David, ‘Trying something new is not inherently useful.’ Thanks for pointing out something so obvious; I doubt very much if anyone reading this article and its comments would come away thinking, ‘Oh Joy, all I have do do is try something new and I’ll be a better recruiter!’

Debating over words and meanings aside – a special skill of some past and present members of our community, it pays to read Sully’s words and ponder the significance of his suggestions as they relate to how you recruit. Some of his ideas will resonate positively, others negatively. If you’re getting results you probably won’t change a thing; if you’re stagnating, there may be gems in the rough here that work for you.

‘The question then is why don’t recruiters try something different when recruiting from their competitors?’

.

I think if all someone takes away is that they should try something new, they are missing the point of the article.

Numerous tactics are described and obviously we are encourages to think creatively but creative thinkers rarely need to be told.

Trying something new is not inherently useful. There is a reason that the common tactics are used – properly applied, they are effective. Innovation can help, but until someone has a solid grasp of the fundamentals and knows how to execute the standard methods, I would have a low degree of trust in their ability to invent consistently develop effective new methods.

I believe the first part of the article is used to show that ‘poaching’ is used around the world, in many industries and cultures and that the mechanics of it can vary greatly.

The second half of the article makes the argument for ‘poaching’ and goes on to give several reasons why this behavior is ethical and necessary.

Maureen,

He describes bidding on managers in China, Placing recruiting billboards near competitors in Canada and a few other things. None of them are particularly mind blowing, just things you don’t hear of often.

Tara:

‘If you look at the definition of the term ?poaching – ?- the subject has no will over it?s destiny. It?s poached. End of Story.’

I think you are looking at the concept of poaching from the wrong end. In terms of hunting, I seriously doubt the prey feels better about being hunted by a licensed hunter, in season and with a socially accepted weapon than it does about being ‘poached’.

Poaching is not about the prey, it is about competing for resources. When you call into a company, you are, metaphorically ‘hunting’ resources on another grounds. That the ‘prey’ may actually be happy to talk to you does not make it any less of a loss to their employer.

Not everyone likes the term ‘headhunter’. Some consider it an insult, others a badge of honor but I think everyone sees the metaphor. I think I would be in serious trouble if I were to conduct a search, identify the best candidate and then promptly present my client with only their head.

There’s really no way of knowing whether use of conventional and sensible tactics prolonged the Revolutionary War but ‘other’ scholars also believed that George and others were quite innovative in their use of non-conventional tactics.

Specific tactics are also used because ‘that’s what everyone else uses.’ Why change if something ‘works’?

John does not identify the tactics noted in the article to draw attention to the specific tactics; his purpose is to draw attention to the fact that most in recruiting use the same tactics as everyone else. Egads! What if recruiters were to try something new?

The question then is why don’t recruiters try something different when recruiting from their competitors?

Not to pick a nit, but they did not line up because it was noble. They lined up because they had smooth bore weapons that were very inaccurate. The tactic was to use concentrated volleys of fire.

George Washington did use harassment tactics as did a few other groups, but much of the Revolutionary War was fought using this conventional and sensible tactic.

Again, not to pick a nit but many people think that tactic was about irrational ideas about manhood and bravery when it had a legitimate purpose and was quite effective until rifled weapons became more accessible.

In this, the talent war as in any war, it is important to understand why a tactic us used. Tactics are highly contextual and driven by current, known conditions and what technology is available.

In this article, it is implied that all sorts of clever, innovative techniques are being used, but really, these tactics are not new, just unique due to the proximity of some companies to Yahoo and widely known now because of the takeover bid. That is not even mentioning the unique tactics that are used in other parts of the world

These tactics are not available or appropriate for most of us simply because most of us do not work in a building with a company like Yahoo.

Still, it is important to remember that strategy is less dynamic and more abstract. The unique little tricks are all tactical, but the bulk of the article is actually trying to sell people on a strategy: hire from your competition.

It was the noble thing to do and it led to lots of dead nobles?

George Washington noticed that early revolutionary soldiers, employing the same tactics, were easily cut down by native Indians who used guerilla strategies – weaving in and out of bushes and setting traps. So he adopted many of the tactics used by Native Americans and the rest is history.

While some responding to this article will use a Merriam-Webster strategy to denigrate John?s message because he used the word ?poaching? (everything he describes is to me, nothing more than creative sourcing), I think of the people I meet using non-standard sourcing techniques. I think about how interesting these people are and how interested they are in hearing about potentially superior opportunities. Not a single one has ever declined to meet because they were ?offended? by how I came to meet them; why should they? Because I spoke to them in the bathroom? Because I walked into a deli frequented by the firm and handed the deli owner 10,000 ?specially imprinted? coffee cup protectors? Because I drove into a parking lot and had the temerity to roll down my window and say, ?Hi?? Ultimately, they may have been happy but it didn?t mean they couldn?t be happier.

?Poaching? is just another one of those things ? cost-per-hire also comes to mind – that scare traditional recruiters and HR people – traditionalists who hold tightly to what they know and fear letting go of their security blankets (even if they are tattered and threadbare). Successful talent acquisition requires regular paradigm shifts and the techniques described by John are merely drops in the bucket of things used by the very best in our profession.

I don?t disagree with the overall message you?re trying to convey in your article, but I?m struggling with the semantics.

If you look at the definition of the term ?poaching – ?- the subject has no will over it?s destiny. It?s poached. End of Story.

In all of my years of recruiting ? I have never called into a company and taken a ?happy? employee from an awesome job against their will.

I have however called into a company and spoken to an unhappy employee about a better career with one of my clients and given them the information and the opportunity to make the change themselves. THAT, is what we call good old fashioned recruiting ? not poaching.