addition, there's a new cause of action where newco alleges that oldco committed a tort by failing to disclose knowledge of poor performance. I don't think this tort has a single name yet, but I've been FIREd for a few years now and my knowledge is stale.

I expect the private, personal data of a former employee cannot be disclosed.  When you say "failing to disclose", you imply there is a law requiring disclosure - but I think it's the opposite.  There is no law requiring disclosure, and there are privacy laws limiting what could be said.

[Villanelle]

I think there's an assumption here that the employee is bad.  What if it's just a bad cultural fit, or a mismatch between the employee and the role they're in?

I'm sure that would be true in some cases, though most of the time when it's just not a great fit, that doesn't seem bad enough for them to want to pay to be rid of the person.  But even if that is the case sometimes, as a new company hiring, are you really going to want to take that chance?  This is some not just that another company doesn't want to retain, but that they are willing to pay to be rid of.  Great!  Just what we are looking to add to our roster!

[Michael in ABQ]

Most recruiters take a commission equivalent to a few months' salary. Seems like just firing the person would be easier. If they're not a good fit, are they even contributing or just making the whole workplace worse? Do you want to wait months for a recruiter to find them a new job - while still paying the equivalent of a few months of their new salary?

[ChickenStash]

I worked for a CTO that played similar games. When one of the undesirable employees would ask for a raise he would say that sounds like a great idea but he needed an offer from somewhere else so he could make a case to HR (half true). The dumb ones would come back with an offer and he'd congratulate them and suggest they take it with no counter offer.

We cleared out a couple positions that way and were able to fill them with better employees.

[ChpBstrd]

This idea would probably work best in Europe, where the cost of terminating employees is much higher than in the U.S.

A key barrier to overcome is that people who have been promoted beyond the level of their competency are already at a higher level than they could attain from their next job, so they never leave. Nothing except a firing, a layoff, or a buyout can get rid of such an employee, because all their other options are pay cuts. Of course, the true salespeople can convince new employers to hire them after being 2 or 3 levels over their head. I've seen this too.

[Michael in ABQ]

A key barrier to overcome is that people who have been promoted beyond the level of their competency are already at a higher level than they could attain from their next job, so they never leave. Nothing except a firing, a layoff, or a buyout can get rid of such an employee, because all their other options are pay cuts.

Were you spying on me at my last job?

But that was the federal government where it's basically impossible to get rid of people and the employee pool tends to be people that are looking for a job they can coast in - knowing that short of gross misconduct they probably won't be fired. Not exactly a lot of high performers gravitating towards federal service.

[cool7hand]

In addition, there's a new cause of action where newco alleges that oldco committed a tort by failing to disclose knowledge of poor performance. I don't think this tort has a single name yet, but I've been FIREd for a few years now and my knowledge is stale.

I expect the private, personal data of a former employee cannot be disclosed.  When you say "failing to disclose", you imply there is a law requiring disclosure - but I think it's the opposite.  There is no law requiring disclosure, and there are privacy laws limiting what could be said.

Whether an employee is a poor performer isn't private or protected by any type of privacy law.

[cool7hand]

I think there's an assumption here that the employee is bad.  What if it's just a bad cultural fit, or a mismatch between the employee and the role they're in?

I think most people would want an opportunity to fix those types of "fit" issues, even if those issues aren't defined as bad. So that doesn't change my thinking.

[mistymoney]

the recruiter is putting their reputation up with every referral and either strengthening their brand or not. How are they to know if the targetted employee is really just a bad fit or a bad apple?


Manage the employee out. AKA managers need to do their jobs.

[Dave1442397]

I had a co-worker years ago who drove me nuts. Couldn't do anything without handholding and endless repetitive questions. I suggested to my co-workers that we create a fake job posting with a 25% raise, have co-worker apply and do a phone interview, send a fake offer letter and have them give two weeks' notice.

We didn't actually do it, but oh, I wanted to.

[Freedomin5]

I worked for a CTO that played similar games. When one of the undesirable employees would ask for a raise he would say that sounds like a great idea but he needed an offer from somewhere else so he could make a case to HR (half true). The dumb ones would come back with an offer and he'd congratulate them and suggest they take it with no counter offer.

We cleared out a couple positions that way and were able to fill them with better employees.

I'm curious, why is applying for a better-paying job and moving from one company that doesn't want or like you to another one that does want you, considered "dumb"? If I were a manager, that sounds like a brilliant way to get underperformers / people who are bad fits to leave.

[ChickenStash]

I worked for a CTO that played similar games. When one of the undesirable employees would ask for a raise he would say that sounds like a great idea but he needed an offer from somewhere else so he could make a case to HR (half true). The dumb ones would come back with an offer and he'd congratulate them and suggest they take it with no counter offer.

We cleared out a couple positions that way and were able to fill them with better employees.

I'm curious, why is applying for a better-paying job and moving from one company that doesn't want or like you to another one that does want you, considered "dumb"? If I were a manager, that sounds like a brilliant way to get underperformers / people who are bad fits to leave.

They were dumb because they actually thought they would get a raise and get to stay. Perhaps a better term would be they weren't self-aware.

And yes, it was a brilliant way to get the undesirables to leave. It's next to impossible to get HR to agree to write-ups, much less firing, so "tricking" people to leave is pretty solid.

[Freedomin5]

I worked for a CTO that played similar games. When one of the undesirable employees would ask for a raise he would say that sounds like a great idea but he needed an offer from somewhere else so he could make a case to HR (half true). The dumb ones would come back with an offer and he'd congratulate them and suggest they take it with no counter offer.

We cleared out a couple positions that way and were able to fill them with better employees.

I'm curious, why is applying for a better-paying job and moving from one company that doesn't want or like you to another one that does want you, considered "dumb"? If I were a manager, that sounds like a brilliant way to get underperformers / people who are bad fits to leave.

They were dumb because they actually thought they would get a raise and get to stay. Perhaps a better term would be they weren't self-aware.

And yes, it was a brilliant way to get the undesirables to leave. It's next to impossible to get HR to agree to write-ups, much less firing, so "tricking" people to leave is pretty solid.

Ah, got it. Thanks. I may have to try this strategy on some coworkers. Try to convince them that their talents are under-appreciated.