Recruiters- Why am I considered more valuable if I am poached rather than just hired?

Michelle

August 5,2022 at 5:16PM UTC

Welcome to Fairygodboss!

We’re the largest online career community helping women achieve their career goals. Gain access to articles, jobs, events, and a supportive network of women and allies. Membership is free, always.

Recruiters- Why am I considered more valuable if I am poached rather than just hired? I tend to NOT accept invitations to apply to corps that want to poach as this seems- wrong -especially if the corp has anti-competitive language in their abuse of non compete agreements in hiring.

Why women love us:

Daily articles on career topics
Jobs at companies dedicated to hiring more women
Advice and support from an authentic community
Events that help you level up in your career
Free membership, always

17 comments

Share your insight

Join an authentic community that helps women support each other at work. Share your professional experience or ask for advice — you can even post anonymously.

17 Comments

Join the conversation

AnonymousAugust 5,2022 at 6:11PM UTC
People cavet what others have. If you work at a great company by deduction you must be great right.
The roles I've had have been due to a value perception. I've work at X and held the role of Y so a new offer to jump has been MEASURABLY more because,right out of the gate, the perception has been I'm that valuable because of where I was.
Joan Williams, Senior Talent Acquisition SpecialistAugust 5,2022 at 6:47PM UTC
As a recruiter with over 20 years experience, being sourced as a candidate (what you call "being poached") doesn't make you more valuable than someone who has applied.
We really don't care where candidates come from except for tracking of where our spending is getting the most bang for the buck and that's not looking at individual candidates - it's looking at x number of candidates and how they came to us.
What makes a candidate more "valuable" is them being a fit for the position.
JenniferAugust 5,2022 at 8:14PM UTC
As a candidate, I don’t see this as disrespectful. Actually, I take it as a compliment. It isn’t like someone knowingly hitting on a married person. I haven’t made a lifetime commitment to my company, nor does it own me or have some irrevocable claim to my employment.
I guess I’m not sure what your objection is. I don’t think the recruiter views you as more valuable because of the fact they reached out to you while you have a job vs you applying directly. The fact they proactively reached out indicates they already have some interest in you, so it would not be surprising if candidate outcomes were better on average than when the candidate initiates first contact. I don’t think this means the company likes “poached” candidates better, just that the company reached out to those candidates because they were well-qualified.
Shelby CAugust 8,2022 at 12:37PM UTC
Well stated.
They reach out because you are typically already in their network. Therefore, you have been vetted and are lower risk than a regular candidate.
AnonymousAugust 12,2022 at 12:24AM UTC
Haha, this is the best response overall and funny, too. I was thinking the same re: the loyalty/commitment.
Mary0612August 8,2022 at 12:45PM UTC
The company doesn’t own you, not sure what you mean by non-compete, but you can jump ship at any time for another job at a company. Especially is right to work states. You can leave the employer on the spot. This goes both ways. An employee or employer can terminate at any time without any reason. A company forcing to stay with them, especially if you’re offered more money is slavery. Not sure what your complaint is. And don’t think you got the facts down!
AnonymousAugust 8,2022 at 12:57PM UTC
Fields with noncompete clauses are a challenge. My company has 6 month noncompete that basically makes it impossible for employees to take another job in the same field, unless the new employer is willing to wait out the noncompete period.
this is separate from the NDA for intellectual property. It’s a lot!
AnonymousAugust 8,2022 at 2:25PM UTC
Depending on your state, non-compete clauses can inhibit your right to work. Check with an attorney who specializes in this area
AnonymousAugust 8,2022 at 7:34PM UTC
That's right! In Washington state they've enacted a minimum salary threshold to be able to ask for non-competes because of this. If a company wants to ask you to sign a noncompete they need to be paying you over 100k a year. Doesn't mean companies won't still ask for it, but you can't be bound to it.
AnonymousAugust 9,2022 at 6:28PM UTC
Just from what I'm observing Washington, Oregon and California have a problem hiring talented people because no one wants to live there....
Mary0612August 9,2022 at 6:28PM UTC
You’re not bond to a non-compete unless they pay you a significant amount of money. In right to work states, non-competes are null! I live in a right to work state! Companies try to scare you with legalese, people need to educate themselves and stop being so scared. If you also sue a company over this, it is likely you win and get a hefty settlement, the lawyer fees are paid out that. People need to stop being scared and stop allowing a company to run all over them. But hey if you ok with this, each their own.
AnonymousAugust 8,2022 at 3:06PM UTC
Because they can drop you at a moment's notice....no reason.
Even if they are aware that you left your previous position....a prime example is a company called GAF in Tuscaloosa AL. Totally incompentent staff. But you live and learn.
9 days on the job with absolutely no direction on what was going on and they suddenly decided on a Friday that my services were no longer needed.
Krystin MorganAugust 8,2022 at 7:06PM UTC
There is nothing wrong with a company "poaching" you - that's how recruiting works! The goal of a recruiter is to find the best candidate for a position, which sometimes means reaching out to folks who look like a fit but haven't applied.
AnonymousAugust 9,2022 at 12:36AM UTC
Thank you spellcheck!
Bosslady482053August 9,2022 at 6:51PM UTC
What do you mean by poached? Are you referring to being passive talent, e.g. you've been contacted by a recruiter for a position rather than applying for a role directly with the company? Passive talent being better than active candidates is a myth with staying power, and I've heard hiring managers and even some in HR and TA leadership repeat this myth. It's in the same category as an employed candidate is a better candidate than an unemployed candidate. There's no basis for other statement. If by poached you are referring to a client of your current employer hiring you, that depends on the agreement between your employer and your client, which the recruiter should be well aware of before reaching out to you.
AnonymousAugust 12,2022 at 12:21AM UTC
Interesting on the myths. Do you think it's the same with short stints of employment?
AnonymousAugust 12,2022 at 12:20AM UTC
Re: the poaching, how are they approaching you? Do you have profiles on career sites, or are they approaching you through word of mouth recommendation?
Either way, nothing wrong with approaches. It's not like they're hitting on you in front of a spouse. I made the mistake years ago of being loyal to the company I worked for for many years. Mutually beneficial until we had an internal takeover and my position was outsourced. That "we're a family thing" is only good until it becomes about business, then that's out the window.
I got a crash course on the new job market and was pleasantly surprised after the initial shell shock. Be loyal to yourself. Always be growing, always be open.