It is worth noting that, as pointed out in http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html, the US Department of Justice recently forced 6 prominent high tech companies to start actively recruiting from each other, because failing to do so was anti-competitive.
And that was in a case where they were hiring from each other, but only when approached as was the case in the example.
My attitude is that if your friend is a grown-up and understands how business works, your friendship can last. If your friend is not mature enough to handle the situation, that friendship was probably not worth maintaining. Certainly not at the cost of losing out on a stellar employee who wasn't going to stay with your friend anyways.
At the end of the day, laws, like contracts, SLAs, copyrights, EULAs, trademarks, and patents can be viewed from a purely game-theoretic perspective - If I do X then Y will happen. Is it worth Y to me to do X? If so, then I do Y, regardless of whether it means breaking a (contract|EULA|Law|SLA|Patent|Copyright|Trademark).
Also factored into this is the possibility that you may not be caught. And, if you are caught, the maximum damages may not be imposed.
I'm certain that before communicating their enforcement of rules regarding the 70/30 split for all published content on the iPad, that Apple counsel took a long and hard look at the anti-trust laws and made a cost/benefit decision based both on the penalties that they would face, as well as the potential rewards.
Likewise, Ben is just being honest when he says that all sorts of companies have these "Non-Recruit" agreements in place - he's pretty transparent in this article, and just puts it on the table - no pussyfooting around the topic, something that I actually appreciate.
I tend to value my friends and my own moral code much more than I value the moral code of lawmakers. I won't say it's OK to break the law, but when there is a conflict, I will always recommend that you follow your own higher law. Of course, this will also be dependent on the legal risk involved; I wouldn't do time to avoid an [minor] insult to a friend, but I would accept the fine or other slap on the wrist that I expect would be given in this particular case.
No, if you read the article, the author ultimately suggests that you proceed with the hire in an open and transparent way -- giving the potential hire a way to back down if they would be uncomfortable with you doing a reference check. The (imho) important part of the article is this:
> "... the best way to deal with these situations is openly and transparently. Once the you become aware of the conflict between hiring the superstar employee and double-crossing your valued friend, you should get the issue onto the table by informing the employee that you have an important business relationship with his existing company and you will have to complete a reference check with the CEO prior to extending the offer. Let him know that if he does not want that to happen, then you will stop the process now and keep the process to date confidential. By speaking with your friend before making the hire, you will be able to better judge the relationship impact of hiring her employee. In addition, you may avoid making a bad hire as often candidates who do well in interviews turn out to be bad employees."
Some consider the 'law' created by their own freely-exchanged obligations with other people to be coequal to, or even above, the laws from governments. This mindset can sometimes lead to more efficient or moral outcomes, and can also be crucial in limiting the harm of, and eventually overturning, bad governmental laws. So don't expect laws to always, or even mostly, supersede other customs of friendship and interpersonal loyalty.
I wonder how a16z would feel about an upstart portfolio company turning down world class talent in the name of friendship? Obviously, don't hire someone if it will sour a relationship that is financially important for your company, but are you really a great entrepreneur/ceo if you're turning away awesome people for some fuzzy feelings you have with another ceo?
I think a16z really really approves of "good guys" - ben horowitz wrote a really inspirational blog post about the HP CEO being sacked and how leaders need a moral compass.
The ecosystem described here strikes me as frighteningly provincial. If you've backed yourself into a niche so small that there are only a few engineers worth hiring (implausible), then your whole company is at risk every time they cross the street.
Some might cite Steve Ballmer's chair-throwing incident, but that was an employee who was a)going to a competitor and not a friend, and b)not likely to change the overall dynamic between the companies.
Good developers are generally employed and don't stay on the market long when they want/need another job. I've done lots of interviews at my last job, and ALL good candidates were employed at the time and were looking for either more money or better environment (there was one case when company went under and laid off all of their staff).
The whole post is based on the assumption that if you hire someone from your friend's company, you lose your friend. Maybe I'm just naive, but I think friendship that ends for such a reason is a lousy friendship.
I firmly believe that one should be able to separate business from friendship. For me, this part of the post highlights the flaw in author's reasoning:
Here’s an easy way to think about the dynamic. If your husband left you, would you want your best friend to date him?
At the start of his post, Ben Horowitz delineates between between "Important business partners" and "true friends".
The problem with the consensus argument here on HN that "if the other CEO no longer wants to be friends then it was a lousy friendship to begin with" is that we're talking about the former distinction. IE it never was a 'friendship' friendship to begin with.
In other words, it's not that the other CEO is no longer going to have you over for Thanksgiving Dinner but that you may now have strategically pissed of a valuable strategic partner.
Too many variables really to be able to cover a blanket one-size-all rule but I do think I would pass if the employee was in a vital role at a key vendor that would seriously damage my business if the vendor re-negotiated terms or withdrew service. Which they could in spite or even simply out of a perceived new conflict of interest with IP transfer in the hire.
Business is business... it would of course be worse if you were recruiting from your friend's company, but in the example given, the CEO in question had nothing to do with the initial interest and interviewing.
I think the question of how upset the friend is going to be depends on how big the friends company(s) is. A big company is less likely to take it personally than a 5 person team.
That said, if the only reason for not hiring the person is the potential to upset your friend, then you have a moral responsibility to hire that person, come what may.
I would hope that friends would understand that, especially if you can show that you did not head hunt that hire. But people are not always that straight forward.
I don't see any problem here. I think the article is making the assumption that people only move jobs when they are seriously upset about where they are. In my experience, that simply isn't true: people move on after a few years anyway, just to get a change of scene and/or to protect against "CV typecasting".
I would not be offended by a "friend" (whether a real personal friend or a valued business associate) hiring one of my staff because the staffer has chosen to move on, nor by the staffer choosing to apply for a job at my friend's company if it was a decent place to work. I suspect the only things that would offend me would be sneaky or otherwise unprofessional conduct, such as if the friend tried to use our relationship to prevent me from making some sort of genuine counter-offer to entice the staffer to stay. Chances are that I would not consider someone who would do that either a personal friend or a valued business associate anyway, though.
[+] [-] btilly|15 years ago|reply
And that was in a case where they were hiring from each other, but only when approached as was the case in the example.
My attitude is that if your friend is a grown-up and understands how business works, your friendship can last. If your friend is not mature enough to handle the situation, that friendship was probably not worth maintaining. Certainly not at the cost of losing out on a stellar employee who wasn't going to stay with your friend anyways.
[+] [-] dasil003|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] metageek|15 years ago|reply
So, what, it's OK to break the laws that protect employees if you're doing it to help a friend?
[+] [-] ghshephard|15 years ago|reply
Also factored into this is the possibility that you may not be caught. And, if you are caught, the maximum damages may not be imposed.
I'm certain that before communicating their enforcement of rules regarding the 70/30 split for all published content on the iPad, that Apple counsel took a long and hard look at the anti-trust laws and made a cost/benefit decision based both on the penalties that they would face, as well as the potential rewards.
Likewise, Ben is just being honest when he says that all sorts of companies have these "Non-Recruit" agreements in place - he's pretty transparent in this article, and just puts it on the table - no pussyfooting around the topic, something that I actually appreciate.
[+] [-] zcid|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaronblohowiak|15 years ago|reply
> "... the best way to deal with these situations is openly and transparently. Once the you become aware of the conflict between hiring the superstar employee and double-crossing your valued friend, you should get the issue onto the table by informing the employee that you have an important business relationship with his existing company and you will have to complete a reference check with the CEO prior to extending the offer. Let him know that if he does not want that to happen, then you will stop the process now and keep the process to date confidential. By speaking with your friend before making the hire, you will be able to better judge the relationship impact of hiring her employee. In addition, you may avoid making a bad hire as often candidates who do well in interviews turn out to be bad employees."
[+] [-] gojomo|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lanstein|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] segabach|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pclark|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Uhhrrr|15 years ago|reply
Some might cite Steve Ballmer's chair-throwing incident, but that was an employee who was a)going to a competitor and not a friend, and b)not likely to change the overall dynamic between the companies.
[+] [-] aaronblohowiak|15 years ago|reply
This isn't that implausible, actually. Hiring is very^2 difficult.
[+] [-] rorrr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sdh|15 years ago|reply
Sure, as long as it is totally transparent to everyone. You can't force people to work for you.
Is it OK to recruit from your friend's company?
Definitely not.
[+] [-] CodeMage|15 years ago|reply
I firmly believe that one should be able to separate business from friendship. For me, this part of the post highlights the flaw in author's reasoning:
Here’s an easy way to think about the dynamic. If your husband left you, would you want your best friend to date him?
[+] [-] Travis|15 years ago|reply
That said, I agree. It can cause trouble. But is your priority running your business, or is it keeping your friendship alive?
[+] [-] jiaaro|15 years ago|reply
> In the end, the social pressure will trump all your brilliant countervailing logic.
This seems to happen often with thinkers, especially when they're trying to justify a decision.
I think it's really useful to consider social pressure as a separate effect - immune to logical discourse - when you deal with human issues.
[+] [-] dotBen|15 years ago|reply
The problem with the consensus argument here on HN that "if the other CEO no longer wants to be friends then it was a lousy friendship to begin with" is that we're talking about the former distinction. IE it never was a 'friendship' friendship to begin with.
In other words, it's not that the other CEO is no longer going to have you over for Thanksgiving Dinner but that you may now have strategically pissed of a valuable strategic partner.
Too many variables really to be able to cover a blanket one-size-all rule but I do think I would pass if the employee was in a vital role at a key vendor that would seriously damage my business if the vendor re-negotiated terms or withdrew service. Which they could in spite or even simply out of a perceived new conflict of interest with IP transfer in the hire.
[+] [-] maxbrown|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zizee|15 years ago|reply
That said, if the only reason for not hiring the person is the potential to upset your friend, then you have a moral responsibility to hire that person, come what may.
I would hope that friends would understand that, especially if you can show that you did not head hunt that hire. But people are not always that straight forward.
[+] [-] kstenerud|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Silhouette|15 years ago|reply
I would not be offended by a "friend" (whether a real personal friend or a valued business associate) hiring one of my staff because the staffer has chosen to move on, nor by the staffer choosing to apply for a job at my friend's company if it was a decent place to work. I suspect the only things that would offend me would be sneaky or otherwise unprofessional conduct, such as if the friend tried to use our relationship to prevent me from making some sort of genuine counter-offer to entice the staffer to stay. Chances are that I would not consider someone who would do that either a personal friend or a valued business associate anyway, though.
[+] [-] unknown|15 years ago|reply
[deleted]